Summary
These petitions and appeals challenged the twin bail conditions in Section 45(1) of the PMLA as worded in 2017, which linked their application to scheduled Part A offences punishable above three years. The Court held those additional conditions unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 21 and remanded the affected bail matters for fresh decisions without applying them.
Issues
- Whether the then-existing Section 45(1) twin bail conditions violated Articles 14 and 21.
- Whether reading down or authorities applying Section 45 answered the constitutional challenge.
- What relief followed for matters in which bail had been refused because of those conditions.
Provisions considered
- Section 45(1), as considered in 2017, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002The twin additional bail conditions linked to Part A scheduled offences were invalidated to that extent, rather than the entire Act or every part of Section45. (¶¶ 4, 21–28, 45)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaLiberty deprivation requires fair, just and reasonable procedure; the quoted constitutional text and its judicial interpretation inform review of the bail restrictions. (¶¶ 19, 27–28, 38, 45)
Held
- The then-existing provision made bail depend on the scheduled offence and its punishment rather than a rational criterion connected with money laundering. Its differing treatment across the illustrated prosecution settings produced manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory and unjust results. The not-guilty assessment concerned the predicate offence, creating a further disconnect. (¶ 24–31)
- Article14 applies to procedural as well as substantive discrimination and permits scrutiny for manifest arbitrariness. Article21 requires fair, just and reasonable law and procedure. The stringent conditions inverted the presumption of innocence and were materially more demanding than ordinary bail considerations. (¶¶ 16–19, 27–28, 36–38)
- Reading the conditions as a prima facie assessment or limiting future offences to similar offences would not cure the defects. TADA and organised-crime authorities were distinguished; Section24’s presumption concerned money laundering, not the predicate offence referred to in Section45. Gautam Kundu and Rohit Tandon had applied Section45 without deciding its constitutional validity. (¶¶ 36, 39–42)
- The operative declaration invalidated Section45(1) insofar as it imposed the two additional conditions for release on bail. Orders denying bail on that basis in the matters before the Court were set aside and remanded for early merits decisions without those conditions; bail was not automatically granted. (¶ 45)
Result
Writ petitions and appeals disposed of. The then-existing Section45(1) twin conditions declared unconstitutional under Articles14 and21; affected bail-refusal orders set aside and remanded for earliest fresh decisions on merits without applying those conditions.