Custody threshold, successive bail, and PMLA presumptions shape bail analysis in serious economic offence cases.

Custody beyond one-third of the maximum sentence does not create an automatic right to bail, because the second proviso to Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 preserves judicial discretion after hearing the public prosecutor and recording reasons. Successive bail applications require a substantial change in circumstances; a mere repetition of earlier grounds is insufficient. In PMLA matters, allegations of acquisition and retention of proceeds of crime may keep the Section 24 presumption operative until rebutted, and the first proviso to Section 45(1)(ii) may be unavailable on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail on the ground that they had undergone custody for more than one-third of the maximum punishment and could claim benefit of Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether the second bail applications were maintainable in the absence of any substantial change in circumstances; and (iii) Whether the petitioner Rajni Priya was entitled to bail in view of the allegations of acquisition and retention of proceeds of crime and the statutory presumptions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail on the ground that they had undergone custody for more than one-third of the maximum punishment and could claim benefit of Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The custody period by itself did not create an automatic right to release. The second proviso to Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 preserves judicial discretion to continue detention for reasons recorded in writing after hearing the public prosecutor. The Court treated the allegations as involving a serious economic offence affecting public funds and the national economy, and held that such matters do not warrant grant of bail merely because the statutory custody threshold has been crossed.

Conclusion: The claim for bail on the basis of custody period was rejected and not accepted in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the second bail applications were maintainable in the absence of any substantial change in circumstances.

Analysis: The earlier bail rejections had already been considered in detail, and the Court found no material change in the factual situation. The principle governing successive bail applications requires a substantial change in circumstances, and a mere repetition of the earlier grounds is insufficient. On that basis, the renewed applications were not found fit for interference.

Conclusion: The second bail applications were held not to merit grant of bail.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioner Rajni Priya was entitled to bail in view of the allegations of acquisition and retention of proceeds of crime and the statutory presumptions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Court accepted the prosecution case that the petitioner was shown to have acquired several immovable properties from allegedly illicit funds and had not satisfactorily explained the source of those assets. In that situation, the presumption under Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 remained unrebutted. The Court also held that the relaxation contemplated by the first proviso to Section 45(1)(ii) was unavailable on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: Bail was denied to the petitioner Rajni Priya as well.

Final Conclusion: All the bail requests were declined because the Court found no entitlement to release on the basis of custody period, no substantial change for entertaining successive bail pleas, and no sufficient rebuttal of the PMLA presumptions in relation to the alleged proceeds of crime.

Ratio Decidendi: In serious economic offences, statutory custody thresholds do not confer an automatic right to bail, successive bail applications require a substantial change in circumstances, and bail may be refused where the presumption of proceeds of crime remains unrebutted.

---