Anticipatory bail under money-laundering law remains available where overseas service defects undermine allegations of deliberate evasion.

Anticipatory bail in a money-laundering investigation may be granted despite fugitive economic offender declarations where service of summons was not substantially pursued at the applicants' known overseas residence and deliberate evasion was not established. The notes state that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act does not create an absolute bar to bail; statutory conditions may be met on the available material. After filing of the prosecution complaint and where no prior arrest occurred, further custodial requirements should be pursued before the Special Court. Investigation can be supported through bail conditions and deemed custody for discovery.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail in a money-laundering case despite their declaration as fugitive economic offenders, alleged evasion of process, and the restrictions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The investigating agency had knowledge that the applicants resided in Australia but repeatedly issued summons at their Indian address without pursuing service abroad through the prescribed process. Such steps did not amount to substantial compliance with service requirements and could not support a presumption of due service or deliberate evasion. The earlier concession for keeping look-out circulars and non-bailable warrants in abeyance to enable their return also weakened the allegation that they were avoiding the process of law.

Analysis: The restrictions under Section 45 do not impose an absolute bar to bail. On the available material, reasonable grounds existed to believe that the statutory conditions were satisfied. The filing of the prosecution complaint and the absence of prior arrest also meant that any further custodial requirement had to be pursued before the Special Court. Further investigation alone did not justify denial of protection, since investigative needs could be met through conditions and deemed custody where required for discovery.

Conclusion: The applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to conditions securing their cooperation with investigation and attendance before the trial court.

---