IndexFacts of the caseIssues involved in the caseArguments on behalf of the appellantJudgmentAnalysisFacts of the caseIn the said case written petitions and appeals were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the dual condition for grant of bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Section 45(1) requires "two conditions" for granting bail where an offense is punishable with a prison sentence exceeding 3 years under "Part A of the Schedule" of the Act. The conditions are that: (i) the Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to object to any bail application and the Court must be satisfied (ii) where the Prosecutor objects to the application, that there are reasonable grounds for find that the accused is not guilty of that offense and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Issues involved in the case Whether the above dual conditions are manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution? Arguments on behalf of the petitioner According to senior advocate and former Attorney General of India, Mukul Rohtagi, lumping 'Part B offences' and 'Part A' heinous offenses together would amount to treating unequals equally and would be discriminatory, arbitrary and therefore violative of articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. A person will be punished for an offense under the PML Act, 2002, but will be denied bail on account of a predicate offense contained in Part A of the Schedule which makes Section 45(1) manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable. The threshold of three years and above stipulated as a condition in section 45(1) of the PML Act is discriminatory and manifestly arbitrary and therefore violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This classification gave rise to anomalous situations where a person was prosecuted for an offense under the PMLA, but was denied bail due to the impugned Conditions. Further, a person accused of such scheduled offense could, on the one hand, be granted anticipatory bail in case of charges under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but a person arrested for such scheduled offense under a charge under PMLA could obtain release on bail only on condition that the impugned Conditions were satisfied. The dual condition is unfair, unjust and contrary to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (i.e. the right to life and personal liberty), as it required the accused to make his defense public at the stage of arrest itself. Ruling The Supreme Court annulled the aforementioned twin ruling as it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, i.e. provisions that protect the constitutional right to equality and the right to life and personal liberty, and addressed all the requests ( arising from bail applications) to be remanded to the respective courts to be heard and decided on merits, without application of the additional conditions contained in section 45(1) of the PMLA.AnalysisThe judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in aforementioned case on the aspect of constitutionality The validity of the dual condition for granting bail raises questions about similar provisions existing in other statutes, particularly in relation to economic crimes. While the sentence in this case is very significant. The inconsistencies in the scope and applicability of precautionary conditions under the PMLA have constituted a very strong argument for eliminating such.