Prolonged pre-trial detention can justify bail in money-laundering cases despite stringent statutory safeguards.

In a money-laundering bail matter, the Calcutta HC examined the twin bail conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act alongside Article 21 liberty concerns. It noted that statements under section 50 and alleged document and asset recovery would be tested at trial, while the statutory presumption under section 24 operates only after the Enforcement Directorate establishes foundational facts. Considering the petitioner's first-offender status, substantial pre-trial custody, voluminous evidence, many witnesses, and the unlikely early completion of trial, the Court held that prolonged under-trial detention could justify bail subject to statutory safeguards and conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 having regard to the twin conditions for bail, the presumption relating to proceeds of crime, and the prolonged period of pre-trial incarceration coupled with delay in trial.

Analysis: The petition turned on the interplay between the statutory rigour of section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the constitutional mandate of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The material against the petitioner rested substantially on statements recorded under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and on alleged recovery of documents and assets, but the Court treated the truth and veracity of that material as matters for trial. The Court also applied the statutory presumption under section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 while noting that the Enforcement Directorate must first establish the foundational facts before the onus shifts to the accused. In assessing bail, the Court relied on the principles governing bail, including broad probabilities, nature of accusation, possibility of influencing witnesses, and the constitutional concern against punishment through prolonged pre-trial detention. It further considered that the petitioner was a first-time offender, had remained in custody for a substantial period, the trial involved voluminous evidence and numerous witnesses, and there was little likelihood of early conclusion of trial. The Court also considered the amended custodial-release principle reflected in section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the corresponding relaxation of section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The petitioner satisfied the balance of considerations for bail and was held entitled to release on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Where prolonged under-trial detention is substantial and early conclusion of trial is unlikely, constitutional liberty may justify grant of bail even in a stringent money-laundering prosecution, subject to the Court's satisfaction on the statutory safeguards and appropriate conditions.

---