The Judicial Tightening of Bail Standards Under PMLA: Analyzing The 2024 Arvind Kejriwal and Hemant Soren Precedents
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
1.1 Background and Context
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA)[1] has emerged as one of the most stringent criminal statutes in India, particularly in its treatment of bail. Unlike ordinary criminal law governed by the BNSS[2], the PMLA introduces a distinct and restrictive bail regime under Section 45, often referred to as the “twin conditions.” These conditions require that, before granting bail, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. This effectively reverses the presumption of innocence at the stage of bail and places a substantial burden on the accused.
The constitutional validity of these twin conditions was upheld by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022)[3], thereby reinforcing a highly restrictive bail framework. However, the years following this judgment have witnessed growing judicial unease with the rigidity of the PMLA bail regime, particularly in light of prolonged pre-trial incarceration and delays in trial. The year 2024 marked a significant turning point in this evolving jurisprudence, especially through high-profile cases involving political figures such as Arvind Kejriwal and Hemant Soren.
The arrest and subsequent bail proceedings in these cases brought into sharp focus the tension between statutory rigor and constitutional liberty. In Kejriwal’s case, the Supreme Court granted interim bail citing prolonged incarceration and the importance of Article 21 protections, emphasizing that the “right to life and liberty is sacrosanct.”[4] Similarly, in Soren’s case, the Jharkhand High Court granted bail after finding a lack of sufficient material linking him directly to proceeds of crime, and this reasoning was later upheld by the Supreme Court.
These developments suggest a subtle yet significant shift in judicial approach: while formally retaining the stringent statutory framework, courts have increasingly relied on constitutional principles particularly personal liberty to dilute the harshness of the twin conditions in practice. This duality statutory rigidity versus constitutional flexibility forms the core inquiry of this research.
Research Problem
The central problem addressed in this research paper is whether recent judicial decisions, particularly in 2024, indicate a tightening or recalibration of bail standards under the PMLA, and whether such developments amount to a doctrinal shift or merely case-specific deviations.
At first glance, the PMLA appears to impose stricter bail standards than ordinary criminal law. However, the Kejriwal and Soren cases reveal a paradox: despite the statutory “tightening,” judicial interpretation has introduced elements of flexibility. This raises critical questions regarding the consistency, predictability, and constitutional validity of bail jurisprudence under the PMLA.
Research Questions
This paper seeks to answer the following key questions:
- Whether the judicial approach in 2024 reflects a tightening or relaxation of bail standards under the PMLA.
- How courts reconcile the twin conditions under Section 45 with Article 21 of the Constitution.
- Whether the Kejriwal and Soren cases establish binding precedents or merely persuasive trends.
- To what extent prolonged incarceration, evidentiary insufficiency, and procedural fairness influence bail decisions under the PMLA.
- Whether the current framework leads to preventive detention in disguise, undermining due process.
1.4 Objectives of the Study
The primary objective of this research is to critically analyze the evolving judicial standards governing bail under the PMLA, with specific emphasis on the 2024 precedents. It aims to examine the doctrinal interplay between statutory provisions and constitutional safeguards, evaluate the consistency of judicial reasoning, and assess the broader implications for criminal justice and civil liberties.
Additionally, the study seeks to contribute to ongoing academic and legal discourse by identifying gaps in the existing framework and suggesting the need for either legislative reform or clearer judicial guidelines.
1.5 Scope and Limitations
This research is confined to bail jurisprudence under the PMLA, with particular focus on developments in 2024. While it references earlier landmark judgments such as Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, the primary emphasis is on recent cases involving political actors, which have significantly influenced public and judicial discourse.
The study does not delve deeply into trial-stage issues, attachment proceedings, or the broader enforcement mechanisms under the PMLA, except where they directly impact bail considerations. Furthermore, given the evolving nature of these cases, some aspects remain sub judice, which limits definitive conclusions.
1.6 Research Methodology
This paper adopts a doctrinal and analytical methodology, relying on primary sources such as judicial decisions, statutory provisions, and constitutional principles, along with secondary sources including legal commentaries, journal articles, and case analyses.
The approach is both descriptive and critical—describing the legal framework and judicial developments, while also evaluating their implications in light of constitutional norms and principles of criminal justice.
