Chennai: A long period of imprisonment alone cannot justify bail in a money-laundering case, Madras high court has said, dismissing the bail plea of a man arrested in connection with the ₹43-crore investment fraud in Puducherry.Justice C Kumarappan said the stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) would apply to the case. He rejected the petition filed by Nishad Ahammed Kannu, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in September 2025 after the Puducherry CB-CID registered the predicate offence.According to investigators, Kannu induced about 825 people to invest ₹4.5 lakh each by promising returns totalling ₹9 lakh and allegedly cheated them of nearly ₹43 crore.The petitioner contended the ED had not identified any proceeds of crime, shell entities or benami transactions, and claimed that the matter was, at best, an investment dispute. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in the V Senthilbalaji case, he sought bail and also alleged that the grounds of arrest had not been furnished to him.Opposing the plea, the ED submitted that the accused had collected ₹4.5 lakh each from nearly 800 people on the promise of paying monthly returns of ₹55,000 for 11 months and had withdrawn substantial sums from various bank accounts after the probe commenced.The court held that the petitioner’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s Senthilbalaji judgment was misplaced. It noted that the Supreme Court had granted bail in that case as the trial, involving more than 2,000 accused and about 600 witnesses, could not be completed within a reasonable period. In contrast, the present case had only three accused.Justice Kumarappan further said the cheating of about 800 people of ₹43 crore attracted the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA, and reiterated that prolonged incarceration alone could not override statutory bail restrictions.Rejecting the claim that the grounds of arrest were not supplied, the court said Kannu was arrested before the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mihir Rajesh Shah vs State of Maharashtra, which clarified that written communication of the grounds of arrest would apply prospectively. The judge also noted that Kannu had not raised this issue in his earlier bail pleas and invoked it only in his fourth attempt.
