Patna High Court
Vijay KumarversusThe Union of India through the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Govt. of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court held that bail must be granted as the petitioners do not merit denial under Section 45 and continued detention would infringe Article 21.
Summary
The petitioners, Parmanand Sinha and Vijay Kumar, were arrested in connection with alleged money‑laundering offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) arising from a large‑scale fraud in the Railway Claims Tribunal. They sought bail, arguing that they had cooperated with the investigation, that the amounts received were professional fees, and that there was no evidence of non‑cooperation or flight risk. The Enforcement Directorate contended that the petitioners were part of a conspiracy that siphoned off claim money and therefore failed to satisfy the twin conditions of Section 45 PMLA. The Court examined the statutory bail criteria, recent Supreme Court pronouncements emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail the exception, and the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Finding that the trial was still at the appearance stage, with no realistic prospect of conclusion in the near future, the Court held that continued detention would violate Article 21 and granted bail with conditions.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA to deny bail to the petitioners.
- Whether the prolonged pre‑trial detention of the petitioners violates the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21.
- Whether the petitioners pose a flight risk or a risk of tampering with evidence or witnesses.
- Whether the petitioners have satisfied the criteria for bail under the PMLA and relevant case law.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 403, 420
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 7A
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — s. 3, 4, 45
Subjects
- bail
- PMLA
- money laundering
- Article 21
- speedy trial
- Enforcement Directorate
- railway claims tribunal fraud
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49660 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2023 Thana- E.C.I.R (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
District- Patna
======================================================
Parmanand Sinha @ Parmanand Singh S/o Jagdeo Prasad @ Jagdeo Prasad
Singh R/o Village - Muzaffara, Police Station - Islampur, Post Office - Bardih,
District – Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union of India through Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement,
Patna Zonal Office, Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
WITH
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 51358 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2023 Thana- E.C.I.R (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
District- Patna
======================================================
Vijay Kumar S/o Late Ram Nandan Prasad Resident of Village and P.O.-
Bardih, P.S.-Islampur, Dist.- Nalanda, presently residing at Mohalla Adarsh
Vihar Colony, Road No.1, Ramkrishna Nagar, New Bypass, P.S.- Ramkrishna
Nagar, Dist.-Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate,
Govt. of India Enforcement Directorate, Govt. of India, Patna Zonal Unit,
Chandpura Place, Bank Road, Patna
2. The Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India,
Patna Zonal Officer, Chandpur Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 49660 of 2025)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rashid Izhar, Advocate
Mr. Adil Abbas, Advocate
Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate
For the E.D. :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 51358 of 2025)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
Ms. Aditi Hansaria, Advocate
Mr. Keshav Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the E.D. : Mr. Tuhin Shankar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
10 25-02-2026 As both these cases arise out of the same ED
(Directorate of Enforcement) case, vide case No.
ECIR/PTZO/08/2023, with consent of the parties, they have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
2/22
been heard together for final disposal at this stage itself.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
3. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereinafter referred as
PMLA), 2002.
4. The case of the prosecution is based upon a
written information given by Shri S.K. Tyagi, Executive
Director, Railway Board, New Delhi. The C.B.I. conducted a
preliminary enquiry, bearing no. PE 03/18, regarding allegations
of large-scale irregularity committed in the filing, processing
and decisions at Railway Claims Tribunal (R.C.T), Patna. Such
preliminary investigation disclosed that in between 2015-2017,
some unknown public servants of Railway conspired with the
claimants’ advocates and their team and in pursuance of the said
conspiracy, cheated the claimants as only a part of the decreed
amount was given to the claimants while a major part thereof
was siphoned off by the conspirators i.e., the accused persons.
5. As a consequence of the preliminary enquiry,
CBI registered RC Case No. 002(A) of 2020 and RC Case No.
