LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Sanjay Sureka @ Sanjay Kumar Sureka v. Directorate of Enforcement

Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1124Decided 14 Oct 2026
Criminal Appeal No. 4904 of 2026
Justice Aravind Kumar · Justice Vipul M. Pancholi

Background

The case arose from the insolvency of M/s. Concast Steel and Power Limited; a CBI FIR alleged the appellant used 62 shell companies to inflate the company's turnover, secure bank credit, and divert funds for personal gain, with alleged proceeds of crime of about Rs. 6,210.72 crores (only Rs. 777.10 crores attached). The appellant was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in December 2024 and had been in custody for about 20 months when he challenged a Calcutta High Court order rejecting his regular bail plea.

Decision Breakdown

The Court rejected the appellant's technical objections (a short delay in forwarding arrest material to the Adjudicating Authority, and near-identical "Grounds of Arrest" documents), finding no invalidity in the arrest itself. However, it found the sheer scale of the case, 97 accused, 48 witnesses, ~15,000 pages of documents, investigation still ongoing, made early trial completion unrealistic. Citing Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), it held that PMLA's stringent twin conditions for bail cannot override the constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21, and granted bail subject to safeguard conditions (bail bonds, passport deposit, travel restrictions, no witness tampering).

Lesson Learnt

Even under PMLA's strict bail regime, prolonged pre-trial custody cannot substitute for punishment: when a trial's scale makes early completion unrealistic, the constitutional right to liberty takes precedence even in large economic-offence cases.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Akshat Jain & Ors. vs. State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court confirmed that Rs. 20 lakh had already been paid and the remaining Rs. 10 lakh was handed over (and accepted) in court via demand draft. Speaking directly with the wife, the judge confirmed she entered the settlement voluntarily and no longer wished to pursue the case; the State also raised no serious objection. Relying on Supreme Court precedent (Jitendra Raghuvanshi v. Babita Raghuvanshi, (2013) 4 SCC 58), which holds that High Courts can quash even non-compoundable offences in matrimonial disputes to encourage genuine settlements, the Court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings.

Decided 13 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Dharmender Kumar Tandon vs. The State of NCT of Delhi

Given the petitioner's long incarceration and good conduct record, and with the State's consent, the Court allowed the petition and set aside the earlier order rejecting parole. It granted parole for four weeks (not the full two months requested), conditioned on the petitioner furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety of the same amount, with the Jail Superintendent to formally inform him in writing of his exact surrender date after the parole period ends.

Decided 13 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Sagar Bharti & Ors. vs. The State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr.

The complainant appeared in court, was identified by the investigating officer, and personally confirmed to the judge (in Hindi) that she had compromised all disputes, received full payment, and no longer wished to pursue the case. The State also had no objection. Finding it in the interest of justice not to force the parties through a full trial once a genuine settlement was reached, the Court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings.

Decided 13 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Vishal Sharma & Ors. vs. The State Through SHO & Anr.

The State had no objection, and the complainant personally appeared in court, was identified by the investigating officer, and confirmed in Hindi that he had genuinely settled all disputes with the petitioners and no longer wished to pursue the case. Satisfied that the parties were now living peacefully as neighbours and that forcing a full trial would serve no purpose, the Court exercised its inherent power to quash the FIR and all proceedings arising from it.

Decided 13 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Rupesh Saini vs. The State GNCT (Delhi) & Anr.

The wife appeared via videoconferencing, was identified by the investigating officer, and personally told the judge (in Hindi) that she had settled all disputes and received full payment. The State raised no objection. Satisfied this was a genuine settlement and that forcing a full trial would serve no purpose, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR along with all related proceedings.

Decided 13 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Saleem vs. State NCT of Delhi

The Court noted that the commercial quantity threshold for poppy straw is 50 kg, so the 5.140 kg recovered was only an "intermediate" quantity, meaning the stricter bail-refusal rules under Section 37 of the NDPS Act did not apply. Relying on a similar precedent (Deepak vs. State), the Court found the investigation complete, all witnesses were police officials (so no risk of influencing private witnesses), and no other case existed against the applicant. Bail was granted on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with surety, subject to a detailed list of standard conditions (no leaving Delhi, monthly police reporting, no contact with witnesses, etc.).

Decided 13 Oct 2026Read case