Vijay Sopan Machinder vs Directorate of Enforcement — Money Laundering | Bombay HC (2026)

Vijay Sopan Machinder vs Directorate of Enforcement — Money Laundering | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail ordered in connection with ECIR No. ECIR/MBZO-I/17/2023 (PMLA Special Case No. 422 of 2024) upon furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount, subject to conditions: monthly reporting to the ED Investigation Officer, Mumbai (first Saturday of each month, 10 a.m.-12 p.m.) till conclusion of trial; no inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts; no tampering with evidence; deposit of passport with the Special Court within three days of release; provision of residential address with proof, contact numbers and email to the Investigating Officer within three days of release and updates of any changes; no travel outside the State of Maharashtra without prior written permission of the Investigating Officer; and appearance before the Special Court on each and every date fixed in Special Case No. 422 of 2024 unless specifically exempted. A cash surety of Rs. 5,00,000/- was permitted in lieu of the solvent surety for two weeks only, failure to furnish the solvent surety within two weeks being deemed a breach of bail conditions.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Applicant, facing prosecution under Sections 3 and 4 PMLA in Special Case No. 422 of 2024 (an economic offence with a maximum punishment of 7 years), is entitled to release on bail solely on the ground of prolonged incarceration, given that the charge has not been framed and the trial has not commenced. +2 more

Court's answer

In PMLA Special Case No. 422 of 2024 the charge has not yet been framed and there is no likelihood that the trial will commence soon; the Applicant has already spent nearly 27 months in jail since his arrest on 03.01.2024; the maximum punishment is 7 years; and with a voluminous charge sheet (38 volumes, 14,253 pages) and 14 prosecution witnesses listed, the trial is expected to take a substantial amount of time to conclude.

Ratio / Principle

The Respondent's contention that the delay in commencing the trial is not attributable to the prosecution could not be substantiated: the Special Counsel was unable to point to any material in the record showing the delay in starting the trial was due to the Applicant; moreover, the Applicant, being in jail, would not have gained from causing delay.

Key takeaways

The Respondent's Special Counsel raised no concern, in oral or written submission dated 02.04.2026, about the Applicant influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, or failing to appear for trial in PMLA Special Case No. 422 of 2024.ratio¶19
Considering the facts of the case and the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvind Dham (supra) and Pradeep Kumar @ Bhanu (supra), the Applicant is entitled to bail on the sole ground of his long incarceration and the delay in the commencement of trial in Special Case No. 422 of 2024; further detention of the Applicant pending trial is not necessary.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) | Criminal Bail Application No. 5435 of 2024 | Coram: Ashwin D. Bhobe, J. | Decided 06 April 2026. Vijay Sopan Machinder (Org. Accused No. 1), arrested 03.01.2024 and in jail for nearly 27 months, sought bail in ECIR No. ECIR/MBZO-I/17/2023 (registered by the Directorate of Enforcement on the predicate offence C.R. No. 105 of 2021 of EOW Mumbai, itself originating as Crime No. 837 of 2021 of Oshiwara Police Station under Sections 406, 409, 420, 34 IPC, Sections 465, 467, 468, 471 IPC, MOFA Sections 3-13 and MPID Sections 3-4; prosecution story involves a Tripartite Agreement of 18.05.2010 with MHADA and the UTI Employees Society for 152 flats through Ornate Spaces Private Limited), pending as PMLA Special Case No. 422 of 2024 before the Special Court (PML Act), City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai, where his earlier bail application had been rejected on 05.12.2024. Sole ground argued: prolonged incarceration. Charge not yet framed; no likelihood of early trial commencement; maximum punishment 7 years; charge sheet of 38 volumes/14,253 pages with 14 prosecution witnesses. Relying on Arvind Dham v. Enforcement Directorate (2026 SCC OnLine SC 30) and Pradeep Kumar @ Bhanu v. State of Punjab (order dated 13 March 2026, SLP (Cri) 18775/2025), and noting that the delay in starting the trial was not shown to be due to the jailed Applicant and that the ED raised no concern as to witness influence, evidence tampering or non-appearance, the Court held him entitled to bail on the sole ground of long incarceration and delay in commencement of trial, allaying the unnamed intervenor-complainant's flight apprehension through conditions: P.R. bond of Rs. 5,00,000/- with one or two local sureties in like amount (cash surety of Rs. 5,00,000/- acceptable for two weeks in lieu of solvent surety, failing which it is deemed a breach), monthly reporting to the ED IO, passport deposit and address/contact particulars within three days of release, no travel outside Maharashtra without the IO's prior written permission, and attendance on every trial date. Application disposed of accordingly.

Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2026.04.06 20:13:57 +0530

BA-5435.24.DOCX

lgc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.5435 OF 2024

Vijay Sopan Machinder : Applicant

(Org.Accused No.1)

Versus.

Directorate of Enforcement : Respondent

Mr. Sundeep Karnik for the Applicant.

Mr. Prashant Mishra (Special Counsel for ED) a/w Mr. Bharat Jadhav, Ms. Ishita Bhaiya, Mr. Krish Kariya and Ms. Chahat Modi and Ms. Purva Birla for the Respondent No.1 ED.

Mr.Prashant Pandey a/w Mr. Dinesh Jadhwani, Ms. Ridhima Mangaonkar and Ms. Sunati Gupta i/by W3Legal for the Intervenor.

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

DATED : 06 APRIL 2026

PC:-

Heard Mr. Sundeep Karnik, learned Advocate for the Applicant, Mr. Prashant Mishra learned Special Counsel for Respondent- Directorate of Enforcement and Mr. Prashant Pandey, learned Advocate for the Intervenor.

This Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), is filed by the

1

BA-5435.24.DOCX

Applicant seeking bail in connection with ECIR No. ECIR/ MBZO-I/17/2023 registered by the Respondent, for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act 2002).

Material facts for the consideration of this bail application are that Crime No. 837 of 2021 was registered against the Applicant on 14.12.2021 at Oshiwara Police Station under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 13 of the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (“MOFA”). It was subsequently transferred to EOW Mumbai and renumbered as C.R. No. 105 of 2021, with Sections 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (“ MPID”), being added.

The case of the prosecution is that the Applicant, in his capacity as a Director of Ornate Spaces Private Limited, executed a Tripartite Agreement on 18.05.2010 with MHADA and the UTI Employees Society for the construction of 152 flats for UTI employees, to be completed within 54 months of obtaining the completion certificate. Applicant, despite collecting amounts, failed and neglected to fulfil this obligation. Applicant has deceived the intended buyers of the flats, unlawfully sold flats to others, and forged

2

BA-5435.24.DOCX

documents. Applicant has used the proceeds of crime for personal expenses, vehicle purchases, cash withdrawals, investment in a gym business, and other project-related costs.

Respondent registered an ECIR bearing No. ECIR/MBZO-I/17/2023 based on the predicate offence, i.e. C.R. No. 105 of 2021, registered with EOW, Mumbai, to investigate the role of the Applicant in the money laundering offence. Said ECIR is registered as Special Case No. 422 of 2024 and is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, designated as a Special Court under the PML Act 2002, City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai (hereafter “Special Court”). There are three accused persons in the present case. Applicant is Accused No. 1. Wife of the Applicant is Accused No.2, whereas their son is Accused No.

The Applicant was arrested on 03.01.2024 and remains incarcerated.

Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were not arrested in ECIR bearing No. ECIR/MBZO-I/17/2023.

Bail Application at Exhibit-5 in PMLA SPL Case No.422 of 2024 filed by the Applicant was rejected by the Special Court on 05.12.2024.

