Prolonged pre-trial detention and speedy trial rights justified bail despite the statutory bar under money laundering law.

Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was applied in light of prolonged pre-trial detention and the uncertain early conclusion of trial. The Court noted that the applicant was not responsible for delay, while adjournments were caused by other accused persons; charges had not been framed, the case involved numerous witnesses and voluminous documents, and the predicate-offence trial had not begun. Balancing the twin conditions under Section 45 with the constitutional protections of personal liberty and speedy trial, the Court found that continued incarceration could not be justified solely by the statutory bar and granted bail on conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of prolonged incarceration and the unlikely early conclusion of the trial.

Analysis: The application was considered in the backdrop of the statutory restriction under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the requirement to satisfy the twin conditions. The Court found that no role could be attributed to the applicant in delaying the proceedings and that the adjournments were attributable to other accused persons. It also noted that charges had not been framed, that the case involved a large number of witnesses and voluminous documentary material, and that the trial of the predicate offences had not commenced. Relying on the constitutional principle against prolonged pre-trial detention and the need to harmonise statutory restrictions with the right to personal liberty and speedy trial, the Court held that continued incarceration could not be justified merely by reference to the statutory bar.

Conclusion: The twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were held to be satisfied in favour of the applicant, and bail was granted on conditions.

---