Bombay High Court
RITESH KUMAR S. SHAHversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that despite the seriousness of the PMLA offences, the prolonged pre‑trial detention and the constitutional right to a speedy trial warranted granting bail to the three accused, subject to stringent conditions.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered three simultaneous bail applications filed by accused No.4, 5 and 6 in a PMLA case (ECIR/MBZO‑II/20/2024) involving alleged creation of shell companies and money‑laundering. The applicants had been in pre‑trial detention for more than 18‑20 months while the charge‑sheet of 7,000 pages and 40 witnesses indicated a protracted trial. The Enforcement Directorate opposed bail, arguing that the principal accused was absconding, the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were unsatisfied and there was a risk of tampering or flight. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and parity with an earlier bail order for a co‑accused, held that the prolonged incarceration justified granting bail. It therefore granted bail to all three applicants subject to stringent conditions, including a cash bond, reporting requirements, passport surrender and restrictions on travel and evidence tampering. The order expressly limited its observations to bail and did not prejudice the merits of the underlying criminal case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act when pre‑trial detention has exceeded 18 months and trial is delayed.
- Whether the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA are satisfied in the present case.
- Whether the risk of absconding, tampering with evidence or re‑offending outweighs the accused's right to a speedy trial.
- Whether parity with an earlier bail order for a co‑accused warrants granting bail to the remaining accused.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 436-A
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 37
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — s. 3, 4, 45
Subjects
- bail
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act
- right to speedy trial
- pre‑trial detention
- parity
- bail conditions
- money laundering
- Enforcement Directorate
Judgment
BA-A.3380.2026+BA.3148.2026+BA.3379.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3380 OF 2026
Khilji Mohsinahmed Mustakali Applicant
.. (Accused No.4)
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement and Another .. Respondents
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3148 OF 2026
Sharifmiya Amirmiya Shaikh Applicant
.. (Accused No.5)
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement and Another .. Respondents
WITH
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3379 OF 2026
Ritesh Kumar S. Shah Applicant
.. (Accused No.6)
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement and Another .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Abad Ponda, learned Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Viral Babar, Mr.
Yasir Khan, Ms. Saakshi Singh, Mr. Nishant Kanse. Mr. Prithviraj
Patil in Bail Application No. 3380 of 2026
Mr. Abad Ponda, learned Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Neha Ahuja and
Mr. Amit Ahuja Advocates for Applicants in Bail Application
No.3148 of 2026.
Mr. Abad Ponda, learned Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Amit P. Ghag ,
Mr. Dhavan Shah, Mr. Viral Babar, Mr. Yasir Khan, Ms. Saakshi
Singh, Mr. Nishant Kanse and Mr. Prithviraj Patil, Advocates for
Applicant in Bail Application No.3379 of 2026.
Mr. C.K. Pendse a/w. Mr. Atharva S. Jagtap, SPP for Respondent
No.1 – ED.
Mr. Yogesh Nakhwa, APP for Respondent – State in Bail Application
No.3380 of 2026.
Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, APP for Respondent – State in Bail
Application No.3148 of 2026.
Mr. Amit A. Palkar, APP for Respondent – State in Bail Application
No.3379 of 2026.
This is the corrected order as per Suo Motu Speaking to the Minutes order dated 17.09.2026 1 of 11
BA-A.3380.2026+BA.3148.2026+BA.3379.2026.doc
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 17, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Advocate for Applicants in
Bail Application No.3380 of 2026 and Bail Application No.3148 of
2026; Mr. Ghag, learned Advocate for Applicant in Bail Application
No.3379 of 2026; Mr. Pendse, learned SPP for Respondent No.1 – ED;
Mr. Nakhwa, learned APP for Respondent – State in Bail Application
No.3380 of 2026; Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, learned APP for Respondent –
State in Bail Application No.3148 of 2026; and Mr. Palkar, learned APP
for Respondent – State in Bail Application No.3379 of 2026.
2. This is a group of three (3) Bail Applications decided
together. All three (3) Applicants are arraigned as accused persons in
the same crime and seek regular bail in connection with ECIR bearing
No. ECIR/MBZO-II/20/2024 registered by Respondent No.1 –
Directorate of Enforcement for offences punishable under Sections 3
and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short
“PMLA”). There are total of 6 accused persons. Applicant in Bail
Application No.3380 of 2026 is arraigned as Accused No.4. Applicant
in Bail Application No.3148 of 2026 is arraigned Accused No.5
whereas Applicant in Bail Application No.3379 of 2026 is arraigned as
Accused No.6.