Mr. Sundeep Karnik, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that the Applicant seeks bail in PMLA Special Case No. 422 of 2024 on the sole ground of prolonged incarceration. He submits that the Applicant has been in jail

3

BA-5435.24.DOCX

since 03.01.2024. He submits that, to date, the charge has not been framed in PMLA Special Case No. 422 of 2024. He submits that, as of now, there is no compliance with Section 44 (1)(c) of the PML Act 2002. He mentions that the charge sheet spans 38 volumes with 14253 pages, and that there are 14 prosecution witnesses in the case. He submits that the maximum punishment for the crime in PMLA Special Case No. 422 of 2024 is 7 years.

Mr. Prashant Mishra, learned Special Counsel for the Respondent-ED, in addition to oral submissions, has tendered brief written submissions dated 02.04.2026. He, by referring to the chart in para no. 12 of the written submissions, submits that the delay in the commencement of the trial is not attributable to the prosecution. He submits that the delay in the present proceedings would be attributable to Accused No.2 and Accused No.3. He submits that the maximum period of punishment for the economic offence against the Applicant in PMLA Special Case No. 422 of 2024 is 7 years. He submits that the computation of the period of release under Section 479 (1) of the BNSS should be one-third of 7 years, approximately 2 years and 4 months. Therefore, he submits that the long incarceration period claimed by the Applicant would only be relevant after 2 years and 4 months of imprisonment. He submits that the Applicant has served 2 years and 3 months in jail and therefore does not qualify for bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration.

4

BA-5435.24.DOCX

Mr. Prashant Pandey, the learned Advocate for the Intervenor, submits that the Applicant has other cases pending against him. He submits that the material on record indicates the Applicant’s guilt in the crime. He argues that the delay in proceedings is caused by the Applicant. He explains that the Intervenor is the affected party and the original complainant. He submits that the Intervenor has a reasonable apprehension that the Applicant will flee the country if released on bail. Therefore, he opposes bail.

Mr. Sundeep Karnik, learned Advocate for the Applicant in the rejoinder, submits that the Applicant has roots in this country and that his family is also based here. He submits that if this Court grants bail, the Applicant will comply with and abide by any conditions the Court considers appropriate to impose.

Heard arguments and perused the records.

Mr. Sundeep Karnik, learned Advocate for the Applicant, has limited the ground for bail due to the prolonged incarceration.

Though Mr. Prashant Mishra, the learned Special Counsel for the Respondent-ED, referring to the chart in paragraph 12 of his written submissions dated 02.04.2026, argued that the delay in commencing the trial is not attributable to the Respondent, he was unable to point out any material from the record of PMLA Special Case No. 422 of

5

BA-5435.24.DOCX

2024 indicating that the delay in starting the trial is due to the Applicant. Even otherwise, the Applicant would not have gained from causing delay, especially since he is in jail.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Dham v. Enforcement Directorate¹ , where the offence was an economic offence with a maximum punishment of 7 years, and the accused had been jailed for 16 months and 20 days, observed in paragraph Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 as follows:-

“15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have carefully perused the record. The court while dealing with the prayer for grant of bail has to consider gravity of offence, which has to be ascertained in the facts and circumstances of each case. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of offences is also the term of sentence i.e., prescribed for the offence, the accused is alleged to have committed5. The court has also to take into account the object of the special Act, the gravity of offence and the attending circumstances along with period of sentence. All economic offences cannot be classified into one group as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another. Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the Court to categorize all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis6. It is well settled that if the State or any prosecuting agency including, the court, concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused, to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime7. The aforesaid proposition was quoted with approval by another two-Judge Bench of this Court and it was held that long period of incarceration for around 17 months and the trial not even having commenced, the appellant in that case has been deprived of his right to speedy trial.

A two-Judge Bench of this Court in V. Senthil Balaji's case9 has held that under the statutes such as

1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 30

6

BA-5435.24.DOCX

PMLA, where maximum sentence is seven years, prolonged incarceration pending trial may warrant grant of bail by Constitutional Courts, if there is no likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time. Statutory restrictions cannot be permitted to result in indefinite pretrial detention in violation of Article 21.

