Speedy trial and prolonged pre-trial custody can justify bail in a PMLA case despite Section 45 restrictions.

An undertrial in a PMLA prosecution was granted bail after remaining in custody for more than half of the maximum seven-year sentence, because the trial had not begun and was unlikely to conclude soon. The Court treated the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21, read with Section 436A CrPC, as a statutory and constitutional basis for release notwithstanding the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA. It noted that the case involved voluminous material and numerous witnesses, while substantial proceeds of crime had already been recovered or secured, so continued pre-trial incarceration could not be justified solely by the seriousness of the offence.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail could be granted to the applicant in a PMLA prosecution despite the rigours of the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, on the ground of prolonged incarceration and the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The applicant had remained in custody for more than half of the maximum prescribed sentence of seven years. The Court noted that the scheduled offence and the PMLA complaint involved voluminous material, numerous witnesses, and that the trial had not commenced, making early conclusion unlikely. Referring to the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial and the line of authorities recognising that Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 operates as a statutory exception that can prevail despite the restrictive bail regime under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Court held that prolonged pre-trial incarceration could not continue merely because the offence was serious. The Court also noted that substantial proceeds of crime were already recovered or secured, while imposing that seriousness of the offence required stringent conditions.

Conclusion: Bail was granted, as the applicant was held entitled to the benefit of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and constitutional protection against unduly prolonged incarceration.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an undertrial in a PMLA case has already undergone detention for at least one-half of the maximum sentence and the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21 may justify release on bail notwithstanding the statutory restrictions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

---