PMLA bail conditions may not apply automatically where the accused was never arrested during investigation and cooperated throughout.

In a PMLA prosecution, where the accused was consciously not arrested during investigation, had cooperated under section 50, and was later produced only after summoning, the rigour of section 45 was not treated as an automatic bar to bail on those facts. The analysis distinguished cases involving prior arrest or existing incarceration and relied on the interpretation of Satender Kumar Antil and section 170 CrPC. It concluded that further arrest was unnecessary merely because the accused appeared before court after process, and rejected a contrary reading that would require section 45 conditions to be satisfied in every such case.

---

---

Issues: Whether an accused in a PMLA prosecution, who was not consciously arrested during investigation and was later produced before the court after summoning, can be denied bail solely on the ground that the stringent bail conditions under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 must still be satisfied.

Analysis: The application turned on the interpretation of the Supreme Court's guidelines in Satender Kumar Antil and the scope of section 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The accused had not been arrested during investigation, had cooperated by giving statements under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the investigating agency had not sought custody either during investigation or after filing of the complaint. The court distinguished cases where the accused is already in incarceration or has been arrested during investigation. It held that where an accused has been consciously not arrested, there is no necessity of further arrest merely because the accused appears before the court after process. In such a situation, the rigour of section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was not treated as a bar to bail on these facts, and the respondent's reliance on a contrary reading of Satender Kumar Antil was rejected.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to bail.

---