Regular bail in a PMLA case turned on low flight risk, no witness interference, and secured seized material.

Regular bail was granted in a PMLA prosecution because the usual bail considerations weighed in the petitioners' favour: there was no concrete risk of absconding, the seized documents and material remained with the investigating agency or court, and no real basis was shown for apprehension of witness tampering or influence. The Court also noted that the petitioners had already been granted bail in the scheduled offences, had participated in the proceedings for a substantial period without arrest, and that the seized amount was already secured in fixed deposits. On these facts, the petitioners were found entitled to release on regular bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to be released on regular bail in the prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Bail was considered on the usual parameters of the likelihood of absconding, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses. The petitioners had already been enlarged on bail in the scheduled offences. The documents and seized material were in the custody of the investigating agency or the court, reducing any possibility of tampering. No material was shown to support a real apprehension that the petitioners had attempted to influence witnesses. The Court also noted that the petitioners had participated in the proceedings for a substantial period without arrest and that the seized amount was already lying in fixed deposits.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to regular bail.

---