Section 436A applies in money-laundering cases, and prolonged undertrial detention can justify bail despite Section 45 rigour.

Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was treated as available in a money-laundering prosecution despite the rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, because prolonged pre-trial detention had crossed the statutory halfway mark and no delay was attributable to the accused. Bail on merits was refused on prima facie material showing the applicant's active role as a bank chief executive in supervising branches, facilitating illegal cash withdrawals, and making bogus entries connected with the alleged siphoning of funds. Bail was nevertheless granted on the ground of long incarceration under Section 436A.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on merits in view of the material showing his active participation in the alleged money-laundering offence; (ii) Whether the applicant could be granted bail under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 despite the rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, on the ground of long incarceration.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on merits in view of the material showing his active participation in the alleged money-laundering offence.

Analysis: The record referred to in the order showed that the applicant, as Chief Executive Officer of the bank, was stated to have supervised the branches, facilitated illegal cash withdrawal, assisted in making bogus entries, and acted on instructions connected with the alleged siphoning of funds. The material was treated as sufficient to show prima facie involvement, and the contention that he was not a beneficiary and therefore not involved was rejected.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to bail on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant could be granted bail under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 despite the rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, on the ground of long incarceration.

Analysis: The order applied the principle that Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a beneficial provision recognising the constitutional right to speedy trial and can operate even in prosecutions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. As the applicant had undergone detention for more than one-half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence, no material showed that he caused delay in trial, and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, the statutory threshold for relief was treated as satisfied notwithstanding the opposition under Section 45 of the Act.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to bail on the ground of long incarceration under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: Bail was granted because prolonged detention had crossed the statutory halfway mark, even though the applicant was not found entitled to relief on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be invoked in a money-laundering prosecution, and where an undertrial has undergone detention for at least one-half of the maximum prescribed sentence without attributable delay by the accused, relief cannot be denied merely because Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 applies.

---