A three Judge Bench of this Court in Padam Chand Jain (supra), reiterated that prolonged incarceration cannot be allowed to convert pretrial detention into punishment and that documentary evidence already seized by the prosecution eliminates the possibility of tampering with the same.

The right to speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence. Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into form of punishment. Economic offences, by their very nature, may differ in degree and fact, and therefore cannot be treated as homogeneous class warranting a blanket denial of bail.

In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled parameters with regard to exercise of jurisdiction for grant of bail in economic offences, we now advert to the facts of the case in hand. The appellant has joined the investigation even prior to his arrest i.e., 19.06.2024 and 02.07.2024 as well as on 09.07.2024. Thus, he has cooperated with the investigation. Out of 28 individuals, only the appellant has been arrested. The order dated 20.08.2025 of the Special Court records the submission of ED that investigation qua the appellant has concluded. The maximum sentence which can be imposed on the appellant is seven years. The appellant is in custody for past around 16 months and 20 days. It is pertinent to note that various Benches of this Court, while taking into account the period of incarceration which ranges from 3 months to 17 months in several cases have granted bail to the appellants therein10. In the instant case, no cognizance has been taken on the prosecution complaint and the proceeding is at the stage of scrutiny of documents. No material has been placed on record to show the fate of the application filed by the ED on 27.09.2025 seeking day-to-day hearing even after period of approximately three months has expired. There are 210 witnesses to be examined in the proceeding. There is no likelihood of trial commencing in the near future. The continued incarceration in such circumstances, particularly where the evidence which is primarily documentary in nature, is already in custody of the prosecution, violates

7

BA-5435.24.DOCX

the right of the appellant to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

The charge in Special Case No. 422 of 2024 has not yet been framed. There is no likelihood that the trial will commence soon. The Applicant has been in jail for nearly 27 months since his arrest. The maximum punishment in PMLA Special Case No. 422 of 2024 is 7 years. As Mr. Sundeep Karnik stated, the charge sheet is voluminous, and the prosecution has listed 14 witnesses. Therefore, the trial is expected to take a substantial amount of time to conclude.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar @ Bhanu Vs. State of Punjab² regarding an accused charged with offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, 1959, made the following observations:-

“5. Prosecution proposes to examine 23 witnesses to drive home the charges against the appellant, but none has been examined. Thus, the trial is likely to take some time to conclude.

Almost two years have passed since the appellant was arrested without trial having commenced and conclusion thereof nowhere being in sight. Incarceration without trial amounts to punishment.”

Mr. Prashant Mishra, learned Special Counsel for the Respondent, has not raised any concern about the Applicant influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence or failing to appear for trial in PMLA Special Case No. 422 of 2024, either in his oral or written submission dated 02.04.2026.

2 Order dated 13 March 2026 in Petition Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) 18775/2025.

8

BA-5435.24.DOCX

Considering the facts of the case at hand and the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arvind Dham (supra) and Pradeep Kumar @ Bhanu (supra), the Applicant is entitled to bail on the sole ground of his long incarceration and the delay in the commencement of trial in Special Case No.422 of 2024. Further detention of the Applicant pending trial is not necessary.

The apprehension expressed by Mr. Prashant Pandey, learned Advocate for the Intervener, can be allayed by imposing conditions on the Applicant's travel.

This Application is therefore allowed on the following conditions:-

(a) Applicant is directed to be released on bail in connection with Crime ECIR No. ECIR/ MBZO-I/17/2023 (Special Case No.422 of 2024) upon furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) with one or two local sureties in the like amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only), to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge Designated as Special Court under the PML Act, 2002, City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai.

(b) Applicant shall report to the Investigation Officer, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai, once a month, i.e. on the first Saturday of each month

9

BA-5435.24.DOCX

from 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 p.m., till the conclusion of the trial in PMLA Special Case No. 422 of 2024.

(c) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person/s acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade such person/s from disclosing the facts to the Court or any police officer.

(d) Applicant shall not tamper with evidence in any manner.

