The Supreme Court on Wednesday reiterated that prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be allowed to undermine the constitutional right to personal liberty, even in cases involving stringent laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
“Process must not be turned into a punishment unto itself,” the court observed while granting bail to Sanjay Sureka, an accused in an alleged ₹6,210.72-crore financial fraud and money laundering case involving a steel company.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M Pancholi said courts must balance the rights of the State with those of the accused, particularly when the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable period. It also emphasised that investigating agencies have a duty to complete investigations expeditiously and cannot justify indefinite incarceration merely because the allegations are serious.
Constitutional Safeguards Apply Despite Stringent Bail Conditions
The bench held that the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA cannot override the constitutional protections guaranteed under Article 21, which safeguards the right to life and personal liberty.
Under Section 45, courts must give the prosecution an opportunity to oppose bail and, where the application is contested, assess whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.
The Supreme Court clarified that these statutory requirements cannot be applied mechanically when prolonged detention threatens the right to a speedy trial.
The bench referred to the principle reaffirmed in 2024 when the Supreme Court granted bail to former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, holding that stringent bail provisions cannot defeat the constitutional right to a timely trial when delays are not attributable to the accused.
While acknowledging that large-scale economic offences can cause substantial damage to the country’s financial system, the court said the seriousness of allegations cannot eclipse the obligation to ensure that criminal proceedings advance without undue delay.
The ruling adds to a series of Supreme Court decisions emphasising that statutory restrictions under special laws must be interpreted consistently with fundamental rights.
The court has also reiterated similar concerns in cases involving the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, including Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement in 2026, where prolonged pre-trial detention and the lack of a realistic prospect of an early trial weighed in favour of bail.
The observations come as the Supreme Court prepares to examine review petitions against its 2022 judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, which upheld several Enforcement Directorate powers under the PMLA. The review proceedings concern issues including the non-supply of the Enforcement Case Information Report to accused persons and the reverse burden of proof under the law.
20 Months in Custody, 97 Accused: Court Cites Trial Delays
Sureka had spent more than 20 months in custody for an offence carrying a maximum sentence of seven years. The prosecution involved 97 accused persons, 48 prosecution witnesses and approximately 15,000 pages of relied-upon documents. Investigations against other accused persons were still underway.
The bench noted that examining the extensive documentary evidence and recording testimony from numerous witnesses would make the trial a lengthy process. Since the investigation against Sureka had been completed, the court found no justification for keeping him incarcerated until the conclusion of the proceedings.
“No purpose will be served by keeping the accused person behind bars now,” the court said while allowing his appeal against the Calcutta High Court’s November 2025 order denying bail.
Sureka was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on December 18, 2024, in a case involving allegations that the management of Concast Steel and Power Limited inflated the company’s turnover to obtain bank credit and diverted funds through shell companies.
The ED alleged that the proceeds of crime amounted to ₹6,210.72 crore, of which properties worth ₹777.10 crore had been attached.
Court Rejects Separate Challenge to Legality of Arrest
The bench rejected Sureka’s separate argument that his arrest was illegal because the ED forwarded the arrest order and related material to the adjudicating authority five days after the arrest.
It held that Section 19(2) of the PMLA requires the material to be forwarded “immediately” but does not prescribe a fixed deadline. The court said a reasonable interval required to compile extensive records would not, by itself, invalidate an arrest.
As conditions for bail, the court directed Sureka to surrender his passport before the trial court and prohibited him from leaving the country without permission. He was also barred from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
The bench clarified that its observations should not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.
