Bail in money laundering prosecution granted after prolonged custody, filed complaint, and consideration of Section 45 twin conditions.

Bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was considered appropriate where the petitioner had spent over five months in custody, the complaint had already been filed, and the trial was likely to take time. The petitioner was not an accused in the predicate offence, and the Court declined to examine the merits of the allegations at the bail stage. It also noted the effect of the later understanding that the twin conditions under Section 45(1) could not be applied as earlier understood. Bail was granted subject to protective conditions, including surety, surrender of passport, travel restraint, disclosure of contact details, and notice of any change of address.

---

---

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

Analysis: The petitioner had been in custody for more than five months and the complaint had already been filed, so the trial was likely to take time. The petitioner was not an accused in the predicate offence. The Court also noted the effect of the declaration that the twin conditions under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could not be applied in the manner earlier understood, and declined to enter findings on the merits of the allegations at the bail stage. On the facts and circumstances, bail was considered appropriate with protective conditions.

Conclusion: The petitioner was granted bail subject to conditions including furnishing surety, surrender of passport, restriction on foreign travel, disclosure of contact details, and intimation of any change of address.

---