Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Journalist Mahesh Langa in Money Laundering Case

In a significant order touching upon press freedom, bail jurisprudence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and the right to speedy trial, the Supreme Court on December 15, 2025, granted interim bail to journalist Mahesh Langa in a money laundering case linked to alleged cheating offences.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi passed the interim order while hearing Langa’s bail plea. The Court also issued strict conditions, including directions for day-to-day trial, cooperation by the accused, and restrictions on publishing articles related to the sub-judice allegations.

Background of the Case

Mahesh Langa, a journalist formerly associated with The Hindu, was initially arrested on October 7, 2024, in connection with a GST fraud case. Subsequently, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) arrested him on February 20, 2025, in a money laundering case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, arising out of two FIRs alleging cheating.

The ED alleged that the proceeds of crime involved crossed the statutory threshold of ₹1 crore, thereby attracting the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA. Langa, however, disputed this claim, arguing that the amount mentioned in the complaint was substantially lower.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Submissions on Behalf of Mahesh Langa

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Langa, strongly contested the applicability of the stringent bail conditions under Section 45 PMLA. He submitted that:

• The money allegedly involved was only ₹68 lakhs, as reflected in the prosecution complaint.
• The ₹1 crore threshold, which triggers the rigours of Section 45 PMLA, was not crossed.
• No predicate offence involving proceeds of crime beyond the threshold had been established.
• The ED had failed to supply crucial documents relied upon by the prosecution, despite repeated requests by the accused.

Sibal further refuted the ED’s claim that Langa was responsible for delaying the trial, asserting that adjournments were sought only because relevant documents were not furnished.

Enforcement Directorate’s Stand

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, representing the ED, opposed the grant of interim bail and made the following submissions:

• The amount involved exceeded ₹1 crore, and documents substantiating this were already annexed with the complaint.
• The accused had delayed trial proceedings by seeking adjournments on the ground that a quashing petition was pending before the High Court.
• Granting interim bail would effectively amount to granting final relief.
• Allegations of journalists extorting money by threatening adverse reporting were serious and warranted strict judicial scrutiny.

Seeking time, the SG requested an adjournment till the next day to place additional material before the Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Bench declined to examine the disputed factual question of whether the alleged proceeds of crime crossed ₹1 crore, observing that the issue was a matter for trial.

Emphasising the importance of expeditious justice, the Court noted that the only way to ascertain the truth was through a speedy trial, and accordingly proposed to issue directions ensuring day-to-day proceedings.

When the Solicitor General objected to the grant of interim bail, arguing that it would amount to final relief, the Bench nevertheless proceeded to pass the interim order, balancing the interests of justice with the need for an effective trial.

Interim Bail Conditions Imposed by the Supreme Court

While granting interim bail, the Supreme Court imposed stringent and specific conditions, reflecting judicial caution in PMLA cases:

1. Bail Bonds
   The petitioner shall furnish bail bonds as directed by the Special Court under the PMLA.
2. Day-to-Day Trial
   The Special Court is directed to conduct day-to-day proceedings for recording the statements of nine witnesses.
3. No Adjournments
   The petitioner and his counsel must fully cooperate with the trial.
   No adjournment shall be sought on the ground that a quashing petition is pending before the High Court.
4. Restriction on Publication
   Langa shall not publish or write any article, in his capacity as Assistant Editor or otherwise, relating to the allegations that are sub-judice before the Special Judge at Ahmedabad.
5. Liberty to File Objections
   The petitioner is at liberty to place on record any objections or additional material before the Special Court.
6. Status Report by ED
   The Enforcement Directorate is directed to submit a status report on compliance with the bail conditions.

The Bench also warned that misuse of interim bail would lead to recall of the order.

Exchange Between the Bar

The courtroom exchange highlighted the broader tension between allegations against journalists and concerns of press freedom. While the SG remarked that journalists extorting money was a serious offence, Kapil Sibal countered, stating that industrialists targeting journalists was equally serious.

The matter has been posted for further consideration in January 2026.

Legal Significance of the Order

This interim order is significant for multiple reasons:

• It reinforces the Supreme Court’s consistent emphasis on speedy trial, especially in cases involving prolonged incarceration.
• The Court once again refrained from conducting a mini-trial at the bail stage, particularly on disputed questions of fact.
• The order reflects judicial balancing between liberty of the accused, seriousness of economic offences, and institutional concerns relating to journalism.
• The restriction on publication underscores the Court’s effort to preserve trial integrity while granting interim relief.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to grant interim bail to Mahesh Langa, coupled with strict safeguards and directions for expeditious trial, reflects a measured approach in PMLA bail jurisprudence. While the allegations against the journalist remain to be tested at trial, the order reiterates that pre-trial incarceration should not become punitive, particularly when factual disputes require judicial determination through evidence.

The case is likely to remain closely watched, given its implications for economic offence prosecutions, media freedom, and the interpretation of Section 45 of the PMLA.

Also Read

Supreme Court Asks Tamil Nadu Government to Ascertain Land Requirement for Navodaya Vidyalayas, Directs Consultation With Centre

Three Credit Course on Law, Technology, and Vulnerability – Academic Opportunity at National Law University Odisha (January 2026) | Apply Now