Bail embargo under money-laundering law applies only to arrested persons; voluntary appearance may be secured by bonds.

The commentary explains that the bail embargo under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act operates only where the accused has already been arrested under section 19 before cognizance, because section 45 is read as applying to custody situations contemplated by the special statute. It further states that once cognizance is taken, a fresh arrest of an unarrested accused under section 19 is not a matter of course and can occur only under a court-issued warrant. For an accused who was never arrested during investigation and appears before the Special Court in response to process, the Code provisions on bonds continue to apply, so further appearance may be secured without custody.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rigours of section 45(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 apply only when the accused has been arrested under section 19 of that Act before cognizance is taken. (ii) Whether, after cognizance, an accused who was not arrested during investigation can be arrested again under section 19 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002. (iii) Whether an accused who was not arrested during investigation and appears before the Special Court in response to summons or warrant can furnish bonds for further appearance without being taken into custody.

Issue (i): Whether the rigours of section 45(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 apply only when the accused has been arrested under section 19 of that Act before cognizance is taken.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was read by the Court as linking section 45 to the situation contemplated by section 19(3), namely an arrested person produced before the Magistrate within twenty-four hours. The second proviso to section 45(1) was treated as reinforcing that the bail embargo operates in the context of a person already in custody, while the provisions of the Code continue to apply where they are not inconsistent with the special statute. On that basis, the Court held that the twin conditions under section 45(1)(ii) are attracted only at the stage of considering bail or bond of a person who has already been arrested under section 19.

Conclusion: The rigours of section 45(1)(ii) apply only to an accused arrested under section 19 before cognizance, and not otherwise.

Issue (ii): Whether, after cognizance, an accused who was not arrested during investigation can be arrested again under section 19 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Court held that once cognizance is taken, the matter comes under the control of the Court, and any subsequent arrest of an accused who had not been arrested during investigation cannot be effected by the authority under section 19 as a matter of course. The Court further held that after cognizance such arrest can occur only pursuant to warrant issued by the Court, and that the special statute contains no inconsistency permitting a post-cognizance section 19 arrest in the manner suggested by the petitioner.

Conclusion: Post-cognizance arrest under section 19 was held impermissible except in accordance with a warrant issued by the Court.

Issue (iii): Whether an accused who was not arrested during investigation and appears before the Special Court in response to summons or warrant can furnish bonds for further appearance without being taken into custody.

Analysis: The Court applied section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, together with section 65 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, and held that where the accused was never arrested during investigation and appears voluntarily before the Court pursuant to process, the Court may require execution of bonds for future appearance. The Court distinguished custody cases from voluntary appearance cases and emphasized that the embargo in section 45 does not displace the operation of section 88 in such a situation.

Conclusion: Such an accused was held entitled to furnish bonds for further appearance without incarceration in custody.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the view that the bail embargo under the special statute is confined to arrested persons, recognized the applicability of the Code to voluntary appearance by unarrested accused, and consequently declined to grant any relief to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute does not expressly exclude the Code, the bail embargo applies only to an accused already arrested under the statute, while an accused who appears voluntarily after cognizance may be dealt with under the provisions of the Code governing appearance and bonds.

---