PMLA bail principles: cooperating accused, non-arrest during investigation, and summons-stage non-supply of documents may justify release.

Cooperating accused persons in PMLA complaint proceedings are not to be taken into custody mechanically after appearance on summons, particularly where no arrest was made during investigation and statements were recorded under the Act. The text also notes that non-supply of the complaint and supporting documents at the summons stage may affect the legality of custody under the CrPC framework for complaint cases. The discussion further states that the rigour of Section 45 of the PMLA is not an absolute bar in such circumstances, and that bail may be considered on the facts where continued cooperation is shown and pre-trial custody is not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 despite the rigour of Section 45, and whether non-supply of the complaint and supporting documents at the stage of summons affected the legality of taking him into custody.

Analysis: The applicant had not been arrested during investigation under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 despite repeated appearance and recorded statements under Section 50, and the record indicated continued cooperation throughout the investigation. The Court noted that when the prosecution complaint was filed and summons were issued, the applicant appeared, yet the complaint and relevant documents were not supplied in the manner contemplated by Section 204(3) and Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Relying on the settled principles that arrest is not mandatory in every case and that the liberty of a cooperating accused should not be curtailed mechanically, the Court held that the applicant's custody after appearance was not warranted on the facts of the case. The Court also found that the trial court's refusal to grant bail by applying the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was not justified in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to bail and the bail application was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused has cooperated throughout investigation, was not arrested during investigation, and appears pursuant to summons in a complaint case, custody cannot be imposed mechanically and bail may be granted without treating Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as an absolute bar.

---