Personal liberty and speedy trial can override PMLA bail embargo after prolonged custody and completed investigation.

In a PMLA prosecution, prolonged pre-trial incarceration, completion of investigation, and the absence of any realistic prospect of the predicate offence trial ending within a reasonable time were treated as overriding the Section 45 bail embargo. The Court held that personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial could prevail where the accused had cooperated with investigation and remained in custody for over a year. The arrest record and contemporaneous grounds of arrest did not disclose any separate infirmity that would independently defeat bail. Bail was therefore granted subject to conditions, with continued detention found unjustified on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the rigours of the bail restriction under Section 45 should yield where the accused has undergone prolonged incarceration, the predicate offence trial has not commenced, and the investigation is complete. (ii) Whether the materials placed on record disclosed such infirmity in the arrest process or such lack of prima facie material as to affect the consideration of bail.

Issue (i): Whether, in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the rigours of the bail restriction under Section 45 should yield where the accused has undergone prolonged incarceration, the predicate offence trial has not commenced, and the investigation is complete.

Analysis: The record showed that the applicant had been in custody for more than one year, the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet in the predicate offence had not been filed, and the trial was not likely to conclude within a reasonable time. The material also indicated that the applicant had cooperated with the investigation. In such circumstances, the constitutional protection of personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial prevailed over continued detention. The stringent conditions under Section 45 could not be used to justify incarceration for an unreasonably long period when conclusion of trial was not foreseeable.

Conclusion: The rigours of Section 45 were held not to bar bail, and bail was granted in favour of the applicant.

Issue (ii): Whether the materials placed on record disclosed such infirmity in the arrest process or such lack of prima facie material as to affect the consideration of bail.

Analysis: The Court noted that the arrest order, reasons recorded in the internal file, and grounds of arrest were contemporaneous, and that the applicant had subsequently cooperated with the investigation. The Court also found that the principal allegations rested largely on statements and documentary material, while refraining from a merits determination beyond what was necessary for bail. These aspects did not displace the decisive consideration arising from delay and continued custody.

Conclusion: No independent bail-denying infirmity was found on this ground.

Final Conclusion: Continued detention was found unjustified in view of the delay in trial and completed investigation, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail on conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: In a PMLA case, the constitutional right to personal liberty and speedy trial can override the statutory bail embargo where the accused has undergone prolonged pre-trial incarceration and there is no reasonable likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable time.

---