PMLA Bail in Delhi: Section 45 Twin Conditions, Long Custody and Delay in Trial

Direct Answer: Regular bail in a Delhi Enforcement Directorate case is ordinarily governed by Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in addition to the ordinary principles governing bail.

Where the Public Prosecutor opposes release, the court must ordinarily be satisfied that:

there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence of money laundering; and
the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

These are commonly called the twin conditions.

The twin conditions are stringent and mandatory where they apply. They are not, however, an absolute prohibition against bail. Article 21 of the Constitution protects personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial. Where custody becomes excessively long, the accused has not caused the delay and the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable period, constitutional courts may grant conditional liberty notwithstanding the statutory severity of Section 45.

A strong PMLA bail application in Delhi should therefore proceed on two parallel tracks:

Merits Track: Demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant may not be guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.
Constitutional Track: Demonstrate prolonged incarceration, lack of meaningful trial progress and the likelihood that continued detention will become punishment before conviction.

Professional assistance may include Section 45 bail analysis, custody and trial-delay charts, proceeds-of-crime review, transaction and source-of-funds analysis, preparation before the jurisdictional PMLA Special Court, Delhi High Court proceedings, Supreme Court briefing and coordination with appropriately engaged local counsel.

Which Court Considers PMLA Bail in Delhi?

A person arrested in a Delhi ED investigation may ordinarily seek regular bail before the jurisdictional Special Court designated under the PMLA.

Depending on the procedural history, further remedies may arise before:

the jurisdictional PMLA Special Court in Delhi;
the Delhi High Court;
the Supreme Court of India; or
another court having territorial and statutory jurisdiction over the particular arrest, complaint or proceeding.

The correct court should be identified from:

the prosecution complaint;
the cognizance order;
the remand orders;
the ECIR-related unit;
the scheduled-offence case;
the notification designating the Special Court;
the place where the alleged offence was committed; and
the court before which the accused is presently in custody.

Important: Every PMLA matter arising in Delhi should not be assumed to belong to one particular courtroom merely because the investigation was conducted by Delhi Zonal Office-I, Delhi Zonal Office-II or a Headquarters Investigation Unit.

What Does Section 45 PMLA Require?

Section 45 declares offences under the PMLA to be cognizable and non-bailable.

The principal bail restriction provides that no person accused of an offence under the Act shall be released on bail or on personal bond unless:

the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application; and
where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Read Section 45 PMLA on India Code

Section 45(2) states that these restrictions operate in addition to the restrictions under the ordinary procedural law or any other applicable bail law.

The Public Prosecutor Must Receive an Opportunity to Oppose

The first procedural requirement is that the Public Prosecutor must receive an opportunity to oppose the bail application.

The requirement does not mean that:

the ED has a veto over bail;
every objection must be accepted;
the court must repeat the prosecution’s allegations;
the seriousness of the PMLA label alone decides the application; or
the accused must prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt.

The Special Court remains responsible for making an independent judicial assessment.

First Twin Condition: Reasonable Grounds for Believing That the Accused Is Not Guilty

The first twin condition does not require the court to conduct a complete trial or pronounce a final acquittal at the bail stage.

The court should undertake a limited but meaningful assessment of the available material to determine whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant may not be guilty of the offence under Section 3 PMLA.

The assessment may examine:

whether a legally sustainable scheduled offence exists;
whether identifiable proceeds of crime have been established;
whether the property or amount is traceable to criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence;
whether the applicant possessed, acquired, used, concealed or transferred the alleged proceeds;
whether the applicant knowingly assisted another person;
whether the applicant projected or claimed the property as untainted;
whether the applicant exercised control or beneficial ownership;
whether the applicant obtained any personal benefit;
whether the alleged transaction has a documented commercial explanation;
whether the ED material is contradicted by reliable records;
whether the relied-upon statements are corroborated; and
whether the allegation is person-specific or merely based on designation or association.

Reasonable Grounds Do Not Mean Proof beyond Reasonable Doubt

The court is not required to determine final guilt.

At the bail stage:

the evidence is not finally tested by cross-examination;
the court should avoid an elaborate judgment on disputed evidence;
the applicant need not establish complete innocence;
the prosecution need not prove its entire trial case; and
the court forms a provisional view based on probabilities and reasonable material.

