Prolonged pre-trial detention under money laundering law cannot override liberty when trial delay becomes unreasonable

Prolonged pre-trial incarceration under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act may justify bail where the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. Even where prima facie material exists and the statutory bail threshold is stringent, continued custody cannot override the constitutional right to personal liberty and speedy trial. The Court noted that concerns about tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses can be addressed through strict bail conditions. The operative principle is that special statutory restrictions do not authorise indefinite undertrial detention when delay has become excessive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant, facing prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, was entitled to bail in view of the long period of incarceration and the unlikely completion of the trial within a reasonable time; (ii) Whether the prima facie material and the stringent bail restriction under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 justified continued custody.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant, facing prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, was entitled to bail in view of the long period of incarceration and the unlikely completion of the trial within a reasonable time.

Analysis: The proceedings involved multiple scheduled offences, a very large number of accused, and hundreds of witnesses. The Court found that the trial of the scheduled offences, and consequently the money-laundering case, could not realistically conclude within a reasonable period. It reiterated that prolonged pre-trial incarceration cannot be allowed to become punishment without trial and that the constitutional right to liberty and speedy trial remains relevant even where special statutes impose stricter bail conditions.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the appellant. Continued detention was held to be unjustified in the circumstances.

Issue (ii): Whether the prima facie material and the stringent bail restriction under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 justified continued custody.

Analysis: The Court accepted that there was prima facie material connecting the appellant to the alleged laundering activity and that the statutory threshold under the bail provision was high. However, it held that such stringent restrictions cannot be used to keep an undertrial in custody for an unreasonably long period when the trial itself is not likely to finish within a reasonable time. The Court also observed that concerns regarding tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses could be addressed through strict conditions.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the appellant. The prima facie case did not outweigh the constitutional concern arising from excessive pre-trial detention.

Final Conclusion: Bail was granted because the extraordinary length and likely further delay of the proceedings made continued incarceration inconsistent with the appellant's right to liberty and speedy trial, and the apprehensions of interference could be met by conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the probable duration of trial becomes unreasonable, constitutional courts may grant bail notwithstanding stringent statutory restrictions, because the right to personal liberty and speedy trial cannot be defeated by prolonged undertrial detention.

---