Prolonged pre-trial custody in a PMLA case can yield to Article 21 speedy-trial rights despite Section 45 bail restrictions.

In a PMLA prosecution, the Delhi HC held that prolonged pre-trial incarceration, absence of demonstrated flight risk or interference, and a trial not likely to conclude soon could justify regular bail despite Section 45 restrictions. The Court noted that the case against the applicants rested largely on Section 50 statements and one unsigned draft document, without any material showing that proceeds of crime reached their accounts or that they were beneficiaries of the alleged laundering. Applying the constitutional mandate of personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21, the Court treated the statutory bail rigours as yielding to the facts of prolonged custody and delayed trial, and granted regular bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail in a PMLA prosecution despite the rigours of Section 45, having regard to the stage of the case, the length of custody, and the right to speedy trial under Article 21.

Analysis: The material against the applicants was found to rest substantially on statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA and, in one instance, on unsigned draft documents, without any allegation that proceeds of crime had travelled to either applicant's account or that they were beneficiaries of the alleged laundering. The investigation had commenced in 2019, the prosecution had arrayed a very large number of accused and witnesses, voluminous material remained to be examined, and the trial had not commenced. In that setting, the Court applied the settled principle that constitutional courts may grant bail in appropriate cases where prolonged pre-trial incarceration and delay would render the statutory restrictions under Section 45 subordinate to the higher constitutional mandate of personal liberty and speedy trial.

Conclusion: The applicants were held entitled to regular bail.

Final Conclusion: Prolonged custody in a money-laundering prosecution, where trial is not likely to conclude in the near future and there is no demonstrated flight risk or interference with the process, cannot justify continued incarceration despite the statutory bail restrictions.

Ratio Decidendi: In a PMLA case, the twin conditions under Section 45 do not operate as an absolute bar to bail when continued pre-trial detention has become unreasonably prolonged and the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21 would otherwise be defeated.

---