This is the corrected order as per Suo Motu Speaking to the Minutes order dated 17.09.2026 2 of 11
BA-A.3380.2026+BA.3148.2026+BA.3379.2026.doc
3. Briefly stated, according to prosecution case Applicants and
other accused persons are involved in the creation and operation of
shell companies / entities and fictitious bank accounts. Charge against
accused persons is that they used individuals by promising employment
opportunities and obtained their KYC documents for incorporation of
shell companies / entities, opened multiple bank accounts and
facilitated transactions through the network of shell companies /
entities accounts including remittances to foreign entities and
companies. Respondent No.1 registered ECIR offence based on the
predicate offence namely CR No.8 of 2024 registered with ATS Nashik
to investigate the role of Applicants in the money laundering offence.
Applicant in Bail Application No.3148 of 2026 is arrested on
02.01.2025. Chargesheet is filed on 09.01.2025 against Accused No.1
and 5 others and Accused No.5 is not named therein neither in the
scheduled offence nor chargesheet. Similarly, Applicant in Bail
Application No.3380 of 2026 is arrested on 02.01.2025 and Applicant
in Bail Application No.3379 of 2026 is arrested on 17.03.2025.
4. Applicants have draw my attention to order dated
20.07.2026 passed by this Court (Coram: Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.) in Bail
Application No.2048 of 2026 enlarging Accused No.1 in the same
crime on bail. They persuade me to consider parity and long
This is the corrected order as per Suo Motu Speaking to the Minutes order dated 17.09.2026 3 of 11
BA-A.3380.2026+BA.3148.2026+BA.3379.2026.doc
incarceration of the present Applicants as Applicants have been
incarcerated for a period in excess of 18 months in one case and 20
months in remaining two cases and most importantly the ignominy of
the trial not even commencing and for that matter not concluding in
the near foreseeable future for enlarging the Applicants on bail.
5. Mr. Pendse, learned SPP for Respondent No.1 – ED would
vehemently oppose the grant of bail on the ground that Applicants
alongwith co-accused persons and more specifically the main accused
person called Mehmood Abdul Samad Bhagad who is absconding are /
were deeply involved in money laundering amounting to crores of
rupees. He would forcefully submit that all accused persons were in
tandem and cheated several persons and should not be given bail
because the principal accused person is still absconding and has not
been arrested till date. He would submit that there is therefore every
possibility that all three (3) Applicants will re-offend themselves by
getting in touch with the principal accused person and will commit /
repeat / continue the offence and shall re-offend themselves. He would
submit that there is every likelihood that Applicants will jump bail and
therefore he would persuade me to consider the gamut and the extent
of the crime unearthed pursuant to investigation which is forming part
of the humongous chargesheet of 7000 pages and reject the Bail
Applications of Applicants.
This is the corrected order as per Suo Motu Speaking to the Minutes order dated 17.09.2026 4 of 11
BA-A.3380.2026+BA.3148.2026+BA.3379.2026.doc
5.1. He has drawn my attention to three (3) separate Affidavits-
in-reply filed by the Assistant Director, Zonal Office II, Mumbai on
behalf of Respondent No.1 and Ministry of Finance, Department of
Revenue, Government of India dated 09.09.2026 in the three matters
and would vehemently submit that releasing the Applicants on bail
would hinder the tracing of proceeds of crime dealt with by the
accused persons in the present crime. He has addressed the Court at
length on change in circumstances, facts of the case where substantial
transactions were engaged, reasons of grant of bail on parity and long
incarceration and most importantly on satisfaction of twin conditions
contemplated under Section 45 of the PMLA not having been satisfied
to persuade the Court to reject the Bail Applications. He would urge
the Court passionately to consider the seriousness of the offence,
involvement of Applicants, and every possibility of they re-offending
themselves.
