PMLA arrest safeguards and bail discretion for a woman accused justified release after prolonged pre-trial custody.
Non-compliance with the arrest safeguards under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was treated as a serious irregularity where the accused remained in Enforcement Directorate custody before formal arrest was recorded, and the Court found the statutory mandate was complied with only belatedly. The proviso to Section 45(1) was treated as conferring judicial discretion, not an automatic right to bail, but the accused was held fit for release on bail because of prolonged pre-trial incarceration, uncertainty about trial progress, prior custodial interrogation, and the availability of restrictive conditions to manage bail risks. The constitutional concern for a speedy trial also weighed in favour of bail.
Issues: (i) whether there was non-compliance with the mandate of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in effecting the petitioner's arrest, and (ii) whether the petitioner, being a woman and having remained in custody for a substantial period, was entitled to bail in view of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Issue (i): whether there was non-compliance with the mandate of Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in effecting the petitioner's arrest
Analysis: The arrest and remand sequence showed that the petitioner remained in the custody of the Enforcement Directorate for several days before formal arrest was recorded, and the supporting materials did not satisfactorily establish timely compliance with the statutory safeguards governing arrest. The delay in formal compliance with the arrest procedure was treated as a serious irregularity in the context of personal liberty, and the Court found that the statutory mandate had been complied with only belatedly.
Conclusion: The arrest procedure was not duly complied with in the manner required by Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Issue (ii): whether the petitioner, being a woman and having remained in custody for a substantial period, was entitled to bail in view of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
Analysis: The proviso to Section 45(1) was treated as conferring a judicial discretion, not an automatic right to bail, but the Court found the petitioner fit for the exercise of that discretion on the facts. The prolonged pre-trial incarceration, uncertainty in the commencement and completion of trial, prior custodial interrogation, and the ability to control the usual bail risks through conditions such as surrender of passport, appearance before the court, and cooperation with the investigating agency were treated as material factors. The Court also noted the importance of the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to bail in the exercise of discretion under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Final Conclusion: The bail application was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail on conditions designed to secure her attendance and prevent misuse of liberty.
Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the proviso to Section 45(1) confers a discretion to grant bail to a woman accused, and prolonged pre-trial detention with delayed compliance of arrest safeguards may justify release on bail subject to suitable conditions.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
