Prolonged Pre-trial Detention under PMLA Violates Article 21 Where Trial Commencement Is Unlikely and Foundational Facts Are Hazy

The Delhi Police Crime Branch registered an FIR in March 2024 alleging a criminal syndicate manufactured and sold spurious cancer medicines (Opdyta and Keytruda).

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) subsequently registered an ECIR under the PMLA.

The five applicants were arrested for various roles: supplying empty vials (Pravez Khan), misappropriating vials from hospitals (Neeraj Chauhan), manufacturing spurious drugs (Suraj Shat), and distributing/selling them in the market (Lovee Narula and Rajesh Kumar).

Applicants Rajesh Kumar and Lovee Narula were not named in the predicate offence.

Previously, a coordinate bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court (in limine) had rejected bail for two applicants.

1. Whether a High Court can grant bail after a coordinate bench’s rejection and the Supreme Court’s dismissal of an SLP in limine.

2. Whether self-incriminating statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA while the accused is in custody are admissible.

3. Whether the prosecution established "foundational facts" under Section 24 regarding the existence of "proceeds of crime" linked to the predicate offence.

4. Whether prolonged incarceration without trial violates the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21, overriding PMLA statutory restrictions.

The court applied Section 45 of the PMLA, which mandates a twin-test for bail: reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offences.

It relied on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India regarding the necessity of established "foundational facts" for the Section 24 presumption.

The court followed Prem Prakash v. Union of India, which held that custodial statements to the same agency are inadmissible due to lack of a "free mind".

It applied the principle from Kusal Toppo v. State of Jharkhand that dismissal of an SLP in limine does not affirm the lower court's judgment.

It invoked Arvind Dham v. ED and V. Senthil Balaji v. State, affirming that Article 21 (right to speedy trial) takes precedence over statutory bail restrictions during prolonged incarceration.

The Court observed that since the Supreme Court dismissed previous SLPs in limine, it was not barred from reconsidering bail on fresh grounds.

It analyzed the Section 50 PMLA statements and determined they were recorded while applicants were in ED custody, rendering the self-incriminating portions inadmissible as they lacked voluntariness.

The Court found the ED failed to establish "foundational facts": there was no evidence linking the doctors/hospitals to the "empty vials," no end-users were examined to prove the drugs were spurious, and forensic reports showed the majority of seized vials actually contained genuine medicine.

Given that the ED requested six more months for investigation after applicants had already spent over two years in jail, the Court found a violation of Article 21.

The Court granted regular bail to all five applicants (Pravez Khan, Neeraj Chauhan, Rajesh Kumar, Suraj Shat, and Lovee Narula) subject to a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, a surety of like amount, and a restriction on leaving the country without permission.