PMLA bail granted where the accused cooperated, faced no arrest or attachment, and the complaint was delayed.

In a PMLA prosecution, bail was granted where the applicant had consistently cooperated in both the predicate-offence and money-laundering investigations, had not been arrested during the inquiry, and no provisional attachment order had been issued. The Court also noted that the complaint was filed after substantial delay and that the record lacked supporting witness material annexed to substantiate the allegations. On those facts, the Court treated the matter as fit for bail without expressing any view on the merits, indicating that cooperation, absence of arrest or attachment, and inadequate supporting material may justify release.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The applicant had cooperated in the investigation of the predicate offence as well as the money-laundering investigation, had not been arrested during the long course of inquiry, and no provisional attachment order had been issued. The complaint was filed after a substantial delay, and the record did not disclose supporting witness material annexed to substantiate the allegations in the complaint. In these circumstances, and without entering into the merits of the , the Court found the case fit for grant of bail.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the accused has consistently cooperated in investigation, has not been arrested, no provisional attachment has been made, and the complaint is filed after inordinate delay without adequate supporting material, bail may be granted without expressing any opinion on the merits.

---