Prolonged pre-trial detention under PMLA cannot defeat speedy trial rights where bail conditions would cause indefinite incarceration.

Prolonged pre-trial detention under the PMLA was treated as incompatible with Article 21 where the applicant had remained in custody for over six years, the investigation was incomplete, and the trial had not begun. The Court held that the twin conditions in Section 45 could not be applied so rigidly as to sustain indefinite incarceration, and that Section 436A operates as a safeguard against excessive detention. Bail was therefore granted despite the statutory rigours, because continued custody had effectively become punishment without adjudication and the trial was unlikely to conclude within the remaining sentence period.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on account of prolonged incarceration and delay in commencement of trial; (ii) whether the statutory rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the proviso to Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be overridden in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on account of prolonged incarceration and delay in commencement of trial.

Analysis: The applicant had remained in custody for more than six years, while the investigation was still incomplete and the trial had not commenced. The Court treated the delay as exceptional and noted that continued detention had the effect of converting pre-trial custody into punishment without adjudication of guilt. The Court also took note of the grant of bail in the predicate offence and the improbability of the trial concluding within the remaining maximum sentence period.

Conclusion: The applicant was held entitled to regular bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration and inordinate delay in trial.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the proviso to Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be overridden in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The Court held that the twin conditions under Section 45 cannot be applied so rigidly as to justify indefinite incarceration where the right to speedy trial under Article 21 is being defeated. It further held that Section 436A is a safeguard against excessive pre-trial detention and that even though its proviso permits continued custody in appropriate cases, such discretion could not be exercised to prolong detention indefinitely in the present facts.

Conclusion: The statutory bar under Section 45 and the proviso to Section 436A did not prevent grant of bail in the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: Regular bail was granted, subject to conditions, because prolonged custody without commencement of trial was found incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial.

Ratio Decidendi: In PMLA cases, statutory bail conditions cannot be used to justify indefinite pre-trial incarceration where investigation remains incomplete and trial is not likely to conclude within a reasonable time, as such detention violates Article 21.

---