5.2. He would draw my attention to paragraph no.317 of the
decision of Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary
and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.1 and on reading, it would contend
that in the present case the twin conditions remain fully unsatisfied
and the mens rea of the offence impacts the financial systems including
the sovereignty and integrity of the county and therefore
notwithstanding the extent of the total punishment prescribed for the
1 (2023) 12 SCC 1
This is the corrected order as per Suo Motu Speaking to the Minutes order dated 17.09.2026 5 of 11
BA-A.3380.2026+BA.3148.2026+BA.3379.2026.doc
offence and the sentence undergone in incarceration till date, the
Applicants should still be denied bail.
6. I have heard Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Advocate for
Applicants in Bail Application No.3380 of 2026 and Bail Application
No.3148 of 2026; Mr. Ghag, learned Advocate for Applicant in Bail
Application No.3379 of 2026; Mr. Pendse, learned SPP for Respondent
No.1 – ED; Mr. Nakhwa, learned APP for Respondent – State in Bail
Application No.3380 of 2026; Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad, learned APP for
Respondent – State in Bail Application No.3148 of 2026; and Mr.
Palkar, learned APP for Respondent – State in Bail Application
No.3379 of 2026 and with their able assistance perused the record of
the case. Submissions made by all the Advocates at the bar have
received due consideration of the Court.
7. At the outset it is seen that chargesheet of 7000 pages has
been filed and prosecution desires to examine 40 witnesses in all.
Applicants and more specifically Mr. Ponda have all referred to and
relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Manish
Sisodia Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation2, and the relevant
paragraph no.26 therein which reads as under:-
“26. A perusal of the aforesaid would reveal that this Court was
concerned about the prolonged period of incarceration suffered by the
appellant. After considering various earlier pronouncements, this
Court emphasised that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right
within the broad scope of Article 21 of the Constitution. Relying on
2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920
This is the corrected order as per Suo Motu Speaking to the Minutes order dated 17.09.2026 6 of 11
BA-A.3380.2026+BA.3148.2026+BA.3379.2026.doc
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India this Court observed that
Section 436-ACrPC should not be construed as a mandate that an
accused should not be granted bail under the PMLA till he has
suffered incarceration for the specified period. This Court recorded
the assurance given by the prosecution that they shall conclude the
trial by taking appropriate steps within next 6-8 months. This Court,
after recording the said submissions, granted liberty to the appellant
to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances
or in case the trial was protracted and proceeded at a snail's pace in
next three months. This Court observed that if any application was
filed, the same would be considered by the trial court on merits
without being influenced by the dismissal of the earlier bail
applications including its own judgment. It further observed that the
observations made regarding the right to speedy trial will be taken
into consideration.”
8. The argument advanced by Mr. Pendse while referring to the
decision in the case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary (Supra) has been
squarely answered and dealt with in the aforesaid paragraph by the
Supreme Court and I need not elaborate any further on that count.
Another decision of Supreme Court delivered earlier in the case of
Mohd. Muslim Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)3 wherein relevant paragraph
Nos.21 and 22 with regard to special conditions holds as under:-
“ 21. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under
Section 37 (i.e. that court should be satisfied that the accused is not
guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude
grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and
unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only
manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section
37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the
court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on
record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is
not guilty. Any other interpretation would result in complete denial
of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
22. The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the court
would look at the material in a broad manner, and reasonably see
whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The judgments of this
Court have, therefore, emphasised that the satisfaction which courts
are expected to record i.e. that the accused may not be guilty, is only
prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for
3 Criminal Appeal No(s).Of 2023 @ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(S). 915 Of 2023.
This is the corrected order as per Suo Motu Speaking to the Minutes order dated 17.09.2026 7 of 11
BA-A.3380.2026+BA.3148.2026+BA.3379.2026.doc
meticulous examination of the materials collected during
investigation (as held in Union of India v. Rattan Mallik [Union of
India v. Rattan Mallik, (2009) 2 SCC 624 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri)
831] ). Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be
said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of
Section 436-A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act
too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil [Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022)
10 SCC 51 : (2023) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] ). Having regard to these factors
the Court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant
deserves to be enlarged on bail.”
9. This Court (Coram: Ashwin D. Bhobe, J.) while granting bail
to Accused No.1 by order dated 20.07.2026 considered the issue of
long incarceration while relying on the decision of Arvind Dham Vs.
