Anticipatory bail in PMLA proceedings upheld where no formal arrest existed and Section 45 did not bar relief on the facts.

Anticipatory bail in a PMLA prosecution was held maintainable where the petitioner had not been formally arrested in the enforcement case, because arrest and custody are not synonymous and Article 21 remained relevant. The plea for default bail under Section 167 CrPC was rejected because that provision applies only after formal arrest and detention in the investigation case. Section 45 PMLA was also held not to bar pre-arrest bail on these facts, given the existing custody in the predicate case, substantial investigation already completed, and no fresh material showing custodial interrogation was necessary; protection from arrest was granted with conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether anticipatory bail could be granted in a PMLA prosecution where the petitioner had not been formally arrested in the enforcement case; (ii) whether the plea of default bail under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was available on the facts; (iii) whether the statutory restrictions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 barred grant of pre-arrest bail in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): whether anticipatory bail could be granted in a PMLA prosecution where the petitioner had not been formally arrested in the enforcement case.

Analysis: The discretionary power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies where a person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of a non-bailable offence. The Court held that arrest and custody are not synonymous, and that a person remanded for interrogation while already in custody in another case may still apprehend formal arrest in the later case. The materials showed that the petitioner had been taken for remand and interrogation, but had not been formally arrested in the enforcement case, and the requirement of personal liberty under Article 21 remained relevant.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was maintainable and justified on the facts, and the issue was answered in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the plea of default bail under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was available on the facts.

Analysis: The Court found that Section 167 operates where a person is arrested and detained in custody for investigation, and that the facts of the case showed remand under the PMLA court process without a formal arrest in the enforcement matter. As the petitioner had not been formally arrested in the enforcement case, the statutory consequence of default bail could not be invoked on that footing.

Conclusion: The claim to default bail was not accepted, and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): whether the statutory restrictions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 barred grant of pre-arrest bail in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The Court held that the rigours of special bail provisions must be applied reasonably and in harmony with Article 21, and that the Court need not reach a final finding on guilt at the bail stage. Considering the long period already spent in custody in the predicate case, the completion of substantial investigation, the absence of any formal arrest in the enforcement case, and the lack of any fresh material necessitating custodial interrogation, the Court formed a prima facie view that release on pre-arrest bail would not defeat the administration of justice.

Conclusion: Section 45 did not bar relief on these facts, and the issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition was found to be a fit case for exercise of the Court's power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and protection from arrest was granted with conditions safeguarding investigation, witnesses, and appearance before the trial court.

---