Prolonged incarceration and speedy trial rights can justify bail despite strict PMLA conditions where early trial completion is unlikely.

Prolonged incarceration and the absence of any real prospect of early trial completion justified bail despite the restrictions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The Court gave primacy to the constitutional right to speedy trial and held that the documentary nature of the case, the completion of investigation, and the availability of suitable conditions to address flight risk or interference concerns supported release. It also rejected the maintainability objection, treating the earlier liberty to revive the prayer after filing of the final complaint or charge-sheet as permitting direct revival without a fresh round before the lower courts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the second set of appeals challenging the High Court order was maintainable in view of the earlier disposal with liberty to revive the prayer after filing of the final complaint or charge-sheet. (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to bail in view of prolonged incarceration, the right to speedy trial, and the constraints of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the second set of appeals challenging the High Court order was maintainable in view of the earlier disposal with liberty to revive the prayer after filing of the final complaint or charge-sheet.

Analysis: The earlier order had not merely disposed of the matter on a procedural ground. It reserved liberty to revive the prayer afresh after the filing of the final complaint or charge-sheet. The Court treated that liberty as one enabling direct revival before it after the stipulated event, and not as a direction requiring the appellant to again move the trial court and the High Court in a fresh round. Relegating the appellant back through that sequence was held to be an empty formality in a matter concerning life and liberty.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection to maintainability was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to bail in view of prolonged incarceration, the right to speedy trial, and the constraints of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Court held that its earlier order had specifically recognised that delay coupled with long incarceration could justify bail and that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 must be given due weight. It found that the trial had not commenced even after a substantial period, that the prosecution had itself indicated completion of investigation and filing of the final complaint by a fixed date, and that the record did not support the finding that the appellant alone had delayed proceedings. The Court also noted the voluminous record, the absence of any near possibility of early conclusion of trial, the documentary nature of the case, and the ability to impose conditions to address flight risk or interference concerns. In these circumstances, the rigours of Section 45 were held not to defeat consideration of bail.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to bail.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court order was set aside, and bail was directed to be granted subject to conditions safeguarding the trial process.

Ratio Decidendi: Prolonged incarceration with no real prospect of early trial completion can justify bail notwithstanding restrictive bail conditions, because the constitutional right to speedy trial and personal liberty prevails and may be protected by suitable terms.

---