The observations made while granting or refusing bail should not prejudice the final trial.

The Court Must Examine the Foundational Facts

The prosecution cannot rely only on the words “money laundering” or the existence of an ECIR.

The ED should establish the foundational basis of its allegation, including:

Scheduled Criminal Activity: The criminal activity relating to an offence listed in the Schedule to the PMLA.
Proceeds of Crime: Property allegedly derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, from that criminal activity.
Applicant’s Connection: Material linking the applicant with the alleged process or activity concerning those proceeds.

Where the link between the scheduled offence, the alleged proceeds and the applicant is speculative or incomplete, the first twin condition may become capable of satisfaction.

Individual Role Is Essential

A bail application should separate the applicant’s role from the broader allegations against the company, family, political group, business network or other accused persons.

The application should identify:

the applicant’s exact designation;
period of association;
decision-making authority;
bank-signing authority;
ownership or shareholding;
access to accounting systems;
participation in the questioned transaction;
knowledge of the alleged scheduled offence;
personal benefit, if any;
documents personally signed;
persons who took the actual decision; and
records contradicting the attributed role.

A formal title should not automatically establish knowledge of every transaction. Equally, a person should not deny involvement contradicted by authentic records.

Second Twin Condition: Not Likely to Commit Any Offence While on Bail

The second condition is prospective. It asks whether the applicant is likely to commit any offence while on bail.

The court may consider:

criminal antecedents;
conduct during investigation;
attendance pursuant to summons;
compliance with previous bail conditions;
attempts to influence witnesses;
destruction or alteration of records;
flight risk;
access to funds or systems allegedly used in the offence;
continuing control over the concerned entity;
similar subsequent conduct;
the applicant’s roots in society; and
conditions capable of neutralising the identified risk.

A conclusion that the applicant is likely to commit an offence should be supported by cogent material. It should not rest only on the seriousness of the present allegation.

Conditions Can Address Future Risk

Depending on the case, the court may impose conditions such as:

surrender of passport;
restriction on foreign travel;
periodic reporting;
attendance on every trial date;
prohibition on contacting witnesses;
prohibition on accessing particular company systems;
disclosure of current address and mobile number;
restriction on disposal of specified property;
cooperation with further investigation;
prior permission before changing residence;
undertaking not to seek unnecessary adjournments; and
liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation upon violation.

The applicant should voluntarily offer proportionate conditions rather than merely state that no risk exists.

Section 45 Is Stringent but Not an Absolute Embargo

The Supreme Court has recognised that Section 45 restricts the grant of bail but does not impose an absolute prohibition.

The discretion remains judicial.

The court should apply:

the statutory twin conditions;
ordinary bail principles;
Article 21;
the right to a speedy trial;
the presumption of innocence before conviction;
the proportionality of continued detention; and
the individual facts of the case.

Bail Is the Rule Even under PMLA

The Supreme Court has reiterated that the principle “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” is a reflection of Article 21.

Section 45 does not convert:

liberty into an exception;
pretrial detention into a presumed sentence;
serious allegations into proof of guilt;
investigation into indefinite custody; or
the twin conditions into an irreversible prohibition.

The required statutory conditions must be applied according to a fair, valid and reasonable procedure.

Long Custody and Article 21

Long custody becomes legally significant when detention begins to operate as punishment before conviction.

The constitutional inquiry asks:

How long has the applicant remained in custody?
When was the prosecution complaint filed?
Has cognizance been taken?
Have documents been supplied?
Have charges been framed?
Has examination of witnesses begun?
How many witnesses are proposed?
How many accused persons are facing trial?
How voluminous is the documentary record?
Is further investigation still continuing?
Are supplementary complaints expected?
Has the applicant caused material delay?
Is there any realistic date for completion?
How does custody compare with the maximum sentence applicable?

Long Custody Has No Universal Numerical Formula

There is no rigid rule that bail must be granted automatically after a fixed number of months.

A shorter period may become constitutionally significant where:

the trial has not commenced;
hundreds of witnesses are proposed;
tens of thousands of pages are relied upon;
further investigation remains open;
the case is substantially documentary;
the applicant has a limited role;
the applicable maximum sentence is comparatively limited; or
there is no realistic likelihood of completion.

