Section 45 of PMLA Act no bar to grant bail on violation of right to speedy trial

Section 45 of PMLA Act does not oust ability of constitutional courts to grant bail on violation of fundamental rights to speedy trial.

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Karnataka High Court has granted bail to accused who was in incarceration for one year observing that section 45 of the PMLA Act per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on the ground of violation of fundamental rights to speedy trial.

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4863 (2025) (11) abcaus.in HC

In the instant case, the petitioner sought bail in connection with the Trial arising out of FIR registered for the offences punishable under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA 2002).

The Petitioner was accused of acting as broker/middlemen for an accused who earned illicit money by indulging in corrupt practices while holding various prime postings in the Government of Bihar. The Petitioner was accused of assisting in earning and accommodating the illegal money generated from the corrupt practices.

Before the Hon’ble High Court, the Petitioner submitted that he was innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It was submitted that was a matter of record that the petitioner fully cooperated during the interrogation and was put under arrest without informing the petitioner the grounds or reasons for arrest. It was also stated that the statement of the petitioner was recorded under coercion while petitioner was under custody.

It was also submitted that the petitioner was ailing from several comorbidities for several years, which only aggravates and worsens with time. Despite Trial Court’s order to the authorities to take the petitioner for better treatment had not been complied. Therefore, the Petitioner was required to undergo better treatment outside of jail premises.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that from perusal of the materials on record and considering the facts of the case and also after considering the argument made by both parties and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several decisions, there was no reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner was actually involved in the process of concealing, layering and laundering of crime proceeds.

The Hon’ble High Court further observed that there are series of decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court which held that such stringent provisions for the grant of bail do not take away the power of the Constitutional Courts to grant bail on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India. It was laid down that the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed in a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence.

The Hon’ble High Court further observed that Hon’ble Supreme Court had categorically held that while Section 45 PMLA restricts the right of the accused to grant of bail, it could not be said that the conditions provided under Section 45 impose absolute restraint on the grant of bail.

The Hon’ble High Court also noted that in a recent judgment i.e. Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement of Directorate the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it will be amply clear that even under PMLA, the governing principle is that “Bail is the Rule and Jail is the Exception.”

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the petitioner was in custody for about 12 months and 13 days for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Charge sheet had already been submitted but charge had not been framed. The trial court reported that it was not in a position to ascertain the period within which the trial can be concluded.

The Hon’ble High Court further noted that in the given case, the prosecution has cited 135 witnesses and document of more than 26,740 pages and as such the trial of this case was not likely to be concluded in near future. The instant case was pending for appearance. Therefore, there was no possibility of the trial commencing in near future. There was no criminal antecedent of the petitioner and the trial is also not likely to be concluded within few years. The maximum sentence was of seven years. The petitioner had undergone incarceration for a period of one year. Bearing in mind that the petitioner since grant of bail has not been involved in any similar or other offence, this balance lean in favour of liberty rather than its curtailment.

The Hon’ble High Court opined that the section 45 of the PMLA Act per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on the ground of violation of fundamental rights to speedy trial.

With respect to objection of the Authorities on possibility of tampering of evidence, the Hon’ble High Court opined that the present case depended upon documentary evidence, which had already been seized by the prosecution and as such, there was no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as investigation with regard to petitioner was concerned, it was completed and therefore, by imposing some stringent condition, the petitioner can be bailed out.

Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court directed that Petitioner be enlarged on bail subject to prescribed conditions of bail bond, presence in Trial Court and surrender of passport.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• Section 45 of PMLA Act no bar to grant bail on violation of right to speedy trial
• Heavy rains & yellow alert was a valid reason for ITAT to allow adjournment
• Bar Council of India notifies Rules on Enrolment and Practice of Foreign Nationals
• When e-way bill generated prior to detention order, there was no intention to evade tax
• Once AO accepts books of account, he cannot treat a part of sale as unexplained – ITAT