The PMLA sets a stringent bar on bail, but it cannot become a licence for indefinite jailing before trial. Granting bail to an accused who had spent nearly four years in custody in an ED money-laundering case with the trial nowhere near its end, the Delhi High Court held that the twin conditions of Section 45, though mandatory, must yield to the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to a man accused in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), holding that his prolonged pre-trial incarceration of nearly four years, with the trial unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, justified bail notwithstanding the stringent twin conditions under Section 45 of the Act [Masasasong Ao v. Directorate of Enforcement and Another].
Justice Sanjeev Narula allowed the bail application, subject to conditions, in a money-laundering case that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had built on predicate offences alleged by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
The case
According to the prosecution, the case originated from the interception of a co-accused at the Delhi airport in 2019 carrying a large sum of cash, said to be linked to funds raised through extortion and illegal taxation for a proscribed organisation. The NIA took over the investigation and filed a charge-sheet invoking provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, some of which are scheduled offences under the PMLA; on that basis, the ED registered the present money-laundering case. The applicant, arrested in October 2022 while already in custody in the NIA proceedings, was arrayed as an accused, and his earlier bail plea had been rejected by the Special Judge in March 2026.
The ED opposed bail, contending that the applicant had failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, and that bail granted to a co-accused did not create a right to parity. These allegations, and the applicant’s defence that he had no knowing role, are matters for trial; this report expresses no view on them.
Section 45 and the right to a speedy trial
The Court reaffirmed that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, that the court be satisfied there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit an offence on bail, are mandatory, and that a bail court must apply them. At the same time, it emphasised that the enquiry under Section 45 is confined to a prima facie assessment on broad probabilities for the limited purpose of bail, and does not bear upon the merits of the trial. On that assessment, the Court held, the material did not, at this stage, justify a refusal of bail, and the residual concern could be addressed through appropriate conditions, so both limbs of Section 45 were satisfied.
Crucially, the Court held that even the stringent bar of Section 45 must give way where an accused has suffered prolonged pre-trial incarceration with no likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions, including Manish Sisodia and Prem Prakash, the Court observed that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is a constitutional guarantee, that statutory restrictions on bail cannot be permitted to produce indefinite pre-trial detention, and that where an accused has been in custody for a substantial period with the trial unlikely to end soon, the constitutional court must lean in favour of protecting conditional liberty. Pre-trial detention, it held, cannot be allowed to assume a punitive character.
The Court noted that the applicant had spent nearly four years in custody, well past the halfway mark of the statutory reference point under Section 436A of the CrPC, that the trial still had substantial ground to cover, and that no comparable part of the delay was shown to have been caused by him, part of the delay having arisen from a supplementary complaint against another accused. To continue his detention until an uncertain end of trial, it held, would allow pre-trial custody to become punitive, which Section 45 does not require.
Why it matters
The order applies a now well-established balance between two competing imperatives: the stringent, twin-condition bail regime that Parliament has prescribed for money-laundering offences, and the constitutional protection against indefinite pre-trial detention. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that special statutes such as the PMLA do not oust the constitutional right to a speedy trial, and that when the machinery of the State is unable to bring an accused to trial within a reasonable time, the stringency of the bail bar cannot be used to keep him in jail indefinitely. The Delhi High Court’s decision is an application of that principle to a case of nearly four years’ custody with a distant trial.
The reasoning is careful to preserve both sides. The Court did not dilute the twin conditions of Section 45 or pronounce on the ED’s allegations, which it left to the trial; it held only that, on a prima facie view for the limited purpose of bail, refusal was not warranted, and that any residual risk could be managed by conditions. The relief rests principally on the prolonged incarceration and the delay not attributable to the accused, factors the Court weighed against the seriousness of the allegations.
Nothing has been decided on the merits. The allegations against the applicant remain to be tried, and he is entitled to the presumption of innocence; the bail is conditional, with the Court imposing safeguards, including restrictions on leaving the country and a requirement to appear before the trial court, and clarifying that its observations are confined to the bail enquiry and will not influence the trial. The grant of bail secures the applicant’s conditional liberty pending a trial that the Court expects will take considerable time to conclude.
Case Title: Masasasong Ao v. Directorate of Enforcement and Another [Bail Appln. 2564/2026]
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Reserved: September 21, 2026 | Pronounced: September 24, 2026
Status: Regular bail granted in the PMLA case, subject to conditions, on the ground of prolonged pre-trial incarceration (nearly four years) with the trial far from conclusion and no delay attributable to the accused. Twin conditions of Section 45 held to yield to the Article 21 right to a speedy trial. Merits not decided; allegations untested.