As per case facts, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) filed complaints against the appellants under the PMLA. The appellants sought copies of three categories of documents from the Special Court: ... relied-upon documents not supplied, illegible documents supplied, and documents collected during investigation but not relied upon. The Special Court and the High Court primarily denied the request for unrelied-upon documents, holding the prosecution was obligated only to supply relied-upon documents, forcing the appellants to appeal. The question arose whether an accused in a PMLA case is entitled to copies of documents seized and records maintained, including those collected during investigation but not explicitly relied upon by the ED, and what is the stage for seeking them, particularly for bail applications under the stringent Section 45(1)(ii). Finally, the Supreme Court held that the accused is entitled to true copies of all documents/records seized under Sections 17 and 18 of the PMLA, irrespective of whether they are relied upon. At the time of taking cognizance, the accused must be provided with the complaint and all documents produced along with it. While copies of documents not relied upon need only be furnished in a list at the charge framing stage, the accused has a valuable right to seek production of the copies for their defense under Section 233(3) CrPC, which must be liberally construed given the onerous burden under Section 24 PMLA. For bail applications under Section 45(1)(ii) PMLA, the accused can also invoke Section 91 CrPC to seek unrelied-upon documents, unless the Court is satisfied that disclosure would prejudice an ongoing investigation.