Supreme Court: In a case concerning the grant of regular bail to an accused in a money laundering case registered under Sections 3 and 4 read with Section 70, Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), a Division Bench of M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ., set aside the Calcutta High Court’s order rejecting bail. Taking note of the appellant’s incarceration for about 1 year and 3 months, the fact that cognizance was yet to be taken qua the appellant and the considerable time likely to be required for completion of the trial, the Court held that continued incarceration was not required for that purpose. The Court accordingly granted bail to the appellant, subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the trial court, and directed the trial court to frame charges within 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Background
The appellant was implicated as an accused in M.L. Case No. 11 of 2025, arising out of ECIR No. KLZO-I/21/2023, registered by the Enforcement Directorate for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 read with Section 70 PMLA. The Special Court, vide order dated 22 December 2025, rejected the appellant’s application seeking regular bail. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the Calcutta High Court by filing CRM (R) No. 16 of 2026. However, the High Court, vide impugned order dated 24 July 2026, dismissed the regular bail application. Aggrieved by the denial of bail, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
Analysis
The Court noted the appellant’s submission that, although the prosecution complaint had been filed, cognizance was yet to be taken qua the appellant, who had undergone incarceration for about 1 year and 3 months. The Court further took note of the Enforcement Directorate’s contention that the appellant had misappropriated huge amounts of funds despite the transactions being monitored by the Supreme Court.
The Court noted, on being informed, that the other accused persons who had been arrested had been granted bail, while many other accused persons had not been arrested so far. It further noted that a substantial amount of time would be required for the trial to be completed and held that the continued incarceration of the appellant was not required for that purpose, particularly when the trial was at a nascent stage.
Decision
The Court set aside the impugned order dated 24 July 2026 passed by the Calcutta High Court and granted bail to the appellant on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court concerned. The Court further directed the trial court to frame charges within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
Also Read: DHC denies bail to Arvind Dham in bank fraud case |SCC Times
[Anil Valiaparampil Abraham v. Directorate of Enforcement, Kolkata Zone-1, S.L.P. (CRL.) NO. 15488 of 2026, order dated 16-10-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., D.S. Naidu, Sr. Adv., Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Aditya Chopra, Naman Tandon, AOR, Sahil Sood, Annada Dubey, Shivani Sharma, Barani Bharathi B., Advocates
For the Respondent: Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G., Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Adv., Annam Venkatesh, Sairica S Raju, Animesh Upadhyay, Amrish Kumar, AOR, Arvind Kumar Sharma-aor, Dr Arun Kumar Yadav, Advocates
