2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 6581

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arvind Kumar Verma, J
Chaitanya Baghel – Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement – Respondent
MCRC No. 8716 of 2025

The rigour of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act does not preclude the grant of bail when continued incarceration is disproportionate, punitive, or violates the right to a speedy trial, particularly where identically placed co-accused have been granted bail and the investigation is document-centric and unlikely to conclude soon.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3, 4, 17, 19, 44, 45, 50 - Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 173(8), 200-204, 319 - Regular bail in money laundering case - Twin conditions for bail under Section 45 - Prima facie satisfaction - Constitutional mandate - Right to speedy trial - The satisfaction under the Act is only prima facie and does not amount to recording of guilt (Para 13). Stringency of a statutory regime cannot be read as a license to disregard constitutional safeguards; deprivation of liberty must satisfy the test of necessity and proportionality (Para 60). Custodial detention becomes disproportionate when objectives can be achieved without it (Para 74). (Paras 13, 60, 65, 74)

(B) Bail - Parity - Discrimination in arrest - Selective invocation of coercive powers against an applicant while similarly or more seriously placed persons remain at liberty raises a concern regarding unequal application of law (Para 84). Parity is a cornerstone of bail jurisprudence when no distinguishing material justifies harsher treatment (Para 86). (Paras 31, 84, 86, 104, 106)

(C) Investigation - Further investigation - Power to conduct further investigation even after complaint filing is subject to judicial oversight and principles of fairness and reasonableness (Para 72). Further investigation without prior permission of court is a relevant factor for grant of bail (Para 32). (Para 47, 48, 51, 71, 72)

Facts of the case:
The applicant sought regular bail in connection with offences alleging money laundering through an excise-related syndicate. It was argued that the applicant held no official position, no proceeds were recovered from him, and the prosecution relied on coerced statements. The applicant contended that prolonged incarceration without trial, coupled with the fact that principal co-accused were enlarged on bail, entitled him to relief. The respondent maintained grave economic impact, the mandatory nature of the twin conditions for bail, and the legality of further investigation.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the investigation was significantly document-centric, the trial was unlikely to conclude in the foreseeable future, and the applicant's role was documented only through inferential links. The court took note of the disparity where principal accused were on bail and concluded that continued custody would be punitive rather than remedial.

Issues: The main issues were whether the twin conditions of the Act were satisfied for bail, the necessity of custodial detention in light of the protracted nature of the trial, and whether the respondent adopted a discriminatory and selective approach in arresting the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: Even under stringent statutes, constitutional courts retain the plenary power to grant bail to protect personal liberty when continued detention becomes disproportionate and punitive. Bail is the rule and jail an exception, and prolonged pre-trial incarceration without realistic prospect of trial is impermissible under Article 21.

Result: Application allowed.