After nearly three years behind bars, the Manipur High Court on Monday granted regular bail to Shri Sanasam Jacky Singh, the alleged mastermind behind the Lamjingba Group of Companies, in a high-profile money laundering case involving more than ₹600 crore.
The court held that prolonged incarceration, coupled with delay in trials of the underlying offences, diluted the strict bail conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Background of the Case
Sanasam Jacky Singh, is accused of running an unauthorised deposit scheme through the Lamjingba Group, allegedly collecting nearly ₹600 crore from around 15,000 investors across Manipur.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Quashes GST Demand on Flavoured Milk, Orders Refund to Dodla Dairy with Interest
According to the prosecution, the group promised unusually high monthly returns up to 3.5 percent without being registered as a Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) under RBI norms. Initial interest payouts reportedly created confidence, but operations allegedly shut down in early 2020, leaving investors without their principal amounts.
Multiple FIRs were registered by Manipur Police for cheating, criminal breach of trust, and conspiracy. Parallelly, the Directorate of Enforcement registered an ECIR, accusing Singh of laundering proceeds of crime by transferring assets worth over ₹250 crore to an investors’ association.
Why Bail Was Denied Earlier
While Singh secured default bail in all eight scheduled offence FIRs due to delay in investigation, his bail pleas under the PMLA were twice rejected by the Special Court.
Those rejections were based on Section 45 of the PMLA, which requires courts to be satisfied that the accused is prima facie not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences - commonly known as the “twin conditions”.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Clarifies Cost Order, Waives ₹20,000 Imposed for Adjournment in Criminal Case
As a result, Singh remained in custody solely in connection with the ED case since January 2023.
Court’s Observations
Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma noted that although the PMLA trial had begun, only five out of 21 witnesses had been examined so far. The court observed that even if the PMLA trial concluded, no conviction could follow unless Singh was first convicted in the scheduled offences, where investigations are still pending.
Referring to recent Supreme Court rulings, the bench observed that “stringent bail provisions cannot be used to justify indefinite pre-trial incarceration.”
The court also relied on Section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which allows bail when an undertrial has spent half of the maximum possible sentence in custody.
Read also:- Allahabad High Court Quashes Stamp Duty Demand, Orders Refund to Woman Buyer in Barabanki Land Case
“The prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty should not become punishment without trial,” the bench remarked during the hearing.
Arguments from Both Sides
Senior counsel for Singh argued that his client had already spent close to three years in jail, nearing half of the maximum sentence under PMLA. He submitted that continued custody violated the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Enforcement Directorate opposed bail, calling Singh the “main architect” of a large-scale Ponzi scheme. The agency claimed he had admitted to unaccounted transactions and warned that releasing him could undermine investor confidence and ongoing investigations.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Orders Blocking of 47 Piracy Websites in Warner Bros-Led Suit, Grants Dynamic- Injunction
Decision
After examining the record and case law, the High Court concluded that the strict rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA stood diluted due to long incarceration and delay in completion of related trials.
The court granted bail subject to strict conditions, including a personal bond of ₹25 lakh, two gazetted officer sureties, mandatory court appearances, surrender of passport, and restrictions on leaving Manipur or influencing witnesses.
“In these circumstances, continued detention is not justified,” the court held, allowing the bail application and disposing of the case
Case Title: Shri Sanasam Jacky Singh vs Directorate of Enforcement
Case Number: Bail Application No. 10 of 2025
Date of Order: 23 December 2025
