Ordinary bail principles apply under PMLA once twin conditions are struck down, leading to bail on factual progress.

After the twin conditions in Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were held unconstitutional, bail applications had to be assessed on ordinary bail principles. The Court noted that the prosecution case was based largely on documentary material already collected, the complaint and supplementary complaint had been filed, and the investigation had substantially progressed. It also considered the long custodial period, the maximum sentence prescribed, and the absence of any convincing need for further custody for investigation. Bail was granted subject to conditions imposed by the Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail should be granted in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act after the twin conditions in Section 45(1) were held unconstitutional, and whether the nature of the evidence and stage of investigation justified release on bail.

Analysis: The twin conditions in Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act could not be applied after they were declared unconstitutional, so the applications had to be considered on ordinary bail principles. The prosecution case rested largely on documentary material already collected, complaint and supplementary complaint had been filed, and the investigation had substantially progressed. The petitioners had remained in custody for more than ten months, the alleged offence carried a maximum sentence of seven years, and the Court found no convincing basis to conclude that further custody was necessary for investigation.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the petitioners subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.

Final Conclusion: The bail applications were allowed on merits, as continued incarceration was not found necessary in the circumstances of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: Once the statutory twin conditions for bail under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are invalidated, bail must be decided on ordinary considerations such as the nature of evidence, stage of investigation, custodial period, and likelihood of interference with the process of justice.

---