Twin Bail Conditions- PMLA 2002 : Sec 45

 

The twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) are strict statutory requirements that an accused must satisfy before a court can grant bail if the Public Prosecutor opposes the application.

The Twin Conditions (Section 45(1))

When opposed by the Public Prosecutor, bail requires court satisfaction on two cumulative conditions:

1. No reasonable guilt: Prima facie grounds showing the accused is not guilty.
2. No future offense: The accused is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail.

Understanding PMLA Section 45 bail today means understanding how that arc bent across nine landmark Supreme Court rulings between 2017 and 2026. The provision was struck down once in November 2017. Parliament revived it four months later. A three-judge bench upheld the revival in July 2022.

The 3-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar*, Dinesh Maheshwari and CT Ravikumar, JJ ,in  the Supreme Court has, in 545-pages-long judgments, has dealt with various aspects of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and has held that the twin conditions provided under Section 45 of the 2002 Act, though restrict the right of the accused to grant of bail, do not impose absolute restraint on the grant of bail. The discretion vests in the Court which is not arbitrary or irrational but judicial, guided by the principles of law as provided under Section 45 of the 2002 Act.

Non-cognizable offence

The Court has rejected the argument that the scheduled offence in a given case may be a non-cognizable offence and yet rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 Act would result in denial of bail even to such accused.

 

Stating that such an argument was founded on clear misunderstanding of the scheme of the 2002 Act, the Court observed that the offence of money-laundering is one wherein a person, directly or indirectly, attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. The fact that the proceeds of crime have been generated as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, which incidentally happens to be a non-cognizable offence, would make no difference.

 

“The person is not prosecuted for the scheduled offence by invoking provisions of the 2002 Act, but only when he has derived or obtained property as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence and then indulges in process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime. Suffice it to observe that the argument under consideration is completely misplaced and needs to be rejected.”

Then, across August and September 2024, the same Court softened it through four rulings in quick succession. In February 2025, it sharpened again when a different bench refused to let the twin conditions be applied “casually”. And in January 2026, the Court added a new variable: prosecutorial wherewithal, the practical capacity of the agency to actually finish the trial.

Recent Judicial Stand (as of October 2026)

·         Mandatory Status vs. Article 21: The Supreme Court (including recent rulings in October 2026) has reaffirmed that while the twin conditions under Section 45 remain strict and mandatory, they cannot override the fundamental right to personal liberty and a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

·         Prolonged Incarceration: Courts have held that if an undertrial has undergone prolonged incarceration (such as over 20 months in custody) and the trial is massive and unlikely to conclude anytime soon (e.g., voluminous documents and dozens of witnesses), constitutional safeguards under Article 21 take precedence, allowing courts to grant bail despite the strictness of Section 45.

·         Conduct Filter: High Courts (such as the Punjab and Haryana High Court) also apply a "conduct filter," noting that bail relief under Article 21 can be refused if the accused's own conduct is marked by evasion or intentional procedural delays.

The Supreme Court has granted regular bail on 15 Oct 2026 to Sanjay Sureka, accused in a money-laundering case, holding that the stringent twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot override the constitutional safeguard of personal liberty under Article 21 when prolonged incarceration and a delayed trial are involved.

A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi allowed Sureka’s appeal against the Calcutta High Court’s November 14, 2025 order refusing him bail. The Court noted that he had remained in custody for more than 20 months, the maximum punishment under the PMLA was seven years, and the investigation concerning him had been completed.

Those who read this also read

1. Powers of Director, Enforcement Directorate under PMLA 2002