A longer period may not assist the applicant to the same extent where:

the applicant repeatedly sought unnecessary adjournments;
witnesses were threatened;
evidence was destroyed;
the applicant absconded;
trial is progressing rapidly;
only a few witnesses remain; or
delay is substantially attributable to the defence.

Delay Must Not Be Attributable to the Applicant

The bail application should disclose every adjournment and explain who requested it.

The court may distinguish between:

adjournment caused by non-supply of documents;
adjournment caused by incomplete prosecution filings;
delay due to supplementary investigation;
delay due to court congestion;
delay caused by non-production from jail;
delay caused by multiple accused;
genuine medical adjournment;
frivolous defence adjournment; and
deliberate obstruction of trial.

A party seeking bail on trial delay should ordinarily undertake to:

remain present regularly;
avoid unnecessary adjournments;
cooperate with day-to-day hearing where directed; and
not create obstacles in examination of witnesses.

Custody Must Be Compared with the Applicable Maximum Sentence

The court should examine whether the undertrial has already undergone a substantial part of the maximum imprisonment that may ultimately be imposed for the charged PMLA offence.

This comparison is important because:

the applicant remains legally unconvicted;
time spent in custody cannot be restored;
the trial may continue for years;
pretrial detention must remain proportionate; and
the statutory restriction cannot become a mechanism for serving the sentence before adjudication.

The applicable punishment should be verified from the actual charge and the relevant part of Section 4 PMLA.

Trial Delay Indicators in a Delhi PMLA Case

The following indicators may support a long-custody bail plea:

charges have not been framed;
copies remain incomplete;
documents are still being inspected;
the ED states that further investigation is continuing;
supplementary prosecution complaints are contemplated;
additional accused have not appeared;
some accused are absconding;
the predicate case is pending at a different stage;
hundreds of witnesses are cited;
the relied-upon record runs into thousands of pages;
electronic data remains under examination;
trial dates are being fixed at long intervals;
no prosecution witness has been examined;
only a small fraction of witnesses has been examined;
the prosecution cannot provide a credible completion schedule; or
continued custody is sought only because the allegation is serious.

Completion of Investigation Reduces the Need for Custody

Where the prosecution complaint has been filed and the relevant evidence has been collected, the applicant may argue that continued incarceration is not required for investigation.

The argument becomes stronger where:

bank records have been obtained directly from banks;
devices have been seized;
company records are in ED custody;
property records are registered public documents;
statements have already been recorded;
the applicant has no access to the seized systems;
the applicant no longer holds the relevant position;
the alleged property is already attached; and
conditions can prevent interference with the remaining investigation.

Filing of the complaint does not itself guarantee bail. It remains an important circumstance in assessing the necessity and proportionality of further custody.

Documentary Evidence and the Risk of Tampering

PMLA prosecutions are frequently based substantially on:

bank statements;
company filings;
tax records;
registered property documents;
accounting ledgers;
digital records;
contracts and invoices;
search and seizure records;
statements recorded by authorities; and
official records held by third parties.

Where the original evidence is already secured by the prosecution or maintained by independent institutions, the risk of tampering may be reduced.

The court should nevertheless separately examine:

witness influence;
access to employees;
control of company servers;
ability to alter cloud data;
communication with counterparties; and
previous conduct during investigation.

Number of Witnesses and Volume of Documents

A general assertion that the record is “voluminous” is insufficient.

The bail application should state:

total number of accused;
total number of prosecution witnesses;
number of witnesses examined;
number of documents relied upon;
approximate number of pages;
number of electronic devices;
number of supplementary complaints;
status of charge;
average number of effective hearings per month; and
realistic time required to complete the prosecution evidence.

The calculation should be supported by the complaint, witness list, document list and order sheets.

Manish Sisodia: Delay and Long Incarceration

In the 2024 decision concerning Manish Sisodia, the Supreme Court emphasised that prolonged incarceration should not become punishment without trial.

The Court considered:

the period of custody;
lack of commencement or meaningful progress of trial;
the substantial number of witnesses;
the voluminous documentary record;
the prosecution’s earlier assurance concerning speedy progress; and
the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

The decision reinforces that the right to bail in cases of delay coupled with long incarceration must be read into the bail jurisdiction under Section 45.

