Section 45 PMLA twin conditions were not revived by amendment, and regular bail could follow without a mini trial.

A bail restriction under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 that had been declared unconstitutional was not automatically revived by the 2018 amendment merely substituting the wording on scheduled offences, absent retrospective validating legislation. The commentary also notes that where investigation is substantially complete, the complaint and reports have been filed, and relevant material is already seized, regular bail may be granted on conditions despite disputed allegations. It further states that the court need not conduct a mini trial at the bail stage on whether Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code applies, leaving that issue for trial or other appropriate proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had revived after the 2018 amendment. (ii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail on the facts of the case, including the limited question whether the Court should enter into a mini trial on the applicability of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at the bail stage.

Issue (i): Whether the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had revived after the 2018 amendment.

Analysis: The earlier declaration striking down the twin conditions as unconstitutional rendered those conditions void and inoperative. The subsequent amendment substituting the phrase describing the scheduled offence did not by itself revive the struck-down conditions, particularly in the absence of any retrospective validating legislation. In this view, the amended provision could not be treated as restoring the earlier bail restriction.

Conclusion: The twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were not revived and could not be applied against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail on the facts of the case, including the limited question whether the Court should enter into a mini trial on the applicability of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at the bail stage.

Analysis: The investigation had substantially concluded, the police report and supplementary report as well as the complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had already been filed, the relevant documents stood seized, and the petitioners had participated in investigation on multiple occasions. The Court declined to conduct a mini trial on the disputed issue whether Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was attracted, leaving that question to be examined in appropriate proceedings or by the trial court. Considering custody, age, health, attachment of properties and the prevailing pandemic-related prison decongestion concerns, the balance favoured release on bail.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to regular bail subject to conditions imposed by the trial court.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded and the petitioners were ordered to be released on regular bail subject to conditions, without any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.

Ratio Decidendi: A bail restriction declared unconstitutional is not automatically revived by a later amendment that merely alters the operative wording, and once investigation is complete the court may grant regular bail without undertaking a mini trial on disputed merits.

---