Right to Personal Liberty protects against prolonged pre-trial detention; bail permissible with stringent conditions to mitigate risks.

Petitioner detained under anti-money-laundering law was granted bail because the court found the statutory presumption was not firmly established given petitioner's prior bail in the predicate offence, pending discharge proceedings delaying trial, and completion of investigation making custodial interrogation unnecessary; the court held statements recorded while in custody can only corroborate and are not substantive evidence, and that prolonged pre-trial incarceration engages the right to personal liberty. The court balanced offence seriousness and statutory rigours against mitigable flight and tampering risks and released the petitioner on stringent bail conditions and sureties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner detained under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is entitled to bail despite the rigours of the PMLA and having been in custody for over three years.

Analysis: The Court examined whether the foundational facts required under the PMLA for invoking the statutory presumption are established and noted that the petitioner has been granted bail in the predicate offence, his discharge application before the trial Court is pending on appeal such that trial is not likely to commence in the near future, and investigation in respect of the petitioner is complete with custodial interrogation no longer necessary. The Court observed that statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA while the accused is in custody cannot be treated as substantive evidence and at best provide corroboration. The Court balanced the seriousness of economic offences and the statutory twin conditions applicable under the PMLA against the petitioner's prolonged pre-trial incarceration of over three years and the petitioner's limited ability to tamper with documentary evidence which remains in possession of the Enforcement Directorate. The Court held that potential flight risk and risk of tampering could be mitigated by stringent bail conditions, and that Article 21 of the Constitution protects against prolonged preventive or punitive detention prior to conviction even under a stringent penal statute.

Conclusion: The petitioner's prayer for bail is allowed and he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,00,000 with adequate sureties subject to specified stringent conditions; the observations in the judgment are limited to the bail application and shall not influence the trial Court.

---