Prolonged custody and non-precedential error under PMLA Section 45 led to bail-related relief and disapproval.

Prolonged custody and substantial pre-trial incarceration can justify release on bail where the risk of absconding is capable of being controlled by conditions such as surrender of passport; continued detention was therefore treated as unnecessary. The Court also clarified that the High Court's interpretation of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was inconsistent with settled law and expressly denied it precedential value in other cases. The special leave petition was rejected, the status quo order was vacated, and release was left to the conditions imposed by the Special Court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent's continued incarceration warranted interference and release on bail. (ii) Whether the High Court's interpretation of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be treated as a precedent.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent's continued incarceration warranted interference and release on bail.

Analysis: The respondent had remained in custody for more than three years and had undergone nearly half of the maximum sentence that could be imposed. The apprehension of flight risk was considered capable of being addressed by suitable conditions, including surrender of passport. In these circumstances, continued detention was held unnecessary.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court's interpretation of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be treated as a precedent.

Analysis: The interpretation adopted by the High Court on Section 45 was found not to be in tune with the law laid down by the Court. The Court expressly clarified that such interpretation shall not be treated as precedent in any other case.

Conclusion: The High Court's interpretation of Section 45 was disapproved and denied precedential value.

Final Conclusion: The special leave petition was rejected, the status quo order was vacated, and the respondent's release was left to the conditions imposed by the Special Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where prolonged custody has already resulted in substantial pre-trial incarceration and the risk of absconding can be neutralised by conditions, continued detention is not necessary; an erroneous interpretation of law by the High Court does not operate as precedent when expressly disapproved.

---