Five-Day Delay Under Section 19(2) PMLA Doesn't Vitiate Arrest, but 20 Months' Custody Earns Bail: Supreme Court

After the insolvency of Concast Steel and Power Limited, the CBI registered an FIR in 2022 under Sections 420, 477A and 120B IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the ED registered an ECIR in March 2023 (paras 3-4). The ED accused the appellant of inflating turnover through 62 shell companies to obtain bank credit and divert funds, with proceeds of crime put at Rs 6,210.72 crore (para 4). He was arrested on 18.12.2024 and the Calcutta High Court refused bail on 14.11.2025 (paras 2, 4). He argued that forwarding the arrest material five days late breached Section 19(2) and that the trial, with three complaints and about 15,000 pages, could not end soon (para 5).

In bail matters under special laws such as the PMLA the conditions are stringent, because large economic offences damage the financial fabric, but agencies must investigate expeditiously and process must not become punishment (para 9). Section 19(2) sets no fixed timeline: 'immediately' means expeditiously and simultaneously, not within 24 hours, and where records run into thousands of pages some time for administrative requirements is natural; a five-day delay does not vitiate the arrest (para 10). The magnitude of the case makes an early trial impossible; the appellant has been in custody for over 20 months for an offence punishable with seven years, and investigation against him is complete (para 11). Following Manish Sisodia, the Section 45 twin conditions cannot override the Article 21 safeguards, and prolonged incarceration would defeat them (para 12). With thousands of pages and about 98 witnesses to examine, he must not remain in custody while the trial is pending (para 13).