Court denies bail cancellation, finds application valid under Section 439(2), no Section 45(1) conditions, Trial Court's bail decision sound.

The court rejected the application for cancellation of bail, ruling that the application under Section 439(2) was maintainable, the twin conditions of Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act did not apply post-amendment, and the Trial Court had not acted on irrelevant material while granting bail. The interim order was not continued.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the application under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C.
2. Applicability of the twin conditions under Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act post-amendment.
3. Whether the Trial Court acted on irrelevant material while granting bail.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Application under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C.:

The respondent's counsel argued that the application under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. was not maintainable since the accused had not been released from custody. They cited precedents to support that the prosecution could not seek cancellation of bail unless the accused was actually released. However, the prosecution countered that the scope of Section 439(2) should not be restricted to actual release and argued that such an interpretation would defeat the purpose of the provision. The court agreed with the prosecution's view, stating that interpreting Section 439(2) to require actual release would render it redundant and conditional, thus, the application was maintainable even if the accused had not been released.

2. Applicability of the Twin Conditions under Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act Post-Amendment:

The prosecution contended that the twin conditions of Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act were revived by the 2018 amendment and should apply to the case. They relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in P. Chidambaram and other High Court judgments to support their argument. However, the court noted that the Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah had struck down Section 45 of the PMLA Act as a whole for being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The court agreed with previous judgments that the 2018 amendment did not revive the twin conditions and they would not apply while granting bail for offences under the PMLA Act.

3. Whether the Trial Court Acted on Irrelevant Material While Granting Bail:

The prosecution argued that the Trial Court granted bail by ignoring relevant material and considering irrelevant factors. They pointed out that the Trial Court had previously found prima facie evidence of the respondent's involvement in money laundering and that there was no progress in the investigation to justify the bail. The court examined the reasons provided by the Trial Court for granting bail, including the filing of the charge-sheet, lack of efforts to arrest other accused, and the withdrawal of the respondent's objection to property attachment. The court found that the Trial Court had not acted on irrelevant material and had considered the relevant factors appropriately. The prosecution's arguments were not sufficient to overturn the bail order.

Conclusion:

The court rejected the application for cancellation of bail, ruling that the application under Section 439(2) was maintainable, the twin conditions of Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act did not apply post-amendment, and the Trial Court had not acted on irrelevant material while granting bail. The interim order was not continued.

---