30 Landmark ED and PMLA Judgments in India: Latest Supreme Court Law on Arrest, Bail, Attachment and Trial

Direct Answer: Indian PMLA law is principally shaped by a line of Supreme Court judgments holding that money laundering depends upon identifiable proceeds generated from a scheduled offence; ED arrest must strictly comply with Section 19 and Articles 21 and 22; written grounds of arrest must be meaningfully furnished; Section 45 ordinarily imposes twin bail conditions but cannot justify indefinite pre-trial incarceration; ED cannot arrest an accused under Section 19 after the Special Court has taken cognizance; and accused persons retain fair-trial rights concerning cognizance, relied-upon documents and appropriate access to unrelied material. Property attachment, third-party claims, insolvency resolution and confiscation are governed by separate but interconnected statutory principles.

This article analyses 30 judgments that have materially influenced proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The selection includes foundational constitutional rulings, later decisions refining arrest and bail law, and important 2025–2026 developments concerning attachment, insolvency, disclosure and pre-cognizance hearing.

Important: “Top 30” is an editorial description based on legal impact and present relevance. It is not an official ranking by the Supreme Court, Enforcement Directorate or any statutory authority. Every judgment must be applied according to its facts, statutory version and subsequent judicial developments.

Research and Case Snapshot

• Principal court covered: Supreme Court of India.
• Additional courts: Delhi High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court.
• Number of judgments analysed: 30.
• Period covered: Foundational cases through 19 May 2026.
• Latest Supreme Court judgment in this compilation: Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement, dated 19 May 2026.
• Main issues: Constitutional validity, Section 3, proceeds of crime, scheduled offences, Section 19 arrest, Sections 45 and 436A bail, Section 50 statements, attachment, confiscation, third-party interests, insolvency, cognizance and disclosure.
• Time of pronouncement: Not specified separately in most official judgments.
• Research cut-off: 23 July 2026.

Quick Index of the 30 Judgments

1. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India
2. Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India
3. Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement
4. Yash Tuteja v. Union of India
5. Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement
6. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Axis Bank
7. Seema Garg v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
8. Opto Circuit India Ltd. v. Axis Bank
9. Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd.
10. Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
11. V. Senthil Balaji v. State Represented by Deputy Director
12. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India
13. Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement
14. Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement
15. Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma
16. Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement
17. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement
18. Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy
19. Directorate of Enforcement v. Aditya Tripathi
20. Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
21. Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement
22. Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement
23. Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement
24. Prem Prakash v. Union of India
25. V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
26. Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad
27. Udhaw Singh v. Enforcement Directorate
28. Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement
29. Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement
30. Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement

Part I — Constitutional Structure, Proceeds of Crime and Predicate Offences

1. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 27 July 2022.
• Case number: SLP (Criminal) No. 4634 of 2014 and connected matters.
• Reported citation: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929; (2023) 12 SCC 1.
• Main provisions: Sections 2(1)(u), 3, 5, 8, 17, 18, 19, 24, 44, 45 and 50 PMLA.
• Outcome: Most challenged PMLA provisions were upheld.

This is the principal constitutional judgment governing the PMLA. The Court upheld the amended formulation of Section 3, the attachment mechanism, search powers, arrest power, reverse burden and the amended twin bail conditions.

The Court held that money laundering involves one or more processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime, including concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projecting as untainted or claiming as untainted. Such activity may continue so long as a person continues to enjoy or deal with the proceeds.

At the same time, the judgment recognised an indispensable link with the scheduled offence. Property can qualify as “proceeds of crime” only when it is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. If the scheduled case is finally quashed or ends in acquittal establishing that no criminal property was generated, the PMLA foundation ordinarily cannot survive.

The Court further held that an ECIR is an internal ED document and is not equivalent to an FIR. Supply of the ECIR in every case was not made mandatory, although the person arrested must be informed of the grounds of arrest.

Statements under Section 50 were treated differently from police statements because ED officers were not regarded as police officers for this purpose. The review proceedings concerning this judgment have not, as of the research cut-off, displaced its operative ratio.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

2. Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 23 November 2017.
• Reported citation: (2018) 11 SCC 1.
• Main issue: Constitutionality of the earlier Section 45 twin bail conditions.
• Outcome: The then-existing twin conditions were struck down as unconstitutional.

