PMLA bail and speedy trial: prolonged custody and delayed proceedings justified release despite stringent Section 45 conditions.

In a PMLA bail matter, the HC held that prolonged incarceration, extensive prosecution evidence, and no realistic prospect of early trial could justify bail despite the stringent twin conditions in Section 45. The delay in framing charge was not attributable to the applicant, and the predicate offence trial had not commenced, so continued detention would impair the right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21. The Court applied the principle that constitutional jurisdiction can operate alongside special statutory bail restrictions where detention has become unjustified. Bail was granted and the Section 45 conditions were treated as satisfied in the applicant's favour.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on the ground of prolonged incarceration and delay in trial, and whether the rigours of Section 45 stood satisfied in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The application was considered in the backdrop of long custody, a large number of witnesses, voluminous documentary material, and the fact that the trial in the predicate offence had not commenced. The delay in framing of charge was found not attributable to the applicant. The Court applied the settled principle that the statutory restrictions on bail under special enactments do not oust constitutional jurisdiction where continued detention would amount to denial of the right to speedy trial under Article 21. The Court further relied on the principle that the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 must be harmonised with constitutional protections, and that prolonged incarceration without a realistic prospect of early conclusion of trial can justify bail.

Conclusion: The applicant was held entitled to bail, and the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were treated as satisfied in his favour.

Final Conclusion: Bail was granted on the ground that continued custody, in the circumstances of the case, could not be justified when the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

Ratio Decidendi: In a case under a special statute with stringent bail conditions, constitutional courts may grant bail where prolonged incarceration and no realistic prospect of timely trial would otherwise defeat the right to personal liberty and speedy trial.

---