S. 45 Of PMLA Can’t Be Used For Indefinite Detention: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court has granted regular bail in a money laundering case linked to an alleged ₹135 crore medical procurement scam, observing that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot be interpreted to justify indefinite detention and that continued incarceration after completion of investigation would serve no fruitful purpose. The bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha passed the order while allowing a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with an Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigation arising out of alleged irregularities in procurement of medical equipment and reagents by the Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited (CGMSCL). According to the prosecution, the predicate FIR was registered by ACB/EOW Raipur on January 22, 2025 alleging criminal conspiracy, corruption and abuse of official position in relation to Tender No. 182 floated by CGMSCL. The allegations included manipulation of tender specifications, issuance of excessive purchase orders, and procurement of medical equipment and reagents at inflated prices causing wrongful loss to the State exchequer. The Directorate of Enforcement subsequently registered an ECIR under the PMLA on February 18, 2025. The ED alleged that purchase orders worth over ₹467 crore were issued for the “Hamar Lab” project and that the accused entities received approximately ₹135.02 crore in excess of the fair market value of the supplied medical items, which constituted “proceeds of crime”. The agency further alleged that intermediaries and related entities were used to artificially inflate costs and divert proceeds of crime. During investigation, the ED conducted searches at multiple premises and froze equities and fixed deposits worth approximately ₹38.76 crore besides seizing luxury vehicles allegedly acquired from laundered funds. The defence argued that the arrest under the PMLA was carried out almost eleven months after registration of the ECIR despite the accused already being in custody in the predicate offence throughout that period. It was contended that the ED had conducted searches in July and August 2025 and claimed recovery of incriminating material, yet chose not to arrest at that stage. The defence also argued that the ED and ACB/EOW acted in tandem to prolong incarceration by effecting a “successive arrest” close to the completion of one year of custody in the predicate offence. It was submitted that the arrest was unnecessary because investigation had already substantially progressed and the accused was continuously available for interrogation while in judicial custody. While opposing bail, the ED contended that the accused was the central figure in the alleged laundering operation and had influenced public servants to obtain inflated contracts. The agency relied on the stringent twin conditions under Section 45(1) of the PMLA and various Supreme Court judgments dealing with economic offences and money laundering. After hearing both sides, the High Court noted that the PMLA case was an “offshoot” of the predicate offence and that the accused had already remained in continuous custody since January 28, 2025. The Court also took note of the fact that the Supreme Court had already granted bail in the predicate offence and that the prosecution complaint under the PMLA had already been filed. Importantly, the Court observed that despite searches and alleged recovery of incriminating material, the ED did not arrest the accused for nearly eleven months after registration of the ECIR. The Court held that custodial interrogation was no longer required and that prolonged detention could not be justified solely on the basis of Section 45 of the PMLA. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Arvind Walia v. Directorate of Enforcement, the High Court reiterated that constitutional courts must safeguard personal liberty under Article 21 and intervene where detention becomes excessive or indefinite. The Court further observed that the trial was likely to take considerable time due to the volume of documents and witnesses involved and that there was no substantial material to show that the accused would abscond, tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if released on bail. Accordingly, the Court granted regular bail subject to conditions including appearance before the trial court and cooperation during trial proceedings. Case Details Case Title: Shashank Chopda Versus ED Citation: JURISHOUR-1226-HC-2026(CHH) Case No.: MCRC No. 2956 of 2026 Date: 11/05/2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Mayank Kumar Counsel For Respondent: Rajvansh Singh Click Here To Read Order Read More: Mumbai Customs Seizes Rs. 3.15 Crore Worth 24KT Gold at Airport; Dubai Passengers Arrested

S. 45 Of PMLA Can’t Be Used For Indefinite Detention: Chhattisgarh High Court

Membership Required

Latest articles

Section 96 of RFCTLARR Act Overrides Tax Ambiguity: CBDT Clarifies Compensation for Acquired Land Not Taxable

President Promulgates Income Tax Amendment Ordinance, 2026; Exempts FIIs and BIS from G-Sec Tax Liabilities

SEBI Probes Rajesh Exports Over Revenue Misrepresentation; Company Denies Allegations

RBI Keeps Repo Rate at 5.25%: Impact on Loans, EMIs and Savings

More like this

Section 96 of RFCTLARR Act Overrides Tax Ambiguity: CBDT Clarifies Compensation for Acquired Land Not Taxable

President Promulgates Income Tax Amendment Ordinance, 2026; Exempts FIIs and BIS from G-Sec Tax Liabilities

SEBI Probes Rajesh Exports Over Revenue Misrepresentation; Company Denies Allegations

About us

Company

Categories