Twin bail conditions under PMLA did not revive after amendment; prolonged pre-trial custody triggered bail on constitutional grounds.

The commentary explains that the twin bail conditions formerly in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act did not revive after the statutory amendment, because a provision already declared unconstitutional cannot be treated as restored merely by changing the opening language without a validating law. It also notes that prolonged custody of more than eight years, completion of investigation, and non-commencement of trial justified bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as continued pre-trial detention was inconsistent with the constitutional right to speedy trial and personal liberty. Bail was therefore described as being granted on stringent conditions to secure attendance and prevent misuse of liberty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 revived after the statutory amendment; (ii) whether the petitioner, in view of prolonged custody and the stage of proceedings, was entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

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

Analysis: The earlier twin conditions in Section 45(1) had been declared unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The later amendment substituting the phrase describing the class of offences did not expressly revive the struck-down conditions, nor did it provide any validating law with retrospective effect. The reasoning adopted was that a provision declared void cannot be treated as revived merely because the opening words were amended.

Conclusion: The twin conditions did not revive and could not be applied against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner, in view of prolonged custody and the stage of proceedings, was entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The petitioner had remained in custody for more than eight years, the investigation in the money-laundering case was complete, and the trial had not commenced. The right to speedy trial was treated as an essential component of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and prolonged pre-trial incarceration was held to defeat the fairness of the criminal process. In these circumstances, continued detention was found unwarranted, subject to stringent conditions to secure attendance and prevent misuse of liberty.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to bail.

Final Conclusion: The bail application was allowed and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail on stringent terms and conditions to ensure appearance and prevent interference with the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: Once bail conditions have been declared unconstitutional, they do not revive by a subsequent amendment that merely alters the triggering language of the provision; prolonged pre-trial detention must be tested against the constitutional right to a speedy trial and personal liberty.

---