Read the Supreme Court judgment in Manish Sisodia

Prem Prakash: Section 45 Does Not Reverse the Constitutional Rule of Liberty

In Prem Prakash v. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement, the Supreme Court reiterated that:

Section 45 is not an absolute restraint on bail;
bail remains the rule and jail the exception;
Article 21 remains the higher constitutional protection;
long incarceration and an unlikely early trial may justify conditional liberty;
the court need not conduct a detailed trial at the bail stage; and
the Section 45 assessment is based on reasonable grounds and probability.

Read Prem Prakash v. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement

V. Senthil Balaji: Statutory Restrictions Cannot Produce Indefinite Detention

In V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, the Supreme Court addressed prolonged incarceration where the trial was not likely to conclude within a reasonable period.

The decision supports the principle that:

constitutional courts must protect Article 21;
Section 45 cannot become a tool for incarceration throughout a lengthy trial;
the court and prosecution have a duty to ensure trial within a reasonable time;
custody must be considered in relation to the applicable maximum sentence;
strict conditions may protect the prosecution; and
bail may be cancelled if the accused obstructs the trial or violates conditions.

Read V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

Supreme Court Order of 23 July 2025

In a batch of matters led by Nitin Tibrewal v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Supreme Court granted bail in the PMLA appeals after considering:

incarceration exceeding one year;
voluminous documents;
a large number of witnesses;
the likelihood of a prolonged trial;
the comparative role of co-accused;
parity with persons already on bail; and
the principles in V. Senthil Balaji.

The Court permitted strict conditions, including reporting requirements, passport impounding and an undertaking against similar future conduct.

Read the Supreme Court’s PMLA bail order dated 23 July 2025

Delhi High Court Application of Long-Custody Principles in 2026

In Bail Application No. 4618/2024 and connected matters decided on 4 May 2026, the Delhi High Court considered applicants who had remained in custody for more than two years.

The Court noted circumstances including:

further investigation was still expected to take time;
there was no likelihood of even commencement of trial in the foreseeable future;
the prosecution evidence was substantially documentary;
the evidence was already secured;
the alleged foundational link with proceeds of crime required scrutiny; and
continued pretrial detention could not become punishment.

The decision demonstrates the importance of placing an exact custody and trial-progress record before the Delhi High Court rather than relying only on a general allegation of delay.

Read the Delhi High Court judgment dated 4 May 2026

The Twin Conditions Cannot Be Ignored Casually

The constitutional delay doctrine does not mean that every PMLA bail application should be allowed without examining Section 45.

In Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad, the Supreme Court interfered where bail had been granted without recording the findings required under Section 45.

A properly reasoned bail order should therefore address:

the first twin condition;
the second twin condition;
the prosecution’s opposition;
the applicant’s role;
the alleged proceeds of crime;
the custody period;
trial progress;
delay attribution; and
conditions necessary to protect the proceeding.

Read Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad

The Section 45 Proviso

The first proviso to Section 45 permits special consideration for a person who:

is under the age of sixteen years;
is a woman;
is sick or infirm; or
is accused, individually or with co-accused, of money laundering involving a sum of less than one crore rupees.

The proviso is discretionary. It uses the expression that such a person may be released if the Special Court so directs.

The court should consider ordinary bail factors and the specific circumstances of the person. The benefit is not an automatic release order.

Woman Accused under the Proviso

In the K. Kavitha decision, the Supreme Court clarified that the proviso is not restricted only to a woman whom the court considers socially or personally “vulnerable.”

The court may still refuse bail on the facts, but it should not deny the statutory consideration merely because the woman is:

educated;
professionally established;
politically active;
financially independent; or
holding public office.

Where the benefit is denied, the court should provide case-specific reasons.

Read the Supreme Court judgment concerning the woman proviso

Sick or Infirm Applicant

A person relying on sickness or infirmity should produce:

diagnosis;
medical history;
current prescriptions;
hospital records;
specialist opinion;
functional limitations;
treatment unavailable or difficult in custody;
risk of deterioration;
age-related vulnerability; and
proposed treatment and supervision after release.

A medical condition should be connected with the actual custody environment and treatment requirements. A bare prescription may be insufficient.

Amount below One Crore Rupees

The less-than-one-crore category requires careful examination of the actual allegation.

The application should identify:

the total alleged proceeds of crime;
the amount attributed to the applicant;
the amount attributed jointly with co-accused;
the amount alleged in the prosecution complaint;
any inconsistent figure in the predicate charge sheet;
the value of property alleged to be equivalent value;
the applicant’s alleged personal benefit; and
whether the statutory threshold is actually satisfied.