The earlier version of Section 45 linked the stringent twin conditions to offences listed in Part A of the Schedule punishable with imprisonment exceeding three years. The Supreme Court found that arrangement manifestly arbitrary because the bail restriction was not rationally connected with the money-laundering accusation being tried.

The decision is historically important because Parliament thereafter amended Section 45 to connect the twin conditions directly with an offence under the PMLA. The validity of the amended provision was later upheld in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary.

Accordingly, Nikesh Tarachand Shah cannot now be cited to argue that the present Section 45 is entirely inoperative. Its continuing importance lies in constitutional scrutiny of severe bail restrictions and the legislative history of the present provision.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

3. Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 29 November 2023.
• Main issue: When conspiracy under Section 120B IPC constitutes a scheduled offence.
• Outcome: Section 120B is scheduled only where the conspiracy concerns an offence independently included in the PMLA Schedule.

The Court rejected the theory that every allegation under Section 120B IPC automatically supplies a scheduled offence. Criminal conspiracy becomes relevant as a scheduled offence only when the object of the conspiracy is to commit an offence specifically appearing in the PMLA Schedule.

The judgment also clarified that a person prosecuted for money laundering need not necessarily be an accused in the predicate FIR or charge-sheet. The money-laundering offence is distinct in the sense that a later participant may knowingly assist in concealment, possession, acquisition, use or projection of proceeds generated by another person’s scheduled criminal activity.

The practical enquiry therefore has two parts: first, whether a legally sustainable scheduled offence exists; and second, whether the person proceeded against under the PMLA was involved in a process or activity connected with the resulting proceeds.

Read the official Supreme Court order

4. Yash Tuteja v. Union of India

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 8 April 2024.
• Main issue: PMLA prosecution where the alleged conspiracy did not concern a scheduled offence.
• Outcome: PMLA proceedings were quashed for absence of a valid scheduled offence foundation.

Applying Pavana Dibbur, the Court held that Section 120B IPC cannot be used as a universal gateway to initiate PMLA proceedings where the alleged object of conspiracy is not itself a scheduled offence.

Without a scheduled offence, there can be no property derived or obtained from criminal activity relating to such an offence, and therefore no “proceeds of crime” within Section 2(1)(u).

The decision also explained that a prosecution complaint under Section 44(1)(b) is a complaint before the Special Court. The procedural safeguards governing examination of the complaint, dismissal where no sufficient ground exists and issuance of process continue to apply unless expressly displaced by the PMLA.

Read the publicly available copy of the judgment

5. Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 17 March 2025.
• Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 349.
• Main issue: Continuing nature of money laundering and alleged retrospective application.
• Outcome: The Court declined to treat the date of the original criminal activity as the sole controlling factor.

The Court explained that the PMLA cannot retrospectively punish a completely concluded act that was not an offence when committed. However, the date of the scheduled offence or initial acquisition of property does not always conclude the enquiry.

If concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projection or claiming of proceeds continues after the relevant PMLA provision and scheduled entry became operative, the subsequent process or activity may attract Section 3.

The judgment is particularly relevant in older corruption, land and financial-fraud cases where the original offence predates a statutory amendment but the alleged enjoyment, layering or projection of the property continued later.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

Part II — Attachment, Third-Party Rights, Insolvency and Confiscation

6. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Axis Bank

• Court: Delhi High Court.
• Date: 2 April 2019.
• Main issue: Conflict between PMLA attachment and bona fide secured-creditor or third-party interests.
• Outcome: Bona fide third-party interests require adjudication; neither side receives an automatic blanket priority.

This detailed judgment distinguished criminal confiscation from ordinary debt recovery. The State, when tracing and confiscating proceeds of crime, is not merely another creditor. Nevertheless, PMLA proceedings cannot disregard a genuine interest lawfully acquired by a bank or third party without knowledge of the criminal activity.

The timing and character of the interest are critical. A sham mortgage, collusive transfer or interest created after criminal activity may receive no protection. A prior bona fide security interest created for legitimate consideration may entitle the claimant to seek release or restoration through the statutory process.

The decision remains important for banks, financial institutions, auction purchasers and homebuyers, though it must be read with later Supreme Court and High Court decisions emphasising that secured-creditor legislation does not automatically nullify a valid PMLA attachment.

