Section 45 PMLA rigours apply only after arrest under Section 19; judicial custody was not insisted upon here.

Section 45(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act applies only when bail is considered for an accused arrested under Section 19. Where the accused had not been arrested during investigation, the alleged assets were already seized or attached, no vulnerable private witness was shown to be at risk, and the complaint was at an initial stage, judicial custody was not insisted upon. The interim arrangement permitting surrender and interim bail was confirmed, and protective relief was maintained in favour of the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be taken into judicial custody pending trial and whether the rigours of Section 45(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 applied in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The petitioner had not been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 during investigation. The alleged assets had already been seized or attached, and there was no vulnerable private witness shown to be at risk. The complaint was at an initial stage. The Court also noted that the rigours of Section 45(1)(ii) would be attracted only while considering the bail plea of an accused arrested under Section 19 of the Act.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not required to be kept in judicial custody, and the interim order permitting surrender and interim bail was made absolute.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to insist on judicial custody and confirmed the interim protective relief in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The rigours of Section 45(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 apply only when bail is considered for an accused arrested under Section 19 of the Act.

---