PMLA bail and Article 21: prolonged custody and trial delay can outweigh Section 45 rigour, warranting release.

Regular bail in a PMLA prosecution was considered against the backdrop of prolonged custody, delayed trial and the twin conditions in Section 45. The Court held that diary entries, bank transactions, an alleged second agreement to sell and a statement under Section 50 required trial-stage appreciation, and that a bail hearing could not become a mini-trial. It further held that Section 45 cannot function as an absolute bar where pre-trial incarceration is prolonged without fault of the accused and the trial is unlikely to finish soon. Applying Article 21 and the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, the Court found continued custody unjustified and granted regular bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 where the applicant had remained in custody for a substantial period, the trial was delayed, and the Court had to consider the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Act alongside the constitutional right to personal liberty and speedy trial.

Analysis: The material against the applicant comprised diary entries, bank transactions and a second agreement to sell, but the Court held that the authenticity and evidentiary worth of these materials, including the alleged forgery and the statement recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, required appreciation at trial. The Court held that a bail hearing could not become a mini-trial. It also held that the stringent conditions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot operate as an absolute bar where prolonged incarceration is not attributable to the accused and the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future. The Court relied on the constitutional mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception.

Conclusion: Regular bail was warranted, as the applicant's continued custody would be unjustified in view of the delay in trial and the constitutional protection of liberty, despite the statutory rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Ratio Decidendi: In a money laundering case, the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 must yield where prolonged pre-trial incarceration and likely delay in conclusion of trial would defeat the accused's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

---