Read the publicly available copy of the judgment

7. Seema Garg v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement

• Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court.
• Date: 6 March 2020.
• Reported citation: 2020 Supreme (P&H) 648.
• Main issues: Attachment of untainted property, equivalent value and statutory duration.
• Outcome: Attachment orders were interfered with on the facts and statutory interpretation applied.

The Court examined whether property not directly derived from crime could be attached merely because it had a value equivalent to alleged proceeds. It adopted a comparatively narrow view of attachment of untainted domestic property, especially where the alleged proceeds were not shown to have been taken or held outside India in the manner contemplated by the statutory explanation then considered.

The judgment also emphasised recorded reasons, the statutory life of provisional attachment and strict adherence to Section 5.

It is a significant defence authority, but it must be used cautiously after Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and subsequent judgments upholding a broader attachment framework. Its application depends heavily upon the date, statutory text, nature of property and factual connection with the alleged proceeds.

Read the publicly available copy of the judgment

8. Opto Circuit India Ltd. v. Axis Bank

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 3 February 2021.
• Neutral citation: 2021 INSC 56.
• Main issue: Freezing of bank accounts under Section 17(1A).
• Outcome: The freezing action was set aside for failure to satisfy mandatory statutory safeguards.

The Court treated restraint of operation of a bank account as a serious statutory measure. The authorised officer must possess and record the required reason to believe, follow the prescribed search-and-seizure framework and forward the material to the Adjudicating Authority.

An investigating agency cannot bypass the conditions of Section 17 by sending a bare communication to a bank and later attempting to justify the restraint through general allegations.

The judgment is frequently relied upon in bank-account de-freezing matters. Its practical value lies in requiring the ED to demonstrate the legal source of the freeze, the recorded satisfaction, connection with proceeds of crime, date of action and compliance with the statutory reporting mechanism.

Read the publicly available copy of the judgment

9. Kalyani Transco v. Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd.

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 26 September 2025.
• Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 1165.
• Main issue: Interaction between PMLA attachment, Section 32A IBC and an approved resolution plan.
• Outcome: Control of attached assets was permitted to the successful resolution applicant through the restitution framework in the peculiar circumstances.

The decision arose from the resolution of Bhushan Power and Steel Limited. It addressed the difficult interface between cleansing a corporate debtor under an approved insolvency plan and continuing criminal action against the erstwhile management.

The Court’s final approach enabled the successful resolution applicant to take control of relevant attached properties by treating the relief through Section 8(8) PMLA and the Restoration of Property Rules, while preserving investigation and prosecution against the alleged individual wrongdoers.

The judgment should not be read as an automatic rule that every approved resolution plan overrides every ED attachment. Its practical message is that a genuine resolution applicant unconnected with the alleged offence may seek statutory protection and restoration, while criminal liability of former promoters and individuals remains unaffected.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

10. Nav Nirman Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 6 February 2026.
• Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 130.
• Main issue: Whether a Special Court may proceed under Section 8(7) while an appeal against the Section 8(3) confirmation order remains pending.
• Outcome: The confiscation-related order was set aside and the statutory appeal restored.

The Supreme Court held that Sections 8(7) and 8(8) are separate, stand-alone provisions. Section 8(7), which permits action where trial cannot be conducted because of specified contingencies, can ordinarily be finally invoked only after the Section 8(3) confirmation order has attained finality.

When an appeal under Section 26, or a further challenge, is pending against the confirmation order, a deemed embargo operates on final proceedings under Section 8(7). The Special Court should not render the statutory appeal meaningless by independently deciding the same foundational property questions.

The Court also held that restoration under the second proviso to Section 8(8) requires satisfaction of the conditions contained in the Restoration of Property Rules. A person challenging attachment cannot automatically claim restoration without proving legitimate interest and quantifiable loss arising from the offence.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

Part III — Arrest, Grounds of Arrest, Remand and Judicial Review

11. V. Senthil Balaji v. State Represented by Deputy Director

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 7 August 2023.
• Neutral citation: 2023 INSC 677.
• Main issues: Section 19 arrest, remand and ED custody.
• Outcome: ED’s statutory arrest and custody powers were recognised, subject to strict safeguards.

The Court examined the legal character of ED officers and their ability to seek custody after arrest under Section 19. It held that the authorised PMLA officer may arrest upon recording the statutory reason to believe and complying with the required procedure.