1.7 Chapterisation
The paper is divided into five chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction and Research Framework
Chapter 2: Statutory Framework of Bail under PMLA and Judicial Interpretation
Chapter 3: Case Study – Arvind Kejriwal Bail Proceedings (2024)
Chapter 4: Case Study – Hemant Soren Bail Proceedings (2024)
Chapter 5: Comparative Analysis, Emerging Trends, and Conclusion
CHAPTER 2: STATUTORY FRAMEWORK OF BAIL UNDER PMLA AND JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION
The Legislative Scheme of Bail under the PMLA
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA)[5] was enacted to combat the global menace of money laundering and to align India’s legal framework with international obligations, particularly those arising from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).[6] However, beyond its regulatory and confiscatory mechanisms, one of the most controversial features of the Act lies in its stringent bail provisions, which significantly depart from ordinary criminal law principles.
Section 45 of the PMLA governs the grant of bail and introduces what are commonly known as the “twin conditions.”[7] These conditions mandate that a court may grant bail only if it is satisfied, first, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence of money laundering, and second, that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. This provision places a substantial evidentiary burden on the accused at the pre-trial stage, effectively requiring them to demonstrate their innocence even before the trial has commenced.[8]
This statutory design stands in stark contrast to the general rule under the The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita[9] (BNSS), where bail is the norm and jail is the exception, particularly for offences that are not punishable with death or life imprisonment. Under the PMLA, however, the presumption appears reversed, with detention becoming the default position. This divergence has raised serious concerns regarding its compatibility with constitutional guarantees, especially the presumption of innocence and the right to personal liberty under Article 21.[10]
The “Twin Conditions” and Their Constitutional Tension
The twin conditions under Section 45 have been the focal point of constitutional scrutiny. The primary concern is that requiring courts to form an opinion on the innocence of the accused at the bail stage undermines the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence – that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Additionally, the requirement that the accused must demonstrate that they are not likely to commit any offence introduces a predictive and speculative element into bail adjudication.
This creates a structural tension between statutory intent and constitutional safeguards. While the legislature seeks to ensure that individuals accused of serious economic offences do not evade justice, the judiciary is tasked with safeguarding individual liberty and ensuring that pre-trial detention does not become punitive in nature. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that bail jurisprudence must be guided by the principle that deprivation of liberty must be justified, reasonable, and proportionate. However, Section 45 appears to impose a rigid framework that limits judicial discretion and prioritizes enforcement objectives over individual rights.
Early Judicial Response: Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India
The constitutional validity of the twin conditions was first challenged in the landmark case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India (2017)[11]. In this case, the Supreme Court struck down the twin conditions as unconstitutional, holding that they violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court observed that the conditions were manifestly arbitrary and imposed an unreasonable burden on the accused, particularly because they applied even to offences that were not inherently grave.[12]
The Court also highlighted that the classification created by Section 45 – linking bail conditions to scheduled offences was irrational and lacked a nexus with the object of the Act. Importantly, the judgment reaffirmed the centrality of the presumption of innocence and held that bail provisions must not be so onerous as to render them illusory. This decision was widely seen as a significant victory for civil liberties and a reaffirmation of constitutional principles in the face of stringent economic legislation.
In response to the Nikesh Tarachand Shah judgment[13], Parliament amended Section 45 through the Finance Act, 2018,[14] effectively reintroducing the twin conditions by removing the earlier defect identified by the Court. The amended provision applied the conditions directly to offences under the PMLA, thereby attempting to cure the constitutional infirmity. The validity of the amended provision was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022)[15]. In a controversial and expansive judgment, the Court not only upheld the twin conditions but also reinforced the exceptional nature of the PMLA as a special statute dealing with serious economic offences that pose a threat to the financial system and national integrity. The Court reasoned that money laundering is a distinct and grave offence, justifying a departure from ordinary bail principles. It held that the twin conditions were reasonable restrictions in light of the objectives of the Act and did not violate constitutional guarantees. This judgment marked a decisive shift towards a more enforcement-oriented approach, significantly strengthening the hand of investigative agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED).[16] However, the judgment has been subject to considerable academic and judicial criticism, particularly for its expansive interpretation of state power and its perceived dilution of procedural safeguards.[17]
Post-2022 Judicial Trends: Between Rigidity and Flexibility
Following the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary decision, lower courts and High Courts initially adopted a strict approach towards bail under the PMLA, often denying relief by strictly applying the twin conditions. The emphasis was largely on the gravity of the offence and the need to prevent economic offenders from undermining the financial system.
