PMLA bail remains barred where a prima facie money-laundering complaint exists and statutory conditions are not met.

Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act barred bail because the complaint disclosed a detailed prima facie case of money laundering, and the twin conditions for release were not satisfied. The Court held that 127 days in custody did not amount to prolonged incarceration warranting bail on Article 21 or speedy-trial grounds. Default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC was refused because the prosecution complaint was filed within time and was treated as a complete final report despite curable defects. Medical bail was declined since the ailments could be treated in custody, and alleged arrest irregularities under Section 19 PMLA were found unsupported on the record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether bail could be granted under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 despite the prima facie material, including on the ground of prolonged incarceration and speedy trial; (ii) Whether the petitioner was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (iii) Whether medical grounds justified release on bail; (iv) Whether alleged procedural lapses in arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 warranted bail.

Issue (i): Whether bail could be granted under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 despite the prima facie material, including on the ground of prolonged incarceration and speedy trial.

Analysis: The twin conditions under Section 45 require reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. On the material placed, the Prosecution Complaint disclosed a detailed prima facie case of money laundering, including alleged illegal allotments, layering of proceeds of crime, and role attributed to the petitioner. The Court held that the record did not permit a finding that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was not guilty. As to long incarceration and delay, the Court accepted that Article 21 and speedy-trial concerns can, in appropriate cases, override the statutory restrictions, but found that 127 days of custody did not amount to such prolonged incarceration as would justify bail at that stage.

Conclusion: Bail was not granted on merits or on the ground of prolonged incarceration.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was entitled to default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The Prosecution Complaint was found to have been filed within the statutory period and to contain the essential ingredients of a final report. The Court treated the noted defects as formal and curable, not fatal to the complaint. It further held that pendency of investigation against other accused did not revive or preserve the right to default bail once a complete complaint had been filed against the petitioner, and that the reservation of liberty for further investigation did not make the complaint incomplete.

Conclusion: The claim for default bail was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether medical grounds justified release on bail.

Analysis: The ailments pleaded were considered capable of treatment in Government or prison hospitals. The material did not show a serious life-threatening condition or infirmity that could not be managed in custody. The Court therefore held that the medical ground was not sufficient for bail, while directing that appropriate treatment be ensured.

Conclusion: Bail on medical grounds was refused.

Issue (iv): Whether alleged procedural lapses in arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 warranted bail.

Analysis: The Court accepted the findings of the trial court that the grounds of arrest and reasons to believe were communicated and that the arrest procedure was not shown to have violated the statutory safeguards. The record was held to disclose compliance with the safeguards and no ground for a contrary view.

Conclusion: The alleged arrest irregularities did not entitle the petitioner to bail.

Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected, though liberty was reserved to renew the request after three months if circumstances changed or the trial was shown to be unduly delayed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a PMLA bail matter, a prima facie complaint disclosing money-laundering activity defeats bail under Section 45 unless the twin conditions are met, and short custody not amounting to prolonged incarceration will not justify release merely by invoking Article 21 or speedy-trial concerns.

---