The Court also explained that a remand court is not a rubber stamp. It must examine whether Section 19 was complied with and whether continued custody is legally justified.

The decision is often cited by the ED for the proposition that its officers may seek custody for effective investigation. It is equally relevant to the defence because the Court treated recorded reasons, communication of grounds, production before the competent court and judicial scrutiny as essential safeguards.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

12. Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 3 October 2023.
• Neutral citation: 2023 INSC 866.
• Main issue: Meaningful communication of grounds of arrest under Section 19 and Article 22(1).
• Outcome: Arrest and remand were set aside; written grounds were directed to be furnished as a matter of course.

This judgment transformed PMLA arrest procedure. Merely reading out complex grounds or allowing a newly arrested person to briefly read them was held insufficient to fulfil the constitutional purpose.

Written grounds enable the arrested person to consult counsel, challenge the “reason to believe” and attempt to satisfy the demanding Section 45 test. The grounds must be individualised and meaningful, not a generic reproduction of the ECIR or prosecution narrative.

The Court also held that alleged evasiveness is not equivalent to guilt. An investigating officer cannot expect a person summoned under Section 50 to confess and then describe the absence of confession as non-cooperation justifying arrest.

The case remains one of the most important authorities for challenging unlawful ED arrest.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

13. Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 15 December 2023.
• Main issue: Timing and manner of furnishing grounds of arrest after Pankaj Bansal.
• Outcome: The arrest challenge failed on the specific facts, while the written-ground requirement was explained.

The Court considered the expression “as soon as may be” in Section 19. It held that there may be a narrow practical interval between arrest and supply of the detailed written grounds, but the grounds must be furnished without avoidable delay and within sufficient time for the arrestee to effectively challenge remand and seek bail.

The decision should not be read as authorising indefinite or post-remand supply. Its effect is fact-specific: the constitutional and statutory purpose must be achieved, and the arrested person must actually receive meaningful information.

The judgment also discussed the prospective operation of the procedural direction in Pankaj Bansal. Later constitutional-arrest judgments have continued to emphasise that the right is substantive and that non-compliance may render custody illegal.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

14. Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 12 July 2024.
• Main issue: Scope of judicial review over an arrest based upon the authorised officer’s “reason to believe.”
• Outcome: Important questions were referred for larger consideration; interim relief was granted in the circumstances.

The Court rejected the idea that an arrest under Section 19 becomes immune from meaningful judicial examination merely because the authorised officer states that incriminating material exists.

The reviewing court does not conduct a trial at the arrest stage, but it may examine whether relevant material existed, whether irrelevant material was relied upon, whether exculpatory material was completely ignored and whether the recorded belief had a rational connection with the alleged money-laundering offence.

The judgment also drew attention to the distinction between possession of power to arrest and necessity to arrest. Section 19 uses discretionary language; the existence of power does not require arrest in every investigation.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

15. Directorate of Enforcement v. Subhash Sharma

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 21 January 2025.
• Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 141.
• Main issue: Detention and failure to produce the arrested person before a court within twenty-four hours.
• Outcome: The arrest was treated as illegal and release was upheld.

The Court held that constitutional safeguards apply with full force in PMLA cases. A person cannot be effectively detained through a look-out circular or other coercive process and then kept outside judicial supervision beyond the constitutionally permitted period.

Article 22(2), Section 57 CrPC and the corresponding procedural provisions require production before the competent court within twenty-four hours, excluding permissible travel time.

Once the court finds that the arrest or custody violates a fundamental constitutional safeguard, Section 45 cannot be used to perpetuate that illegal detention. The twin conditions regulate lawful bail adjudication; they do not validate an unconstitutional arrest.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

Part IV — Bail, Anticipatory Bail and Section 45

16. Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 10 November 2017.
• Reported citation: (2018) 11 SCC 46.
• Main issue: Bail assessment based on financial trail and Section 50 material.
• Outcome: Bail was declined.

The Court treated organised laundering of large amounts as a serious economic offence and considered statements, banking material and surrounding financial circumstances at the prima facie stage.

The judgment is frequently relied upon by the ED to argue that economic offences require a different approach because they may involve layered transactions, sophisticated planning and broader economic harm.

