Prolonged incarceration can lead to bail grant in economic offence cases even under stringent PMLA provisions if no feasible trial timeframe exists.

O R D E R

The applicants are accused Nos. 3 and 4 in S.C.No.141 of

2025 pending on the files of the Additional District Court (Special Court for trial of Marad Cases), Kozhikode (for short, 'the trial court'). They have filed the above bail applications under Section

483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 .

2. The offences alleged against the applicants are punishable under Section 3 r/w 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, 'the PMLA').

3. The prosecution case, in short, is as follows: - The accused were the promoters of a company by name, 'Kannur Urban Nidhi Limited' (KUNL), which is offering 12 to 12.5% interest on fixed deposits. The company had accepted fixed deposits from several investors. According to the prosecution, the accused diverted those funds for the establishment and running of another company by name, 'Anytime Money Pvt. Ltd.' (ATM) and to the personal accounts of the petitioners and other accused. According to the prosecution, the accused embezzled around Rs.40 Crores by cheating the investors. So many cases are registered against the accused by the Crime Branch of Kannur and Kasaragod units. Hence, it is alleged that the accused also committed the offence under Section 3 r/w 4 of the PMLA.

4. The applicant in B.A.No. 10693 of 2025 had filed B.A.No.741 of 2025 before this Court seeking regular bail. It was dismissed on merits as per the order of this Court dated 13.03.2025. The applicant in B.A.No.11739 of 2025 filed B.A.No.4681 of 2025 before this Court. It was dismissed as withdrawn as per the order of this Court dated 08.04.2025. Now, both the above bail applications have been filed primarily on the grounds of prolonged incarceration, placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Senthil Balaji V v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement [2024 KHC 6530].

5. I have heard Sri.P.Sanjay, the learned counsel for the applicant in B.A.No.10693 of 2025, Sri.T.Madhu, the learned counsel for the applicant in B.A.No. 11739 of 2025 and Sri.Jaishankar V. Nair, the learned Standing Counsel for the Enforcement Directorate.

6. Both the applicants were arrested on 27.11.2024 during the crime stage. Thereafter, the final report was filed in the month of January 2025. Both have been in custody since 27.11.2024. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail since they have been in custody for the last more than one year and there is no possibility of concluding the trial within a reasonable time. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate submitted that the economic offence would fall under the category of ‘grave offence’ and the long incarceration alone should not be the criterion while considering the bail application. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the bail application filed by the applicant in B.A.No.10693 of 2025 was already dismissed by this Court on merits, considering the seriousness of the case and also holding that the applicant therein failed to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA. In these circumstances, the present bail application is not sustainable, submitted the learned standing counsel. The learned standing counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan [2025 KHC OnLine 6693] and that of the High Court of Patna in Anwar Rashid v. Union Bank of India, through National Investigation Agency, Bihar [2025 SCC OnLine Pat 3156] in support of his submission.

7. There are series of decisions of th