2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 23316

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

Under PMLA, bail cannot be denied mechanically; where trial is structurally incapable of early conclusion and the accused has undergone substantial custody, continued detention violates Article 21, even with stringent statutory conditions.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3, 4, 19, 45, 50 - Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 (pari materia to Section 439 CrPC) - Bail - The twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA are mandatory but not absolute; constitutional courts retain power to grant bail where continued detention infringes Article 21 - Arrest under Section 19 PMLA must be founded on demonstrable necessity, not mere gravity - Statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA are admissible at bail stage but their evidentiary value is a matter for trial - Further investigation by ED without prior permission of Special Court before trial is permissible but must be exercised with fairness - Parity with co-accused enlarged on bail is a relevant consideration - Prolonged pre-trial incarceration without realistic prospect of trial violates right to speedy trial. (Paras 60-61, 66-68, 88-89, 96-99)

(B) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 45 - The satisfaction under Section 45 is prima facie and does not require a mini-trial; the onus is on the accused to show reasonable grounds for believing he is not guilty and not likely to re-offend - However, where trial is structurally incapable of early conclusion and the accused has undergone substantial custody, continued detention becomes disproportionate. (Paras 65, 90-95)

(C) Constitutional Law - Article 21 - Right to speedy trial is a facet of personal liberty - Article 14 - Principle of parity requires consistent treatment of similarly situated accused - Selective arrest and pick-and-choose investigation are relevant factors at bail stage. (Paras 84-86, 98-100)

(D) Evidence - Statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA are admissible but cannot be the sole basis for denying bail if uncorroborated - Loose sheets or entries not maintained as regular books of account are not substantive evidence (citing CBI v. V.C. Shukla). (Para 89)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was arrested by the ED in connection with an alleged excise scam in Chhattisgarh (2019-2023) involving proceeds of crime of over ₹2161 crore. The applicant was not named in the ECIR or predicate FIR; his role was inferential, based on statements under Section 50 PMLA and digital evidence. He had been in custody since 18.07.2025. Several co-accused (including alleged kingpins) had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court. The trial in both the predicate offence and PMLA proceedings was unlikely to conclude soon due to voluminous evidence and numerous accused/witnesses. The ED had not issued summons under Section 50 before arrest, and had failed to arrest a key absconding witness despite a permanent warrant.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the applicant made out a case for bail. The twin conditions of Section 45 were satisfied given the long duration of custody, the documentary nature of the investigation, the lack of direct evidence of possession of proceeds, the selective and delayed arrest, and the imminent impossibility of early trial. Continued detention would amount to pre-trial punishment and violate Article 21. The court noted that the grounds of arrest did not demonstrate necessity; the ED had adopted a pick-and-choose approach. Parity with co-accused granted bail by the Supreme Court was a relevant factor. The court imposed stringent conditions to secure attendance and prevent misuse.

Issues: (1) Whether the twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA were satisfied to grant bail. (2) Whether the arrest under Section 19 was justified or arbitrary. (3) Whether continued incarceration violated the right to speedy trial under Article 21. (4) Whether the principle of parity applied given bail granted to co-accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The rigour of Section 45 does not override constitutional guarantees; where trial is unlikely to conclude soon and the accused has suffered substantial incarceration, bail must be considered. Arrest must be based on demonstrable necessity, not mechanical exercise of power. Selective invocation of coercive powers and parity with co-accused are relevant considerations. Statements under Section 50, though admissible, cannot substitute for direct evidence at the bail stage.

Result: Bail granted. The trial court to enlarge the applicant on bail subject to conditions including surrender of passport, undertaking to attend trial, and cooperation for early disposal; liberty to respondent to apply for cancellation if conditions breached. (Paras 111-112)