PMLA bail and personal liberty: prolonged custody, weak prima facie material, and uncorroborated tampering fears can justify release.

In PMLA bail proceedings, prolonged pre-trial incarceration and an unlikely trial timeline may justify release where Article 21 personal liberty would otherwise be undermined by the rigour of Section 45. The Court emphasised that, at the bail stage, only a prima facie assessment on broad probabilities is required, not a detailed determination of guilt. It also noted that the absence of a separate bribery charge did not rule out proceeds of crime, but the approver's statement and electronic records were not conclusive on the material then placed. Unsupported allegations of witness tampering, without contemporaneous corroboration, were insufficient to deny bail, especially where the investigation was substantially complete.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether prolonged incarceration and the likely delay in conclusion of the trial justified grant of bail notwithstanding the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether the applicants had made out a prima facie case on merits, including on the applicability of the monetary threshold and the evidentiary value of the approver's statement and electronic records; (iii) Whether there was a credible likelihood of tampering with evidence or witnesses so as to deny bail.

Issue (i): Whether prolonged incarceration and the likely delay in conclusion of the trial justified grant of bail notwithstanding the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India was held to remain operative even in prosecutions under special statutes carrying stringent bail conditions. The Court found that the progress of both the PMLA prosecution and the scheduled offence was unlikely to culminate within a reasonable time, having regard to the volume of records, number of witnesses, and the structural dependence of the PMLA case on the outcome of the scheduled offence. It was also found that the delay was not attributable to the applicants. In these circumstances, continued pre-trial detention would risk converting incarceration into punishment.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the applicants, and the rigours of Section 45 were held to yield to Article 21.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicants had made out a prima facie case on merits, including on the applicability of the monetary threshold and the evidentiary value of the approver's statement and electronic records.

Analysis: The Court held that at the bail stage the inquiry is confined to a prima facie assessment on broad probabilities and not a meticulous evaluation of guilt. The absence of a specific bribery charge in the scheduled offence did not negate the possibility of proceeds of crime, since the predicate offences included cheating and criminal conspiracy. However, the Court found that the approver's statement and the Excel sheets, in the form then presented, were not sufficiently conclusive to justify continued detention. The Court further held that the monetary threshold under the proviso to Section 45 was not available to the applicants on the material placed by the prosecution, but that did not displace the overall prima facie assessment in favour of bail.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the applicants, and the Court held that they had prima facie satisfied the twin conditions for bail.

Issue (iii): Whether there was a credible likelihood of tampering with evidence or witnesses so as to deny bail.

Analysis: The alleged threats to the approver were found to lack contemporaneous corroboration, prompt complaint, or supporting material. The Court noted that the investigation was substantially complete and that the prosecution concern could be addressed through suitable bail conditions. On that basis, the apprehension of interference was treated as insufficient to deny liberty at the bail stage.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the applicants, and the alleged risk of tampering was not accepted as a ground to refuse bail.

Final Conclusion: The applicants were found entitled to regular bail, because the constitutional protection of personal liberty outweighed the statutory bail rigour on the facts of the case, and the material on record did not justify continued custody.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under the PMLA, where continued pre-trial detention is excessive and trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, Article 21 may override the statutory rigour of Section 45; at the bail stage, the Court assesses only prima facie material on broad probabilities, and unsupported apprehensions of witness interference cannot by themselves defeat bail.

---