The stringent bail and attachment provisions of PMLA balance financial integrity against personal liberty. Critically analyse.

The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) targets "proceeds of crime", meaning property obtained from a scheduled offence [1]. Two tools give it force: Section 45 twin bail conditions and provisional attachment of property [1]. They protect financial integrity, but they also move the burden onto the accused before trial begins.

Financial integrity: why stringency is justified

• Laundering is a separate offence: Vijay Madanlal Choudhary treats laundering as a continuing activity of hiding or using tainted money. Strict tools stop that activity while the case is pending [2].
• Stops loss of assets: Attachment freezes property before it is moved or sold, so assets can still be confiscated if the accused is convicted.
• Built-in filters: Part B offences come under the Act only above ₹1 crore [1]. Attachment and search need a predicate-offence complaint already filed before a court [1].
• Judicial check: Charges are framed by a judge, not by the ED. The Delhi HC recently sought the ED's reply to Lalu Prasad's challenge in the IRCTC case [4].

Personal liberty: the concerns

• Reverse burden on bail: Under Section 45, the court must believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to offend on bail [1]. Bail is the exception at a stage when innocence should still be presumed (Article 21).
• Long-running constitutional dispute: The twin conditions were challenged before the Supreme Court in 2017 [3]. Parliament later restored them, and Vijay Madanlal (2022) upheld them.
• Process becomes the punishment: Long pre-trial custody, plus parallel CBI and ED cases on the same facts, means double costs and years of uncertainty for the accused [4].
• The base case can collapse: Pavana Dibbur holds there is no PMLA offence once the predicate case ends in acquittal or discharge, or is quashed [5]. By then, the person's liberty and property may already have been lost.
• Perception of selective use against opposition leaders weakens public trust.

Way forward

• Use Section 44 so one Special Court tries both the PMLA case and the predicate case [1].
• Set time limits for attachment and trial, and give reasons when bail is denied.

The provisions balance two goods, but in practice the balance leans towards the State. The answer is calibration, not repeal: keep the strict tools and add speedy trials and judicial oversight. That would serve both FATF-aligned financial integrity and the Article 21 promise that liberty is the rule and jail the exception.