Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Violates Article 21 Rights Under PMLA: Karnataka HC

Reinforcing the primacy of constitutional liberties over stringent statutory provisions, the High Court of Karnataka granted regular bail to a petitioner facing money laundering charges, emphasizing that indefinite incarceration in the absence of progress in the trial infringes upon the fundamental right to life. The court observed that even under special statutes, "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" when trials are unlikely to conclude in a reasonable timeframe.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, sitting as a single judge bench, allowed the petition for enlargement on bail in a case registered by the Enforcement Directorate. The petitioner, who had been in custody for approximately 275 days, approached the court seeking relief after a coordinate bench had previously rejected his bail but reserved liberty to re-approach upon changed circumstances or lack of trial progress.

Constitutional Safeguards vs. Statutory Restrictions

Addressing the interplay between Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Constitution of India, 1950, the Court noted that while statutory rigors exist, they cannot eclipse the fundamental rights of an accused. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The Apex Court has held that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA cannot override the constitutional safeguards, as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court has held that a prolonged incarceration cannot be permitted to be converted pre-trial detention into a sentence without trial."

The Court further highlighted that in cases involving voluminous documents here exceeding 12,000 pages and numerous witnesses, the prospect of a speedy trial is often remote, necessitating judicial intervention to protect personal liberty.

Court's Directions and Conditions for Release

Recognizing the changed circumstances, including the petitioner's release on bail in the predicate offence and the filing of a supplementary prosecution complaint against other co-accused who were not arrested, the Court found the petitioner entitled to relief. The Court has the following directions:

"(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,000,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses or hamper the investigation, either directly or indirectly.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

(iv) The prosecution is at liberty to prefer an application for cancellation of bail, if there is any violation of the aforesaid conditions."

Background:

The case originated from a private complaint filed under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 involving allegations related to the former Chief Minister of Karnataka. While the petitioner remained an accused in the predicate offence (Crime No. 11 of 2024), the Enforcement Directorate subsequently registered an ECIR, eventually arraigning him as the sole accused in the initial prosecution complaint.

The petitioner’s first bail application was rejected by a coordinate bench in MANISH SISODIA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ( "(2024) 12 SCC 660": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 665), but the court had noted the principles in Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation ( "(2024) 12 SCC 691": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 809) and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement ( "(2024) 123 SCC 660": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 665) regarding long incarceration. The High Court analyzed several precedents including Padamchand Jain v. Enforcement Directorate, V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement ( "2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 1002), Mahesh Joshi v. Directorate of Enforcement, and Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement ( "2026 SCC OnLine SC 30": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 56) to conclude that the right to a speedy trial under the Constitution of India, 1950 is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence. The Court distinguished the present case from NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU v. MOHIT AGGARWAL ( "(2022) 18 SCC 374": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 316), noting the latter involved higher potential sentences, whereas the current offences carry a maximum of seven years. Given that the trial was still at a pre-cognizance stage despite the passage of significant time, the petition was allowed.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7565 OF 2026
Case Title: G.T.DINESH KUMAR v. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): SRI SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI SUNIL KUMAR S., ADVOCATE
For the Respondent(s): SRI K. ARVIND KAMATH, ASG A/W SRI MADHU N.RAO, SPL.PP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KAR) 216