PMLA bail and prolonged pre-trial custody can outweigh Section 45 restrictions where trial delay threatens personal liberty.

In a PMLA bail matter, prolonged incarceration and delay in trial were treated as sufficient to relax the rigours of Section 45 in light of Article 21 and Section 436A CrPC. The applicant had spent more than half of the maximum sentence in custody, the trial had not begun, and many witnesses remained to be examined, making further detention excessive. The court also noted substantial recoveries and no shown flight risk. Bail was therefore granted subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail should be granted in a PMLA case despite the restrictions under Section 45 of the PMLA in view of prolonged incarceration, the stage of trial, and the protection of personal liberty under Article 21.

Analysis: The Applicant had remained in custody for more than half of the maximum prescribed sentence of seven years. The trial had not commenced, a large number of witnesses were still to be examined, and the proceedings were likely to take considerable time. The Court held that though Section 45 of the PMLA lays down stringent twin conditions for bail, the constitutional right to speedy trial and the statutory protection under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can prevail where continued detention becomes unduly long. The Court also noted that substantial recoveries had been effected and that the Applicant was not shown to be a flight risk.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the Applicant, subject to conditions, as the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA were held to have diluted in the facts of the case because of prolonged incarceration and the constitutional mandate of Article 21.

---