003(A) of 2020, under section 403/420/120 B of the Indian
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
3/22
Penal Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C) and 7A of Prevention
of Corruption Act on 30-01-2020 and after investigation, a
charge-sheet/final report bearing No. 21/2022 dated 31-12-2022
was submitted by the C.B.I revealing that an amount of Rs.
29,84,707/- was cheated from 23 claimants by the accused
persons.
6. On the basis of the two FIRs lodged by C.B.I
(ACB), Patna, ECIR/PTZO/08/2023 was registered by the
Enforcement Directorate on 23-01-2023 for an offence under
sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002,
against the accused persons with allegations of mass scale
irregularity in the death claim cases at Railway Claims
Tribunals (R.C.T), Patna.
7. Learned counsel Mr. Rashid Izhar appearing on
behalf of the petitioner Parmanand Sinha, has submitted at the
outset, that the thrust of the allegation is upon one Bidyanand
Singh, an advocate, of siphoning off a part of the claim money
and deposited in his bank account and the petitioner Parmanand
Singh, who happens to be the full brother of Bidyanand Singh
living in a joint family, was made an accused as some part of the
money later got transferred in his account too, but the same was
on account of some family affairs. It is pointed out that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
4/22
petitioner, who was arrested in the predicate offences in the two
C.B.I Cases on 4-12-2023, was granted bail on 08-12-2023 and
15-12-2023 after remaining in custody for a total period of 11
days only, considering that the petitioner had co-operated during
investigation, which subsequently came to a close.
8. Further submission is that no complaint against
the petitioner has ever been received by any beneficiaries of the
award of the claim and the petitioner was arrested without any
summon or enquiry on 22-01-2025, when raid was conducted in
the ancestral house of Bidyanand.
9. The learned counsel Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal
with regard to the petitioner, Vijay Kumar has submitted that the
petitioner was not an advocate and at the relevant time, he was
only a clerk/employee in the legal firm of Shri Bidyanand Singh
(B.N. Singh). The learned counsel in support of his argument
relies at para 7.3 (i) (@ pg.177) of the charge sheet wherein the
ED has stated that the petitioner was an employee of Bidyanand
Singh who assisted him in representing claimants. He further
submitted that the petitioner has never participated in either
filing of claim cases or opening fake accounts or manufacturing
any false documents in order to obtain compensation amount on
behalf of the claimants. Additionally, he submitted that the bank
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
5/22
account in which the amounts were received were all managed
by accused Bidyanand Singh and the petitioner, being an
employee, had no knowledge about the same.
10. Further, it has been submitted that the Hon’ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 03/05/2024 passed in SLP (Crl)
No. 12121/2023 (Vijay Kumar V. State of Bihar & Anr.) has
categorically observed that there is no charge against the
petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption
Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as PC Act), as he is a private
individual and that the investigating agency seems to have given
up the case as earlier made out under the PC Act. Further, all
the amount that has been received by the petitioner is ‘private
money’ and part of the fee as agreed by the claimants and in
order to support this submission the petitioner has filed audited
income tax return and has fully disclosed his income to the tax
authorities. Further, he submitted that the C.B.I. has itself
admitted that the amount received by the petitioner is
professional fee but they have chosen to consider only a part of
it as genuine receipt and the remaining amount has been
considered to be arising out of cheating. Thus, the money cannot
be considered to be proceeds of crime. It is further submitted
that the ED is itself not sure of the exact amount which has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
6/22
transferred to the account of the petitioner and is basing its
allegations on abject calculations and conjectures.
11. It has been jointly submitted that the allegations
of non-cooperation during investigation is absolutely false and
baseless, rather they have cooperated in the investigation and
the allegation of giving evasive replies does not amount to non-
cooperation. It has been argued that the present position of the
case is that the prosecution complaint/charge-sheet has been
submitted on 21-03-2025 before the special court, PMLA and
cognizance has already been taken thereupon, as such the
petitioners are not required even for any custodial interrogation.
