Constitutional Safeguards Under Article 21 Override PMLA Section 45 Restraints in Cases of Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention

The petitioner (Accused No. 1) was arrested on 16.09.2025 in connection with ECIR/BGZO/25/2024 for alleged money laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA.

The case originated from a private complaint involving a predicate offence (Crime No. 11 of 2024).

A coordinate Bench had previously rejected the petitioner's bail on 20.01.2026 but reserved liberty to re-approach the court after three months if the trial did not progress or if circumstances changed.

Since the original rejection, the petitioner was granted bail in the predicate offence, a final report was filed in the PMLA case, and supplementary complaints were filed against co-accused who were notably not arrested by the ED.

The petitioner moved the High Court again citing these developments and the continued pre-cognizance status of the trial.

1. Whether the petitioner has established "changed circumstances" subsequent to the previous rejection of bail to warrant a fresh consideration under Section 483 of the BNSS (Section 439 Cr.P.C.)

2. Whether the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution overrides the statutory rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA when there is prolonged incarceration and a remote possibility of timely trial conclusion

Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, regarding the "twin conditions" for bail.

Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), which established that Article 21's mandate for a speedy trial is a "higher law" that can relax PMLA statutory rigours.

V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director (2024) regarding the limits of pre-trial detention in cases where the maximum sentence is seven years.

Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement (2026) which mandates that economic offences should not be a blanket ground for denial of bail if the state lacks the wherewithal for a speedy trial.

The court found that five distinct "changed circumstances" existed: (i) the petitioner’s release on bail in the predicate offence; (ii) the filing of the charge sheet in the predicate offence; (iii) the filing of a supplementary PMLA complaint against co-accused who were not arrested, placing the petitioner on a different footing; (iv) the formal taking of cognizance in the PMLA case; and (v) the lack of actual progress in the trial, which remained at a pre-cognizance stage despite the lapse of the three-month liberty period.

The court distinguished the respondent's reliance on NCB v. Mohit Aggarwal, noting it involved drug trafficking with 20-year sentences, whereas the current offence carries a maximum of seven years.

Applying the judicial landscape of "bail is the rule, jail is the exception," the court reasoned that with 12,000 pages of documents and numerous witnesses, the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, making continued incarceration punitive rather than preventive.

The Criminal Petition was allowed. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail subject to executing a personal bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- with two solvent sureties, and conditions including non-tampering of evidence and regular appearance before the jurisdictional Court.