PMLA bail conditions were not revived by amendment, so ordinary Section 439 CrPC bail principles applied.

The earlier constitutional invalidation of Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had removed the twin bail conditions, and the later amendment inserting the words "under this Act" did not expressly revive that regime or operate retrospectively. Bail therefore fell to be considered under the ordinary jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant was also similarly placed to the principal accused, who had already been granted bail, and the other accused persons had likewise been enlarged on bail, supporting release on bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether the amended Section 45 of the Act revived the earlier twin conditions for grant of bail.

Analysis: The earlier constitutional invalidation of Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had struck down the provision imposing the two additional bail conditions. The subsequent amendment inserting the words "under this Act" did not expressly revive or resurrect the earlier twin-condition regime, and the amending notification was silent on retrospective operation. In these circumstances, the application had to be considered under the ordinary bail jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant was also similarly placed to the principal accused, who had already been granted bail, and the record showed that the other accused persons had also been enlarged on bail.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to be released on bail, and the amended Section 45 did not restore the earlier twin conditions as a bar to bail.

---