Introduction

Bail in PMLA cases is one of the hardest things to obtain in Indian criminal law. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) imposes some of the most stringent bail conditions in any statute. Yet, the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court have, in a series of landmark judgments, carved out circumstances where bail must be granted — even under PMLA. In this article I have tried to cover following issues:

• What makes PMLA bail so difficult
• The Section 45 PMLA twin conditions explained
• The rigours of PMLA bail
• When courts have granted bail in PMLA cases
• Key Supreme Court judgments where bail was granted
• Key Delhi High Court judgments where bail was granted
• Practical checklist for PMLA bail applications

If you are an accused, a family member, or a lawyer dealing with a PMLA matter, this guide will give you a complete and current picture of PMLA bail jurisprudence in India, which comes from my practice experience in PMLA cases.

What Is the PMLA? A Quick Overview

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act,Bail in PMLA Cases: Supreme Court and Delhi High Court — Complete Guide (2025) 2002 (PMLA) is India’s principal legislation against money laundering. It is enforced by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), a central agency under the Ministry of Finance.

Under the PMLA, money laundering means:

Knowingly dealing with, concealing, acquiring, possessing, or using proceeds of crime so as to project them as untainted property.

The predicate offence – the underlying scheduled crime (such as fraud, corruption, narcotics, or cheating) – must be committed first. The proceeds of that crime become “proceeds of crime” under PMLA. Dealing with those proceeds constitutes money laundering.

The maximum punishment under PMLA is rigorous imprisonment of up to 7 years (up to 10 years in narcotics-linked cases). This makes PMLA a serious criminal statute with major consequences for bail.

For related reading on how criminal conspiracy interacts with PMLA proceedings, see: Section 61 BNS — Criminal Conspiracy and PMLA

Why Is Bail in PMLA Cases So Difficult?

1. Section 45 PMLA — The Twin Conditions

The core of PMLA bail difficulty is Section 45 of the PMLA. It imposes two conditions — known as the twin conditions — that must be satisfied before any bail can be granted:

First Condition: The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the PMLA offence.

Second Condition: The court must be satisfied that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

These conditions are extremely hard to satisfy. They effectively reverse the presumption of innocence. Under normal criminal law, it is for the prosecution to prove guilt. Under Section 45 PMLA, the accused must demonstrate non-guilt before being released.

2. Section 45 Applies to All Courts (Except High Courts Under Article 226)

The twin conditions apply to the Special PMLA Court, Sessions Court, and in bail applications under Section 439 BNSS (formerly CrPC) before High Courts. However, the Supreme Court has held that High Courts can use their Constitutional powers under Article 226 to grant bail without being strictly bound by Section 45, where fundamental rights are violated.

3. PMLA Offences Are Non-Bailable

PMLA offences are non-bailable. There is no automatic right to bail. Bail must be applied for and granted by the court after applying its mind to the twin conditions.

4. Deemed Custody and Stringent Procedure

Under the PMLA, the ED has wide powers of arrest under Section 19 PMLA. The grounds of arrest must be furnished in writing to the accused (as held in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023). Failure to do so renders the arrest illegal.

The Constitutional Validity of Section 45 PMLA

The twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA were challenged as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, in a three-judge Constitution Bench, upheld their validity in:

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929

The Court held that Section 45 is constitutionally valid and does not violate Articles 14, 19, or 21. However, it also held that the constitutional courts (High Court and Supreme Court) retain their inherent powers to grant bail where fundamental rights are breached.

This judgment remains the baseline. All PMLA bail jurisprudence post-2022 builds on it.

The Rigours of Bail in PMLA Cases — What Accused Persons Face

Understanding the rigours of bail in PMLA matters is essential. Here is a structured breakdown of what the court examines:

Rigour 1 — Proof of Non-Guilt (Prima Facie)

The accused must show, at the bail stage itself, that the prosecution’s case is not prima facie believable. This means:

• No proceeds of crime attributable to the accused
• No role in placement, layering, or integration of proceeds
• No link between the accused and the predicate offence

This is extremely difficult without access to the full investigation material.

Rigour 2 — No Future Offending

The accused must show they will not commit a crime while on bail. Courts consider:

• Past criminal record
• Nature of the alleged offence
• Whether the accused is part of a continuing criminal enterprise

Rigour 3 — Flight Risk Assessment

Courts assess whether the accused will:

• Surrender their passport
• Appear before the court regularly
• Cooperate with the trial process

Rigour 4 — Influence Over Witnesses and Evidence

Courts consider:

• Whether the accused is powerful or influential
• Whether witnesses are at risk of being tampered with
• Whether evidence can be destroyed

Rigour 5 — Nature and Gravity of Offence

Courts look at:

• The quantum of alleged proceeds of crime
• The public impact of the alleged money laundering
• Whether the offence is part of a larger conspiracy

Rigour 6 — Status of Trial and Chargesheet

Courts assess:

• Whether a chargesheet has been filed
• Whether cognizance has been taken
• Whether trial has commenced

When Do Courts Grant Bail in PMLA Cases?

