PMLA bail principles: Section 45 twin conditions, Section 24 presumption, and Article 21 delay favoured release.

Regular bail under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act is controlled by Section 45's twin conditions, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not reoffend on bail. Section 24's presumption applies only after the prosecution establishes foundational facts showing a scheduled offence, property derived from it, and the accused's involvement with that property. Section 50 statements recorded in custody were treated as unsafe to rely on as voluntary, and WhatsApp material was found insufficient to outweigh liberty at the bail stage. Prolonged incarceration and no clear prospect of early trial also engaged Article 21, supporting release on bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, in the light of the twin conditions under Section 45, the statutory presumption under Section 24, and the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The applications were considered on the basis that bail under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 is governed by the special restrictions in Section 45, which require reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of money-laundering and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Court held that the statutory presumption under Section 24 arises only after the prosecution establishes foundational facts, namely the commission of the scheduled offence, derivation of the property as a result of that offence, and involvement of the accused in any process or activity connected with the property. The Court found that the self-incriminating statements recorded under Section 50 while the accused were in custody could not safely be treated as voluntary and were liable to be discarded. The Court also found the WhatsApp material insufficient to outweigh liberty at the bail stage and noted that the investigation had not firmly connected the alleged monetary trail with the predicate offence. The prolonged incarceration of the applicants, coupled with the continuing investigation and the absence of any apparent likelihood of early trial conclusion, was held to engage Article 21.

Conclusion: The applicants satisfied the bail standard under Section 45 and were held entitled to release on bail.

---