Chandigarh, Aug. 18 -- The Punjab and Haryana high court has asserted that no exhaustive guidelines can be laid down for parameters to consider bail of an accused in money laundering cases. "The rigour(s) of Section 45 of the PMLA pale into oblivion when regular bail is sought on account of long incarceration in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, i.e., where the bail applicant has suffered prolonged pre-trial custody, the trial is procrastinating and folly thereof is not attributable to such bail-applicant," the bench of justice Sumeet Goel said while granting bail to a Gurugram realtor. Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) mandates that the public prosecutor be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application, and bail can be granted if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These conditions make it tough for the accused in PMLA cases to secure bail. The court was hearing the plea from one Varun Puri, promoter of a real estate firm in Gurugram. The allegations were that substantial amounts were collected from homebuyers and financial institutions in the name of residential and commercial projects. The funds collected were allegedly diverted to intermediary entities and were utilised for acquisition of land for unrelated ventures, repayment of loan and other purposes not connected with the projects. The enforcement case information report (ECIR) was registered in 2021. He was arrested on July 22, 2025, and remained in custody for one year and 22 days. It emerged during the hearing that the prosecution had to examine 49 witnesses and had relied upon 90 documents running into more than 10,000 pages. The investigation is complete and challan was filed in September 2025. He had approached the court for bail in January 2026. The court observed that where the accused has suffered prolonged pre-incarceration with no end to the proceedings in sight, an imperative judicial duty to protect the fundamental right of the individual emerges, so that Article 21 is not reduced to a "dead letter". "In such cases of inordinate delay, the strict fulfillment of the conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA must yield and recede into the background. While considering the bail on the ground of prolonged incarceration, the relief is not premised upon a relaxed interpretation of the statute but upon an independent, non-negotiable right stemming directly from Article 21," it remarked, adding that this right originates from the Constitution. "..no legislative enactment can erect a wall high enough to exclude the operation of constitutional remedies," it added. The court asserted that special laws like the PMLA cannot override the fundamental right to a speedy trial....