On 14 October 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi decided an appeal against a Calcutta High Court order refusing regular bail in a money-laundering case (2026 INSC 1124). The case arose from a CBI FIR about bank credit allegedly obtained by inflating a steel company’s turnover. Two questions arose: what Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) requires after an arrest, and when long custody justifies bail.
What was decided
Section 19(2) requires the arresting officer to forward the arrest order and the material in his possession to the Adjudicating Authority “immediately”. The appellant argued that a five-day delay made the arrest illegal. The Court did not accept this. It read “immediately” as meaning “expeditiously and simultaneously”, not within 24 hours or any fixed time. Ideally the material should go at the same time as the arrest. A delay for a necessary reason, such as compiling thousands of pages, does not by itself breach Section 19(2), and the five-day gap did not affect the arrest.
The Court still granted bail. The appellant had spent about 20 months in custody for an offence carrying a maximum of seven years. The investigation against him was complete, and the case involved 97 accused, 48 witnesses and about 15,000 pages of documents. Relying on Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), the Court said the twin conditions in Section 45 PMLA cannot override Article 21, and that “no purpose will be served” by continued detention.
Why it matters
The ruling narrows one line of challenge to arrests. A short, explained delay in sending material to the Adjudicating Authority is unlikely, by itself, to make an arrest illegal. Challenges now have to rest on stronger defects, such as grounds of arrest not supplied in writing or a “reason to believe” that is not based on material.
On bail, the judgment adds to a steady line of Supreme Court orders. Where an investigation is complete, the record is mainly documentary and the trial is unlikely to finish soon, long custody weighs heavily against the twin conditions. Promoters and directors in bank-fraud ECIRs, including cases started from UP bank complaints, can rely on this reasoning before Special Courts and the Allahabad High Court.
Practical points
- Ask for the dates on which the arrest order and material were sent to the Adjudicating Authority. An unexplained or long delay may still be relevant.
- Keep a clear record of custody days, the stage of the trial, and the number of accused, witnesses and documents.
- Bail applications should deal with Section 45 directly and set out the Article 21 grounds, not leave them to be inferred.
- Regular bail in such cases now goes under Section 483 BNSS, read with Section 45 PMLA.
Sources: LiveLaw, 14 Oct 2026; Verdictum, 16 Oct 2026.
For a confidential discussion on ED/PMLA matters, see ED and PMLA Defence.
General legal information only; not legal advice or solicitation.
