Issues: Whether, in a complaint filed after 01.07.2024, the accused was entitled to notice and a pre-cognizance hearing under the proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 before cognizance was taken.

Analysis: The complaint had been filed after the commencement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The parties accepted that the statutory requirement of issuing notice to the accused before taking cognizance applied in such a case. The impugned order had been passed without affording that hearing.

Conclusion: The requirement of notice and hearing under the proviso to Section 223(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was mandatory, and the impugned order could not be sustained. It was set aside and the matter was directed to be decided afresh after hearing the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a complaint is filed after the commencement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, cognizance cannot be taken without first issuing notice and affording a pre-cognizance hearing to the accused under the proviso to Section 223(1).

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a money-laundering prosecution involving alleged economic offences, and whether the statutory bar and twin conditions under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 permit pre-arrest protection.

Analysis: The application was considered in the context of alleged laundering of a substantial amount and the applicant's asserted readiness to cooperate. The Court treated section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as governing the grant of bail in such cases and noted that economic offences form a distinct class because of their impact on society. Relying on the settled principle that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly, particularly in economic offences, the Court held that the applicant's reliance on the cited precedent did not assist him because that decision did not decide the question of anticipatory bail. On the facts, the Court found that the matter disclosed a prima facie case of involvement in a large financial transaction and that anticipatory bail was not justified.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was refused and the application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions for economic offences such as money laundering, anticipatory bail remains an exceptional relief and may be declined where the statutory conditions and the gravity of the allegations do not justify pre-arrest protection.

Issues: Whether the order framing charges was sustainable when it did not disclose the material basis for proceeding against the revisionist, and whether the matter required remand for reconsideration.

Analysis: The impugned order was found to be cryptic and did not ly indicate what material was available against the revisionist for framing of charges. In such circumstances, the order could not be sustained in its existing form. The proper course was to set aside that part of the order and require the trial court to hear the parties afresh on the question of framing of charges and then pass a fresh order.

Conclusion: The challenge succeeded to the extent that the charge-framing order was quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh decision on framing of charges.

Issues: Whether the first proviso to Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 requiring an opportunity of hearing to the accused before cognizance would apply to the complaint proceedings that had already commenced before the Sanhita came into force, having regard to Section 531(2)(a) saving pending proceedings.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 223 contemplates hearing of the accused before cognizance, but Section 531(2)(a) preserves pending appeals, applications, trials, inquiries and investigations by requiring them to continue under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 if they were pending immediately before the commencement of the new Sanhita. On the facts found, the proceedings against the revisionist had been initiated, and the complaint had been filed, before the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 came into force. In that situation, the cognizance order was to be tested under the earlier procedural regime, and the new proviso was held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The challenge to cognizance failed and the revision was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where proceedings were already pending before the commencement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 531(2)(a) saves the earlier procedural law and the proviso to Section 223 does not govern cognizance in such pending matters.

Issues: (i) Whether FIRs alleging theft, criminal breach of trust and cheating against a lawful sand settlee/licensee, along with alleged violations of the mineral rules, were liable to be quashed. (ii) Whether the materials in the FIRs disclosed the essential ingredients of the alleged IPC offences so as to justify continuation of criminal proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether FIRs alleging theft, criminal breach of trust and cheating against a lawful sand settlee/licensee, along with alleged violations of the mineral rules, were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The writ petitions concerned multiple FIRs arising out of alleged shortage or unauthorised dispatch of sand from licensed stock points, after the petitioners had surrendered the settlement and the authorities had taken over the stock points. The Court considered the statutory scheme under the mining rules, the bar under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and the scope of police action in cases involving illegal extraction, transportation or sale of minerals. It also applied the governing principles on quashing of criminal proceedings where the allegations fall within the categories of abuse of process and do not disclose a prima facie offence.

Conclusion: The FIRs were liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the materials in the FIRs disclosed the essential ingredients of the alleged IPC offences so as to justify continuation of criminal proceedings.

Analysis: The Court found that the allegations did not establish dishonest removal of property from the possession of another with consent absent, which is necessary for theft, nor did they disclose entrustment and dishonest misappropriation required for criminal breach of trust, nor deception and dishonest inducement required for cheating. On the facts pleaded, the sand had already been surrendered and the stock points were under the control of the authorities, so the allegations were insufficient to attribute the requisite mens rea and factual foundation for the IPC offences alleged. The Court held that the case fell within the settled categories warranting interference because the criminal process was being used despite absence of cognizable offences on the disclosed facts.

Conclusion: No prima facie offences under Sections 379, 406, 411 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were made out.

Final Conclusion: The criminal writ petitions succeeded, and the impugned FIRs together with consequential proceedings were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the allegations against a lawful mineral licensee, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose the essential ingredients of theft, criminal breach of trust or cheating, the criminal proceedings amount to an abuse of process and are liable to be quashed.

