Prolonged custody under PMLA justified bail where trial had not progressed and charge remained unframed.

Prolonged custody under the PMLA, combined with the stage of the proceedings, justified bail where the accused had been in jail for about nine months, charge had not been framed, 44 witnesses were cited, 17 accused faced trial, and the hearing on charge had not begun. The SC noted that trial commencement in the near future was remote and also considered the earlier bail order in the predicate offence. On those facts, the appellant was held entitled to bail, subject to stringent terms and conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, facing prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, was entitled to bail in view of the period of custody, the stage of the proceedings, and the surrounding facts.

Analysis: The appellant had remained in custody for about nine months. The complaint and supplementary complaints cited 44 witnesses, charge had not been framed, there were 17 accused, and the hearing on charge had not even commenced. On the facts noticed, the possibility of the trial commencing in the near future was remote. The Court also took into account the observations made in the earlier bail order passed in the predicate offence and the absence of any immediate likelihood of trial progression.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to bail and was directed to be enlarged on bail by the Special Court on stringent terms and conditions.

---