Moreover, there are as many as 27 witnesses to be examined on
behalf of the prosecution and about 92 documents, running into
4408 pages which are proposed to be exhibited and the case is
running at the stage of appearance itself, as such there is no
chance of trial getting concluded in near future and the
petitioners cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period.
12. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners
that the case is based purely on documentary evidence and all
the relevant documents are in the possession of the concerned
authorities i.e. the C.B.I. or E.D., as such there is no chance of
the petitioners tampering with any evidence. Further, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
7/22
petitioners undertake to participate in the trial and there is no
flight risk. The petitioners have relied upon several judicial
pronouncements rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to
contend that even in cases of PMLA, bail is the rule and jail is
exception and keeping persons behind bars for unlimited period
of time in hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive the
petitioners of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article-
21 of the Constitution of India. The judicial pronouncements
referred by the petitioners are being enumerated hereunder :
(i) Prem Prakash v. Union of India reported in AIR
OnLine 2024 SC 575 ;
(ii) Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement reported
in AIR 2024 SC 4053 ;
(iii) V. Senthil Balaji v. Directorate of Enforcement
reported in AIR 2024 SC 4760.
(iv) Arvind Dham vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported
in 2026 SCC Online SC 30.
13. It is, thus, submitted that in the facts and
circumstances, protection of the personal liberty of the
petitioners is imperative considering the fact that the petitioner,
Parmanad Sinha is in custody since 23.01.2025, petitioner, Vijay
Kumar is in judicial custody since 22.01.2025 and was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
8/22
remanded into the custody of ED on 27.01.2025 with no
substantial progress in the trial.
14. Per contra, Mr. Tuhin Shankar, learned counsel
for the E.D. has responded by way of his counter affidavit that
the present case pertains to mass scale irregularity/criminality in
the death claim cases at the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna
(RCT) as in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy only a part of
the decreed amount awarded to the claimants was received by
them and a major share was siphoned off by the conspirators
which includes the present petitioners as they teamed up with
the claimants’ Advocates, Kumari Rinki Sinha and Sri
Bidyanand Singh. It was revealed during investigation that out
of 2030 claims issued by Sri R.K. Mittal, the then Member
(Judicial), RCT, Patna, approximately 960 claims have been
dealt by the Advocates, Bidyananad Singh, Kumari Rinki Sinha
and others, wherein approximately Rs.50 crores of
compensation was awarded to the claimants and later,
substantial part of the same was fraudulently siphoned off by
these Advocates, transferring the same to the bank accounts of
their family members and relatives without the knowledge of
the claimants and, upon perusal of the bank account statements
of the claimants, it was revealed that in most of the cases the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
9/22
amounts credited as compensation from the Railway was
transferred to the bank accounts of Bidyanand Singh and his
associates, which include these petitioners also.
15. It has further been submitted that the amount
siphoned off from the bank accounts of the claimants was
distributed between Vijay Kumar and Bidyanand Singh in the
proportion of 35% and 65% respectively, while petitioner,
Parmanand Sinha, being the brother of the accused Bidyanand
Singh, received amount in his bank account upon transfer made
by Bidyanand Singh, thereby having a share in the 65% of the
amount siphoned off by Bidyanand Singh. The learned counsel
has relied on the case of Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of
Enforcement (Prevention of Money Laundering Act),
Government of India reported in (2015) 16 SCC 1 to submit
that Section 45 of the PMLA imposes twin conditions for grant
of bail and it has an overriding effect on the general provisions
of Cr.P.C., in case of any conflict. Reliance has also been made
on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Nimmagadda Prasad v. C.B.I. reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466
to contend that while granting bail, the Court has to keep in
mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support
thereof and the severity of the punishment which conviction
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
10/22
would entail and other considerations in the larger interest of the
public. Further, the twin conditions laid down under Section 45
of the PMLA need to be strictly observed and adhered to while
considering the grant of bail, as has been held by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary v.