The applicant should not assume that only the amount personally received will control the proviso where the prosecution alleges joint money laundering with co-accused.

Can Defence Documents Be Considered at the Bail Stage?

A PMLA applicant bears an unusually heavy burden under Section 45. The Supreme Court has recognised that an applicant may require access to relevant documents to discharge that burden.

At the bail stage, an appropriate application may be made under the applicable procedural provision corresponding to Section 91 CrPC or Section 94 BNSS for production of relevant documents not relied upon by the ED.

The applicant should identify:

the specific document;
the person or authority holding it;
its direct relevance to Section 45;
how it contradicts the prosecution case;
why it is not otherwise available;
why production will not prejudice continuing investigation; and
why the request is not a fishing inquiry.

Potentially relevant documents may include:

complete bank records;
account-opening and signing-authority records;
server-access logs;
company minutes;
resignation records;
tax disclosures;
property-acquisition records;
valuation material;
electronic metadata;
communications relied upon selectively; and
records showing another person’s control.

Read the Supreme Court judgment concerning production of documents at the PMLA bail stage

Parity with Co-Accused

Parity is relevant but not automatic.

The applicant should compare:

the attributed role;
amount involved;
period of involvement;
personal benefit;
control over accounts;
evidence relied upon;
custody period;
criminal antecedents;
cooperation;
proviso category;
medical circumstances; and
conditions imposed on the co-accused.

Parity is strongest where the applicant’s role is equal to or less serious than that of a person already released.

Bail in the Predicate Offence

Bail in the scheduled or predicate offence is relevant but does not automatically result in PMLA bail.

The PMLA court separately examines:

the offence under Section 3;
the alleged proceeds of crime;
the applicant’s laundering-related role;
the Section 45 conditions; and
the constitutional custody and delay factors.

Similarly, the rigour of Section 45 should not be mechanically applied to a bail application concerning only the predicate offence.

Preparing the Custody Chronology

A custody chronology should contain:

PMLA BAIL — CUSTODY AND TRIAL-DELAY CHRONOLOGY

Applicant:
ECIR / Investigation:
Scheduled-Offence FIR / Complaint:
ED Unit:
PMLA Special Court:
Prosecution Complaint Number:

Date of Arrest:
Date of First Remand:
ED Custody Period:
Judicial Custody Commenced:
Total Custody as on Filing:
Total Custody as on Hearing:

Predicate-Offence Bail Status:
PMLA Complaint Filed:
Supplementary Complaint 1:
Supplementary Complaint 2:
Cognizance Date:
Copies Supplied:
Inspection Completed:
Charge Arguments Began:
Charge Framed:
First Witness Examined:
Witnesses Cited:
Witnesses Examined:
Documents Cited:
Approximate Pages:
Electronic Records:
Further Investigation Pending:
Additional Accused Awaited:
Next Trial Date:
Average Effective Hearings per Month:
Estimated Time for Trial:
Adjournments by Prosecution:
Adjournments by Applicant:
Adjournments by Co-Accused:
Court-Related Delay:
Jail-Production Delay:

Preparing the Section 45 Merits Matrix

SECTION 45 PMLA BAIL — MERITS MATRIX

Alleged Scheduled Offence:
Alleged Proceeds of Crime:
Amount Attributed to Applicant:
Property Attributed:
Relevant Bank Account:
Relevant Entity:

Applicant’s Role:
Period of Involvement:
Designation:
Shareholding:
Bank Authority:
Signing Authority:
Decision-Making Authority:
Personal Benefit Alleged:
Knowledge Alleged:
Assistance Alleged:
Concealment Alleged:
Projection as Untainted Alleged:

ED Evidence:
Contradictory Defence Record:
Lawful Source:
Tax Disclosure:
Accounting Treatment:
Commercial Purpose:
Independent Custodian:
Public Record:
Exculpatory Material:
Co-Accused on Bail:
Applicant’s Antecedents:
Risk Conditions Offered:

Documents Required for a Delhi PMLA Bail Application

Custody and Court Documents

arrest memo;
written grounds of arrest;
first-remand order;
subsequent remand orders;
custody certificate;
jail record;
prosecution complaint;
supplementary complaints;
cognizance order;
order sheets;
charge order, if any;
witness list;
document list; and
earlier bail orders.

