Anticipatory bail for a person summoned under PMLA was held maintainable on the facts and granted.

Anticipatory bail was found maintainable for a person summoned under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, where the petitioner had been called to appear under Section 50 rather than arraigned as an accused. The Court applied settled pre-arrest bail principles, considering the gravity of the allegations, the possibility of cooperation with investigation, the earlier bail order, and the health-related explanation for non-appearance. On that factual footing, it balanced investigative interests against personal liberty and granted anticipatory bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a person summoned under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Analysis: The petition was considered in the context of a summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, rather than the petitioner being arraigned as an accused. The Court weighed the gravity of the allegations against the petitioner, the earlier anticipatory bail order, the material showing that the petitioner had been called upon to appear, and the stated health-related reasons for non-appearance. It also applied the settled parameters governing pre-arrest bail, including the nature of the accusation, the possibility of cooperation with investigation, and the need to balance investigative interests with personal liberty.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was held to be maintainable on the facts and was granted to the petitioner.

---