Bail granted under PMLA with strict conditions for trial compliance.

The court granted bail to the applicant under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), considering the applicant's cooperation, the duration of custody served, and the need for expedited adjudication. Specific conditions were imposed to ensure the applicant's compliance during the trial, emphasizing personal presence on key trial dates and restrictions on leaving India without court permission.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Bail application under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
2. Judicial custody and duration of imprisonment.
3. Compliance with Section 45 of the PMLA.
4. Previous bails granted in predicate offences.
5. Arguments regarding the necessity and timing of the applicant's custody by the Enforcement Directorate (E.D.).
6. Conditions for granting bail.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Bail Application under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA):
The applicant sought bail in Complaint Case No.110 of 2019, Session Case No.722 of 2022, under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA. The bail application was filed in the context of the applicant's involvement in predicate offences under Sections 419, 420 & 406 IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Mau, District- Mau.

2. Judicial Custody and Duration of Imprisonment:
The applicant has been in jail since 22.02.2019 for predicate offences and was taken into custody by the E.D. on 01.09.2022. The applicant has been in judicial custody for more than four years. The maximum punishment under the PMLA is seven years, and the applicant has already served more than half of this period.

3. Compliance with Section 45 of the PMLA:
The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant has served more than half of the maximum punishment and has not misused the process of law. The court noted that the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA are satisfied, considering the applicant's cooperation and the delay in trial proceedings. The court referenced the Apex Court's dictum in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Another, emphasizing the need for quicker adjudication in cases with rigorous provisions.

4. Previous Bails Granted in Predicate Offences:
The applicant has been granted bail in all 13 predicate offences. The court noted that the applicant appeared before the E.D. when summoned and cooperated with the investigation. The E.D. did not arrest the applicant immediately after lodging the ECIR on 05.09.2018, indicating no immediate need for custody.

5. Arguments Regarding the Necessity and Timing of the Applicant's Custody by the E.D.:
The E.D. took custody of the applicant on 01.09.2022, despite the applicant being in judicial custody since 22.02.2019. The court questioned the necessity and timing of this custody, as the E.D. had not found it appropriate to arrest the applicant earlier. The court found no cogent reasons for the delayed custody by the E.D.

6. Conditions for Granting Bail:
The court allowed the bail application with specific conditions:
- The applicant must not seek adjournments on dates fixed for evidence.
- The applicant must remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
- The applicant must not misuse the liberty of bail, and in case of default, the trial court may proceed against him under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code.
- The applicant must remain present in person for key trial dates.
- The applicant must not leave India without prior permission from the court.

Conclusion:
The court granted bail to the applicant, emphasizing the applicant's cooperation, the duration of custody already served, and the need for quicker adjudication in cases under special acts like the PMLA. The court imposed specific conditions to ensure the applicant's presence and compliance during the trial.

---