Udhaw Singh v. Enforcement Directorate · 2025 INSC 247

Facts

Udhaw Singh had been arrested for an offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and had remained imprisoned for one year and two months when his appeal seeking bail reached the Supreme Court. The prosecution had cited 225 witnesses, of whom only one had been examined, presenting a trial whose completion within the next few years appeared unlikely on the progress recorded before the Court.

The custody period was therefore considered alongside the actual extent of the unfinished proceedings rather than as an isolated number, since the appellant sought release while the accusation remained awaiting adjudication. The judgment's factual account was brief because the issue concerned prolonged detention and trial prospects, without requiring a detailed determination of the underlying allegation of money laundering.

Issues

The principal issue was whether the stringent bail provision under Section 45 could justify continued imprisonment where the trial was not likely to conclude within a reasonable time, having regard to the reasoning already stated in V. Senthil Balaji. The Court also needed to consider whether the intervening decision in Kanhaiya Prasad had departed from that approach or concerned circumstances sufficiently different to leave it applicable here.

The questions turned upon the protection of personal liberty and speedy trial under the Constitution of India, through which an accused's continued custody must be assessed in relation to the likely duration of proceedings and the statutory punishment. They did not require the Court to determine whether the appellant had committed the offence charged, since release pending trial and final criminal responsibility remained separate matters.

Submissions

The Court heard the appellant and the Enforcement Directorate, whose attention was directed to the previous decisions concerning the relationship between prolonged detention and the restrictive statutory bail regime. The judgment recorded a reference to Kanhaiya Prasad as a potentially relevant coordinate Bench decision, requiring examination of its factual setting rather than an assumption that all bail decisions under the same statute necessarily answered the same question.

The Enforcement Directorate's position ultimately included an acceptance that V. Senthil Balaji could be followed on the facts of this case. That recorded position supported the disposition, although the Court first explained the governing reasoning and the distinction between the authorities instead of granting release solely because the respondent accepted the proposed course.

Reasoning

Applying V. Senthil Balaji, the Court recognised that Section 45 did not authorise detention for an unreasonable period when there was no realistic prospect of completing the trial within a reasonable time. The analysis required attention to the minimum and maximum punishment, the stringency of the bail threshold, any relevant statutory trial period and the actual record indicating whether continued proceedings could be completed without excessive delay.

The constitutional courts' jurisdiction under Articles 32 and 226 was described in the adopted reasoning as capable of protecting fundamental rights notwithstanding statutory restrictions, because otherwise Article 21 could be defeated through prolonged imprisonment before guilt had been established. This reasoning retained a discretionary character, allowing relief to be refused where delay was substantially attributable to the accused or antecedents indicated a real threat to society upon release.

Kanhaiya Prasad did not undermine that approach because the accused there had been released after custody of less than seven months, without a finding that the trial could not conclude within a reasonable time. The Court therefore treated the cancellation of bail in that case as a decision on different facts, rather than a rejection of the principles in K.A. Najeeb and V. Senthil Balaji.

In the present record the combination of one year and two months in custody with only one witness examined out of 225 provided the basis for applying the prolonged detention reasoning. The conclusion did not establish that the same custody period invariably required bail, since its significance came from the Court's assessment of the actual scale and progress of the trial.

Decision

The appeal was allowed, with a direction that the appellant be produced before the Special Court within a maximum period of one week for release upon appropriate terms. Those terms were to include regular and punctual attendance, cooperation with early disposal of the case and surrender of any passport held by the appellant.

Through those conditions the Court secured continued participation while preventing the anticipated duration of the trial from determining an unreasonable period of imprisonment in advance of adjudication. The order granted bail pending trial, preserving the Special Court's responsibility to conduct the case and decide the accusation upon the evidence ultimately presented.

Source: Udhaw Singh v. Enforcement Directorate · 2025 INSC 247