Union of India reported in (2023) 12 SCC 1 and in the present
case the petitioners have failed to meet the twin conditions, as
such they are not entitled to the privilege of bail. Additionally, it
has also been submitted that the presence of the petitioners is
required for framing of charges and if they are granted bail at
this stage, the commencement of trial is likely to be hampered in
an unjust manner along with the possibility of them influencing
the witnesses or tampering with the evidence.
16. Upon hearing the rival contentions of the
parties and from the perusal of the records of the case, the
allegation against the present petitioners appears to be that of
being involved in the conspiracy with the main accused,
Bidyanand Singh and other Advocates of the claimants,
however, it is also a fact that while petitioner, Vijay Kumar was
granted anticipatory bail in the predicate offence i.e. in the
C.B.I. case, the petitioner, Parmanand Sinha was also granted
bail in a total period of 11 days of custody, considering the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
11/22
various facts and circumstances including the factum of
submission of charge-sheet. There is no dispute over the
proposition that the twin conditions for grant of bail under
Section 45 of the PMLA, the constitutionality of which was
upheld in the case of Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary (surpa),
creates a restriction upon the right of the accused to grant of bail
but it has been held in the said case that it does not impose an
absolute restrain on grant of bail and the discretion vests in the
Court, which needs to be fair and judicious and not arbitrary or
irrational.
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the
case of Prem Prakash v. Union of India reported in (2024) 9
SCC 787 that Section 45 of the PMLA by imposing twin
conditions does not re-write these principles to mean that
deprivation is the norm and liberty is the exception. Paragraphs-
11 and 12 of the said judgment are being quoted hereunder:
“11. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of
India [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of
India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] , this Court 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.
Para 302 is extracted hereinbelow : (SCC p. 259)
“302. It is important to note that the twin
conditions provided under Section 45 of the 2002
Act, though restrict the right of the accused to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
12/22
grant of bail, but it cannot be said that the
conditions provided under Section 45 impose
absolute restraint on the grant of bail. The
discretion vests in the court, which is not arbitrary
or irrational but judicial, guided by the principles
of law as provided under Section 45 of the 2002
Act.”
These observations are significant and if read in
the context of the recent pronouncement of this
Court dated 9-8-2024 in Manish Sisodia v.
Enforcement Directorate [Manish Sisodia v.
Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC 660 :
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920] , it will be amply
clear that even under PMLA the governing
principle is that “Bail is the Rule and Jail is the
Exception”. In para 52 of Manish Sisodia [Manish
Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12
SCC 660 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920] , this
Court observed as under:
“52. … From our experience, we can say that it
appears that the trial courts and the High Courts
attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The
principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an
exception is, at times, followed in breach. On
account of non-grant of bail even in
straightforward open-and-shut cases, this Court is
flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby
adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that
the trial courts and the High Courts should
recognise the principle that “bail is rule and jail is
exception.”
12. All that Section 45 PMLA mentions is that
certain conditions are to be satisfied. The
principle that, “bail is the rule and jail is the
exception” is only a paraphrasing of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, which states that no
person shall be deprived of his life or personal
liberty except according to the procedure
established by law. Liberty of the individual is
always a Rule and deprivation is the exception.
Deprivation can only be by the procedure
established by law, which has to be a valid and
reasonable procedure. Section 45 PMLA by
imposing twin conditions does not re-write this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
13/22
principle to mean that deprivation is the norm and
liberty is the exception. As set out earlier, all that
is required is that in cases where bail is subject to
the satisfaction of twin conditions, those
conditions must be satisfied.”
