Anticipatory bail in PMLA proceedings may be granted after complaint filing where custody is not shown necessary.

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC may still be granted in a PMLA complaint even after investigation is complete, a complaint has been filed, and arrest warrants have issued, if the facts justify pre-arrest protection and custodial interrogation is not shown to be necessary. The Court treated the stage of proceedings and the seriousness of the offence as relevant but not decisive, and it relied on the absence of criminal antecedents and the limited alleged role of the petitioner in receipt and distribution of the amount. Pre-arrest bail was granted subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 despite completion of investigation, filing of complaint, and issuance of arrest warrants.

Analysis: The Court noted that anticipatory bail is not barred merely because cognizance has been taken or a complaint has been filed, and the gravity of the offence or the stage of proceedings is only one factor to be weighed. It further considered that the investigation stood completed, the complaint had already been filed, the petitioner had no criminal antecedents, and the alleged involvement was confined to receipt and distribution of the stated amount. On those facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court found no reason to deny pre-arrest protection.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to anticipatory bail.

Final Conclusion: Pre-arrest bail was granted to the petitioner in connection with the PMLA complaint, subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be granted even after cognizance or filing of complaint where the facts of the case justify such protection and custodial interrogation is not shown to be necessary.

---