However, over time, a more nuanced judicial approach began to emerge. Courts started recognizing that a rigid application of the twin conditions could lead to prolonged pre-trial incarceration, especially in cases where trials were delayed or where the evidence was largely documentary and already in the possession of the prosecution.
This shift was influenced by broader constitutional considerations, particularly the right to a speedy trial and the principle that bail should not be denied as a form of punishment. Courts began to carve out exceptions, granting bail in cases involving excessive delay, lack of prima facie evidence, or humanitarian considerations.[18]
The Re-emergence of Article 21: Bail as a Constitutional Safeguard
A critical development in recent jurisprudence is the reassertion of Article 21 as a counterbalance to the rigidity of Section 45. Courts have increasingly invoked the right to life and personal liberty to justify the grant of bail, even in the face of stringent statutory conditions.
This constitutional turn reflects an implicit recognition that the PMLA, while addressing serious economic offences, cannot operate in a vacuum divorced from fundamental rights. The judiciary has begun to emphasize that the twin conditions must be interpreted in a manner that does not render the right to bail illusory or lead to indefinite detention without trial. This trend sets the stage for the 2024 decisions involving Arvind Kejriwal and Hemant Soren, where courts appear to have navigated the tension between statutory constraints and constitutional imperatives with greater sensitivity.
The evolution of bail jurisprudence under the PMLA reveals a complex and often contradictory trajectory. On one hand, the statutory framework and the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgment establish a highly restrictive regime that prioritizes enforcement and deterrence. On the other hand, subsequent judicial practice indicates a gradual reassertion of constitutional principles, particularly the protection of personal liberty. This duality creates a doctrinal crossroads: whether the future of PMLA bail jurisprudence will continue to be shaped by strict statutory interpretation or by a more balanced approach that integrates constitutional safeguards. The answer to this question lies, to a significant extent, in the analysis of recent precedents – particularly the 2024 cases involving Arvind Kejriwal and Hemant Soren, which will be examined in the subsequent chapters.
CHAPTER 3: CASE STUDY – ARVIND KEJRIWAL BAIL PROCEEDINGS (2024)
Factual Matrix and Procedural Background
The 2024 arrest of Arvind Kejriwal by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) marked one of the most politically sensitive applications of the PMLA in recent years. The case arose out of the alleged Delhi Excise Policy scam, where the ED contended that the policy was manipulated to extend undue benefits to certain private entities in exchange for kickbacks, thereby constituting “proceeds of crime” under the PMLA.[19]
Kejriwal was arrested in March 2024 after multiple summons and was subsequently remanded to custody. The prosecution’s case relied heavily on statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA and documentary evidence purportedly linking the accused to the alleged laundering process. Notably, the arrest of a sitting Chief Minister raised immediate constitutional and federal concerns, though the bail proceedings remained formally confined to statutory considerations under the PMLA.
The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court after denial of relief at lower levels, placing before the Court a critical question: whether the stringent twin conditions under Section 45 could be applied in a rigid manner in a case involving prolonged incarceration, complex evidence, and significant constitutional implications.
Issues Before the Court
- The bail proceedings in Kejriwal’s case presented a layered set of legal issues, going beyond a mechanical application of Section 45. The primary questions included whether the twin conditions could be relaxed in light of prolonged pre-trial detention, whether the evidentiary material satisfied the threshold of a prima facie case, and whether constitutional considerations under Article 21 could override statutory restrictions.
- Additionally, the Court had to consider whether the nature of evidence—largely documentary and already in the custody of the prosecution—reduced the risk of tampering, and whether continued incarceration would serve any legitimate investigative purpose. These issues collectively transformed the case into a test of how far judicial discretion could stretch within the confines of the PMLA.