The Court identified four core legal questions for determination:

(i) Whether the enactment of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) grants immunity from prosecution under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for offences arising from acts or omissions that led to infractions of FEMA;

(ii) Whether the registration of the FIR by the Delhi Police, based on a complaint by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) following a search and seizure operation under FEMA, was valid and legal;

(iii) Whether the petitioners' arrest by the ED under the Economic Crime Information Report (ECIR) and Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) was valid and legal;

(iv) Whether the petitioners' arrest by the Delhi Police in the FIR was valid and legal, particularly in light of procedural safeguards such as service of grounds of arrest in writing.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue I: Immunity from IPC Prosecution by Enactment of FEMA

Legal Framework and Precedents: FEMA replaced the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) with the objective of decriminalizing foreign exchange violations, converting criminal offences under FERA into civil penalties under FEMA. The Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Anr. vs. Venkateshan S. & Anr. (2002) was pivotal, where it was held that FEMA and preventive detention laws like COFEPOSA occupy different fields and that decriminalization under FEMA does not preclude detention under COFEPOSA for related activities. The doctrine of implied repeal was also examined, with the Supreme Court in M. Karunanidhi vs. Union of India & Anr. (1979) elucidating that repeal by implication requires clear repugnancy between statutes.

Court's Reasoning: The Court acknowledged that FEMA decriminalized foreign exchange infractions that were criminal under FERA. However, it rejected the petitioners' argument that this decriminalization extends immunity from prosecution under the IPC for criminal acts underlying the FEMA violations. The Court noted that the IPC and FEMA address different legal domains: FEMA regulates foreign exchange transactions with civil penalties, while the IPC punishes substantive criminal offences such as forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy.

Further, the Court relied on the principle that multiple statutes can apply to the same transaction without implied repeal unless irreconcilable conflict exists. The Court emphasized that the acts of forgery and fabrication, which preceded the FEMA infractions, are criminal offences independent of FEMA violations.

Key Findings and Application: The Court found no express or implied repeal of the IPC by FEMA. The petitioners' alleged criminal acts under the IPC remain prosecutable despite FEMA's civil penalty regime. The Court also cited the Supreme Court's decision in Leo Roy Frey vs. Superintendent, District Jail, Amritsar, which distinguished criminal conspiracy as an offence separate from regulatory violations.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioners' reliance on the legislative intent behind FEMA to decriminalize foreign exchange violations was accepted in principle but rejected as a basis to immunize criminal acts under the IPC. The respondents' submissions that criminal offences can coexist with civil infractions were accepted.

Conclusion: Enactment of FEMA does not grant immunity from prosecution under the IPC for offences arising from the same underlying acts or omissions.

Issue II: Validity and Legality of FIR Registration

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Supreme Court's decision in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014) mandates registration of an FIR if the information received discloses a cognizable offence, with preliminary inquiry only permissible where no cognizable offence is prima facie disclosed. The Court also considered K.T.M.S. Mohd. & Anr. vs. Union of India (1992) regarding admissibility of confessional statements recorded under one statute for prosecution under another.

Court's Reasoning: The Court examined the FIR and found it was not based solely on the petitioners' statements recorded under section 37 of FEMA but also on recoveries made during the ED's search and seizure operations, including bogus invoices, forged notary stamps, and fabricated documents, which disclose cognizable offences under the IPC. The Court distinguished between 'confession' and 'admission', holding that the statements recorded under FEMA amounted to admissions rather than confessions, and thus did not invalidate the FIR.

The Court further held that the police were mandated to register the FIR upon receiving information disclosing cognizable offences, and no preliminary inquiry was necessary. The petitioners' contention that the FIR was registered solely based on the ED complaint was rejected, as the complaint contained credible information of offences under the IPC.

Key Findings and Application: The FIR disclosed cognizable offences such as forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy, justifying mandatory registration. The ED's complaint and the evidence recovered during search operations provided sufficient grounds.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioners' argument that the FIR was invalid due to reliance on inadmissible statements and absence of preliminary enquiry was rejected. The Court accepted the respondents' submissions that the FIR was properly registered in compliance with legal standards.

Conclusion: The registration of the FIR by the Delhi Police was valid and legal.

Issue III: Validity and Legality of Arrests by the Enforcement Directorate under PMLA

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 19 of the PMLA prescribes procedural safeguards for arrest, including furnishing 'reasons to believe' to the arrestee. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Arvind Kejriwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2025) introduced an additional requirement to communicate reasons to believe at the time of arrest, effective from the date of pronouncement (12.07.2024). The Punjab & Haryana High Court's decision in Dilbag Singh vs. Union of India was also considered regarding compliance with section 19(2) of the PMLA.

