PMLA bail principles under ordinary CrPC jurisdiction applied where custodial necessity was not shown and safeguards could manage risk.

In a PMLA bail context, the Court treated the restriction in Section 45 as diluted following the Supreme Court's ruling striking it down as manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21, and therefore applied ordinary bail principles under Section 439 CrPC. It found that the petitioner had earlier been in custody on the same allegations, had been granted bail without misuse of liberty, and that the prosecution had not shown any sufficient need for further custodial interrogation. The apprehension of absconding was addressed through conditions, and bail was granted with safeguards including bond, sureties, passport deposit, weekly appearance, and restraints on witness intimidation or evidence tampering.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 despite the prosecution's reliance on Section 45 of that Act and objections based on custodial necessity, flight risk, and alleged non-cooperation.

Analysis: The application was considered under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court noted that the petitioner had previously been in custody in relation to the same allegations, had earlier been granted bail, and had not misused liberty thereafter. The Court also noted that the grounds of arrest in the present matter substantially overlapped with the earlier arrest, that the Enforcement Directorate had not filed a complaint within the relevant custody period, and that no sufficient material was shown to establish the necessity of further custodial interrogation. The reliance on Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was treated as diluted in view of the Supreme Court's ruling striking down that provision as manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, thereby requiring recourse to the ordinary bail jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The apprehension of absconding was held capable of being addressed by conditions.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the petitioner on conditions, including furnishing bond, sureties, deposit of passport, weekly appearance before the Investigating Officer, and restraint against intimidation of witnesses or tampering with evidence.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to release on bail in the PMLA case, subject to protective conditions designed to secure investigation and attendance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the special bail restriction under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 is unavailable or diluted, and the prosecution fails to show necessity for custodial interrogation, bail may be granted under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 subject to appropriate safeguards.

---