PMLA bail rules: provisional attachment does not trigger default bail, but conditional release may still be justified on facts.

Proceedings for provisional attachment and confirmation under the PMLA do not amount to completion of investigation for statutory bail under section 167(2) CrPC; where the complaint is filed within the prescribed period, no indefeasible right to default bail arises. Bail under the PMLA remains subject to the statutory twin conditions, and the general power under section 439 CrPC cannot operate as in an ordinary case without regard to those restrictions. On the facts, the accused had already remained in custody, the relevant material and assets were secured, and further custodial necessity was not shown, so conditional bail was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings for provisional attachment and confirmation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 amount to completion of investigation so as to attract statutory bail under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in view of sections 19 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the surrounding circumstances.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings for provisional attachment and confirmation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 amount to completion of investigation so as to attract statutory bail under section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The scheme of the Act permits arrest on the basis of material in possession and also contemplates summons, recording of statements, attachment, adjudication and complaint. The proceedings relating to provisional attachment under section 5(1) and confirmation under section 5(5) are directed to protection of property and prevention of further laundering, and not to the completion of the prosecution investigation for filing of the final complaint. Since the complaint was filed within 60 days from arrest, no indefeasible right to statutory bail accrued.

Conclusion: The contention based on section 167(2) was rejected and the claim for statutory bail failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in view of sections 19 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the surrounding circumstances.

Analysis: The Court held that bail under the Act is controlled by the twin conditions in section 45, and the general power under section 439 cannot be exercised as in an ordinary case without satisfying those conditions. At the same time, arrest under section 19 is only to justify custodial action on the basis of material and does not bind the Special Court on guilt. The Court found that the petitioner had already been in custody, the prosecution had seized the relevant material and taken control of the assets, the complaint had been filed, and further custodial necessity was not shown. The fact that the petitioner had been granted bail in the predicate offences did not by itself compel release, but it was a relevant surrounding circumstance.

Conclusion: The petitioner made out a case for bail, and release on bail was directed subject to conditions.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the applicability of the PMLA bail restrictions but found that, on the facts of the case, continued custody was not justified and conditional bail was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings for provisional attachment under the PMLA do not amount to completion of investigation for section 167(2) CrPC, and bail under the Act must be tested on the statutory twin conditions, but conditional release may still be granted where the material and custody already secured do not justify further detention.

---