Retrospective PMLA bail restriction rejected where scheduled offence was added later and prolonged custody justified release.

A later amendment bringing cheating under the PMLA Schedule could not be applied retrospectively to defeat bail where the alleged conduct and complaint pre-dated the amendment, because the change was substantive and affected bail rights. The Court also noted that prolonged custody of more than three years, the unlikelihood of trial commencing within a reasonable time, and prior attachment of properties weighed against continued detention. On those facts, section 45 did not bar bail and the applicant was entitled to release on conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the restriction on bail under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 applied where the scheduled offence was brought into Part-A of the Schedule only after the complaint had been filed, and whether the applicant was entitled to bail in view of prolonged custody and the unlikely commencement of trial within a reasonable time.

Analysis: The accusation arose from alleged money laundering connected with cheating offences under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. At the time of the alleged conduct and at the time of filing of the complaint, that offence was not in Part-A of the Schedule, but was added there only by amendment with effect from 15 February 2013. The change was held to be substantive and not merely procedural, because it affected bail rights materially. The Court held that the amended restriction could not be applied retrospectively to defeat the applicant's bail claim. The Court also noted that the applicant had remained in custody for more than three years, the trial was not likely to commence within a reasonable time, the properties had already been attached, and continued detention could not be justified merely on the basis of the magnitude of the allegations or investor grievances.

Conclusion: Section 45 was held not to bar bail in the facts of the case, and the applicant was held entitled to release on bail.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded, and the applicant was directed to be released on bail subject to conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: A bail restriction introduced by later amendment to the Schedule of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot be applied retrospectively to an accused whose alleged scheduled offence was not in the relevant category at the material time, and prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be continued where trial is not likely to commence within a reasonable time.

---