Appearance bond under Section 88 CrPC is not bail; money-laundering bail restrictions do not apply to summoned accused.

Where an accused was not arrested during investigation and appears after cognizance pursuant to summons, a bond directed under Section 88 CrPC is an appearance bond and not a bail order. The Rajasthan HC held that such a direction does not place the accused in custody and therefore does not attract the bail restrictions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act or the cancellation power under Section 439(2) CrPC. As the impugned orders were consistent with the governing legal position, the applications seeking cancellation of the bond directions were rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an order directing an accused, who was not arrested during investigation and was summoned after cognizance, to furnish a bond for appearance under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 amounts to a bail order so as to attract Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the trial court's orders requiring bonds for appearance were liable to be cancelled in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether an order directing an accused, who was not arrested during investigation and was summoned after cognizance, to furnish a bond for appearance under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 amounts to a bail order so as to attract Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The accused were not arrested during investigation under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the complaint was filed thereafter. The Court relied on the principles stated in Tarsem Lal and the subsequent Supreme Court orders, holding that when such an accused appears pursuant to summons, he is not to be treated as being in custody and the special court may direct furnishing of bonds under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. A bond under Section 88 is only an undertaking to appear and does not amount to bail; therefore the restrictions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are not attracted.

Conclusion: The bond direction was not a bail order and Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 did not apply.

Issue (ii): Whether the trial court's orders requiring bonds for appearance were liable to be cancelled in the facts of the case.

Analysis: Since the accused were summoned after cognizance, were not in custody, and the bond direction was consistent with the governing legal position, the challenged orders were found to be in accordance with law. The applications under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were therefore held to have no merit.

Conclusion: The trial court's orders were upheld and the prayer for cancellation was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The applications for cancellation of the bond orders failed because the impugned directions under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were treated as appearance bonds and not as bail, leaving no occasion to invoke the bail restrictions under the money-laundering statute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused has not been arrested during investigation and appears pursuant to summons after cognizance, a bond taken under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not a grant of bail and does not attract the statutory bail conditions applicable to persons in custody.

---