Mahesh Joshi v. Directorate of Enforcement; 2025 INSC 1377 - PMLA - Bail - Delay In Trial
Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - Section 45 - Bail - Where a trial cannot be reasonably concluded and incarceration becomes prolonged, constitutional courts must intervene to safeguard the right to personal liberty under Article 21- Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA cannot be interpreted to justify indefinite detention in cases involving voluminous, document-heavy material where trial is unlikely to begin promptly. [Referred to V. Senthil Balaji vs Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 739 ] (Para 13)
Case Info
Key Details
- Case Name: Mahesh Joshi v. Directorate of Enforcement
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1377
- Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
- Judgment Date: December 03, 2025
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.13737 of 2025)
Caselaws and Citations
- V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626
- K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713
Statutes / Laws Referred
- Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) — notably Section 45(1) and Section 45(1)(ii)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 207
- Constitution of India — Article 21
- Reference to scheduled offences under the NDPS Act (for sentence comparison)
#SupremeCourt reiterates that Section 45(1)(ii) PMLA cannot be interpreted to justify indefinite detention in cases involving voluminous, document-heavy material where trial is unlikely to begin promptly. https://t.co/TdCXfK0083 pic.twitter.com/FexIsABKji
— CiteCase 🇮🇳 (@CiteCase) December 4, 2025