Supreme Court’s Approach: Interim Bail as a Constitutional Device
In a significant development, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Kejriwal, marking a notable departure from a strictly textual application of Section 45. While the Court did not explicitly strike down or dilute the twin conditions, its reasoning reflected a pragmatic and constitutionally informed approach.[20]
The grant of interim bail was justified primarily on grounds of prolonged incarceration and the right to personal liberty under Article 21. The Court emphasized that even in cases involving stringent statutes like the PMLA, the deprivation of liberty cannot become punitive before conviction. This reflects a subtle but important doctrinal shift: instead of directly confronting the validity of the twin conditions, the Court sidestepped them by invoking broader constitutional principles.
The use of interim bail as a judicial tool is particularly significant. It allows the Court to provide relief without formally altering the statutory framework, thereby maintaining institutional balance while addressing immediate concerns of liberty. In Kejriwal’s case, this approach enabled the Court to acknowledge the harshness of the PMLA regime without explicitly undermining the precedent set in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India.
Evidentiary Threshold and the Question of Prima Facie Guilt
A crucial aspect of the Court’s reasoning was its implicit assessment of the evidentiary material presented by the ED. While the Court did not make a definitive finding on guilt or innocence, it appeared cautious about accepting uncorroborated statements as sufficient to deny bail.
The reliance on statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA has been a contentious issue, particularly because such statements are admissible and carry evidentiary weight. However, courts have increasingly recognized the need for independent corroboration, especially when such statements form the primary basis for prosecution. In Kejriwal’s case, the Court’s willingness to grant bail suggests a degree of skepticism regarding the strength of the prosecution’s case at the pre-trial stage. This aligns with a broader judicial trend of requiring a more substantive evidentiary foundation before depriving an individual of liberty for an extended period.[21]
The Role of Delay and Prolonged Incarceration
One of the most decisive factors in the grant of bail was the issue of delay. PMLA cases are notoriously complex and often involve voluminous documentary evidence, leading to prolonged trials. In such circumstances, strict adherence to the twin conditions can result in the accused remaining in custody for years without a determination of guilt.
The Supreme Court has, in recent years, increasingly recognized that prolonged pre-trial detention violates Article 21, particularly when the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable timeframe. In Kejriwal’s case, this concern was amplified by the political context and the potential impact on democratic governance.
By granting interim bail, the Court effectively acknowledged that the right to a speedy trial is an integral component of personal liberty, and that statutory restrictions cannot be used to justify indefinite detention.
Political Context and Judicial Neutrality
Although the Court did not explicitly engage with the political dimensions of the case, it is impossible to ignore the broader context. The arrest of a high-ranking elected official inevitably raises questions about the use of investigative agencies and the potential for political misuse of stringent statutes like the PMLA. The Court’s approach reflects a careful balancing act. On one hand, it avoided making any observations that could be construed as political commentary. On the other, it ensured that constitutional protections were not diluted in a politically charged environment. This reinforces the role of the judiciary as a neutral arbiter that must uphold the rule of law while remaining sensitive to the broader implications of its decisions.
Doctrinal Implications: Tactical Relaxation, Not Structural Reform
The Kejriwal bail order does not represent a formal dilution of Section 45 or a departure from the binding precedent of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India. Instead, it exemplifies what may be described as a “tactical relaxation” of bail standards.
Rather than reinterpreting the statute, the Court relied on constitutional principles, procedural fairness, and case-specific factors to justify relief. This creates a dual framework: the statutory regime remains intact in theory, but its application is softened in practice through judicial discretion. This approach, while pragmatic, raises concerns about consistency and predictability. If bail decisions depend heavily on case-specific factors and constitutional balancing, the resulting jurisprudence may lack coherence, leading to uncertainty for both accused persons and enforcement agencies.
The Kejriwal case marks an important moment in the evolution of PMLA bail jurisprudence. It demonstrates that even within a stringent statutory framework, courts are willing to prioritize constitutional values when confronted with compelling circumstances. However, this shift is subtle and indirect. The Court has not dismantled the restrictive architecture of Section 45 but has instead carved out spaces for judicial discretion. This creates a complex and somewhat paradoxical legal landscape, where strict rules coexist with flexible application. The true significance of this development becomes clearer when viewed alongside other contemporary cases, particularly the bail proceedings of Hemant Soren, which will be examined in the next chapter.
