PMLA bail denied without a subsisting scheduled offence; prolonged incarceration also weighed in favour of personal liberty.

A PMLA complaint cannot properly sustain continued custody where no subsisting scheduled offence exists at the time the complaint is filed or when the relied-upon charge-sheet is filed. Here, the original IPC conspiracy allegation had been dropped and the later FIR was registered much later, leaving no live scheduled offence to support the money-laundering prosecution. In these peculiar circumstances, the appellants' prolonged incarceration was found inconsistent with the protection of personal liberty under Article 21, and they were granted bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in the absence of a subsisting scheduled offence at the time of the complaint and in view of prolonged incarceration.

Analysis: The complaint under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was filed when no scheduled offence was in existence. The original FIR initially invoked several Indian Penal Code offences, but the only potentially relevant conspiracy allegation was later dropped, and the subsequent FIR in Chhattisgarh was registered much later. On the date of the complaint and even on the date of the charge-sheet relied upon, there was no live scheduled offence supporting the PMLA prosecution. The appellants had also undergone substantial custody, and continuation of detention in these peculiar circumstances was found to offend the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a PMLA complaint is pursued without a subsisting scheduled offence and custody has become prolonged, continued incarceration may be held unjustified and bail may be granted on Article 21 grounds.

---