Table of ContentsFacts of the CaseIssues Involved in the CaseArguments on Behalf of the PetitionerJudgmentAnalysisFacts of the CaseIn the said case, a writ petition and appeals have been filed challenging the Constitution. validity of two conditions for the grant of bail under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. Section 45(1) imposes “two conditions” for the grant of bail where an offense carries a prison term of more than 3 years. under “Part A of the Schedule” to the Act. The conditions are that: (i) the Attorney General must be given an opportunity to object to any application for bail and the court must be satisfied (ii) where the Attorney General opposes the application, that there is reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of such an offense and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”?Get the original essayIssues involved in the caseAre the two conditions mentioned above manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory and violate the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution? Arguments on behalf of the petitionerAccording to senior advocate and former Attorney General of India Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, grouping 'Part B offences' with heinous offenses in 'Part A' would amount to treating unequals on one foot of equality and would be discriminatory, arbitrary and therefore violative. Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. A person will be punished for an offense under the PML Act 2002, but will be refused bail because of an underlying offense contained in Part A of the Schedule, making section 45 ( 1) manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable. The threshold of three years and above stipulated as a condition under Section 45(1) of the PML Act is discriminatory and manifestly arbitrary and is therefore a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such classification resulted in anomalous situations where a person was prosecuted for an offense under the PMLA, but was denied bail due to the contested conditions. case of charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but a person arrested for such an offense provided for under a charge under the PMLA could obtain bail only on satisfaction of the impugned conditions. Both these conditions are unjust and contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution of India (i.e. the right to life and personal liberty), as they require the accused to disclose his defense to the very stage of his arrest. aforesaid twin on the ground that it violated Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, i.e. the provisions which protect the constitutional right to equality and the right to life and to personal liberty, and he directed all petitions (arising from bail applications) to be referred to the respective courts to be heard and decided on their merits, without the application of the additional conditions contained in section 45 ( 1) of the PMLA.AnalysisThe judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case on the aspect of the Constitution The validity of the two conditions for grant of bail raises questions on similar provisions which exist in d other laws dealing in particular with economic offenses. While the judgment in the present case is very significant. Inconsistencies in scope and.