Prolonged custody justified bail during trial in a PMLA matter, with terms left to the trial court.

Substantial custody already undergone in both the predicate offence and the PMLA proceedings was treated as a sufficient basis to grant bail during pendency of trial. The appellant had spent more than five years in custody for the predicate offence and over three years and nine months for the PMLA offence, and bail was therefore considered appropriate. The trial court was left to fix the bail terms, with directions for appearance on hearing dates, disclosure of a contact number, and liberty to seek cancellation if the appellant could not be contacted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, having undergone substantial custody in the predicate offence and in the proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, was entitled to bail during the pendency of trial.

Analysis: The appellant had remained in custody for more than five years in relation to the predicate offence and for over three years and nine months for the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. In view of the length of custody already undergone, bail was considered appropriate during the pendency of trial. The trial court was left to determine the terms and conditions of bail, with directions for appearance on hearing dates, disclosure of a contact number, and liberty to seek cancellation of bail if the appellant could not be contacted.

Conclusion: The appellant was granted bail during the pendency of trial.

---