PMLA bail conditions remain unconstitutional after amendment, while anticipatory bail was justified on the facts.

The amendment substituting the words "under this Act" in Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act did not cure the constitutional defect identified in Nikesh Tarachand Shah, because the twin bail conditions continued to operate in the same restrictive manner and were not revived by the substitution. The later decision in P. Chidambaram was treated as fact-specific and not determinative of the constitutional issue. On the facts, the allegations and surrounding circumstances were sufficient to justify anticipatory bail, and the petitioner was held entitled to that relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amendment substituting the words "under this Act" in Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 revived the twin conditions for grant of bail struck down in Nikesh Tarachand Shah, and whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail.

Analysis: The amendment was examined against the reasoning in Nikesh Tarachand Shah, where the twin conditions in Section 45(1) were held to impose a drastic restriction on personal liberty and were struck down as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The substituted words were held not to cure the constitutional defect identified in that decision, since the restrictive conditions continued to operate in the same manner and did not revive the invalidated regime. The Court also found that the subsequent decision in P. Chidambaram did not decide the constitutional issue and turned on its own facts. On the facts of the case, the allegations and circumstances were held sufficient to justify grant of anticipatory bail.

Conclusion: The amended Section 45(1) did not revive the twin bail conditions earlier declared unconstitutional, and the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory amendment that merely substitutes the words triggering a bail restriction does not revive a bail provision already held unconstitutional unless it removes the constitutional defect identified in the earlier judgment.

---