PMLA bail restrictions and anticipatory bail in economic offences: amendment did not revive struck-down twin conditions.

The article explains that the twin conditions formerly read into Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were treated as not revived by the Finance Act, 2018 amendment, because the amendment changed the opening words without validly re-enacting the struck-down conditions or supplying retrospective validation. It also notes that, on the anticipatory bail question, allegations of a serious economic offence, a detailed money trail, layered transactions and the need for custodial interrogation justified refusal of pre-arrest protection at that stage. The discussion states the ratio that a mere change in trigger words does not restore an unconstitutional bail restriction unless the conditions are expressly re-enacted or saved by a validating law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the twin conditions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 applied to applications for anticipatory bail after the 2018 amendment. (ii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations of economic offences and the need for custodial interrogation.

Issue (i): Whether the twin conditions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 applied to applications for anticipatory bail after the 2018 amendment.

Analysis: The earlier declaration of unconstitutionality in relation to the twin conditions under Section 45 was held to continue. The substitution made by the Finance Act, 2018 altered the opening words of the provision but did not revive the struck-down twin conditions, nor was there any validating legislation giving them retrospective effect. The Court followed the view taken in several High Court decisions and treated the twin conditions as inapplicable for deciding anticipatory bail.

Conclusion: The twin conditions under Section 45 were held inapplicable to the present anticipatory bail petitions.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations of economic offences and the need for custodial interrogation.

Analysis: The allegations involved a serious economic offence with a detailed money trail, layered transactions, and continuing investigation by the Enforcement Directorate. The Court noted that custodial interrogation could still be necessary to uncover the full extent of the transactions and the role of the petitioners. Applying the principles governing anticipatory bail in economic offences, the Court declined to interfere in favour of pre-arrest protection at that stage.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were rejected after holding that the revived-amendment argument on Section 45 could not be accepted, but that the gravity of the alleged economic offence and the needs of investigation justified denial of pre-arrest bail.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment that changes the trigger words of a bail restriction does not by itself revive a provision earlier held unconstitutional unless the struck-down conditions are validly re-enacted or saved by a retrospective validating law.

---