It does not permit a court to presume guilt merely from the amount alleged. The prosecution must still identify the proceeds, the applicant’s process or activity concerning them and the material supporting that role. Later judgments on personal liberty and delayed trial must also be considered alongside Rohit Tandon.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

17. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 5 September 2019.
• Reported citation: (2019) 9 SCC 24.
• Main issue: Anticipatory bail and custodial interrogation in a complex economic investigation.
• Outcome: Anticipatory bail was declined.

The Court held that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretionary remedy and that effective custodial interrogation may be relevant in complex financial cases involving concealed transactions and multiple participants.

At the same time, the anticipatory-bail court should not conduct a detailed mini-trial or conclusively determine the evidentiary worth of sealed or disputed investigative material.

The judgment is often cited where the ED seeks custody for tracing funds, confronting records and identifying a wider transaction chain. The defence should therefore directly address what recovery, device, document, password or confrontation remains pending and why interrogation can occur without arrest.

Read the official Supreme Court order

18. Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 24 February 2023.
• Main issue: Applicability of Section 45 to anticipatory bail.
• Outcome: The anticipatory-bail order was set aside.

The Court confirmed that the rigours of Section 45 are relevant not only after arrest but also when pre-arrest protection is sought in a PMLA case.

A High Court cannot grant anticipatory bail by applying only ordinary considerations under Section 438 CrPC while ignoring the special statutory limitations. It must consider the alleged generation and handling of proceeds, role of the applicant, investigation requirements and the twin conditions.

The judgment is particularly relevant where an anticipatory-bail order contains only general observations concerning cooperation, social status or absence of antecedents without analysing the money trail and statutory threshold.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

19. Directorate of Enforcement v. Aditya Tripathi

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 12 May 2023.
• Main issue: Grant of bail without proper consideration of Section 45 and continuing investigation.
• Outcome: Bail orders were set aside.

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not properly evaluated the statutory conditions, role attributed to the accused and investigation material.

A bail order under the PMLA must reveal that the court has applied its mind to the two Section 45 requirements. A generic statement that the accused has been in custody, has cooperated or is unlikely to abscond may be insufficient where the complaint alleges an active role in generating, layering or concealing proceeds.

The decision is frequently used to challenge cryptic bail orders. It must, however, be read with the later line of cases holding that Section 45 cannot justify incarceration for an unreasonable period where the trial is unlikely to conclude.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

20. Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 20 November 2023.
• Neutral citation: 2023 INSC 1006.
• Main issue: Prima facie Section 45 assessment and evidentiary use of Section 50 statements.
• Outcome: Bail was declined.

The Court clarified that the expression “reasonable grounds for believing” requires something more substantial than a bare possibility but does not require a final finding of innocence at the bail stage.

The court may examine the prosecution complaint, financial documents and statements recorded under Section 50 to determine whether the material forms a credible prima facie case.

The judgment is regularly relied upon for the admissibility and relevance of Section 50 statements. A defence challenge should therefore address voluntariness, the capacity in which the statement was recorded, internal inconsistencies, corroboration and whether a statement of a co-accused is being improperly treated as standalone substantive proof.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

21. Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 14 December 2023.
• Neutral citation: 2023 INSC 1073.
• Main issues: Women’s proviso to Section 45, prima facie evidence and suppression of facts.
• Outcome: Bail was declined and costs were imposed.

The first proviso to Section 45 empowers the Special Court to release a woman, a person below sixteen years, a sick or infirm person, and specified small-value accused persons without mechanically applying the ordinary twin-condition bar.

The Supreme Court held that the proviso is discretionary, not an automatic command to release every woman. Courts must remain sensitive to women who may be vulnerable or used as instruments by others, but must also examine the applicant’s education, position, active role, evidence and surrounding circumstances.

The Court found substantial prima facie material regarding the applicant’s alleged role and also deprecated inaccurate statements made in the proceedings. The case demonstrates that concealment or misrepresentation before the bail court may independently damage the request for discretionary relief.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

22. Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 9 August 2024.
• Neutral citation: 2024 INSC 595.
• Main issue: Prolonged incarceration and delayed trial under stringent bail provisions.
• Outcome: Bail was granted.

The Court held that the constitutional right to a speedy trial remains applicable even where a special statute imposes stringent bail conditions.

Where the prosecution relies upon voluminous records, proposes to examine a very large number of witnesses and cannot show a realistic prospect of an early trial, continued incarceration may become punitive.

