No Sanction, No Trial, No Judge — Then Why Jail?: Supreme Court Raps ED, Orders Bail

“Cognizance Has Not Been Taken, Yet He’s in Jail for a Year” - In a strong reaffirmation of personal liberty amidst prolonged pre-trial incarceration, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to Anil Tuteja, a retired senior bureaucrat from Chhattisgarh, who had been in judicial custody for nearly a year under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) — despite the fact that the trial had not begun, cognizance had not been taken, and sanction to prosecute was never granted.
Justice Abhay S. Oka, delivering the order along with Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, framed the legal question in razor-sharp terms:
“As of today, cognizance of the offence under the PMLA has not been taken as far as the appellant is concerned.”

“One Year in Jail Without Cognizance? This Cannot Be the Law”
Anil Tuteja had been arrested on 21 April 2024 in a money laundering case. Though a complaint was filed by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), the Special Court’s order taking cognizance was later set aside by the Chhattisgarh High Court on 2 April 2025, on the ground that no sanction under Section 197 CrPC (now Section 218 BNSS) had been obtained. The High Court’s order was never challenged.
The Supreme Court underscored this with utmost clarity:
“The order of the High Court has not been challenged. Therefore, as of now, cognizance has not been taken.”
In other words, the legal process was in a state of limbo — no valid prosecution, no framing of charges, and yet, the appellant remained behind bars.

“No Trial in Sight, No Special Judge Appointed, But Jail Continues?” — SC Slams Delay
The Court did not stop at procedural irregularities. It pointed to the deeper malaise: the failure of the system to even begin the trial. The Special Court designated to try PMLA offences was lying vacant, with no Sessions Judge appointed under Section 43(1) of the PMLA.
The Court minced no words:
“There is no possibility of commencement of trial in near future.”
Adding that there were 20 co-accused and over 30 prosecution witnesses, the Court lamented the inevitable delays. Referring to its precedent in V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, the Bench held that the facts of this case called for urgent intervention in the name of liberty and fairness.

“If He’s Influential, Impose Conditions — But Don't Deny Bail” — SC Responds to ED’s Concerns Opposing the bail, the Additional Solicitor General called Tuteja a “very influential person” and warned of possible tampering with evidence. The Court refused to be swayed by vague apprehensions and instead suggested a pragmatic course:
“If that be so, appropriate stringent conditions will have to be imposed.”
The Court directed that bail be granted by the concerned Principal Sessions Judge, with conditions such as surrendering passport, giving an undertaking to cooperate with the trial, and attending all hearings once cognizance is taken.
It cautioned that any breach of these conditions would allow the ED to seek cancellation of bail.

“The Government Must Act — Appoint a Special Judge Immediately”: Court Issues Strong Directive
In a rare step, the Court directly addressed the institutional failure that had brought the PMLA process to a standstill. Noting that no judicial officer had been appointed to preside over the Special Court, the Bench issued a mandate to the Central Government:
“We direct the Central Government to immediately exercise powers under sub-Section 1 of Section 43 and designate a Sessions Judge to preside over the Special Court…”
This sharp rebuke served as a reminder that due process cannot be held hostage by administrative inaction.

“The Appeal is Allowed” — Supreme Court Reinforces Liberty as a Core Constitutional Promise
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court ensured Anil Tuteja’s release after a year-long incarceration in a prosecution that was yet to take legal form. The Court’s closing words stood as a strong defence of individual liberty:
“In the event it is found that the appellant is not cooperating… it will be open for the respondent to apply for cancellation of bail.”

Date of Decision: 15 April 2025