18. In the case of Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement
Directorate, reported in (2024) 12 SCC 660, the Hon’ble Apex
Court has also dealt with prolonged incarceration of an accused
vis-à-vis the constitutional mandate of liberty guaranteed under
Article-21 of the Constitution of India. The relevant paragraphs
are being quoted hereunder:
“ 35. A Division Bench of this Court in
Ramkripal Meena v. Enforcement Directorate
[Ramkripal Meena v. Enforcement Directorate,
(2024) 12 SCC 682] was considering an application
of the petitioner therein who was to receive a bribe
of rupees five crore and from whom, an amount of
Rs 46,00,000 was already recovered. In the said
case, the petitioner was arrested on 26-1-2022 in
connection with FIR No. 402 of 2021 registered
against him for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420, 120-BIPC and Sections 4/6 of the
Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of
Unfair Means) Act, 1992. He was released on bail
by this Court vide order dated 18-1-2023 [Ram
Kripal v. State of Rajasthan, (2024) 12 SCC 686] .
Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested by ED on 21-
6-2023.
------------- --------
47. We find that, on account of a long period of
incarceration running for around 17 months and the
trial even not having been commenced, the
appellant has been deprived of his right to speedy
trial.
48. As observed by this Court, the right to speedy
trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights.
On denial of these rights, the trial court as well as
the High Court ought to have given due weightage
to this factor.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
14/22
19. In the present context, the case of V. Senthil
Balaji Vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
reported in (2024) SCC OnLine 2626, is extremely significant
as it has expressly held that the Constitutional Courts cannot
allow provisions like Section 45(i)(ii) to become instruments in
the hands of the ED to continue prolonged incarceration with no
possibility of trial concluding within a reasonable time and
paragraphs-27 to 29 thereof, are being quoted as hereunder:
“27. Under the Statutes like PMLA, the minimum
sentence is three years, and the maximum is seven
years. The minimum sentence is higher when the
scheduled offence is under the NDPS Act. 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. The reason is 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. What a reasonable time is
will depend on the provisions under which the
accused is being tried and other factors. One of the
most relevant factor is the duration of the minimum
and maximum sentence for the offence. Another
important consideration is the higher threshold or
stringent conditions which a statute provides for the
grant of bail. Even an outer limit provided by the
relevant law for the completion of the trial, if any, is
also a factor to be considered. The extraordinary
powers, as held in the case of K.A. Najeeb, can only
be exercised by the Constitutional Courts. The
Judges of the Constitutional Courts have vast
experience. Based on the facts on record, if the
Judges conclude that there is no possibility of a trial
concluding in a reasonable time, the power of
granting bail can always be exercised by the
Constitutional Courts on the grounds of violation of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
15/22
Part III of the Constitution of India notwithstanding
the statutory provisions. The Constitutional Courts
can always exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32
or Article 226, as the case may be. The
Constitutional Courts have to bear in mind while
dealing with the cases under the PMLA that, except
in a few exceptional cases, the maximum sentence
can be of seven years. The Constitutional Courts
cannot allow provisions like Section 45(1)(ii) to
become instruments in the hands of the ED to
continue incarceration for a long time when there is
no possibility of a trial of the scheduled offence and
the PMLA offence concluding within a reasonable
time. If the Constitutional Courts do not exercise
their jurisdiction in such cases, the rights of the
undertrials under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India will be defeated. In a given case, if an undue
delay in the disposal of the trial of scheduled
offences or disposal of trial under the PMLA can be
substantially attributed to the accused, the
Constitutional Courts can always decline to exercise
jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs. An exception
will also be in a case where, considering the
antecedents of the accused, there is every possibility
of the accused becoming a real threat to society if
enlarged on bail. The jurisdiction to issue
prerogative writs is always discretionary.
28. Some day, the courts, especially the
Constitutional Courts, will have to take a call on a
peculiar situation that arises in our justice delivery
system. There are cases where clean acquittal is
granted by the criminal courts to the accused after
very long incarceration as an undertrial. When we
say clean acquittal, we are excluding the cases
where the witnesses have turned hostile or there is a
bona fide defective investigation. In such cases of
clean acquittal, crucial years in the life of the
accused are lost. In a given case, it may amount to
violation of rights of the accused under Article 21 of
the Constitution which may give rise to a claim for
compensation.
