Summons appearance under money laundering law calls for bond, not bail, where the accused was never arrested in investigation.

An accused who was not arrested during investigation under PMLA and who appeared before the Special Court in response to process is not to be treated as being in custody. Applying Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the principle in Tarsem Lal, the Court stated that the proper course is ordinarily to require a bond for appearance rather than insist on a bail application. The accused's custody in another case did not justify bypassing that statutory route, particularly where the Enforcement Directorate had not sought further custodial interrogation or arrested him under Section 19 PMLA. Rejection of bail on the rigours of Section 45 was therefore described as misdirected.

---

---

Issues: Whether an accused who was not arrested during investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and who appeared before the Special Court in response to process could be treated as being in custody and required to seek bail, or whether the Court ought to direct execution of bond under Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Analysis: The prosecution complaint had already been filed and cognizance taken, while the accused had not been arrested during investigation. The Court applied the statutory scheme of Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, together with the principle laid down in Tarsem Lal, that a person who appears before the Special Court pursuant to summons is not to be treated as being in custody and ordinarily need not apply for bail. In such a situation, the Special Court may require only a bond for appearance. The Court also held that the accused being in custody in another case did not justify bypassing the statutory course, because the Enforcement Directorate had not sought custody for further investigation and had not arrested him during investigation under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The rejection of bail on the rigours of Section 45 was therefore held to be misdirected.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to be released forthwith on furnishing bond under Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the order rejecting bail was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The special court's refusal to apply the summons-and-bond procedure was unsustainable, and the petitioner's release on bond was directed in place of a bail adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: An accused not arrested during investigation who appears before the Special Court in response to process is not to be treated as in custody, and the Court should ordinarily require a bond for appearance rather than insist upon a bail application or invoke the stricter bail limitations applicable to arrested accused persons.

---