{"id":30470,"date":"2026-08-17T07:40:57","date_gmt":"2026-08-17T07:40:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=30470"},"modified":"2026-08-17T07:44:41","modified_gmt":"2026-08-17T07:44:41","slug":"section-45-pmla-bail-twin-conditions-article-21-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/section-45-pmla-bail-twin-conditions-article-21-supreme-court\/","title":{"rendered":"The Eroding Presumption of Innocence: A Doctrinal Critique of the Twin Conditions for Bail under Section 45 of the PMLA"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

<\/span>The Eroding Presumption of Innocence: A Doctrinal Critique of the Twin Conditions for Bail Under Section 45 of the PMLA<\/span><\/h1>\n\n\n\n

The foundational cornerstone of Anglo-Saxon criminal jurisprudence, which has historically anchored Indian penal procedure, rests upon the sacrosanct presumption of innocence\u2014the principled maxim that an accused remains innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Within the Indian constitutional scheme, this principle is not merely a procedural rule of evidence; it is an intrinsic component of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.\u00b9 This constitutional bedrock was famously distilled by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer into the enduring canon: ‘Bail is the rule, jail is the exception.’<\/em>\u00b2 However, the legislative design of modern statutory regimes regulating economic and security-related offences in India has systematically inverted this rule. Nowhere is this statutory inversion more pronounced, or its human and procedural consequences more severe, than under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).\u00b3<\/p>

\n
\n

Table of Contents<\/p>\nToggle<\/span><\/path><\/svg><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n