Prospective grounds-of-arrest direction and Section 45 rigors not attracted, so bail was granted under PMLA.

A direction requiring written communication of grounds of arrest was treated as prospective because the Supreme Court used the word "henceforth"; it was not applied to invalidate an arrest already made under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, especially where the remand papers contained the grounds of arrest. The Court also held that the rigors of Section 45 were not attracted on the facts, noting that the petitioner was not named in earlier prosecution complaints and that the FIR relied on did not directly bear on the money-laundering allegation. Bail was therefore granted and custody ordered to terminate on bail.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the direction requiring written communication of grounds of arrest in Pankaj Bansal operated retrospectively so as to invalidate the petitioner's arrest; (ii) whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in view of the applicability of the rigors of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the direction requiring written communication of grounds of arrest in Pankaj Bansal operated retrospectively so as to invalidate the petitioner's arrest.

Analysis: The expression used in the Supreme Court's direction was read as prospective in operation. The reasoning proceeded on the basis that the term "henceforth" indicates application for the future and not to arrests already effected. It was also observed that treating the direction as retrospective would unsettle a large number of arrests made under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The remand papers were also noted to contain the grounds of arrest.

Conclusion: The petitioner's arrest was not held illegal on the ground urged, and the direction in Pankaj Bansal was treated as prospective.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in view of the applicability of the rigors of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Court noted that the petitioner was not named in the earlier prosecution complaints and that the F.I.R. relied upon was not treated as bearing directly on the present money-laundering allegation. On that basis, it was held that the rigors of Section 45 would not apply in the present case. This led to the conclusion that bail could be granted on the terms imposed.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to bail.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner's custody was ordered to be terminated on bail, while the objection based on retrospective application of the written-grounds requirement was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A direction using the expression "henceforth" is ordinarily prospective, and bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 may be granted where the Court finds that the rigors of Section 45 are not attracted on the facts of the case.

---