The Court rejected the practice of keeping an accused in custody for an indefinite period merely by repeating that the accusation is serious. Section 45 must be harmonised with Article 21, Section 436A CrPC and the principle that pre-trial detention cannot substitute punishment.

The judgment is particularly useful where custody has become substantial, charges are not framed, witness examination has barely begun and delay is not attributable to the accused.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

23. Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 27 August 2024.
• Neutral citation: 2024 INSC 632.
• Main issue: Scope of the statutory proviso in favour of women.
• Outcome: Bail was granted.

The Supreme Court rejected an interpretation that would confine the benefit of the proviso only to women who are uneducated, socially weak or conventionally vulnerable.

The statute uses the category “woman” without creating an educational, political or professional disqualification. A woman does not lose the possibility of beneficial consideration merely because she is educated, financially capable or a public representative.

The benefit nevertheless remains discretionary. Courts must examine the role, evidence, custody, possibility of tampering, stage of investigation and trial.

This judgment should be read with Saumya Chaurasia. Together, they establish that the proviso is neither automatic nor restricted to a judicially invented subclass of vulnerable women.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

24. Prem Prakash v. Union of India

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 28 August 2024.
• Neutral citation: 2024 INSC 637.
• Main issues: Bail as the rule, Section 50 statements and statements recorded while already in custody.
• Outcome: Bail was granted.

The Court reiterated that the foundational principle “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” is not erased by the PMLA. Section 45 changes the threshold but does not abolish judicial responsibility to protect liberty.

A significant part of the judgment concerns statements obtained when the accused was already in custody in another ECIR investigated by the same agency. The Court held that a statement recorded in such circumstances could not automatically be used as an ordinary voluntary Section 50 statement against its maker.

The Court also cautioned that a confession of a co-accused is not substantive evidence by itself. It may lend assurance to other evidence but cannot replace proof of the applicant’s own involvement.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

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

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 26 September 2024.
• Neutral citation: 2024 INSC 739.
• Main issue: Section 45, long custody and impossibility of early trial.
• Outcome: Bail was granted.

The Court held that stringent bail restrictions and a trial incapable of concluding within a reasonable time cannot coexist indefinitely.

Where the scheduled case and PMLA prosecution involve numerous accused, documents and witnesses, the court must realistically assess when trial may finish. A theoretical possibility of eventual trial cannot justify years of pre-conviction custody.

The judgment strengthens the Article 21 line developed in Manish Sisodia. It does not dilute Section 45 in every case. It provides constitutional relief where the detention period, maximum sentence, trial complexity and pace of proceedings demonstrate that continued custody would be disproportionate.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

26. Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 13 February 2025.
• Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 210.
• Origin: Bail granted by the Patna High Court.
• Outcome: The bail order was set aside.

The Supreme Court held that a casual or cryptic order granting bail in a PMLA case cannot be sustained when it fails to examine the seriousness of the allegation, role of the accused and statutory twin conditions.

The Patna High Court had relied upon considerations that the Supreme Court found inadequate to satisfy Section 45. The decision confirms that the High Court must record an intelligible prima facie assessment rather than merely recite ordinary bail factors.

The judgment is particularly relevant to PMLA practice in Bihar. A defence bail application should therefore identify specific exculpatory features, weaknesses in the money trail, absence of possession or control, custody period and trial status rather than relying only upon parity, cooperation or lack of antecedents.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

27. Udhaw Singh v. Enforcement Directorate

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 17 February 2025.
• Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 247.
• Main issue: Delay in trial and prolonged custody.
• Outcome: Bail was granted.

The accused had remained in custody for more than a year, while the prosecution proposed approximately 225 witnesses and had examined only a negligible number.

The Court distinguished the case from an ordinary merits-based challenge to Section 45. Even where the accusation is serious, the court must consider whether the prosecution can complete the trial within a reasonable period.

The judgment demonstrates that Kanhaiya Prasad and the delay cases operate in different fields. A cryptic grant ignoring Section 45 may be set aside; conversely, properly reasoned constitutional bail may be granted where continued detention has become disproportionate because the trial is moving exceptionally slowly.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

Part V — Cognizance, Trial Procedure and Rights of the Accused

28. Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 16 May 2024.
• Neutral citation: 2024 INSC 434.
• Main issue: ED’s power to arrest after the Special Court takes cognizance.
• Outcome: ED cannot use Section 19 to arrest an accused after cognizance of the prosecution complaint.

