Introduction
The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta, in the case of Kuntal Ghosh v. Enforcement Directorate Kolkata Zonal Office-II[i],* *highlighted the applicability of the fundamental right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution while granting bail to the Petitioner under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’).
Facts
The Petitioner was arrested on the basis of the statement of a co-accused under ss. 7, 7A, and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with ss. 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 43 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Petitioner was arrested on 21.01.2023. He had been in custody for approximately twenty-two months and was last interrogated eighteen months before filing the bail application. The investigation concerning the Petitioner had been concluded. However, the charges against him were yet to be framed.
The Petitioner sought parity with co-accused Manik Bhattacharya, who was incarcerated for a period of 23 months and was granted bail by the High Court on 12.09.2024.
It was contended by the Petitioner that the main accused in the case, who had duped several persons and collected several hundred crores, was granted bail by the trial court on 27.03.2024. He further argued that the extended pre-trial detention contravened his right to a speedy trial under a. 21 of the Constitution of India.
Held
The High Court, while granting bail to the Petitioner, made the following observations:
While the petitioner’s prima facie involvement in the predicate offence under the PMLA could not be ruled out, his prolonged incarceration without trial violated the fundamental right guaranteed under a. 21.
The High Court reiterated established bail jurisprudence, stating that incarceration must not serve as punishment before conviction, regardless of the nature of the alleged crime. Referring to the order passed by the Supreme Court in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement[ii], the High Court reaffirmed one’s right to a speedy trial, irrespective of the nature of the crime.
The High Court also allowed the petitioner’s bail application based on the newly introduced s. 479 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), which limits detention for first-time offenders to one-third of the maximum imprisonment term.
Our Analysis
The High Court, in this case, while following the decision of the Apex Court in Manish Sisodia (supra), meticulously balanced the Petitioner’s constitutional rights with his potential involvement in the predicate offence under the PMLA. Additionally, invoking s. 479 of the BNSS underscored the significance of statutory safeguards against prolonged incarceration for first-time offenders. The Court reaffirmed that pre-trial detention must not equate to punishment by granting bail with stringent conditions.
End Notes
[i] 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 10450 dated 20.11.2024.
[ii] [2024] 8 SCC 192.
Authored by Rosy Gupta, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions
More Insights
10-07-2026
7
min read
Faceless Reassessment after S. 147A: What the Supreme Court Did – and Did Not – Decide
The Supreme Court's decision in Tej Pratap Singh does not settle the JAO–FAO controversy. Following Parliament's retrospective insertion of s. 147A, it remands the issue to the High Courts for fresh consideration. Faceless reassessment was never merely about moving tax files from paper to portal; it fundamentally changed the statutory authority responsible for communicating with the taxpayer, examining the record, drafting the order and completing the assessment. The real question now is how far a retrospective legislative clarification can go.
22-06-2026
8
min read
Claim Admission is not Debt Acknowledgement: Supreme Court on RP’s Role & Limitation under the IBC
Can admission of a claim by a Resolution Professional extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act? In Shankar Khandelwal v. Omkara Asset Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court answered this question in the negative, holding that claim admission during CIRP is merely a statutory claim-verification process and not an acknowledgement of debt. The ruling clarifies the RP’s non-adjudicatory role and reinforces important principles governing limitation under the IBC.
2026-04-23
18
min read
Mandatory Pre-Deposit for Appeals in Indirect Tax Laws: A Barrier to Justice?
Mandatory pre-deposit has become a defining feature of indirect tax litigation, balancing revenue protection with access to appellate remedies. While the shift to a fixed statutory framework has improved procedural efficiency, it also raises concerns regarding financial barriers and effective access to justice. This insight examines the legal evolution, judicial interpretation, and practical implications of the regime.