PMLA bail and Article 21: prolonged pre-trial detention and delayed trial justified grant of bail despite Section 45 rigour.

Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was considered in light of the stringent twin conditions in Section 45, which require reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not offend while on bail. The Court noted that those conditions are rigorous but not an absolute bar, and held that prolonged pre-trial incarceration, non-commencement of trial, and no realistic prospect of early conclusion can justify bail under Article 21. Bail was granted because continued detention was found inconsistent with personal liberty and the right to speedy trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of prolonged incarceration, non-commencement of trial, and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty.

Analysis: The application was considered against the statutory embargo under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which requires the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Court noted the settled position that these twin conditions are stringent but do not create an absolute bar to bail. It further relied on the constitutional mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the principle that prolonged pre-trial incarceration and unreasonable delay in trial can justify grant of bail, especially where the trial has not commenced and is unlikely to conclude soon.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: In a PMLA case, the rigour of the twin conditions in Section 45 must yield where prolonged incarceration and delay in commencement of trial make continued detention inconsistent with the right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

---