The Supreme Court has granted regular bail to an accused facing prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), observing that continued incarceration was not warranted when key witnesses had already been examined and the trial had commenced.
The bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside the Jharkhand High Court’s order refusing bail and emphasized that prolonged detention could not be justified in the facts of the case.
The appeal arose from proceedings under the PMLA in ECIR Case. The money laundering allegations stemmed from predicate offences registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Dhanbad. These included FIR alleging offences under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as well as another FIR registered in 2019. The appellant had approached the Supreme Court after the Jharkhand High Court declined to grant regular bail.
The bench took note of the developments that had occurred during the pendency of the proceedings. The Court recorded that charges had already been framed and the trial had commenced pursuant to an earlier order passed by the Supreme Court on February 16, 2026.
The Bench also acknowledged that specific allegations had been made against the appellant. However, it observed that the issue before it was not the merits of the allegations but whether further incarceration was necessary at the present stage of the proceedings.
While the appellant argued that he was merely a contractual employee, the Supreme Court clarified that it was inclined to grant relief primarily on the ground of prolonged incarceration. The Court noted that a significant part of the prosecution evidence had already been recorded, including the examination of key witnesses. Consequently, continued custody was no longer required for the purposes of investigation or trial.
The Bench specifically observed that continued incarceration of the appellant is not required as the key witnesses have already been examined.
Taking these circumstances into account, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the Jharkhand High Court and directed that the appellant be released on bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the concerned trial court.
The Court held that the balance between the seriousness of allegations and the right to personal liberty warranted the grant of bail once the trial had commenced and crucial witnesses had already testified.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court ordered the High Court’s order refusing bail stands set aside. The appellant shall be released on bail subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. All pending applications stand disposed of.
The appellant was represented by Advocate Akhil Krishan Maggu and the respondents were represented by Additional Solicitor General Suryaprakash V. Raju.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
