Liberal construction of PMLA infirmity proviso supports bail where age, frailty, and prolonged pre-trial detention weigh heavily.

The proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was construed liberally for a person shown to be sick or infirm, and age-related frailty, cognitive decline and recurrent falls were treated as sufficient to bring the petitioner within that exception. On the bail-risk assessment, the existing material did not adequately establish likely flight, witness intimidation or tampering with evidence, particularly in the absence of corroborative data and where interim bail had not been misused. Prolonged pre-trial incarceration, completion of investigation and limited trial progress also weighed in favour of release, with liberty and speedy trial treated as independent bail considerations.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner fell within the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as a sick or infirm ; (ii) whether the petitioner satisfied the bail considerations relating to flight risk, witness influence and tampering with evidence; and (iii) whether prolonged incarceration and the lack of trial progress warranted bail on the ground of speedy trial and liberty.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner fell within the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as a sick or infirm person.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 45(1) was construed as a lenient exception intended to relax the stringent twin conditions for specified classes, including persons who are sick or infirm. The medical material showed age-related cognitive decline, recurrent dizziness, falls and a need for constant monitoring. The medical board opined that he could be treated in jail, but that assessment did not negate the broader factual finding that his condition, taken with advanced age and frailty, placed him within the expression "infirm".

Conclusion: The petitioner was held to fall within the proviso to Section 45(1) and was not required to satisfy the twin conditions in the strict form applicable to ordinary cases.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner satisfied the bail considerations relating to flight risk, witness influence and tampering with evidence.

Analysis: The materials relied upon by the respondent on alleged witness threats and jail-related misconduct were treated as matters requiring trial-level appreciation, especially where corroborative material such as call detail records or location data was absent. The petitioner had already remained on interim bail without misuse, and restrictions could address flight risk. On the existing record, the Court found no sufficient basis to conclude that release would likely result in witness intimidation or evidence tampering.

Conclusion: The triple-test concerns were found to be satisfactorily met in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether prolonged incarceration and the lack of trial progress warranted bail on the ground of speedy trial and liberty.

Analysis: The case involved a large number of accused, companies, witnesses and voluminous documentary and digital material, while the investigation qua the petitioner was complete and the trial had not commenced. The constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and speedy trial was treated as a relevant bail consideration, and the delay was not attributable to the petitioner. The prolonged pre-trial detention, read with the limited progress of the proceedings, weighed in favour of release.

Conclusion: The delay and continued incarceration furnished an independent ground supporting bail.

Final Conclusion: Bail was found justified on the combined footing of infirmity under the statutory proviso, satisfaction of the bail-risk assessment, and the constitutional imperative against unduly prolonged pre-trial incarceration.

Ratio Decidendi: The proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 must receive a liberal construction for sick or infirm persons, and where age-related frailty and medical evidence show that continued custody would be unjustified, constitutional considerations of liberty and speedy trial may warrant bail notwithstanding the stringent general rule.

---