Predicate-Offence Documents

FIR or statutory complaint;
charge sheet;
supplementary charge sheets;
bail orders;
discharge applications;
quashing orders;
closure report;
trial order sheets; and
status of prosecution witnesses.

Merits Documents

bank statements;
company records;
tax and GST records;
source-of-funds records;
contracts and invoices;
board resolutions;
employment and resignation records;
property documents;
valuation reports;
loan records;
refund or repayment records;
electronic correspondence;
travel records;
medical records; and
documents showing no personal benefit.

Conduct and Risk Documents

summons attendance proof;
document-production acknowledgments;
passport particulars;
permanent-address proof;
family-dependency documents;
employment or professional record;
previous bail-compliance record;
criminal antecedent status;
medical responsibilities; and
proposed surety documents.

Suggested Structure of a PMLA Bail Application

Jurisdiction and custody particulars.
Scheduled-offence background.
ECIR and prosecution-complaint history.
Applicant’s limited and individual role.
Absence or weakness of proceeds-of-crime linkage.
Transaction and lawful-source explanation.
First twin condition.
Second twin condition.
Applicability of the Section 45 proviso, where relevant.
Period of incarceration.
Trial-delay chronology.
Volume of witnesses and documents.
Delay not attributable to applicant.
Investigation substantially complete.
Evidence already secured.
Parity with co-accused.
Predicate-offence bail and status.
Medical or family circumstances.
Conditions volunteered.
Prayer for release.

Sample Long-Custody Bail Grounds

A. Because the applicant has remained in custody since ______ and has undergone approximately ______ months of incarceration without conviction.

B. Because the prosecution complaint was filed on ______, yet charges have not been framed / prosecution evidence has not commenced / only ______ out of ______ witnesses have been examined.

C. Because the complaint cites approximately ______ witnesses and ______ documents extending to approximately ______ pages, making completion of trial within a reasonable period unlikely.

D. Because further investigation remains pending and supplementary complaint(s) are contemplated, with no definite date for completion.

E. Because the delay is not attributable to the applicant. The applicant has not sought unnecessary adjournments and undertakes to cooperate with an expeditious trial.

F. Because continued detention would convert pretrial custody into punishment and violate the applicant’s rights under Article 21.

G. Because the evidence is substantially documentary and is already in the custody of the Directorate, banks, statutory authorities or the court.

H. Because the applicant has no access to or control over the original records and cannot tamper with the documentary evidence.

I. Because there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty, as the material does not establish ______.

J. Because the applicant has no criminal antecedents / has complied with summons / has permanent roots / is not likely to commit an offence while on bail.

K. Because stringent conditions can fully address any concern relating to attendance, travel, witnesses or further investigation.

Sample Prayer

PRAYER

In view of the facts and grounds stated above, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

a. release the applicant on regular bail in the present PMLA proceeding;

b. take into consideration the applicant’s prolonged incarceration and the absence of any likelihood of conclusion of trial within a reasonable period;

c. record that the requirements of Section 45 are satisfied on the available material;

d. alternatively, exercise constitutional and ordinary bail jurisdiction to prevent pretrial detention from becoming punishment;

e. impose such proportionate conditions concerning attendance, passport, travel, witnesses and further investigation as this Hon’ble Court considers appropriate;

f. direct an expedited trial without unnecessary adjournments; and

g. pass any other order required in the interests of justice and protection of personal liberty.

Likely ED Objections and the Required Reply

Objection: The offence is serious and affects the economy.

Reply: Seriousness is relevant but cannot independently justify indefinite detention. The court must examine the applicant’s role, Section 45, custody, progress of trial and Article 21.

Objection: The applicant is influential.

Reply: Influence should be connected with a concrete risk. Proportionate conditions can prohibit contact with witnesses, restrict travel and remove access to the concerned entity.

Objection: Further investigation is continuing.

Reply: Identify what remains to be investigated, why custody is required and why the task cannot be completed while the applicant is on conditional bail.

Objection: Supplementary complaints may be filed.

Reply: Open-ended supplementary investigation cannot become a basis for indefinite incarceration, particularly where the principal evidence is secured.

Objection: The applicant may tamper with evidence.

Reply: Identify whether the evidence is documentary, already seized or held by independent institutions. Offer access restrictions and non-contact conditions.

