Section 436A custody relief denied where delay and PMLA gravity justified continued detention during trial

Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits release of an undertrial after one-half of the maximum sentence, but allows continued detention for recorded reasons and prohibits custody only beyond the maximum term. In a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Calcutta HC held that the alleged grave economic offence, together with the accused's repeated bail, discharge and other applications that contributed to delay, justified invoking the proviso to Section 436A. Bail was therefore refused, and release was declined at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, despite prolonged custody and alleged delay in trial.

Analysis: The prayer for bail was tested against the statutory framework of Section 436A, which permits release of an undertrial after completion of one-half of the maximum sentence, but also authorises continued detention for reasons recorded in writing and bars detention only beyond the maximum sentence. The Court found that the prosecution alleged a grave economic offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and that the record disclosed repeated steps by the accused, including bail and discharge applications and other petitions, which contributed to delay in the progress of the trial. In that backdrop, the Court accepted the view that the proviso to Section 436A was attracted and that continued custody was justified pending trial.

Conclusion: Bail was refused and the petitioner was not entitled to release under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at that stage.

---