Regular bail in money-laundering case: parity, limited arrest concerns, and strict conditions supported release

Regular bail in a money-laundering matter was considered under Section 439 CrPC, with the Court noting that the Enforcement Directorate had not arrested the accused during investigation and that the main accused had already been granted bail. The accused's role was assessed on its own facts, criminal history was treated as non-decisive by itself, and parity with a co-accused supported release. Apprehensions of absconding, witness influence, or evidence tampering were treated as manageable through stringent bail conditions. Regular bail was granted subject to conditions imposed by the Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in the money-laundering case.

Analysis: The petitioner sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court noted that the Enforcement Directorate had not arrested the accused during investigation and that the main accused had already been granted regular bail. The Court also considered the nature of the allegations against the petitioner, the principle that criminal history alone cannot be decisive, and the settled approach that bail is to be granted where the accused can be protected by appropriate conditions. The Court further held that concerns such as absconding, influencing witnesses, or tampering with evidence could be addressed through stringent bail conditions.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to regular bail, subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail can be granted where the accused's role is considered on its own facts, parity exists with a co-accused already enlarged on bail, and the apprehended risks can be neutralised by suitable conditions.

---