Anticipatory bail in money laundering cases may still be granted where arrest is unnecessary and parity supports relief.

Anticipatory bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was considered despite Section 45 restrictions, with the Court noting that the applicants had not been arrested during the prolonged investigation and that the prosecution complaint had already been filed. The Court applied the principle that filing of a charge-sheet or complaint does not by itself require arrest, and that an accused should not be compelled to surrender where custody is not necessary. On the facts, parity with similarly placed co-accused and the absence of any need for custodial interrogation supported grant of anticipatory bail, and the Section 45 twin conditions were held not to bar relief in the case.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 despite the restrictions under Section 45, and in the light of their non-arrest during investigation and the principles governing post-charge-sheet arrest.

Analysis: The application arose from allegations of money laundering and the Court considered the effect of the statutory bar and conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It noted that the applicants had not been arrested during the long course of investigation, the prosecution complaint had already been filed, and the case was comparable to other co-accused who had already obtained bail. The Court also relied on the principle that filing of the charge-sheet does not by itself require arrest, and that where custody is not required, the accused need not be compelled to surrender merely because proceedings have been forwarded to the trial court. In the facts of the case, the Court found that the balance of considerations and parity with similarly placed accused justified grant of anticipatory bail.

Conclusion: The applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail and the twin conditions under Section 45 did not preclude relief on the facts of this case.

---