PMLA bail under twin conditions fails where Section 436A threshold is unmet and no changed circumstances are shown.

Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies only where an accused has undergone detention for at least one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment; that threshold was not met here, so bail could not be claimed on that basis. In bail matters under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the twin conditions in Section 45 must still be satisfied, and the amended provision was treated as operating retrospectively. Because the earlier refusal of bail had already found the twin conditions unsatisfied, no material change in circumstances was shown to justify a different result, and bail was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail by invoking Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the petitioners could avoid the rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on the ground that the amended provision could not operate retrospectively and whether the twin conditions for bail were satisfied.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail by invoking Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The petitioners had not undergone detention for one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment. The statutory threshold for invoking Section 436A was therefore not met.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to bail on the basis of Section 436A.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners could avoid the rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on the ground that the amended provision could not operate retrospectively and whether the twin conditions for bail were satisfied.

Analysis: The earlier rejection of bail had already recorded that the twin conditions were not satisfied. That finding had been carried in challenge and had not been displaced. The Court also noted that the constitutional position on the amended bail provision stood settled and that the amendment operated retrospectively. No change in circumstances was shown to warrant a different view.

Conclusion: The petitioners failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 and could not seek bail on the plea of non-retrospectivity.

Final Conclusion: The petitions for bail were not maintainable on the facts and legal position then prevailing, and the request for release was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: In bail matters under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, where the statutory twin conditions remain unsatisfied and no material change in circumstances is shown, bail cannot be granted; Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies only when its custody threshold is met.

---