On 16 October 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale set aside a Calcutta High Court order of 24 July 2026 that had refused bail in a money-laundering case. The case concerned an alleged diversion of about Rs 76.29 crore from the sale of a group company’s property in Odisha. The Court granted bail and directed the trial court to frame charges within four months.
What was decided
The appellant had been in custody since July 2025, about 15 months. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had filed a prosecution complaint, but the Special Court had not yet taken cognizance against him. Other arrested accused had been granted bail, and many others named in the case had not been arrested at all.
The bench held that continued detention was not needed for the trial, because the trial was “at a nascent stage” and would take considerable time. It granted bail on terms to be set by the trial court. It also directed the trial court to frame charges within four months of receiving a copy of the order, a direction the ED itself had asked for.
Why it matters
The order shows a practical point that often decides PMLA bail: the stage of the trial. Where the complaint is filed but cognizance is pending, the trial has not started. The Supreme Court treats this as a strong reason against continued detention, even with the twin conditions in Section 45 PMLA.
The time limit for framing charges matters too. It moves the case forward for both sides, and courts are now more willing to give such directions. For business owners and company officers in long-running ED cases arising from investor or depositor complaints, including those with links to Uttar Pradesh, the order helps when seeking bail or a faster trial before Special Courts and the Allahabad High Court.
Practical points
- Record the date of the prosecution complaint, whether and when cognizance was taken, and the current stage of the trial.
- Bail granted to co-accused, and the number of named persons never arrested, are relevant facts to place before the court.
- It is reasonable to ask the court for timelines for cognizance or for framing charges. The prosecution may agree.
- Bail conditions set by the trial court should be followed strictly, because a breach can lead to cancellation.
Sources: LiveLaw, 16 Oct 2026; SCC Online Blog, 17 Oct 2026.
For a confidential discussion on ED/PMLA matters, see ED and PMLA Defence.
General legal information only; not legal advice or solicitation.
