Long Incarceration Alone Cannot Overcome Section 45 PMLA Rigours Where Prompt Trial is Feasible

The petitioner was arrested on 18.09.2025 for alleged offences under Sections 3(1) and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

The prosecution alleges the petitioner cheated 825 victims of approximately ₹43 Crores by promising doubled returns on deposits.

While a predicate offence was registered by the CBCID, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an ECIR on 08.09.2025.

The petitioner sought bail on grounds of long incarceration, non-identification of "proceeds of crime," and failure to furnish written grounds of arrest.

The respondent opposed bail, citing the petitioner's lack of cooperation, flight risk, and the gravity of the financial fraud.

1. Whether the rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA can be relaxed based on the length of incarceration and the precedent set in V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director?

2. Whether the arrest is vitiated due to the non-furnishing of written grounds of arrest as per Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India?

The court applied Section 45 of the PMLA, which mandates a "twin test" for bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

It distinguished V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director (2024 INSC 739), which held that bail is the rule when trial conclusion is impossible within a reasonable time due to an extraordinary number of accused/witnesses.

It further applied the principle from Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra (2026) 1 SCC 500, which clarified that the requirement for written grounds of arrest applies only prospectively from the date of that judgment (06.11.2025).

The court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on Senthil Balaji, noting that the present case involves only three accused, making a timely trial feasible, unlike the thousands of accused in the cited precedent.

Regarding the "grounds of arrest," the court observed the petitioner was arrested on 18.09.2025, which predates the mandatory procedure established in Mihir Rajesh Shah (06.11.2025), and thus the arrest remains valid.

The court further noted that the petitioner failed to raise the "grounds of arrest" argument in three previous bail applications, weakening the plea's credibility.

Given the scale of the ₹43 Crore fraud and the applicant's failure to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 45, the court found the statutory rigors remained operative.

The court concluded that long incarceration alone is insufficient for bail in PMLA cases when the trial is manageable and a prima facie case of a large-scale financial scam exists. Relief for bail was denied.