CHAPTER 4: CASE STUDY – HEMANT SOREN BAIL PROCEEDINGS (2024)
Factual Background and Nature of Allegations
The arrest of Hemant Soren in early 2024 under the PMLA arose from allegations relating to an alleged land scam in Jharkhand. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) claimed that certain parcels of land were illegally acquired and subsequently laundered through a network of intermediaries, thereby constituting “proceeds of crime.” The prosecution’s case sought to link Soren to these transactions by alleging that he was a beneficiary and had exercised control over the process.
Unlike the Kejriwal case, which involved policy-level decisions and alleged kickbacks, the Soren case was grounded in property transactions and ownership disputes, making the evidentiary trail more fact-intensive and dependent on documentary linkage. The ED relied on statements, land records, and alleged possession patterns to establish a connection between Soren and the proceeds of crime.
Following his arrest and custody, Soren challenged the legality of his detention and sought bail before the Jharkhand High Court, which became the first forum to undertake a detailed examination of the evidentiary basis of the prosecution’s case.
Core Legal Issue: Prima Facie Case under Section 45 PMLA
At the heart of the bail proceedings was the application of the first limb of the twin conditions under Section 45—whether there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused was not guilty of the offence. This requirement effectively compelled the Court to undertake a preliminary evaluation of the prosecution’s evidence, a task that is ordinarily reserved for trial.
The question before the Court was not whether Soren was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but whether the material on record was sufficient to justify continued incarceration under a stringent statutory regime. This distinction is critical, because it determines the threshold of scrutiny that courts must apply at the bail stage.
In contrast to earlier cases where courts adopted a deferential approach towards the prosecution, the Jharkhand High Court engaged in a more searching analysis of the evidence, marking a significant development in PMLA jurisprudence.
The Jharkhand High Court granted bail to Soren after concluding that the prosecution had failed to establish a credible prima facie case linking him directly to the alleged proceeds of crime. The Court scrutinized the chain of evidence and found gaps in the prosecution’s narrative, particularly in demonstrating ownership, control, or beneficial interest in the disputed properties.
A key aspect of the Court’s reasoning was its insistence on a direct nexus between the accused and the proceeds of crime. Mere suspicion, indirect association, or uncorroborated statements were deemed insufficient to satisfy the rigorous standard imposed by Section 45. This approach effectively raised the evidentiary bar for the prosecution at the bail stage.
The Court also emphasized that the seriousness of the allegations, by itself, cannot justify prolonged detention in the absence of substantive material. This reflects a departure from earlier tendencies to equate gravity of offence with denial of bail, particularly under special statutes.
Similar to the Kejriwal case, the prosecution relied significantly on statements recorded during investigation. However, the High Court adopted a cautious approach towards such statements, particularly when they were not supported by independent documentary evidence. The Court recognized that while statements under the PMLA may be admissible, their evidentiary value must be assessed in conjunction with other material. In the absence of corroboration, such statements cannot form the sole basis for denying bail, especially when they are retracted or contested. On the documentary front, the Court examined land records, transaction details, and ownership patterns, ultimately finding that the prosecution’s case lacked the necessary coherence and continuity to establish a prima facie offence of money laundering. This detailed evidentiary scrutiny distinguishes the Soren case from more deferential bail orders under the PMLA.
Supreme Court’s Stance: Affirmation without Expansion
When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Court chose not to interfere with the High Court’s order granting bail. While this was not accompanied by an extensive judgment, the refusal to overturn the bail order carries significant doctrinal weight. By allowing the High Court’s reasoning to stand, the Supreme Court implicitly endorsed a more evidence-centric approach to bail under the PMLA. Importantly, this did not involve any reconsideration of the validity of Section 45 or the twin conditions as upheld in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India. Instead, it signaled that even within this stringent framework, courts retain the authority to rigorously tests the prosecution’s case. This reinforces the idea that the twin conditions are not merely formal requirements but must be meaningfully applied, with genuine judicial satisfaction based on material evidence.
