Strict money-laundering bail conditions yield to bail-stage discretion where parity and case stage support release.

Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act imposed restrictive bail conditions, but the Court read that embargo in context and held that the bail-stage satisfaction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt. The applicant was not named in the original report, had later been shown in custody, and the Court treated parity with the principal accused and similarly placed co-accused as relevant. As cognizance had already been taken and continued detention was viewed as punitive, the application for bail was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in view of the restrictive conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, and whether parity with similarly placed co-accused justified enlargement on bail.

Analysis: The application arose from allegations of money-laundering linked to the predicate offences, but the applicant had not been named in the original report and had been shown in custody later. The decision turned on the scope of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, which contains a non-obstante clause and requires the Court to be satisfied, before granting bail, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. The Court held that the embargo under Section 45 had to be read in context and that, at the bail stage, the satisfaction contemplated is not one of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court further considered that the principal accused and similarly placed co-accused had already been enlarged on bail, that cognizance had been taken, and that continued incarceration would amount to punitive detention. The Court also treated the doctrine of parity as relevant in the facts of the case and noted that the applicant's custody could not be justified merely by the seriousness of the allegations.

Conclusion: The applicant was held entitled to bail and the application was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The bail restrictions under the money-laundering statute did not prevent enlargement on bail on the facts, and parity with co-accused, along with the stage of proceedings, justified release.

Ratio Decidendi: The stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 do not exclude the Court's discretion under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and bail may be granted where the statutory satisfaction is reached on the facts, especially when similarly placed co-accused have already been enlarged on bail.

---