Regular bail in PMLA documentary-case prosecution granted after prolonged custody and expected trial delay.

Regular bail was granted in a PMLA prosecution because the case rested on documentary material, the petitioner had already spent about seven months in custody, and no substantial progress in trial had been shown after the complaint was filed. The Court treated likely delay in completion of trial as a relevant factor and held that the apprehension of non-appearance was not enough to deny bail, particularly where the petitioner was stated to be a resident of Ludhiana. Bail was therefore allowed subject to appropriate conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The petitioner had remained in custody for about seven months, the case was founded on documentary material, and no substantial progress had been shown after filing of the complaint. The Court treated the likely delay in completion of trial as a relevant factor. The apprehension that the petitioner might not appear was not accepted as sufficient to deny bail, especially when he was stated to be a resident of Ludhiana.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: In a documentary-evidence case where the trial is likely to take considerable time and custody has already continued for a substantial period, regular bail may be granted subject to appropriate conditions.

---