PMLA bail and Article 21: prolonged undertrial custody can override stringent bail restrictions when trial is not likely soon.
Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act can still be granted where prolonged pre-trial custody, an uncommenced trial, and a pending investigation make timely completion of proceedings unlikely. The Delhi HC noted that the applicant had remained in judicial custody since 01.07.2024, the complaint trial had not started, and the record did not show a traced money trail or property acquired from alleged proceeds of crime. It held that the stringent embargo in Section 45 could not override Article 21 rights to personal liberty and speedy trial when continued incarceration would be unreasonably prolonged. Bail was granted.
Issues: Whether regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be granted despite the rigours of Section 45, in view of the applicant's prolonged custody, the stage of trial, and the right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The allegation against the applicant was that he played a facilitating role in the movement and layering of proceeds of crime through related entities and in the indirect takeover of the corporate debtor. However, the Court noted that the applicant was in judicial custody since 01.07.2024, the trial in the complaint had not commenced, and the predicate prosecution was still at a preliminary stage with a large volume of witnesses and documents. The Court also noted that investigation remained pending and there was no material showing that any money trail had been traced to the applicant or that he had acquired property from the alleged proceeds of crime. Referring to the principles that stringent bail conditions cannot justify unreasonably long pre-trial detention, the Court held that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could not eclipse the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and speedy trial where trial completion was not likely in the near future.
Conclusion: Bail was granted to the applicant.
Final Conclusion: The applicant was held entitled to release on bail because continued incarceration without a realistic prospect of timely trial could not be sustained in the face of Article 21, notwithstanding the statutory bail restrictions under the PMLA.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an undertrial's detention is becoming unreasonably prolonged and the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, constitutional courts may grant bail even under a stringent special statute, as the right to personal liberty and speedy trial prevails over the statutory bail embargo.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
