Supreme Court grants bail in alleged ₹6,210-crore laundering case, citing prolonged custody and a trial unlikely to conclude soon

The case arose from an insolvency process concerning Concast Steel and Power Limited. After the NCLT dismissed the liquidator’s application alleging fraudulent and avoidable transactions, the CBI registered a predicate-offence FIR in September 2022.

The Enforcement Directorate registered an ECIR in March 2023, alleging that the appellant orchestrated transactions through 62 shell companies to inflate the company’s turnover, obtain bank credit and divert funds. The alleged proceeds of crime were approximately ₹6,210.72 crore.

The appellant was arrested on 18 December 2024 and remained in custody for over 20 months. The prosecution complaint was filed in February 2025, and the investigation was stated to be complete as against him; the case involved extensive documentary evidence and numerous accused and witnesses.

The Calcutta High Court rejected his application for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), leading to this appeal.

1. Whether the five-day interval between the appellant’s arrest and the forwarding of the arrest order and material to the Adjudicating Authority amounted to non-compliance with Section 19(2) PMLA and rendered the arrest illegal.

2. Whether the appellant should be released on bail, notwithstanding Section 45 PMLA, in light of his prolonged custody, completion of the investigation qua him and the anticipated length of the trial.

Section 19(1) PMLA requires the authorised officer to have material in possession, record reasons to believe in writing and inform the arrested person of the grounds of arrest; Section 19(2) requires the arrest order and material to be forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority “immediately.”

The Court held that “immediately” does not prescribe a fixed 24-hour limit: forwarding must be expeditious, allowing time reasonably necessary for compiling the material, and delay does not automatically invalidate an arrest.

Section 45 PMLA imposes stringent twin conditions for bail, but those conditions cannot override the constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21 where continued custody and delay in trial imperil that right. The Court relied on *Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement*, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, for this principle.

The Court rejected the challenge to the arrest because the PMLA specifies no fixed period for forwarding material under Section 19(2), and the five-day interval, in the circumstances, did not establish impermissible delay.

It nevertheless concluded that continued detention was unjustified: the appellant had been in custody for over 20 months, the investigation against him was complete, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon given the thousands of pages of documents and approximately 98 witnesses identified by the Court.

The Court held that the severity of the allegations and Section 45’s stringent bail conditions could not justify prolonged incarceration inconsistent with Article 21.

It allowed the appeal and directed the appellant’s release on bail on terms set by the trial court, including deposit of his passport, no travel abroad without prior permission, and no witness influence or evidence tampering; breach may result in cancellation of bail.