Anticipatory bail under PMLA was upheld as Section 45 restrictions did not bind the High Court's independent discretion.

Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act did not restrict the High Court's power to consider anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC on its own merits, as the Court read Sections 44 and 45 harmoniously and held that the stringent restrictions were not meant to apply to Constitutional Courts. Dismissal of earlier Section 482 CrPC quashing petitions did not decide the bail question, because quashing and bail are distinct jurisdictions requiring independent consideration. On the facts, the Court relied on delay in lodging complaints, completion of investigation, cooperation by the applicants, absence of recovery or attachment, and continued compliance with interim protection to confirm anticipatory bail.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the restrictions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 governed the High Court's power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether dismissal of petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 concluded the question of anticipatory bail. (iii) Whether the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail on the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the restrictions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 governed the High Court's power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The provisions of Sections 44 and 45 were read together and harmoniously. The saving of the High Court's special powers regarding bail was treated as having been placed in Section 44 by mistake and as intended to operate with Section 45. The Court relied on the structure of analogous statutes to hold that the legislative intent was not to curtail the constitutional court's power in the same manner as it restricts subordinate courts. It concluded that the rigours of Section 45 were not applicable to Constitutional Courts while deciding anticipatory bail.

Conclusion: The restrictions in Section 45 did not bar the High Court from considering anticipatory bail applications on their own merits.

Issue (ii): Whether dismissal of petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 concluded the question of anticipatory bail.

Analysis: The scope of quashing proceedings under Section 482 and the scope of bail jurisdiction were held to be distinct. The Court applied the principle that rejection of a quashing petition is not determinative of bail, and that anticipatory bail must be decided independently on its own facts. Prior rejection under Section 482 was therefore treated as not controlling the bail decision.

Conclusion: Dismissal of the Section 482 petitions did not preclude grant of anticipatory bail.

Issue (iii): Whether the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The Court considered the delay in lodging the complaints, the completion of investigation, the applicants' cooperation, the absence of recovery of proceeds of crime from them, the absence of attachment of their properties, and their personal circumstances, including age and ailments in the case of one applicant. It also noted that interim anticipatory bail had been operating without reported breach. On that basis, the Court found that continued protection was justified.

Conclusion: The applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail.

Final Conclusion: The interim protection was confirmed and the anticipatory bail applications were finally allowed, with the existing bail conditions to continue.

---