(e) The Applicant shall deposit his passport with the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge designated as the Special Court under the PML Act, 2002, at the City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai, in Special Case No. 422 of 2024, within three (3) days of his release from jail.

(f) Applicant shall, within three (3) days of release from jail, provide the Investigation Officer, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai, with his residential address along with proof, his contact numbers, and email, and must inform the Investigating Officer of any changes to this information from time to time.

(g) The Applicant shall not travel outside the State of

10

BA-5435.24.DOCX

Maharashtra without obtaining prior written permission from the Investigation Officer, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai.

(h) The Applicant shall appear before the Additional Sessions Judge designated as the Special Court under the PML Act, 2002, at the City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai, on each and every date fixed in Special Case No. 422 of 2024, unless specifically exempted by the Court. If the Applicant abstains from attending the proceedings without justifiable cause, that could also be seen as a breach of the bail condition and the Special Court under the PML Act, 2002, at the City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai, will be free to pass appropriate orders.

Mr. Sundeep Karnik, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that the Applicant may be permitted to furnish a cash surety of Rs. 5,00,000/- instead of the solvent surety for a period of two weeks. Mr. Sundeep Karnik undertakes that the solvent surety will be furnished within two weeks from today. Permission is granted. The statement made by Mr. Sundeep Karnik is treated as an undertaking to the court. A cash surety of Rs. 5,00,000/- shall be accepted in lieu of the solvent surety for two weeks. No extension will be granted. Failure to furnish a solvent surety within two weeks from today will be deemed

11

BA-5435.24.DOCX

a breach of bail conditions, and the Special Court under the PML Act, 2002, at the City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai, will be free to pass appropriate orders.

Criminal Application No.5435 of 2024 is disposed of.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

12

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Rejection of the Applicant's bail application (at Exhibit-5) filed in PMLA SPL Case No. 422 of 2024¶8
Additional Sessions Judge designated as a Special Court under the PML Act 2002, City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai · 05.12.2024
Prior proceeding
Registration of Crime No. 837 of 2021 against the Applicant on 14.12.2021 at Oshiwara Police Station under Sections 406, 409, 420 and 34 IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 13 MOFA¶3
Prior proceeding
Subsequent transfer of the crime to EOW Mumbai and renumbering as C.R. No. 105 of 2021¶3
Prior proceeding
Addition of Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 MPID to the renumbered crime¶3
Prior proceeding
Prosecution allegation: as Director of Ornate Spaces Private Limited the Applicant executed a Tripartite Agreement on 18.05.2010 with MHADA and the UTI Employees Society for construction of 152 flats for UTI employees; despite collecting amounts he failed to fulfil the obligation, deceived intended buyers, unlawfully sold flats to others, forged documents, and allegedly used proceeds of crime for personal expenses, vehicle purchases, cash withdrawals and investment in a gym business¶4
Prior proceeding
Respondent (ED) registered ECIR No. ECIR/MBZO-I/17/2023 based on the predicate offence C.R. No. 105 of 2021 (EOW, Mumbai)¶5
Prior proceeding
The ECIR stands registered as Special Case No. 422 of 2024, pending before the Additional Sessions Judge designated as Special Court under the PML Act 2002, City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai¶5
Prior proceeding
Three accused in the case: Applicant is Accused No. 1; his wife is Accused No. 2; their son is Accused No. 3¶5
Prior proceeding
Arrest of the Applicant on 03.01.2024; continued incarceration thereafter¶6
Prior proceeding
Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were not arrested in the ECIR¶7
Prior proceeding
Charge sheet spans 38 volumes with 14,253 pages and 14 prosecution witnesses are listed (figures stated by Applicant's counsel and repeated by the Court at para 17)¶9
Prior proceeding
Charge not yet framed in PMLA Special Case No. 422 of 2024; no likelihood of early commencement of trial¶17
Prior proceeding
As at the decision date the Applicant had been in jail for nearly 27 months since his arrest¶17