Article 21 Overrides PMLA Section 45 Rigors In Cases Of Unduly Long Incarceration Without Trial: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To SSC Scam ‘Middleman’

"Unduly long incarceration without trial may, in appropriate cases, outweigh the requirement to fulfil the rigors of Section 45 of the PML Act when tested on the anvil of Article 21 of the Constitution of India," Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling dated June 12, 2026, held that the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India must prevail over the restrictive "twin conditions" of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in cases involving prolonged pre-trial detention.

A single-bench of Justice Jay Sengupta, while granting bail to a businessman accused of being a middleman in the School Service Commission (SSC) recruitment scam, observed that statutory rigors cannot become a tool for indefinite incarceration when the trial's conclusion is not imminent.

The petitioner, Prasanna Kumar Roy, was implicated in a money laundering probe initiated by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) following CBI investigations into illegal teacher and staff appointments in West Bengal. The ED alleged that Roy acted as a primary middleman, collecting hundreds of crores from undeserving candidates to facilitate jobs through high-level officials. He had been in custody in connection with the present money laundering case since November 2024, having previously been granted bail by the Supreme Court in the underlying predicate offences.

The primary question before the court was whether the petitioner could be granted bail despite the stringent "twin conditions" under Section 45 of the PMLA, given his prolonged incarceration. The court was also called upon to determine if the delay in trial commencement, partly due to the state's failure to grant prosecution sanctions for co-accused public servants, entitled a non-government official like the petitioner to be enlarged on bail.

Court Balances Statutory Rigors Against Constitutional Liberty

The court began by acknowledging the gravity of the allegations, noting that the siphoning of money from job seekers on the promise of government employment was "humongous" in proportion. However, Justice Sengupta emphasized that even in serious economic offences, the mandate of "jail as an exception and bail as the rule" remains a jurisprudential cornerstone that must be respected when tested against Article 21.

The bench observed that while it could not immediately satisfy itself that there were reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was "not guilty" under Section 45 of the PMLA, this hurdle was not insurmountable if the detention became disproportionately long. Drawing from Apex Court precedents, the court noted that the rights of an accused under Article 21 overwrite any statutory provisions, including the restrictive bail conditions of the PMLA.

"Unduly long incarceration without trial may, in appropriate cases, outweigh the requirement to fulfil the rigors of Section 45 of the PML Act when tested on the anvil of Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

Impact Of Delayed Trial And Prosecution Sanctions

The court took a stern view of the procedural delays hampering the trial's commencement. It was noted that the trial against several public servants involved in the scam could not begin because the State Government had not yet granted the necessary sanctions for prosecution. While the petitioner himself required no such sanction, the court observed that he could not be kept in indefinite limbo due to administrative delays involving co-accused persons.

The bench further pointed out that the Enforcement Directorate had also contributed to the delay by being slow in praying for such sanctions. Given that the maximum sentence prescribed under the PMLA is seven years and the petitioner had already spent approximately one and a half years in custody for this specific case, the court found that further detention was not warranted, especially since the predicate offence trial was also progressing slowly.

Court Notes Parity With Principal Accused

Justice Sengupta highlighted a critical factor in the bail consideration: the principal actor in the case, a former Minister-in-charge, had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court in the predicate offence case after a three-year stint in custody. The court reasoned that if the primary accused was enlarged on bail to ensure the trial could proceed, a similar logic must apply to the petitioner, who was classified as an "agent" or "middleman."

The court also scrutinized the ED's investigative conduct, noting that while the agency was aware of the cases since 2022, it chose to arrest the petitioner in this specific case only in late 2024, shortly after he secured bail in other matters. This sequence suggested a pattern of "prolonged and additional incarceration" that the court found relevant for the mitigation of bail conditions.

"The principal actor being the former Minister in question was granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a predicate offences’ case."

Procedural Irregularities Under The New BNSS

An additional point of concern for the court was the petitioner’s contention regarding Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The petitioner argued that no "pre-cognizance hearing" was conducted as required under the new law. The court observed that if such a procedural lapse was found to be true, the entire proceeding might have to restart from that stage, further pushing the trial's conclusion into the distant future.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the mitigating circumstances—including the petitioner's prior bail in more serious predicate offences, the slow examination of witnesses, and the secured nature of the alleged proceeds of crime through attachment orders—outweighed the aggravating factors. The bench found that the petitioner's continued detention would violate his constitutional rights.

The High Court allowed the bail application, directing the release of Prasanna Kumar Roy upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties. To allay the ED's fears of witness tampering or flight risk, the court imposed strict conditions: Roy must surrender his passport, remain within the court's territorial jurisdiction, appear at every hearing, and meet the investigating officer once a week until further orders.

Date of Decision: 12 June 2026