This judgment created a major procedural distinction between investigation-stage arrest and court-controlled proceedings after cognizance.

Once the Special Court takes cognizance of the PMLA complaint, the accused is subject to the court’s process. If the person appears pursuant to summons, that appearance does not by itself amount to custody requiring a bail application under Section 45.

The court may accept a bond to secure future appearance. If the ED requires custody after cognizance, it must seek an appropriate order from the Special Court and establish the necessity; it cannot independently invoke Section 19 as though the case remained entirely at the investigative stage.

The judgment is especially valuable for persons who were never arrested during investigation but are summoned after filing of the prosecution complaint.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

29. Sarla Gupta v. Directorate of Enforcement

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 7 May 2025.
• Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 645.
• Main issue: Supply and access to relied-upon and unrelied documents in a PMLA prosecution.
• Outcome: Fair-trial and disclosure principles were clarified.

The Court held that documents annexed to or produced with the prosecution complaint and relied upon for cognizance form part of the complaint record and must be supplied in accordance with law.

The accused does not receive an unrestricted right at the charge stage to demand copies of every document collected during investigation. However, the prosecution must disclose the list of unrelied documents, and the accused may seek production or access at an appropriate stage where a document is necessary for a fair defence.

This safeguard assumes particular importance under the PMLA because Section 24 and Section 45 impose unusual burdens upon the accused. A prosecution cannot selectively rely upon inculpatory material while concealing the existence of documents that may become relevant to cross-examination, discharge, defence or adverse inference.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

30. Parvinder Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement

• Court: Supreme Court of India.
• Date: 19 May 2026.
• Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 519.
• Main issue: Mandatory hearing under Section 223(1) BNSS before cognizance of a PMLA complaint.
• Outcome: Cognizance taken without the mandatory opportunity of hearing was treated as legally unsustainable.

The Court held that the PMLA does not displace general procedural safeguards unless an inconsistency exists. Section 71 gives PMLA overriding effect only in the event of inconsistency; it does not erase every beneficial BNSS provision.

For complaints governed by the BNSS, the proviso to Section 223(1) requires an opportunity of hearing to the accused before cognizance is taken. A Special PMLA Court cannot bypass this requirement merely because Section 44 permits direct cognizance without committal.

The ruling is highly significant for prosecution complaints filed and considered after 1 July 2024. It has also influenced Patna High Court proceedings in which cognizance orders were questioned for lack of pre-cognizance hearing.

The hearing is not a full trial. It is an opportunity to identify threshold defects such as lack of a scheduled offence, limitation, absence of jurisdiction or failure of the complaint to disclose Section 3 ingredients.

Read the official Supreme Court judgment

What These 30 Judgments Establish Collectively

1. A Scheduled Offence Is the Legal Foundation

Money laundering is not completely detached from the scheduled offence. The ED must identify criminal activity relating to an offence listed in the Schedule and property derived or obtained from that activity.

A PMLA accused need not be an accused in the predicate case, but there must still be legally identifiable proceeds generated by a sustainable scheduled offence.

2. Mere Possession of Power Does Not Make Every Arrest Necessary

Section 19 authorises arrest only where the competent officer, on the basis of material in possession, records reasons to believe that the person is guilty of money laundering.

The arrest must be individualised, procedurally valid and constitutionally reviewable.

3. Written Grounds of Arrest Are Central to the Defence

The arrested person must understand the precise transaction, proceeds, role and material relied upon. A broad allegation that the person was “non-cooperative” or “involved in laundering” is not a substitute for detailed grounds.

4. Section 45 Is Stringent but Not Absolute

The court must ordinarily satisfy the twin conditions. However, illegality of arrest, statutory provisos, prolonged incarceration, Section 436A and Article 21 may justify release in appropriate circumstances.

5. Bail Orders Must Be Reasoned

Both grant and refusal require application of mind. A bail order cannot mechanically reproduce the prosecution allegations, nor can it casually ignore the statutory threshold.

6. Trial Delay Has Constitutional Consequences

A special statute cannot permit detention to continue until it becomes equivalent to a substantial portion of the possible sentence while the prosecution is unable to progress with trial.