Objection: The applicant did not cooperate.

Reply: Produce summons attendance, written responses and document acknowledgments. Distinguish failure to confess or accept the ED’s theory from actual non-cooperation.

Objection: The twin conditions are not satisfied.

Reply: Address each foundational fact, the individual role, contradictory documents, lawful source and prospective risk separately. Do not rely only on long custody.

When Long-Custody Bail May Be Refused

Bail may still be refused where the court finds:

delay caused substantially by the applicant;
a realistic likelihood of early trial completion;
serious witness intimidation;
destruction of evidence;
absconding or concealment;
repeated violation of court directions;
continuing involvement in similar conduct;
material risk incapable of being controlled by conditions;
a substantially different role from co-accused on bail; or
failure to address the mandatory Section 45 findings.

Cancellation of PMLA Bail

After release, bail may be cancelled where the accused:

contacts or threatens witnesses;
destroys or alters evidence;
violates travel restrictions;
fails to surrender passport;
does not attend court;
seeks frivolous adjournments;
fails to report as directed;
commits a similar offence;
conceals a change of address; or
breaches an undertaking forming the basis of release.

Every condition should therefore be read carefully and complied with exactly.

Common Mistakes in a Delhi PMLA Bail Application

Arguing only that bail is the rule without addressing Section 45.
Arguing only Section 45 without preparing the Article 21 delay case.
Failing to calculate exact custody.
Failing to produce complete order sheets.
Making a vague claim that trial will take years.
Failing to count witnesses and documents.
Ignoring adjournments sought by the applicant.
Failing to separate the applicant’s role from co-accused.
Failing to identify the alleged proceeds of crime.
Confusing turnover, transaction value and proceeds of crime.
Relying only on absence of recovery.
Ignoring contradictory bank or tax records.
Failing to seek relevant non-relied documents.
Claiming parity without comparing roles.
Assuming bail in the predicate offence automatically grants PMLA bail.
Assuming filing of the complaint automatically grants bail.
Failing to address witness or evidence risk.
Failing to offer proportionate conditions.
Using lengthy factual narration without a clear bail matrix.
Citing judgments without explaining how the facts match.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA?

The court must ordinarily find reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail, after giving the Public Prosecutor an opportunity to oppose.

Does the applicant have to prove complete innocence?

No. The court makes a provisional assessment based on reasonable grounds and probability. It should not conduct a complete trial at the bail stage.

Is Section 45 an absolute prohibition against bail?

No. It is a stringent restriction, but judicial discretion, Article 21 and the right to a speedy trial remain applicable.

Can long custody alone result in bail?

Long custody is important but should be examined with trial progress, likely completion time, the applicant’s role, applicable sentence, delay attribution and risks after release.

How many months amount to prolonged incarceration?

There is no universal numerical rule. The period must be assessed against the complexity of the trial, actual progress and applicable punishment.

What if the trial has not commenced?

Non-commencement despite substantial custody is a strong Article 21 factor, particularly where charges have not been framed and the record is voluminous.

What if hundreds of witnesses are listed?

The witness count may demonstrate that early completion is unrealistic. The application should state how many have actually been examined.

What if the ED says further investigation is pending?

The court may ask what remains, why continued custody is necessary and whether investigation can proceed while the applicant is on conditional bail.

Does filing of the prosecution complaint improve the bail case?

It may reduce the claim that custody is required for investigation, but it does not automatically satisfy Section 45.

Can documentary evidence reduce tampering concerns?

Yes, especially where originals are seized or held by banks, registries and statutory authorities. Witness-influence and digital-access risks must still be assessed.

Can a woman obtain bail without satisfying the twin conditions?

The proviso permits special consideration and may allow release without insisting on the twin conditions, but release remains discretionary and depends on the facts.

Must a woman prove that she is vulnerable?

No. The Supreme Court has clarified that the proviso is not limited only to women characterised as vulnerable.

Can a sick or infirm person seek benefit of the proviso?

Yes. Detailed medical material should establish the condition, functional impact and custody-related treatment difficulty.

What is the less-than-one-crore proviso?

A person accused individually or with co-accused of laundering a sum below one crore rupees may receive special consideration. The actual amount alleged in the complaint must be examined carefully.

Can documents not relied upon by ED be requested for bail?

