As per case facts, the appellant, Prem Prakash, challenged the High Court's judgment denying his bail in an ECIR case under PMLA. This case stemmed from a predicate offense involving ... fraudulent land acquisition via a forged sale deed, where the appellant was later implicated as Accused No. 8 for alleged conspiracy and money laundering through a firm he beneficially owned. He was already in custody for another PMLA case when arrested in the current matter and his statements were recorded during that period. The central question arose regarding the admissibility of the appellant's statements, recorded by the same investigating agency while he was in judicial custody for a separate case, and whether the prosecution's evidence, including co-accused statements, met the twin bail conditions under PMLA. Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that statements recorded from an accused while in custody, irrespective of the case, by the same agency, are inadmissible under the Evidence Act, as a free mind is absent. The Court also clarified that co-accused statements are not substantive evidence. Finding insufficient prima facie material against the appellant for money laundering and considering his lengthy detention without trial, the Court concluded that the twin conditions for bail were satisfied, and consequently granted him bail, quashing the High Court's order.