PMLA Bail: Evasive Conduct and Accused-Attributed Delay Defeat Article 21 Plea; Section 45 Rigour Not Diluted by Parity

A) Precedents Cited

i) Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad, 2025 SCC Online SC 306

The ED relied on this decision for the proposition that the two conditions in Section 45 are mandatory and must be applied while deciding PMLA bail. The High Court’s approach aligns with this: it treated Section 45 compliance as the baseline, and noted that no attempt was made to show satisfaction of those requirements.

ii) V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC Online SC 2626

The petitioner invoked this case to argue that long incarceration and the improbability of trial completion within a reasonable period can trigger Article 21 concerns warranting bail. The High Court distinguished it sharply: Senthil Balaji involved ~2000 accused and 550+ witnesses, making even charge framing a prolonged exercise and rendering a 3–4 year conclusion unrealistic. In contrast, the present case had a far smaller witness/accused universe and the trial was found “set to commence”, so the Article 21 threshold was not met on these facts.

iii) Padam Chand Jain v. Enforcement Directorate, 2025 SCC Online SC 1291

This was cited for the principle that Section 45 cannot eclipse constitutional safeguards where incarceration becomes oppressive due to delay. The High Court held it did not help the petitioner because bail there turned on a cluster of factors (including bail in the predicate offence and other case-specific features) that were “missing” here.

iv) Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 SCC Online SC 30

The petitioner relied on this to argue that “economic offence” seriousness cannot, by itself, justify opposing bail where the State cannot secure the accused’s right to speedy trial. The High Court distinguished it because, in that case, the appellant alone was arrested among many, cognizance had not been taken, there were 210 witnesses, and material delay was attributable to the ED (including a stay the ED procured). In the present case, cognizance was re-taken, proceedings were moving, and delay was not laid at the ED’s door.

v) Virender Singh Versus State of Haryana and another (Division Bench order dated 23.10.2024)

While not a bail precedent, it materially influenced the procedural backdrop: the Division Bench directed the ED to “forthwith arrest” the petitioner (subject to the status of an earlier order). The present judgment used this history to underscore the petitioner’s repeated evasion and the extraordinary steps required to secure custody—reinforcing the “flight risk” assessment.

B) Legal Reasoning

1. Flight risk as a decisive factual factor: The court treated the petitioner’s repeated non-compliance (17 summons) and non-execution of multiple warrants, culminating in a contested arrest episode involving an alleged attempt to flee, as strong indicators that liberty on bail could translate into avoidance of process.
2. Section 45 PMLA as the governing threshold: The judgment reaffirms that, in PMLA prosecutions, bail is not assessed on general considerations alone. Absent a case that the petitioner satisfies Section 45, the court was unwilling to grant bail merely on custody length or other discretionary factors.
3. Article 21 “delay” arguments require a factual foundation: The court did not treat “time in custody” as an automatic trigger. It evaluated (a) the case’s trial complexity and witness count; (b) the procedural stage (cognizance re-taken; trial ready to commence); and (c) whether delay was attributable to the prosecution. On this matrix, it found no comparable impossibility of timely trial as in the cited Supreme Court cases.
4. Accused-attributed procedural delays matter: The narrative around the remand for a pre-cognizance hearing and subsequent adjournments was used to reject an argument that “systemic delay” justified bail. The court explicitly considered that the incarceration period cannot be viewed “in isolation”, but in light of how the proceedings reached the present stage.
5. Parity is not a standalone right: The court held the petitioner could not secure bail solely because a co-accused (Sikander Singh) had been enlarged on bail, particularly when (as asserted) that bail order was under challenge and parity is not a rule compelling release.

C) Impact

• Article 21-based bail in PMLA matters is tightly fact-sensitive: This decision signals that courts will look for a demonstrable, structural inability to conclude trial in a reasonable time (as in cases with massive accused/witness counts or prosecution-attributed stays), not merely an assertion that PMLA trials are “lengthy”.
• Evasive conduct can outweigh “documentary evidence” arguments: Even where evidence is largely documentary and seized, an accused’s history of summons/warrant non-compliance can drive the outcome on risk assessment and the court’s willingness to trust future cooperation.
• Procedural skirmishes may dilute “delay” claims: Where the record suggests the defence contributed to delay (including repeated objections/adjournments at the cognizance stage), courts may be less receptive to “speedy trial” bail pleas.
• Reinforcement of Section 45 primacy: By emphasising non-satisfaction of Section 45 and citing Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad, 2025 SCC Online SC 306, the decision strengthens the practical message that PMLA bail applications should directly address the twin conditions rather than rely predominantly on parity or generalized delay.