Summons without prior arrest under PMLA does not create custody; bond under BNSS is the proper course.

Where a person was not arrested by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 19 of the PMLA before complaint, appearance in response to summons did not amount to custody. The Special Court should ordinarily secure attendance by requiring a bond under Section 91 of the BNSS, rather than subjecting the person to a bail examination on merits. The rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA were inapplicable because no bail application was called for and no request for custody for further investigation had been made. The order refusing bond-based release was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a person who was not arrested by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 before filing of the prosecution complaint could, on appearance pursuant to summons, be denied release on bond under Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and instead be made to undergo a bail examination on merits.

Analysis: The record showed that the petitioner was not arrested during investigation under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and had appeared before the Special Court in response to summons. The governing principle applied was that, in such a situation, summons is meant to secure appearance and the accused is not to be treated as being in custody merely because he has appeared. The court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling that, as a normal rule, summons should issue and the Special Court may require execution of a bond under Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The rigours of bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were held to be inapposite where no bail application was required in the first place and no request for custody for further investigation had been made by the Enforcement Directorate.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to release upon furnishing bond under Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the order refusing that course and dealing with the matter as a bail refusal was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be released on bond in accordance with the statutory summons procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused is not arrested by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 before filing of complaint, appearance pursuant to summons does not by itself create custody and the Special Court should ordinarily secure attendance through bond under Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 rather than subject the person to a bail determination on merits.

---