Supreme Court Grants Bail to Sanjay Sureka in PMLA Case, Says Long Custody Cannot Become Punishment - Court rejects challenge to arrest over five-day delay in forwarding papers to Adjudicating Authority, but holds prolonged incarceration and unlikely early trial justify bail under Article 21
The Supreme Court on Thursday granted bail to Sanjay Sureka alias Sanjay Kumar Sureka in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), holding that continued incarceration for over 20 months could not be justified when the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi dismissed the appellant’s challenge to the legality of his arrest, ruling that a five-day delay in forwarding the arrest order and related material to the Adjudicating Authority under Section 19(2) of the PMLA did not, by itself, vitiate the arrest. The Court said the Act does not prescribe any fixed timeline for such forwarding, and the expression “immediately” must be understood in a practical and expeditious sense, not as a rigid 24-hour requirement.
The case arose out of allegations that Sureka orchestrated a complex financial fraud involving M/s Concast Steel and Power Limited, allegedly inflating turnover, securing bank credit, and diverting funds through 62 shell companies. The Enforcement Directorate claimed the proceeds of crime amounted to over Rs. 6,210 crore. The Court noted that investigation qua the appellant had already been completed and prosecution complaints had been filed, but the overall case involved 97 accused persons, 48 witnesses, and around 15,000 pages of documents.
While acknowledging the seriousness of economic offences and the stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, the Court held that those statutory restrictions cannot override the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21. Relying on earlier precedent, including Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Bench observed that prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be allowed to become punishment in itself.
The Court found that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future given the scale and complexity of the case. It therefore concluded that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the accused in custody any longer.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed Sureka’s release on bail, subject to conditions including furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, depositing his passport, not leaving the country without prior permission, and refraining from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The trial court was also given liberty to cancel bail in the event of any violation.
The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the question of bail and should not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.
Bottom Line:
In economic offences under PMLA, though Section 45 imposes stringent twin conditions, prolonged incarceration and unlikely early conclusion of trial attract constitutional protection under Article 21 - Delay of five days in forwarding arrest order and material to Adjudicating Authority under Section 19(2) does not by itself vitiate arrest, where statute prescribes no fixed timeline and forwarding is done expeditiously.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Section 19(2), Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Section 45, Constitution of India, 1950 Article 21, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 439, Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 120B, 420, 477A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2)