7. Attachment Is Not the Same as Conviction

Provisional attachment preserves property pending adjudication and trial. The person affected retains statutory appeals, third-party remedies and restoration claims.

8. Third Parties Must Prove Good Faith

Banks, purchasers, homebuyers and resolution applicants must establish legitimate consideration, lack of knowledge, absence of connivance and the chronology of their interest.

9. Cognizance Is a Judicial Function

The Special Court must independently examine the prosecution complaint. After the BNSS, a mandatory pre-cognizance hearing may apply to the accused under Section 223(1).

10. PMLA Accused Retain Fair-Trial Rights

The special nature of the statute does not eliminate disclosure, cross-examination, production of relevant records, legal representation or constitutional protection against unlawful detention.

Stage-Wise Application of the Judgments

At the ECIR and Summons Stage

• Verify the scheduled offence and exact scheduled provisions.
• Identify whether the person is called as a witness, suspect or person controlling records.
• Preserve every summons and written response.
• Do not assume that an ECIR must always be supplied.
• Do not make unnecessary admissions without examining the underlying transaction.
• Produce records through a properly indexed and acknowledged submission.

At the Search, Seizure or Freezing Stage

• Obtain the panchnama, seizure memo and inventory.
• Identify the statutory provision used.
• Check whether reasons to believe were recorded.
• Verify forwarding to the Adjudicating Authority.
• Distinguish proceeds of crime from independent or third-party property.
• Challenge indefinite or procedurally unsupported bank restraints.

At the Arrest Stage

• Demand the written, individualised grounds of arrest.
• Record the exact time and place of arrest.
• Check the arrest memo and acknowledgment.
• Verify communication to family or nominated person.
• Ensure production before the competent court within twenty-four hours.
• Request the remand court to independently examine Section 19 compliance.

At the Bail Stage

• Address both Section 45 conditions specifically.
• Identify exculpatory financial and documentary material.
• Challenge unsupported reliance on co-accused statements.
• Explain why custody or further custody is unnecessary.
• Place custody duration and realistic trial timeline on record.
• Invoke the applicable statutory proviso for a woman, child, sick or infirm accused.
• Disclose all previous applications and criminal antecedents accurately.

At the Attachment Stage

• Trace the source and date of acquisition of each property.
• Separate directly tainted property from equivalent-value property.
• Prove any bona fide mortgage, purchase, inheritance or third-party interest.
• File the Section 26 appeal within limitation.
• Seek interim protection so that the statutory appeal is not rendered meaningless.
• Use Sections 8(7) and 8(8) only for their distinct statutory purposes.

At the Cognizance and Trial Stage

• Seek the statutory pre-cognizance hearing where the BNSS applies.
• Verify that the complaint discloses every Section 3 ingredient.
• Demand the complete complaint and relied-upon annexures.
• Obtain the list of unrelied documents.
• Move for production of necessary exculpatory material at the appropriate stage.
• Where the accused was not arrested during investigation, rely upon the procedure explained in Tarsem Lal.

Documents Required for a PMLA Case Review

• Predicate FIR and every supplementary FIR;
• Charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheets in the scheduled case;
• ECIR reference, where known;
• All Section 50 summons;
• Statements recorded under Section 50;
• Written replies and adjournment requests;
• Search authorisation and panchnama;
• Seizure and freezing orders;
• Provisional attachment order;
• Original complaint before the Adjudicating Authority;
• Section 8(3) confirmation order;
• Appeal before the PMLA Appellate Tribunal;
• Arrest order and written grounds of arrest;
• Remand applications and remand orders;
• Prosecution complaint and supplementary complaints;
• Cognizance and summoning order;
• Relied-upon document index;
• List of unrelied documents;
• Bank statements and transaction trail;
• Property title, valuation and acquisition records;
• Company records and beneficial-ownership documents;
• Earlier bail, writ, appeal and quashing orders; and
• Complete date-wise procedural chronology.

Common Mistakes in Relying on PMLA Judgments

• Quoting an old judgment without checking the statutory amendment;
• Relying on Nikesh Tarachand Shah as though present Section 45 remains struck down;
• Assuming every conspiracy allegation creates a scheduled offence;
• Assuming an accused must be named in the predicate FIR;
• Treating every asset owned by an accused as proceeds of crime;
• Confusing freezing, seizure, attachment and confiscation;