Illegal arrest under PMLA defeats twin bail conditions when 24-hour magistrate production safeguard is breached.

An arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is vitiated if the accused is not produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of actual custody, as required by Article 22(2) and Section 57 CrPC, applied through Section 65 of the PMLA. The Court treated custody as commencing when physical custody was handed to the Enforcement Directorate pursuant to the Look Out Circular, not from the later arrest memo time. Because that constitutional safeguard was breached, the arrest was illegal and custody stood vitiated; bail could not be refused merely by relying on the twin conditions in Section 45 of the PMLA. Bail was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's arrest was illegal for non-production before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours, and whether such illegality justified grant of bail notwithstanding the rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The arrest was found to have commenced when the respondent was taken into custody pursuant to the Look Out Circular and physical custody was handed over to the Enforcement Directorate, not from the later time recorded in the arrest memo. On that factual basis, the respondent was not produced before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hours of such custody. That violation of the constitutional safeguard under Article 22(2) rendered the arrest illegal and vitiated the custody. Section 57 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, operating through Section 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, applied to the proceedings, and once the arrest stood vitiated, the bail court could not refuse bail merely by invoking the twin conditions under Section 45.

Conclusion: The arrest was illegal and vitiated, and bail was rightly granted; the appeal failed.

---