The Supreme Court has granted bail to Bengal-based industrialist Sanjay Sureka, accused of involvement in a ₹6,210.72-crore money-laundering case, saying stringent bail conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot curtail a citizen’s fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
Under Section 45 of the PMLA, the court should first seek the public prosecutor’s opinion and decide whether there is a prima facie case made out to deny bail.
“In a bail matter, especially in serious offences, the job of a court is to balance the rights of the State with those of the arrestee. In special laws such as PMLA, 2002, the conditions for granting bail are stringent, and the circumstances in which bail can be granted are rare, for the simple reason that economic offences of a large magnitude punch a hole through the financial fabric of the country, causing a top-down ripple effect into the entire ecosystem resulting in large consequences for most of the population. That is the justification for making the provisions of PMLA stringent,” a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi said.
“In the same breath, sight must not be lost of the fact that the institutions have a duty to expeditiously investigate the cases, or else the justification to keep an accused person under custody for an indefinite period of time. Process must not be turned into a punishment unto itself,” the bench added.
The top court said the appellant had been in custody for over 20 months for an offence punishable with imprisonment of seven years.
“The investigation has been completed qua appellant (in the capacity of an appellant). No purpose will be served by keeping the accused person behind bars now,” it said.
The twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA cannot override the constitutional safeguards under Article 21 of the Constitution, as has been held in the case of Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement, Justice Aravind Kumar observed while authoring the judgment.
He said prolonged incarceration, if allowed to continue, would render the constitutional safeguards extended to the accused useless.
The apex court passed the order while allowing an appeal filed by Sureka challenging a Calcutta High Court judgment dismissing his bail plea.
“We are of the opinion that the culmination of the trial is a time-consuming process, since the trial court will have to go through documents running into thousands of pages and examine around 98 witnesses. The appellant must not be subjected to the rigours of custody as long as the trial is pending. Hence, appellant must be released on bail, subject to furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court and subject to such other terms and conditions as may be imposed by it,” the top court said.
The bench said Sureka would have to deposit his passport with the trial court and cannot leave the country without prior court permission during the pendency of the trial.
Sureka was accused of money-laundering offences related to the now-defunct and liquidated M/s Concast Steel and Power Limited.
Sureka had allegedly orchestrated a complex web of financial transactions to fraudulently inflate the company’s turnover, secure credit from a consortium of banks led by the SBI, and divert those funds for personal enrichment through 62 shell companies. The proceeds of crime amount to ₹6,210.72 crore, out of which only ₹777.10 crore has been attached by the ED under PMLA provisions.
Sureka had allegedly appointed 34 people as dummy directors of the shell companies and used 20 firms run by his relatives to facilitate money laundering.
He was arrested by the ED on December 18, 2024, and has remained in custody for about 20 months.