PMLA bail cancellation fails where the accused was not arrested in investigation and the bail order was not perverse.

In a PMLA complaint where the accused had not been arrested during investigation, the ordinary course on appearance is issuance of summons and acceptance of bond, rather than treating the accused as already in custody. Cancellation of bail is justified only if the grant order ignores relevant material, relies on irrelevant considerations, or is otherwise perverse. The analysis notes that the trial court applied the then-prevailing Supreme Court guidance and found the rigour of Section 45 not attracted on the facts. No legal infirmity was found in the bail order, so cancellation was held unjustified and the respondent's release in the complaint case remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail granted in a complaint under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was liable to be cancelled on the ground that the trial court ignored relevant considerations and misapplied the bail principles governing an accused not arrested during investigation.

Analysis: The petition for cancellation of bail was assessed on the settled principles that bail can be interfered with where the court granting it ignores relevant material, relies on irrelevant considerations, or passes an order that is unjustified or perverse. The complaint under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 had been filed without the accused having been arrested during investigation. In that situation, the governing principles were those clarified in the line of decisions dealing with production of an accused after complaint, where the normal course is issuance of summons and, if the accused appears, acceptance of bond may follow without treating the person as being in custody. The Court also considered that the rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was not attracted in the facts of the case as noticed by the trial court, and that the trial court had relied on the then-applicable Supreme Court guidance on appearance of an accused not arrested during investigation. The Court found no legal infirmity in the trial court's approach warranting cancellation of bail.

Conclusion: The bail order was not shown to be illegal, perverse, or based on irrelevant considerations, and cancellation was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the bail order failed, and the respondent's release in the complaint case was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused in a PMLA complaint was not arrested during investigation, the court on appearance is ordinarily to proceed by summons and bonds rather than custody, and bail already granted will not be cancelled unless the order is vitiated by non-consideration of relevant factors, irrelevant considerations, or perversity.

---