29. As stated earlier, the appellant has been
incarcerated for 15 months or more for the offence
punishable under the PMLA. In the facts of the case,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
16/22
the trial of the scheduled offences and,
consequently, the PMLA offence is not likely to be
completed in three to four years or even more. If the
appellant's detention is continued, it will amount to
an infringement of his fundamental right under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India of speedy
trial.”
20. The above-mentioned decision of V. Senthil Balaji
(supra) was referred and relied upon in the case of Udhaw
Singh v. Enforcement Directorate [2025 INSC 247] in Cr.
Appeal No.799 of 2025 and following the principles laid down
in the said case, the appellant therein was granted bail pending
trial.
21. Very recently, in the case of Arvind Dham v.
Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC
30, considering the fact that there was no likelihood of trial
commencing in near future, coupled with continued
incarceration, in the circumstance of documentary nature of
evidence and further considering the law laid down by the
earlier judicial pronouncements rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, bail was granted to the custody accused in view
of Article-21 of the Constitution of India. Paragraph 15 to 18 of
the said judgment are being quoted hereunder:
“15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the rival submissions and have carefully perused
the record. The court while dealing with the prayer
for grant of bail has to consider gravity of offence,
which has to be ascertained in the facts and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
17/22
circumstances of each case. One of the
circumstances to consider the gravity of offences is
also the term of sentence i.e., prescribed for the
offence, the accused is alleged to have committed.
The court has also to take into account the object
of the special Act, the gravity of offence and the
attending circumstances along with period of
sentence. All economic offences cannot be
classified into one group as it may involve various
activities and may differ from one case to another.
Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the
Court to categorize all the offences into one group
and deny bail on that basis. It is well settled that if
the State or any prosecuting agency including, the
court, concerned has no wherewithal to provide or
protect the fundamental right of an accused, to
have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21
of the Constitution, then the State or any other
prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for
bail on the ground that the crime committed is
serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies
irrespective of the nature of the crime. The
aforesaid proposition was quoted with approval by
another two-Judge Bench of this Court and it was
held that long period of incarceration for around
17 months and the trial not even having
commenced, the appellant in that case has been
deprived of his right to speedy trial.
16. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in V. Senthil
Balaji's case has held that under the statutes such
as PMLA, where maximum sentence is seven years,
prolonged incarceration pending trial may warrant
grant of bail by Constitutional Courts, if there is no
likelihood of the trial concluding within a
reasonable time. Statutory restrictions cannot be
permitted to result in indefinite pretrial detention in
violation of Article 21.
17. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Padam
Chand Jain (supra), reiterated that prolonged
incarceration cannot be allowed to convert pretrial
detention into punishment and that documentary
evidence already seized by the prosecution
eliminates the possibility of tampering with the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
18/22
same.
18. The right to speedy trial, enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the
nature of the offence. Prolonged incarceration of
an undertrial, without commencement or
reasonable progress of trial, cannot be
countenanced, as it has the effect of converting
pretrial detention into form of punishment.
Economic offences, by their very nature, may differ
in degree and fact, and therefore cannot be treated
as homogeneous class warranting a blanket denial
of bail.”
22. This Court would also consider the fact that the
object of bail is to secure attendance of the accused in the trial,
as such, the consideration for granting of bail would also be
probability of the party cooperating in the trial but the
State/Prosecuting agency including the Court, has the duty to
protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy
trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. This was
taken into consideration in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi
Shaikh v. State of Maharastra, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 813.
Paragraph-17 and 18 of the judgment would be relevant and are
being quoted hereunder:
“17. If the State or any prosecuting agency
including the court concerned has no wherewithal
to provide or protect the fundamental right of an
accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any
other prosecuting agency should not oppose the
plea for bail on the ground that the crime
committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution
applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.
18. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still
an accused; not a convict. The over-arching
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
19/22
postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an
accused is presumed to be innocent until proven
guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever
stringent the penal law may be.”
23. Furthermore, with regard to the plea taken by the
E.D. of non-cooperation by the petitioners, it needs to be
clarified that merely giving evasive replies or not giving the
reply as desired by the E.D., would not amount to non-
cooperation, as cooperating with investigation does not extend
to violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination,
as has been held in a very recent case of Vinay Kumar Gupta
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 20215 of
2025, rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated
16.02.2026 while granting anticipatory bail to the appellant in a
case under the N.D.P.S. Act. The relevant extract of the order is
being quoted hereunder:
“ Counter affidavit has now been filed by the State of
Madhya Pradesh, wherein it is stated that, after the passing of
the afore-stated order dated 15-12-2025, the appellant joined
the investigation on 02-02-2026 but it is the complaint of the
State that he has not handed over his mobile phone. It is for the
State to complete the investigation in accordance with due
procedure but, in that regard, it cannot insist upon the
appellant incriminating himself. Cooperating with the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
20/22
investigation does not extend to violation of the Constitutional
right against self- incrimination”.
24. So far as the order of the co-ordinate Bench dated
29.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.54140 of 2025, rejecting the
prayer for bail on behalf of the main accused Bidyanand Singh
is concerned, the same is apparently distinguishable on the
ground that not only it concerns the person against whom the
main thrust of allegation rests but also that the same has been
passed purely on merits of the case, not disclosing any argument
advanced on the violation of fundamental right of the accused
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and there is total
non-consideration of the various judicial pronouncements of the
Hon’ble Apex Court that prolonged incarceration of an accused,
with trial not even having commenced, may warrant grant of
bail by constitutional courts, if there is no likelihood of
conclusion of trial within a reasonable frame of time.
25. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of
the present case, especially in view of the fact that there are as
many as 27 witnesses to be examined and documents running
into 4408 pages to be exhibited by the prosecution and the case
still running at the stage of appearance with no likelihood of
conclusion of trial in near future, when the same has not even
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
21/22
commenced, coupled with the fact that the petitioners are
languishing in custody since more than a year, the petitioners
cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period in the hope
of conclusion of trial as, such prolonged pre-trial detention
would have the effect of converting it into a form of
punishment, and even statutory restrictions cannot be permitted
to result in indefinite pre-trial detention in violation of Article
21 of the Constitution.
26. Thus, applying the principles and guidelines laid
down in the cases of V. Senthil Balaji (supra), Manish Sisodia
(supra) and the recent case of Arvind Dham (supra), this
Court is of the considered opinion that no fruitful purpose would
be served by keeping the petitioners in prolonged custody after
the investigation has come to a close and there is no likelihood
of trial to be concluded in near future within a reasonable time,
as the same would amount to infringement of fundamental right
of the petitioners.
27. Accordingly, let the petitioners be released on bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge
(PMLA), Patna in connection with Special Trial (PMLA) Case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49660 of 2025(10) dt.25-02-2026
22/22
No. 04 of 2025 arising from ECIR No. PTZO/08/2023 dated
25.01.2023, subject to the following conditions:
i. The petitioners shall appear before the Special
Court/ concerned Court as and when the matter shall be taken
up i.e. on each and every date.
ii. The petitioners shall not leave the country without
the permission of the Trial Court;
iii. The petitioners shall provide their mobile number
and address to the Enforcement Directorate at the time of their
release and the E.D. shall be kept updated in case of any change
in the phone number or address.
iv. The petitioners shall not influence the prosecution
witnesses directly or remotely and in case of any violation of
any conditions imposed by this Court, the prosecuting agency
will be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.
28. Accordingly, the present bail application is
allowed with the aforesaid conditions.
29. It is however made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Trivedi/-
U T
Checking your session…