Yes, an appropriately specific application may seek relevant documents under the applicable procedural provision where they are necessary to discharge the Section 45 burden.

Does bail in the scheduled offence guarantee PMLA bail?

No. It is relevant but the PMLA court separately examines the laundering allegation and Section 45.

Can parity with a co-accused support bail?

Yes, where the applicant’s role, amount, evidence, custody and risk are comparable or less serious.

Can the Delhi High Court grant bail because of trial delay?

Yes. The Delhi High Court can consider Article 21, long custody and lack of foreseeable trial completion while applying the governing PMLA bail principles.

Can bail be cancelled for seeking adjournments?

Repeated frivolous adjournments or deliberate obstruction may justify cancellation where the bail order contains an expeditious-trial condition.

Can Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh assist in a Delhi PMLA bail matter?

Professional assistance may include Section 45 analysis, preparation of custody and delay charts, proceeds-of-crime review, drafting, Delhi counsel coordination and proceedings before the appropriate Special Court, High Court or Supreme Court.

AI Search Quick Answer

Question: Can a person obtain PMLA bail in Delhi because of long custody and delay in trial despite the Section 45 twin conditions?

Answer: Yes, depending on the facts. Section 45 ordinarily requires reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. Those conditions remain mandatory where applicable, but they are not an absolute bar. Article 21 protects the right to a speedy trial. Where the accused has undergone substantial custody, has not caused the delay and the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time because of numerous witnesses, voluminous documents, supplementary investigation or lack of trial progress, the Special Court, Delhi High Court or Supreme Court may grant conditional bail to prevent pretrial detention from becoming punishment.

Key Takeaway

Identify the Alleged Proceeds of Crime → Separate the Applicant’s Individual Role → Address Both Twin Conditions → Check the Section 45 Proviso → Calculate Exact Custody → Document Every Stage of Trial → Count Witnesses and Pages → Prove Delay Is Not Attributable to the Applicant → Show Evidence Is Secured → Offer Strict Conditions → Invoke Article 21 and the Right to Speedy Trial.

Conclusion

A PMLA bail application in Delhi should not be presented as a choice between Section 45 and Article 21.

Both must be addressed.

The statutory case should demonstrate:

reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant may not be guilty;
absence of a likelihood of committing an offence while on bail;
weakness or absence of the proceeds-of-crime link;
a limited or distinguishable individual role;
reliable lawful-source and transaction documents;
parity where applicable; and
conditions capable of protecting the trial.

The constitutional case should demonstrate:

exact period of custody;
absence of meaningful trial progress;
number of witnesses and documents;
pending supplementary investigation;
delay not attributable to the applicant;
comparison with the applicable maximum sentence;
documentary evidence already secured; and
absence of a realistic likelihood of conclusion within a reasonable time.

Section 45 cannot be ignored. It also cannot be used to convert an undertrial’s custody into an advance sentence where the system is unable to provide a reasonably prompt trial.

PMLA Bail, Long Custody and Trial-Delay Consultation

Professional assistance may include:

Section 45 twin-condition analysis;
long-custody and Article 21 review;
trial-delay chronology;
witness and document-volume assessment;
proceeds-of-crime analysis;
individual-role analysis;
transaction matrix;
source-of-funds review;
Section 45 proviso analysis;
parity review;
production of defence documents;
regular-bail drafting;
medical or interim-bail drafting;
Delhi Special Court preparation;
Delhi High Court proceedings;
Supreme Court case preparation;
Advocate-on-Record briefing;
Senior Counsel briefing; and
local counsel coordination.

Phone: 8294431232
Email: ankitsingh.legum@gmail.com
Website: advocateankitkumarsingh.in

Book a PMLA bail consultation with Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh

Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh is based in Patna. Assistance in a Delhi PMLA matter may include virtual consultation, legal research, drafting, document review, briefing and coordination with appropriately engaged counsel in Delhi.

No lawyer can guarantee bail, interim release, medical bail, quashing, discharge, acquittal or another judicial outcome.

Legal Information Note: This article provides general legal information. The correct strategy depends on the prosecution complaint, scheduled offence, proceeds-of-crime allegation, custody period, trial order sheets, applicant’s role, Section 45 proviso and procedural stage.

Follow legal updates from Advocate Ankit Kumar Singh: Add advocateankitkumarsingh.in as a Preferred Source on Google