PMLA bail turns on secured documentary evidence and custody necessity, not seriousness alone after complaint is filed.

In a PMLA prosecution, regular bail was granted where investigation was complete, the complaint had been filed, and the material was largely documentary and already secured; continued custody was not shown to be necessary, and there was no real risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. The seriousness of the economic allegations alone was held insufficient to justify further incarceration once the relevant records were seized and the defence could be prejudiced by prolonged pre-trial detention. The twin conditions for bail were not treated as a bar, and bail was assessed on settled criminal law factors and fair-trial considerations.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the completion of investigation in the complaint, the documentary nature of the material, and the absence of a demonstrated risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. (ii) Whether the twin conditions for bail under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, could be applied as a bar to bail in the present case.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the completion of investigation in the complaint, the documentary nature of the material, and the absence of a demonstrated risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.

Analysis: The alleged transactions were financial in nature and were reflected in banking and regulatory records. The physical and electronic records had already been seized, and the complaint had been filed. On the facts, continued custody was not shown to be necessary for further investigation. The Court also found no real and probable risk of absconding, witness influence, or interference with the process of trial, and emphasised that prolonged pre-trial detention would impair the applicant's ability to prepare his defence and undermine the right to a fair trial. The gravity of the alleged economic offence, by itself, was held insufficient to justify continued incarceration once the complaint had been filed and the material evidence was already secured.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to regular bail.

Issue (ii): Whether the twin conditions for bail under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, could be applied as a bar to bail in the present case.

Analysis: The Court treated the constitutional invalidity of the twin conditions as continuing to govern bail consideration, noting that no subsequent decision had upheld their revival in the amended form. Bail therefore had to be assessed on settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, including the nature of accusation, the material relied upon, the likelihood of absconding, and the possibility of witness intimidation, rather than on an absolute statutory embargo.

Conclusion: The twin conditions under section 45 were not applied as a bar to bail.

Final Conclusion: Regular bail was granted subject to conditions, on the footing that custody was no longer justified once the complaint had been filed and the relevant material had been collected.

Ratio Decidendi: In a money-laundering prosecution, once the complaint has been filed and the material evidence is documentary and secured, continued pre-trial custody cannot be justified merely on the basis of the seriousness of the allegations or speculative apprehensions; bail must turn on the settled factors of necessity, risk, and fair-trial considerations.

---