Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has held that a five-day delay by the ED in forwarding the arrest order to the Adjudicating Authority under Section 19(2) PMLA does not by itself make the arrest illegal. But it granted bail to the accused in the Concast Steel money laundering case after about 20 months in custody, saying “process must not be turned into a punishment unto itself”.
The case arises from alleged diversion of about Rs 6,210 crore through shell companies in the Concast Steel & Power case. The appellant was arrested by the ED in December 2024, and the Calcutta High Court denied bail.
He argued that forwarding the arrest order and material to the Adjudicating Authority five days late breached Section 19(2) PMLA, which requires forwarding “immediately”.
The Key Question Before the Court
Does delay in forwarding the arrest order under Section 19(2) PMLA vitiate the arrest, and should bail be granted after long custody?
“Immediately” and Article 21
The Court held that PMLA prescribes no timeline and “immediately” means expeditious transfer, ideally simultaneous with arrest; a delay for a necessary reason such as voluminous records does not by itself make the arrest illegal. The core safeguards, recorded reasons to believe, furnished grounds and production within 24 hours, were met.
Bail was nonetheless granted because he had been in custody for about 20 months, the maximum sentence is seven years, his part of the investigation is complete, and the trial with 97 accused will be long. Relying on Manish Sisodia v. ED, the Court said Section 45's twin conditions cannot override Article 21.
What the Court Actually Held
- Appeal allowed; bail granted on conditions set by the trial court.
- Passport to be deposited; no foreign travel without permission; no tampering with evidence or witnesses.
- Breach of conditions permits cancellation; observations not findings on merits.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It clarifies the Section 19(2) PMLA timing requirement.
- It reaffirms long custody as a ground for bail despite Section 45.
- It continues the line of Manish Sisodia.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Defence Counsel
- Combine custody length, maximum sentence and trial complexity in PMLA bail pleas.
- Raise Section 19(2) delays but expect courts to look for prejudice or lack of reason.
For ED Counsel
- Forward arrest material promptly and record reasons for any delay.
Key Takeaways
- Delay in forwarding is not automatically fatal.
- Core arrest safeguards matter most.
- Long custody can override twin conditions.
- Bail granted.
Frequently Asked Questions
No. The Court held the five-day delay did not by itself vitiate the arrest.
About 20 months in custody, a seven-year maximum sentence, completed investigation, and a long trial ahead.
Manish Sisodia v. ED (2024).
Conclusion
The ruling balances procedural compliance by the ED with the accused's right to liberty in long trials.
Practical takeaway: In PMLA bail, emphasise custody length and trial delay alongside any procedural lapses.