Karnataka High Court grants bail to accused in alleged ₹288-crore money-laundering case, citing likely trial delay

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 and 3 in an ECIR registered in 2021 for alleged offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), were arrested on 8 May 2026.

They had been granted bail in the predicate-offence cases and in an earlier ECIR case, and had cooperated with the investigation.

After the prosecution complaint was filed on 6 July 2026, the matter remained at the pre-cognizance stage.

The complaint comprised approximately 8,103 pages and cited ten witnesses; the petitioners had been in custody since their arrest.

Accused No. 2 had also been granted bail by the High Court.

The petitioners sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after the Special Court rejected their applications.

Whether the petitioners should be granted regular bail in the PMLA case, having regard to the statutory restrictions on bail and the circumstances of the alleged offences.

Whether continued pre-trial detention was justified where the investigation was complete, the petitioners had cooperated, and trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA define and punish money laundering, while Section 45 imposes twin conditions for granting bail.

The Court applied the principle, recognized in V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626, that stringent statutory bail conditions cannot justify unreasonably prolonged pre-trial incarceration and that constitutional courts may grant bail where delay in trial infringes the right to a speedy trial under Article 21; the duration of the prescribed sentence and the likely time to trial are relevant considerations.

It also relied on Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) 12 SCC OnLine 2626, and the other cited Supreme Court decisions concerning custody, delay, and the prospects of trial, including Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2026) 7 SCC 330.

As to reliance on an accused’s confession, the Court cited P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1157, and Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., (1952) 1 SCC 275, for the principle that a co-accused’s confession may lend assurance to other evidence but cannot, by itself, replace such evidence at the bail stage.

The Court noted that the petitioners had cooperated with the investigation, had not been alleged to have breached bail conditions in the predicate cases, and were arrested only several years after registration of the ECIR.

The investigation was complete and the prosecution complaint had been filed; the Court also found the prosecution’s apprehension that the petitioners might shift or misuse proceeds of crime unpersuasive in light of the period during which they had remained at liberty without such conduct.

Given the matter’s pre-cognizance stage, the volume of documents, and the expected duration of trial, the Court concluded that trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

Applying the cited Article 21 principles, it held that continued detention was not warranted, notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations and the PMLA’s stringent bail framework.

Each petitioner was required to execute a personal bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties for the like sum, attend trial unless exempted, refrain from threatening or tampering with prosecution witnesses and from committing similar offences, and not leave the trial court’s jurisdiction without permission until disposal of the case.