Statements recorded by investigators while an accused is in custody are inadmissible due to a lack of voluntariness. Furthermore, the constitutional right to a speedy trial may supersede statutory bail restrictions when the foundational facts of an offence remain unestablished after prolonged pretrial detention.

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

PRELUDE

A. This common judgment must commence taking it on record a deeply disturbing prelude. In the course of arguments on these bail applications, which continued marathon on day to day basis, a series of articles were published in the front page of Indian Express on four consecutive days. Those articles were not confined to reportage of the offences in connection whereof these bail applications were filed. Those articles, rather transgressed all permissible bounds by purporting to anticipate and answer queries which were raised by this court to the counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as “ED”). More egregiously, those articles laid bare the WhatsApp chats allegedly exchanged between the accused/applicants inter se, without the slightest attempt at redaction or anonymisation.

B. Keeping in mind the stage at which those articles were published, contents whereof, more or less answering the questions put by the court to learned counsel for ED, coupled with the fact that the FIR of the alleged predicate offence was registered way back in the month of March 2024 and all accused/applicants have already been granted bail in the predicate offence, so there was no occasion for publication of those articles now in the second quarter of 2026, I am unable to convince myself that the same were innocent publication. However, at present juncture, owing to want of cogent material, this court would refrain from returning any definitive finding of culpability against the ED or the accused/applicants or the newspaper.

C. At the same time, the implications of such publications are profoundly alarming. If the said series of articles published for four consecutive days when day to day arguments were being heard, was engineered directly or indirectly at the instance of any arm of the State, with a view to influence, overawe or subtly condition the judicial mind, the same would strike at the very roots of the Rule of Law. Such conduct would be not just deplorable, but also amount to grave and impermissible assault on the independence of the judiciary and sanctity of the adjudicatory process. The spectre of proceedings being sought to be influenced through media use of such nature is not just unacceptable but deeply disquieting and must be unequivocally deprecated.

D. As is obvious, no court would get influenced with such write-ups while adjudicating. For, our minds across decades of work experience are attuned to be phlegm to such efforts. The purpose of above narration is to put across a word of caution so that such act is not repeated in future.

PREFACE

1. These five applications seeking regular bail in case ECIR/DLZO-II/03/2024 dated 16.03.2024 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereinafter referred to as “PMLA”) are taken up together for disposal.

1.1 These bail applications were listed before the predecessor benches for hearing for the first time in the months of December 2024 (with respect to two accused/applicants), August 2025 (with respect to two accused/applicants) and December 2025 (with respect to one accused/applicant). The applications remained pending before different benches and finally as a part of 179 such old pending bail applications, these bail applications also were transferred to this bench.

1.2 I heard learned senior