Trial Delay and PMLA Bail: The Constitutional Lesson from Manish Sisodia
In Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, decided on 9 August 2024, the Supreme Court granted bail in the connected corruption and money-laundering proceedings. The decision is important because it treats prolonged pre-trial detention and slow progress as constitutional facts, not administrative inconveniences.
Custody cannot become punishment
Pre-trial detention serves limited purposes such as securing appearance, protecting evidence and preventing interference. It is not an advance sentence. When a case involves numerous witnesses and extensive documents, the likely duration of trial must be assessed realistically.
The Court considered the period already spent in custody, the prosecution’s earlier assurance that trial would proceed promptly and the continuing absence of a near-term conclusion. Liberty under Article 21 required the bail question to be reconsidered in that setting.
Section 45 and constitutional courts
The PMLA twin conditions remain part of the statutory test. They cannot, however, be applied so mechanically that an undertrial remains incarcerated for a period disproportionate to meaningful trial progress. Constitutional courts retain power to protect the right to a speedy trial.
Case-specific evaluation
The judgment does not create automatic bail after a fixed number of months. Courts must examine complexity, responsibility for delay, the accused’s role, maximum punishment, witness vulnerability, risk of flight and whether conditions can manage identified risks.
Useful safeguards may include surrender of passport, regular reporting, restrictions on contacting witnesses and attendance before the trial court. Conditions should respond to actual risks rather than operate as an indirect denial of bail.
Practical significance
Prosecution and defence should maintain an accurate trial-progress record: dates, witnesses completed, documents supplied, adjournment causes and projected time. General statements that a case is “complex” cannot replace this evidence.
Sources
Supreme Court of India, Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Appeal No. 3295 of 2024, allowed 9 August 2024: https://api.sci.gov.in/officereport/2024/41300/41300_2024_2024-09-13_2063.html
Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, Section 45: https://dor.gov.in/prevention-money-laundering
#PMLA #SpeedyTrial #BailLaw