Enforcement Directorate4 wherein accused was incarcerated for 16
months 20 days and it considered the maximum sentence which would
be of 7 years which is also so for the present Applicants before me. The
co-ordinate bench also considered the aspect of prolonged
incarceration and pre-trial detention and most importantly right to
speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
notwithstanding the nature of offence and punishment it entailed.
10. In the present case maximum punishment in PMLA Special
case is 7 years and charge-sheet of 7000 pages is filed and 40 witnesses
are to be examined by the prosecution and it is bound to take a very
long time for trial to commence and for that matter conclude. Hence
on parity as well as on the ground of long incarceration and right to
speedy trial being considered as grounds for grant of bail. I am inclined
to release to all three (3) Applicants on bail.
4 2026 SCC OnLine SC 30
This is the corrected order as per Suo Motu Speaking to the Minutes order dated 17.09.2026 8 of 11
BA-A.3380.2026+BA.3148.2026+BA.3379.2026.doc
11. Further, the apprehension expressed by Mr. Pendse is taken
care of by imposing stringent conditions in addition to the usual
conditions including the condition suggested by Mr. Pendse for deposit
of their passports forthwith before the trial court even before their
release by the Applicants’ family members so that the Applicants will
not abscond as they are considered to be a flight risk.
12. Hence, in view of my aforesaid prima facie observations and
findings, Bail Applications are allowed subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) All three (3) Applicants are directed to be released on
bail in connection with Crime upon furnishing P.R.
Bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs
only) each with one or two solvent sureties in the like
amount; In lieu of this, at the request made by
Advocates, that they are residents of Gujarat,
provisional cash bail is granted and within 3 weeks of
release they shall provide the solvent sureties;
(ii) All three (3) Applicants shall report to the Investigation
Officer, Respondent No. 1-Directorate of Enforcement,
on the 2nd and 4th Saturday of each month from 10.00
a.m. to 12.00 p.m., If the 2nd and 4th Saturday of the
said month falls on a holiday, Applicants shall mark
presence on the next working day till the conclusion of
the trial in PMLA Special Case No. 191 of 2025;
(iii) All three (3) Applicants shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness
This is the corrected order as per Suo Motu Speaking to the Minutes order dated 17.09.2026 9 of 11
BA-A.3380.2026+BA.3148.2026+BA.3379.2026.doc
and / or person/s acquainted with the facts of the case
to dissuade such person/s from disclosing the facts to
the Court or any police officer;
(iv) All three (3) Applicants shall not tamper with evidence
in any manner;
(v) All three (3) Applicants’ family members shall deposit
their passports with the Court of the Additional
Sessions Judge designated as the Special Court under
the PML Act, 2002, at the City Civil & Sessions Court,
Mumbai, in Special Case No. 191 of 2025 forthwith
before their release from jail;
(vi) All three (3) Applicants shall, within three (3) days of
release from jail, provide to the Investigation Officer,
Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai, with their
residential address along with proof, their contact
numbers, email and must inform the Investigating
Officer of any changes to this information from time to
time;
(vii) All three (3) Applicants shall not travel outside India
without obtaining prior written permission from the
Additional Sessions Judge designated as the Special
Court under the PML Act, 2002, at the City Civil &
Sessions Court, Mumbai; and
(viii) All three (3) Applicants shall appear before the
Additional Sessions Judge designated as the Special
Court under the PML Act, 2002, at the City Civil &
Sessions Court, Mumbai, on each date fixed in Special
Case No. 191 of 2025, unless specifically exempted by
the Court. If the Applicants abstain from attending the
This is the corrected order as per Suo Motu Speaking to the Minutes order dated 17.09.2026 10 of
11
BA-A.3380.2026+BA.3148.2026+BA.3379.2026.doc
proceedings without justifiable cause that could also be
seen as a breach of the bail condition and the Special
Court under the PML Act, 2002, at the City Civil &
Sessions Court, Mumbai, will be free to pass
appropriate orders.
13. It is clarified that the above observations made in this order
are limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made
any observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated
on the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being
uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made
hereinabove in this order.
14. All three (3) Bail Applications are allowed and disposed of in
the above terms.
Ajay [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date:
2026.09.17
13:36:39 +0530
This is the corrected order as per Suo Motu Speaking to the Minutes order dated 17.09.2026 11 of
11
Checking your session…