PMLA bail and Section 45 twin conditions remained unenforced after the amendment, with anticipatory bail granted on cooperation and low flight risk.

In a PMLA prosecution, the HC held that the amendment substituting the words "under this Act" in Section 45(1) did not revive the twin conditions for bail that had earlier been declared unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 21. On the facts, the petitioner had undergone custodial interrogation, cooperated with investigation, and no concrete material showed a risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. Anticipatory bail was therefore granted, subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, and whether the amended Section 45 revived the twin conditions for bail after the earlier declaration of unconstitutionality.

Analysis: The application was considered in the context of the constitutional validity and effect of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The earlier Supreme Court ruling declaring the earlier twin-condition regime unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 21 was examined, along with the subsequent substitution of the words "under this Act" in Section 45(1). The Court held that the amendment did not revive the twin conditions that had been struck down. It further noted that the petitioner had already undergone custodial interrogation, had cooperated with investigation, and that no concrete material showed likelihood of absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to conditions, and the bail application was allowed.

---