Parity in bail under PMLA, with prolonged incarceration and strict conditions, justified release in connected money laundering proceedings.

Parity in bail was treated as a relevant consideration where the accused had undergone substantial incarceration and a co-accused brother had already been granted bail in connected ECIRs. The Court accepted that denial of parity was not justified on the facts, and bail was granted in a PMLA prosecution with strict safeguards, including deposit of passport, no foreign travel, no attempt to influence witnesses, cooperation for an expeditious trial, and cancellation of bail for delay tactics.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to bail on the ground of parity with his brother and in view of the length of incarceration, in connection with offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The appellant had undergone substantial incarceration and his brother had already been granted bail by the High Court in relation to the connected ECIRs. The appellant had also been granted bail in respect of one ECIR by the same order. On that basis, denial of parity was not justified. Bail was granted with conditions, including deposit of passport, restraint on travel outside India, no attempt to influence witnesses, cooperation in expeditious trial, and the consequence that any attempt to delay the trial would result in cancellation of bail.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to bail on parity and the appeals were allowed by setting aside the High Court orders.

---