Comparative Insight with Kejriwal Case
When read alongside the Kejriwal case, the Soren decision reveals a complementary judicial strategy. While Kejriwal’s bail was grounded largely in constitutional considerations such as liberty and delay, Soren’s bail was based on evidentiary insufficiency and failure to establish a prima facie case.
Together, these cases illustrate two distinct pathways through which courts can navigate the rigidity of the PMLA bail regime: one through constitutional balancing and the other through rigorous evidentiary scrutiny. This dual approach enhances judicial flexibility while maintaining formal adherence to statutory requirements.
However, it also raises concerns about consistency. If different benches rely on different rationales constitutional versus evidentiary the resulting jurisprudence may lack a unified doctrinal foundation.[22]
The Soren case is particularly significant because it reasserts the role of courts as active evaluators of evidence, even at the bail stage. It challenges the notion that the twin conditions under Section 45 require blind acceptance of the prosecution’s case. Instead, the judgment suggests that courts must engage in a substantive assessment of whether the material on record justifies continued detention, thereby restoring a degree of balance between state power and individual liberty. This approach aligns more closely with traditional principles of criminal jurisprudence, where bail decisions are informed by factors such as the strength of evidence, likelihood of tampering, and risk of flight, rather than being dictated solely by statutory rigidity.[23]
The bail granted to Hemant Soren marks a critical development in PMLA jurisprudence, particularly in its emphasis on evidentiary rigor. It demonstrates that the twin conditions under Section 45 are not insurmountable barriers but require genuine judicial satisfaction based on credible material. Unlike the Kejriwal case, which relied on constitutional considerations to soften the statutory framework, the Soren case works within the framework to demand higher standards from the prosecution. This makes it especially valuable as a precedent for future bail applications under the PMLA. Taken together, these developments suggest that while the statutory regime remains stringent, its practical application is becoming more nuanced and balanced. The final chapter will synthesize these trends and assess whether they amount to a coherent doctrinal shift or remain isolated judicial interventions.
CHAPTER 5: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS, EMERGING TRENDS, AND CONCLUSION
At the outset, the title of this paper posits a “judicial tightening” of bail standards under the PMLA. However, the analysis of the 2024 precedents involving Arvind Kejriwal and Hemant Soren reveals a more complex and somewhat counterintuitive reality. Formally, the legal position remains stringent. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India continues to uphold the constitutional validity of the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, thereby reinforcing a restrictive bail regime. In this sense, the statutory and doctrinal framework has indeed been “tightened.”
However, in practice, courts in 2024 have demonstrated a measured softening of this rigidity. Rather than mechanically applying the twin conditions, judicial bodies have increasingly relied on constitutional principles, evidentiary scrutiny, and procedural fairness to grant bail. This creates a paradox: doctrinal tightening coexists with practical relaxation. Thus, the more accurate characterization is not one of absolute tightening, but of “controlled judicial recalibration”, where courts maintain the formal structure of the law while moderating its harsh consequences through interpretive techniques.
A key insight emerging from the comparative analysis of the two cases is the development of two distinct judicial pathways for granting bail under the PMLA. In the case of Arvind Kejriwal, the Supreme Court adopted a constitutional pathway, emphasizing Article 21 and the right to personal liberty. The Court relied on factors such as prolonged incarceration, delay in trial, and the broader implications of pre-trial detention. This approach allows courts to bypass the rigidity of Section 45 without directly confronting or diluting it. In contrast, the case of Hemant Soren reflects an evidentiary pathway, where the focus shifts to the strength of the prosecution’s case. The Jharkhand High Court engaged in a detailed examination of the material on record and found that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie link between the accused and the proceeds of crime. These two approaches—constitutional balancing and evidentiary scrutiny—serve as parallel mechanisms through which courts can mitigate the harshness of the PMLA bail regime. While they differ in method, both ultimately serve the same objective: preventing unjustified deprivation of liberty.
