Karnataka HC Bails 76-Year-Old Money-Laundering Accused After 4 Years 8 Months In Custody, Over Half The 7-Year Maximum Term

The petitioner, Accused No. 4 in a prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), had been in judicial custody since 14 February 2022.

His earlier bail applications had been rejected by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

After the Supreme Court permitted him to apply afresh before the Trial Court, including on medical grounds, he sought release under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure; the Trial Court rejected the application on 2 April 2026.

In his present petition, he relied on his age, medical condition, custody exceeding half the maximum seven-year sentence, and the stay of trial proceedings.

The Enforcement Directorate opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the prior bail decisions.

Section 479(1) BNSS provides for release on bail when an undertrial has been detained for up to one-half of the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for the offence, subject to the provision’s terms; the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and recording reasons in writing, order continued detention beyond that period.

Section 479(2) addresses cases involving multiple pending offences or cases, and the third proviso prohibits detention beyond the maximum term prescribed.

In In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, the Supreme Court held that Section 479 applies to undertrials in pending cases irrespective of whether the case was registered before 1 July 2024.

In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised Section 436A Cr.P.C. as a statutory-bail provision applicable to accused persons charged under the PMLA.

The Court also relied on Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, which held that the seriousness of an offence does not displace the accused’s Article 21 right to a speedy trial.

The petitioner had been in custody for four years, eight months and twenty-two days, exceeding half of the seven-year maximum sentence stated to apply to the alleged offences.

The Court treated Section 479(1)’s use of “shall” as supporting release once the statutory threshold was met, while recognising the proviso permitting continued detention for recorded reasons.

The trial had been stayed by an interim order of the High Court, making prompt completion unlikely; the petitioner was also 76 years old and had medical conditions requiring attention.

Applying the statutory-bail principles and the right to a speedy trial, the Court concluded that bail was warranted, notwithstanding the earlier rejections.

Conditions included execution of a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, regular attendance at trial, non-interference with prosecution witnesses, no involvement in similar offences, and no departure from the Trial Court’s jurisdiction without permission.