Prolonged pre-trial incarceration justified bail in a money-laundering case despite compliance with arrest procedure.

The Calcutta HC held that the arrest under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act was not invalid, because the arrest memo showed the petitioner was informed of the grounds of arrest and refused to receive them, so section 19(1) was complied with. It also held that bail could be granted despite the stringent money-laundering regime, where investigation was complete, charge had not been framed after about two years in custody, the prosecution case was largely documentary, and early trial completion appeared unlikely. The Court relied on Article 21 and the principles reflected in section 436A CrPC and section 479 BNSS, and granted bail subject to strict conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's arrest was invalid for non-compliance with the requirement of informing grounds of arrest under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether, on account of subsequent events, completion of investigation, delay in framing of charge, and prolonged pre-trial incarceration, bail should be granted in a money-laundering prosecution subject to conditions.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's arrest was invalid for non-compliance with the requirement of informing grounds of arrest under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The arrest memo recorded that the petitioner went through the memo and the grounds of arrest but refused to receive the same. The Court found no illegality or irregularity in the arrest procedure and rejected the contention that the mandate of section 19(1) had not been complied with.

Conclusion: The challenge to arrest on the ground of non-compliance with section 19(1) failed.

Issue (ii): Whether, on account of subsequent events, completion of investigation, delay in framing of charge, and prolonged pre-trial incarceration, bail should be granted in a money-laundering prosecution subject to conditions.

Analysis: The Court noted that the petitioner had already remained in custody for about two years, charge had not been framed, the material relied upon by the prosecution was documentary in nature, and the possibility of an early conclusion of trial was bleak. The Court also considered the constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21, the principle against prolonged incarceration before conviction, and the applicability of release principles reflected in section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. In view of the subsequent developments and the need to secure liberty by imposing safeguards, the Court found bail to be justified.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to stringent conditions.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was found entitled to enlargement on bail, while the challenge to the arrest procedure did not succeed, and the relief was made conditional on strict compliance with safeguards to protect the trial process.

Ratio Decidendi: Where prolonged pre-trial incarceration and delay in commencement of trial materially impinge upon the accused's right to personal liberty, constitutional considerations under Article 21 may justify grant of bail even in a stringent statutory regime, provided the Court is satisfied that appropriate conditions can secure the administration of justice.

---