Despite the rigours above, courts — including the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court — have granted bail in PMLA cases in the following circumstances:

Ground 1: Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial

This is the strongest ground for bail in PMLA matters today. If the accused has been in custody for a long period and the trial has not commenced, courts treat this as a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and personal liberty).

Ground 2: Illegal Arrest / Procedural Violation

If the arrest did not follow PMLA procedure — grounds not furnished in writing, not produced before magistrate within 24 hours, or arrest post-cognizance without court permission — the arrest is illegal and bail becomes a right.

Ground 3: No Proceeds of Crime Attributable to Accused

If the ED has not established that any proceeds of crime are attributable to the specific accused, the first twin condition tilts in the accused’s favour.

Ground 4: Summons, Not Arrest

Where the accused was not arrested but appeared pursuant to a summons issued by the Special Court, the twin conditions under Section 45 do not apply at all.

Ground 5: Closure of Predicate Offence

If the police have filed a closure report in the underlying predicate offence against the accused, or the accused has been acquitted in the predicate offence, the PMLA case against them is severely weakened and almost close.

Ground 6: Health Grounds

Courts have granted interim and regular bail in PMLA cases on medical/health grounds where the accused’s physical condition makes continued detention inhumane.

Supreme Court Judgments Where Bail Was Granted in PMLA Cases

1. Manish Sisodia v. ED & CBI (August 9, 2024)

Ground for Bail: Prolonged incarceration + denial of right to speedy trial. Manish Sisodia, former Deputy CM of Delhi, was arrested in February–March 2023 in the Delhi Excise Policy case. After 17 months in custody without trial commencing, the Supreme Court granted bail.

Key holdings:

• Bail is the norm, jail is the exception — even in PMLA cases.
• Prolonged incarceration without trial progress violates Article 21.
• Keeping an accused in custody till completion of trial — with 493 witnesses and thousands of documents to be examined — would be a travesty of justice.
• The right to a speedy trial cannot be suspended because the offence is serious.
• The court rejected the ED’s argument that Sisodia should approach the trial court for bail — calling such a process a game of “snakes and ladders.”

Significance: This is the leading Supreme Court precedent on Article 21 as a ground for bail in PMLA cases.

2. Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 INSC 434)

Ground for Bail: Summons-based appearance — twin conditions inapplicable. This landmark judgment clarified a critical procedural point:

Key holdings:

• Once the Special Court takes cognizance of a PMLA complaint, the ED cannot arrest an accused named in that complaint without the court’s permission.
• If the accused appears before the Special Court in response to a summons (not pursuant to arrest), the twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA do not apply.
• The bond accepted by the court from a person appearing on summons is a Section 88 CrPC bond, not a bail bond. They are not in “custody” in the legal sense.
• Bail is the preferred tool even in PMLA cases; summons should be the default mode to secure presence.

Significance: This judgment is the strongest protection for accused who were not arrested during investigation. It substantially limits ED’s power post-cognizance.

3. Enforcement Directorate v. Subhash Sharma (2025)

Ground for Bail: Constitutional violation of arrest procedure

Key holdings:

• Section 57 CrPC (production before magistrate within 24 hours) applies to PMLA through Section 65 PMLA.
• An arrest that violates Article 22(2) of the Constitution — the right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours — is illegal.
• An illegal arrest vitiates detention entirely.
• The accused must be released on bail irrespective of Section 45 PMLA twin conditions when the arrest is constitutionally infirm.

Significance: Illegal arrest is an absolute ground for bail, overriding even the twin conditions.

4. Arvind Dham v. Enforcement Directorate (January 6, 2026)

Ground for Bail: Prolonged incarceration — Article 21. Arvind Dham, former chairman of Amtek Auto, was accused of bank fraud worth ₹38,000 crore. He was granted bail after 16 months and 20 days in custody.

Key holdings:

• The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is not overridden by the nature or gravity of the offence.
• Prolonged incarceration without trial progress converts pre-trial detention into punishment — which is unconstitutional.
• All economic offences are not equal — each case must be judged on its own facts.
• Courts must balance gravity of offence, surrounding circumstances, and the likely sentence.

Significance: Even in a ₹38,000 crore fraud case, Article 21 trumped the gravity argument.