One of the most significant developments highlighted by the 2024 cases is the resurgence of Article 21 as a central consideration in bail adjudication. Even in the face of stringent statutory provisions, courts have reaffirmed that personal liberty cannot be subordinated indefinitely to investigative or prosecutorial objectives. This reflects a broader constitutional principle: that special statutes cannot override fundamental rights in a manner that renders them meaningless. The judiciary has increasingly recognized that prolonged pre-trial detention, especially in complex economic offences, risks transforming the criminal process into a form of punishment. The Kejriwal case, in particular, underscores this shift by demonstrating that constitutional courts are willing to intervene when statutory mechanisms fail to adequately protect individual liberty. This reassertion of Article 21 serves as an important counterweight to the expansive powers granted under the PMLA.[24]
Another important trend is the substantive reinterpretation of the twin conditions under Section 45. While courts continue to acknowledge their binding nature post-Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, their application has become more nuanced. In earlier cases, the twin conditions were often applied in a formalistic manner, leading to routine denial of bail. However, recent decisions indicate a shift towards meaningful judicial satisfaction, where courts actively assess whether the prosecution has met the evidentiary threshold required to justify continued detention. The Soren case exemplifies this approach, as the High Court did not merely defer to the prosecution’s assertions but undertook a detailed analysis of the evidence. This marks a departure from passive adjudication and signals a return to the judiciary’s role as a safeguard against arbitrary state action.
While the emerging trends reflect a positive shift towards balancing state power and individual rights, they also give rise to concerns about inconsistency and unpredictability. The reliance on case-specific factors and judicial discretion means that outcomes may vary significantly depending on the bench, the factual matrix, and the framing of arguments. For instance, an accused may succeed in obtaining bail on constitutional grounds in one case, while another may be required to demonstrate evidentiary insufficiency in a similar factual scenario. This lack of uniformity undermines the principle of legal certainty and may lead to perceptions of arbitrariness. Moreover, the absence of clear guidelines on how the twin conditions should be applied in light of Article 21 creates doctrinal ambiguity. This highlights the need for either authoritative judicial clarification or legislative reform to ensure a more consistent and predictable bail framework under the PMLA.
A recurring theme in the analysis is the risk that the PMLA bail regime may function as a form of preventive detention in disguise. The combination of stringent bail conditions, expansive investigative powers, and prolonged trial timelines creates a scenario where individuals may remain incarcerated for extended periods without a determination of guilt. This raises serious concerns regarding due process and fairness, particularly in light of constitutional guarantees. The judiciary’s recent interventions suggest an awareness of this problem and a willingness to address it through interpretive strategies. However, such case-by-case interventions may not be sufficient to address systemic issues. Without structural reforms, the risk of pre-trial incarceration becoming punitive rather than preventive remains a significant concern.
The analysis of the Kejriwal and Soren precedents reveals that PMLA bail jurisprudence is at a critical juncture. While the statutory framework remains stringent, judicial practice is evolving towards a more balanced and rights-oriented approach. Rather than a straightforward tightening of bail standards, the current trajectory reflects a dynamic interplay between statutory rigidity and constitutional flexibility. Courts are increasingly willing to intervene where the application of the law leads to unjust outcomes, thereby reaffirming their role as guardians of fundamental rights. Going forward, the challenge lies in translating these emerging trends into a coherent and consistent doctrinal framework. This may require clearer judicial guidelines, greater emphasis on evidentiary standards, and a more explicit integration of constitutional principles into bail adjudication under special statutes. In conclusion, the 2024 precedents do not dismantle the stringent architecture of the PMLA but subtly reshape its application. They signal a cautious yet meaningful shift towards a more humane and constitutionally compliant bail regime one that seeks to balance the imperatives of enforcement with the foundational values of liberty and justice.
[1] The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, No. 15 of 2003 (India).
[2] THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 NO. 46 OF 2023.
[3] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2022) 10 SCC 386.
[4] INDIA CONST. art. 21.
[5] The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, No. 15 of 2003 (India).
[6] FATF, International Standards on Combating Money Laundering (2012).
[7] PMLA, § 45.
[8] Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240.
[9] THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023 NO. 46 OF 2023.
[10] Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 2 SCC 427.
[11] Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1.
[12] Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40.
[13] Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1.
[14] Finance Act, 2018, No. 13 of 2018 (India).
[15] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2022) 10 SCC 386.
[16] Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan, (1994) 3 SCC 440.
[17] Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40.
[18] Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294.
[19] Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439.
[20] Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569.
[21] State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784.
[22] Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1.
[23] Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81.
[24] INDIA CONST. art. 21.
Author Bio
