Prolonged custody and delayed trial can justify bail in PMLA cases despite stringent statutory conditions.

Prolonged pre-trial incarceration in PMLA prosecutions may justify regular bail where trial is not likely to conclude within a reasonable time and delay is not attributable to the accused. The article notes that constitutional protection under Article 21, along with the principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, can prevail over the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA when continued custody would infringe personal liberty and speedy trial rights. It also records that factors such as parity, absence of flight risk, and non-misuse of interim bail support release, and that Section 436A CrPC is not a bar to bail or a requirement to wait until the statutory period is crossed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners, facing prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, were entitled to regular bail in view of prolonged custody, delay in commencement of trial, and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty despite the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The pending bail applications were considered in the light of the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and of the constitutional protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The determining factors were the length of custody already undergone, the stage of trial, the absence of a foreseeable conclusion of trial, the large volume of material, the number of accused and witnesses, and the fact that the delay was not attributable to the petitioners. The Court applied the settled principle that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 do not create an absolute bar where prolonged incarceration and denial of speedy trial would infringe fundamental rights. The Court also noted that parity, the absence of flight risk, and the lack of misuse of interim bail supported release on bail. Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was found not to be a bar to bail and could not be read as requiring detention until the statutory period is crossed.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to regular bail, and their release was ordered on terms and conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under special statutes with stringent bail conditions, prolonged custody without a reasonable prospect of trial concluding within a reasonable time permits constitutional courts to grant bail on the ground of violation of Article 21, and such constitutional protection prevails over Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

---