The Supreme Court granted bail to an accused booked under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in light of the fact that he had already suffered incarceration for over a year and the trial was not likely to be concluded within a few years.

The appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the Appellant, who had been arrested for the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

The Division Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan asserted, “In this case, the appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of 1 year and 2 months. There are 225 witnesses cited, out of which only 1 has been examined.”

Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra represented the Appellant while Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta represented the Respondent.

“Therefore, the trial is not likely to be concluded within few years”, the Bench said and held that the decision of this Court in the case of V.Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (2024) will apply.

In V.Senthil Balaji (Supra), the Apex Court had held that when the trial of the complaint under PMLA is likely to prolong beyond reasonable limits, the Constitutional Courts will have to consider exercising their powers to grant bail. It was also observed therein that Section 45(1)(ii) does not confer power on the State to detain an accused for an unreasonably long time, especially when there is no possibility of trial concluding within a reasonable time.

The attention of the Apex Court was also drawn to the judgment in Union of India through the Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad (2025) wherein the decisions in the case of Union of India v. K.A.Najeeb (2021) and V.Senthil Balaji (Supra) were held to be not applicable on facts. The Apex Court cancelled the bail granted by the High Court in Kanhaiya Prasad (Supra) as the respondent-accused therein was in custody for less than 7 months before he was granted bail. “Therefore, there was no departure made from the law laid down in the case of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and V.Senthil Balaji”, the Bench held.

Thus, affirming the argument of the Solicitor General that in the facts of the case, the decision in the case of V.Senthil Balaji may be followed, the Bench held, “Hence, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail, pending trial.”

Allowing the appeal, the Bench directed that the Special Court shall enlarge the appellant on bail on appropriate terms and conditions including the condition of regularly and punctually attending the Special Court and cooperating with the Special Court for early disposal of the case.

Cause Title: Udhaw Singh v. Enforcement Directorate (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 247)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocates Sidharth Luthra, M. R. Shamshad, AOR Ankit Yadav, Advocates Syed Tamjeed Ahmad, Mihir Joshi, Advait Ghosh, Dawneesh Shaktivats, Arijit Sarkar, Shaoni Das

Respondent: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Advocates Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Hitarth Raja, Alankar Gupta, AOR Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate Aditi Singh

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Abhay S OkaJustice Ujjal Bhuyan

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.