TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
AI-powered research trained on the authentic TaxTMI database.
Launch AI Search →Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>PMLA bail conditions yield to Article 21 where continued custody is unnecessary and pre-trial detention is unwarranted.</h1> The Supreme Court of India held that the bail restrictions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot justify continued ... Entitlement to Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - medical grounds - Right to personal liberty of the accused under Article 21 - Twin conditions for bail - Co-accused / directors induced homebuyers to invest in various real estate projects but later failed to deliver flats / apartments. Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - HELD THAT:- The Court took note that the prosecution complaint had already been filed, the appellant had remained in custody for over eight months, and before arrest had physically appeared before the Enforcement Directorate on five occasions. On that basis, it found no present necessity for continued custody. The Court further held that the restrictions on bail cannot be construed to justify indefinite detention and that the twin conditions cannot override constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21. Applying that principle to the facts, the Court held that the appellant was entitled to be released on bail, while leaving undisturbed the part of the impugned order upholding the arrest. [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10] Bail was granted subject to conditions to be fixed by the trial court, without disturbing the validity of the arrest and without expressing any view on the merits. Final Conclusion: The Court allowed the appeal to the limited extent of granting bail. It held that continued custody was unwarranted in the circumstances of the case and directed release on bail subject to conditions, while clarifying that no finding on merits had been rendered. 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
