Regular bail under the Money-Laundering Act granted after Section 45 safeguards and cooperative conduct weighed against continued custody.

Regular bail under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act was considered against the statutory safeguards in Section 45, including hearing the Public Prosecutor and the Court's satisfaction that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to reoffend while on bail. The Court noted repeated cooperation with the investigation, absence of incriminating material in search, prolonged non-filing of a charge sheet in the predicate offence, prior bail in the predicate crime, and filing of the prosecution complaint. On those facts, continued custody was found unnecessary and bail was granted subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the statutory conditions governing arrest and release on bail.

Analysis: The material placed before the Court showed that the petitioner had been examined by the investigating agency on several occasions, had cooperated with the investigation, and no charge sheet had been filed in the predicate offence for a prolonged period. The Court considered the requirements of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, namely that the Public Prosecutor must be heard and that the Court must be satisfied about reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. The Court also noted that no incriminating material was seized during search, that the petitioner had already been granted bail in the predicate crime, and that the prosecution complaint had already been filed. On these facts, continued custody was found unnecessary.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to bail, subject to conditions.

---