PMLA bail conditions yield to Article 21 where continued custody is unnecessary and pre-trial detention is unwarranted.

The Supreme Court of India held that the bail restrictions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot justify continued custody where further detention is unnecessary and Article 21 requires protection of personal liberty. Because the prosecution complaint had already been filed, the appellant had spent over eight months in custody, and he had earlier appeared before the Enforcement Directorate, the Court found that pre-trial detention was no longer warranted. Bail was granted subject to terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, having remained in custody for a substantial period after filing of the prosecution complaint, was entitled to bail notwithstanding the restrictions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The prosecution complaint had already been filed, the appellant had remained in custody for over eight months, and he had earlier appeared before the Enforcement Directorate on several occasions. In these circumstances, further detention pending trial was not considered necessary. The restrictions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot be used to justify indefinite detention, and the twin conditions therein must yield to the constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in appropriate cases.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to bail, subject to terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: The twin conditions for bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot override Article 21 where continued custody is unnecessary and the case otherwise warrants release on bail.

---