5. P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC 791

Ground for Bail: Standard triple test — no flight risk, no evidence tampering, no repeat offending. Former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram was granted bail by the Supreme Court in the INX Media PMLA case after about 49 days in CBI custody.

Key holdings:

• Even in grave economic offence cases, bail cannot be refused mechanically.
• The triple test (flight risk, evidence tampering, witness influence) is the primary consideration.
• The court rejected the argument that Chidambaram was a flight risk, noting that a senior advocate and former minister was unlikely to abscond.
• The accused’s status, roots in society, and past conduct are relevant.

Significance: Established that the triple test applies even in PMLA/CBI cases and that status/roots of an accused can support bail.

6. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 — The 2G Spectrum Case

Ground for Bail: Bail is not punitive — presence at trial is the objective

Key holdings:

• The purpose of bail is not punishment but securing presence at trial.
• The mere seriousness of an offence — even in a massive scam — is not a ground for refusing bail.
• Courts must not refuse bail only because the accused has been in custody for a long time.

Significance: One of the earliest Supreme Court decisions establishing that bail is possible even in high-profile economic scam cases.

7. Sarla Gupta v. Enforcement Directorate (2025) 7 SCC 626

Ground: Right to documents — strengthens bail applications

Key holdings:

• An accused under PMLA has the right to receive all documents collected during ED investigation, not just those relied upon.
• This right enhances the accused’s ability to challenge the prosecution’s case at the bail stage.

Significance: A strong tool to meet the first twin condition — demonstrating non-guilt at the bail stage.

Delhi High Court Judgments on Bail in PMLA Cases

1. V. Hansprakash v. State (NCT of Delhi) — IL&FS Securities Fraud

Ground for Bail: Custody no longer required

The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the Chief Business Strategy Officer of IL&FS Securities Services Ltd. in connection with the Dalmia Cements fraud case. The court noted that custody was no longer required for the purposes of investigation or trial. The accused had been cooperative.

Significance: Cooperation with investigation and limited custodial necessity are relevant grounds for bail in Delhi High Court PMLA matters.

2. Delhi High Court — General Principles on PMLA Bail

The Delhi High Court has, in a series of decisions, laid down the following principles for bail in PMLA cases:

Principle 1 — Triple Test Applies First: Even in PMLA cases, the court applies the triple test: flight risk, witness tampering, and evidence destruction. If all three are satisfactorily addressed, bail is possible despite the twin conditions.

Principle 2 — Proceeds of Crime Must Be Proved: The ED must demonstrate that proceeds of crime exist and are attributable to the specific accused. Vague allegations are not sufficient.

Principle 3 — Accused’s Status After Losing Office: Where an accused has lost the public office or position from which they allegedly committed the offence (e.g., a Minister no longer in power), the argument of “influence over witnesses” is weakened.

Principle 4 — Coaccused Bail in Predicate Offence: If bail has been granted to the accused or co-accused in the predicate offence and no proceeds of crime have been identified, this strongly supports PMLA bail.

Principle 5 — Minister or Senior Position No Bar: The Delhi High Court, following the Supreme Court, has held that seniority of position does not automatically bar bail. The test remains: flight risk, evidence tampering, and witness influence.

What Courts Look for in a PMLA Bail Application — Practical Guide

Step 1: Challenge the Arrest (If Grounds Exist)

• Were written grounds of arrest furnished? (Pankaj Bansal v. UOI, 2023)
• Was the accused produced before a magistrate within 24 hours?
• Was the arrest made after cognizance? If so, was court permission obtained? (Tarsem Lal, 2024)

If any of these were violated, the arrest is illegal and bail becomes a right.

Step 2: Assess the Twin Conditions

First Condition — Not Prima Facie Guilty:

• Has the ED established proceeds of crime specifically attributable to you?
• Are you named in the predicate offence? Is the predicate FIR strong?
• Has the co-accused in the predicate offence been granted bail?
• Has there been a closure report or acquittal in the predicate offence?

Second Condition — No Future Offending:

• Is the offence alleged to be a one-time event or continuing?
• Have you lost the position from which you allegedly acted?
• Is there any prior criminal record?

Step 3: Assert Article 21 Rights

• How long have you been in custody?
• Has the trial commenced?
• How many witnesses and documents are involved?
• Is there any realistic timeline for trial completion?

If custody exceeds 12–18 months without trial, Article 21 arguments are strong.

Step 4: Address the Triple Test

• Surrender your passport.
• Show strong roots in society (family, property, employment).
• Show no history of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
• Propose conditions (regular appearance, travel restrictions, no contact with witnesses).

