Right to Speedy Trial: bail granted where investigation complete, evidence documentary and trial unlikely to conclude soon.

Consideration of bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering framework balanced the twin conditions of Section 45 against Article 21 protections, emphasising that judicial discretion persists and that prolonged pre-trial detention and the right to a speedy trial must be weighed. Where investigation was complete, evidence largely documentary, trial had not commenced with no prospect of timely conclusion, and custody had been prolonged, the court found no unmitigated risk of flight or irremediable tampering and therefore granted bail subject to conditions. The operative effect: petitioners released on bail with specified bond and supervision conditions to protect trial integrity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail in proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, where investigation is complete, trial has not commenced, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial within a reasonable time, and petitioners have been in custody for a prolonged period.

Analysis: The legal framework comprises Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which prescribes twin conditions for grant of bail in PMLA matters, and Article 21 of the Constitution of India guaranteeing the right to personal liberty including the right to a speedy trial. Recent authoritative decisions have held that while Section 45 imposes restrictions, it does not extinguish judicial discretion and that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception'. Constitutional courts must consider prolonged pre-trial detention, the documentary nature of evidence already seized, the stage of proceedings, the likelihood of trial concluding within a reasonable time, and whether continued custody would convert pre-trial detention into punishment. On the facts here, prosecution relies on documentary evidence; investigation is complete; the prosecution proposes 27 witnesses and about 4,408 pages of documents; trial had not commenced and there was no prospect of conclusion in the near future; and the petitioners had been in custody for more than a year. The petitioners have undertaken to cooperate and there is no convincing material showing risk of flight or real prospect of tampering with evidence that cannot be mitigated by suitable conditions.

Conclusion: Bail is granted to the petitioners on furnishing bonds of Rs. 1,00,000 each with two sureties of like amount, and subject to conditions concerning attendance, no leaving the country without permission, provision of contact details, and non-influence of witnesses. This conclusion is in favour of the petitioners.

---