Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the third bail application was maintainable after the change in the law relating to bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in the facts of the case.
Analysis: The earlier twin conditions in Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had been declared unconstitutional, and the provision had also been amended to relax the bail conditions. In that changed legal position, the Court held that a fresh bail application was maintainable. On the merits, the Court applied the settled principle that bail is not to be withheld as punishment and that the primary inquiry is whether the accused is likely to appear for trial. The Court noted that the petitioner had cooperated in investigation, had not been arrested during investigation, had no material showing tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, had already remained in custody for a substantial period, and the alleged laundering amount was below one crore rupees.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to bail and the application was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: After the invalidation of the twin bail conditions under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the subsequent statutory amendment, bail must be assessed on ordinary bail principles, with due regard to liberty, the accused's conduct, and the risk of flight or interference with the trial.