Step 5: Rely on All Documents

Under Sarla Gupta (2025), you have the right to all investigation documents. Demand them. Use them to challenge the prosecution’s prima facie case.

Key Provisions Under BNSS Affecting PMLA Bail (Post July 1, 2024)

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced the CrPC from July 1, 2024. Key changes relevant to PMLA bail:

Section 223 BNSS (new provision): Gives the accused the right to be heard before the court takes cognizance of a chargesheet. The Supreme Court is currently considering its applicability to cases where cognizance was taken before July 1, 2024.

For a detailed explanation of the new criminal law provisions, see: What to Do If You Receive a Section 35(3) BNSS Notice

Anticipatory Bail in PMLA Cases — Is It Available?

Anticipatory bail (under Section 482 BNSS, formerly Section 438 CrPC) is technically available in PMLA cases. However, courts are very reluctant to grant it in economic offence matters.

The Supreme Court in SFIO v. Aditya Sarda (April 9, 2025) held that:

• Persons who evade judicial process and obstruct warrants are not entitled to anticipatory bail.
• Economic offences “constitute a class apart” due to their gravity and deep conspiracies.
• Conduct of the accused — whether cooperative or evasive — is the critical factor.

The key: if you have been cooperating with the investigation and have not evaded process, you have a stronger case for anticipatory bail.

For a complete guide to anticipatory bail law, see: All About Anticipatory Bail

Also see: Absconder/Proclaimed Offender Not Entitled to Anticipatory Bail

Quashing of PMLA Proceedings — An Alternative Route

Where the underlying predicate offence has been quashed or the accused has been discharged, there is a strong argument for quashing the PMLA complaint entirely. This would render the bail question moot.

For a comprehensive guide to quashing of criminal proceedings, see: Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under Section 528 BNSS

Summary Table — When Courts Grant Bail in PMLA Cases

Frequently Asked Questions — Bail in PMLA Cases

Q1. Can I get bail in a PMLA case in India?

Yes. Bail in PMLA cases is difficult but not impossible. Courts have granted bail when the accused has been in prolonged custody without trial, when the arrest was procedurally illegal, when proceeds of crime are not attributable to the accused, or when the accused appeared on summons rather than being arrested.

Q2. What are the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 PMLA?

The twin conditions are: (1) reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty, and (2) the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Both must be satisfied.

Q3. Does Article 21 override Section 45 PMLA twin conditions?

Yes. The Supreme Court has held in multiple cases (Manish Sisodia 2024, Arvind Dham 2026) that prolonged incarceration without trial progress violates Article 21 and this ground can override the statutory twin conditions.

Q4. Can I get anticipatory bail in a PMLA case?

Anticipatory bail is available but rarely granted in PMLA matters. Courts look at whether the accused cooperated with investigation, did not evade process, and whether there is a genuine threat of arrest.

Q5. What happens if my arrest under PMLA was illegal?

If the ED did not furnish written grounds of arrest (Pankaj Bansal, 2023), did not produce you before a magistrate within 24 hours, or arrested you post-cognizance without court permission (Tarsem Lal, 2024) — the arrest is illegal. You are entitled to bail regardless of twin conditions.

Q6. What is the difference between bail in PMLA and bail in ordinary criminal cases?

In ordinary criminal matters, bail is broadly governed by the BNSS. In PMLA cases, Section 45 imposes the additional twin conditions of non-guilt and non-offending. These make PMLA bail significantly harder to obtain.

Conclusion: Bail in PMLA Cases — Difficult but Not Impossible

Bail in PMLA cases is the most challenging area of criminal law practice in India today. The Section 45 PMLA twin conditions, combined with the ED’s aggressive prosecution stance, make obtaining bail a formidable task. However, the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court have consistently affirmed that personal liberty under Article 21 remains supreme — even in economic offence cases.

The courts have granted bail where:

• The accused has been in prolonged custody without trial
• The arrest was procedurally illegal
• The accused appeared on summons rather than being arrested
• Proceeds of crime are not attributable to the accused
• The triple test is satisfactorily addressed

Bail in PMLA is ultimately about facts, strategy, and procedural precision. Every case is different. A well-crafted bail application — built on the right legal grounds and supported by up-to-date judicial precedent — can succeed even in the most serious PMLA matters.

Further Reading on prashantkanha.com

• All About Anticipatory Bail in India
• Absconder/Proclaimed Offender Not Entitled to Anticipatory Bail
• Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under Section 528 BNSS / 482 CrPC
• Criminal Conspiracy and PMLA — Section 61 BNS
• What to Do If You Receive a Section 35(3) BNSS Notice (Arrest Notice)
• Transfer Petition in the Supreme Court of India — Complete Guide