PMLA bail principles: once section 45 restrictions fell away, ordinary section 439 standards governed and bail was granted.

Once the twin conditions in section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were held inapplicable, bail in a PMLA matter had to be assessed under the ordinary principles of section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court noted that the presumptions and burden provisions in sections 23 and 24 operate at trial and do not, by themselves, bar bail at the threshold. Applying the usual bail factors, including the nature of the accusation, stage of investigation, material seized, and the accused's liberty, the Court found continued custody unwarranted and granted bail subject to stringent conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after the twin conditions in section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were held inapplicable, the application for bail was to be considered under the ordinary principles governing section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (ii) Whether, on the facts and in view of the seriousness of the alleged money-laundering offence, bail ought to be granted.

Issue (i): Whether, after the twin conditions in section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were held inapplicable, the application for bail was to be considered under the ordinary principles governing section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The earlier bail rejection had rested on the statutory rigour of section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Once that rigour stood removed by the Supreme Court's ruling, the Court held that the present request had to be examined afresh on the ordinary parameters of section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court also held that the presumption and burden provisions in sections 23 and 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are matters to be tested with evidence at trial and do not, by themselves, foreclose bail at the threshold.

Conclusion: The bail application was required to be considered under ordinary bail principles, and the statutory twin conditions under section 45 did not bar relief.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts and in view of the seriousness of the alleged money-laundering offence, bail ought to be granted.

Analysis: The Court balanced the nature of the accusation, the punishment prescribed, the stage of investigation, the material already seized, and the applicant's right to personal liberty. It emphasized that bail jurisprudence requires a balance between investigational interests and liberty, and that the offence, though economic in nature, was punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and not with life imprisonment or death. Suitable safeguards could protect the investigation and the prosecution's interest. On that basis, the Court found that continued custody was not warranted.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the applicant on stringent conditions.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded and the applicant was directed to be released on bail subject to conditions designed to secure cooperation with the investigating agency and protect the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Once the special bail restrictions under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are inapplicable, bail in a PMLA case must be decided on settled section 439 principles by balancing personal liberty against investigative and public interests, while the presumptions under sections 23 and 24 operate for trial and do not, by themselves, defeat bail.

---