Court's Reasoning: The Court held that the additional requirement to furnish reasons to believe arose only after the Arvind Kejriwal judgment on 12.07.2024 and therefore did not apply retrospectively to the petitioners' arrests on 14.06.2024 and 03.07.2024. The Court was satisfied that the ED complied with section 19(2) by forwarding arrest orders and materials to the adjudicating authority within the prescribed timeframe, considering non-working days.

Regarding grounds of arrest, the Court noted that the arrest memos contained specific allegations beyond mere non-cooperation, including concealment of material information and involvement in money laundering. The Court rejected the argument that non-cooperation alone was insufficient ground for arrest, clarifying that it can form part of the necessity to arrest if other grounds exist.

Key Findings and Application: The arrests complied with the law prevailing at the time, including procedural safeguards under PMLA. Non-cooperation was not the sole ground but part of a broader case for arrest.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The petitioners' arguments on non-compliance with section 19 and the invalidity of arrest due to non-cooperation were rejected. The respondents' submissions on compliance and sufficiency of grounds were accepted.

Conclusion: The petitioners' arrests by the ED under the PMLA were valid and legal.

Issue IV: Validity and Legality of Arrests by the Delhi Police in the FIR

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Supreme Court's decision in Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi) mandates that grounds of arrest must be served in writing to the arrestee, distinct from reasons for arrest, to ensure legality of arrest. The Court also considered recent decisions of this Court suggesting incorporation of grounds of arrest within arrest memos.

Court's Reasoning: The Court examined the arrest memos served by the Delhi Police and found that they contained only general reasons for arrest (e.g., custodial interrogation required, risk of evidence destruction, flight risk) without specific grounds detailing the petitioners' alleged roles or incriminating circumstances. The Court held that these do not satisfy the requirement of serving 'grounds of arrest' as distinct from 'reasons for arrest' under Prabir Purkayastha.

Key Findings and Application: The absence of specific grounds of arrest rendered the petitioners' arrests by the Delhi Police invalid and illegal.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Delhi Police's submission that grounds of arrest can be incorporated in arrest memos and that the memos served were sufficient was rejected, as the memos failed to meet the specificity and clarity required by law.

Conclusion: The petitioners' arrests by the Delhi Police under the FIR were not valid or legal and are quashed.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The enactment of FEMA does not grant to a person immunity from prosecution for offences under the IPC even if the offences alleged arise from the same underlying actions or omissions that led to infractions of FEMA."

"The registration of the subject FIR by the Delhi Police, based on the complaint filed by the ED, arising from the search and seizure operation conducted by the (latter) agency, is not invalid or illegal merely because the FIR is based on the ED's complaint."

"The petitioners' arrest by the ED in the subject ECIR for violations of the provisions of PMLA is valid and legal and in compliance of the requirements of the law, including the requirements of the Supreme Court verdict in Prabir Purkayastha and section 19 of the PMLA."

"The petitioners' arrest by the Delhi Police in the subject FIR is not valid, since those are in violation of the mandate of the Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha."

Core principles established include:

• The principle that civil regulatory infractions under FEMA do not immunize criminal offences under IPC arising from the same facts;
• The mandatory nature of FIR registration upon receipt of information disclosing cognizable offences, without requirement of preliminary inquiry if such offences are prima facie made out;
• The distinction between 'confession' and 'admission' in evidence law, and the admissibility of statements recorded under one statute for use as admissions in another;
• The procedural safeguard requiring service of specific grounds of arrest in writing to the arrestee, distinct from reasons for arrest, to validate an arrest;
• The prospective application of new procedural requirements introduced by judicial pronouncements.

Final determinations:

• The petitioners' arrests by the ED are upheld as valid and legal;
• The petitioners' arrests by the Delhi Police are quashed for non-compliance with procedural safeguards;
• The FIR registration is valid and legally sustainable;
• The petitioners are entitled to release from custody in the FIR case upon furnishing personal bonds and sureties.

Issues: Whether prosecution for money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can continue against a person who is not named in the charge-sheet for the scheduled offence, where the complaint alleges receipt, layering, concealment and utilisation of proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The complaint alleged that the applicant received proceeds of crime, used them for acquisition and dealing with immovable property, and assisted in layering and concealment. The legal position applied was that money laundering is an independent offence, but its foundation remains the existence of a scheduled offence and proceeds of crime. The absence of the applicant's name in the charge-sheet for the scheduled offence did not by itself end the PMLA proceedings, because a person may still be prosecuted for dealing with proceeds of crime if the scheduled offence survives and there is material showing concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projection or claiming as untainted property. The bar arises only where the scheduled offence itself is extinguished in its entirety by quashing, discharge or acquittal of all accused.

Conclusion: The prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was held maintainable and the challenge to the cognizance and summoning order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Money laundering is a standalone and independent offence, and a person may be proceeded against for dealing with proceeds of crime even if not charge-sheeted in the scheduled offence, so long as the scheduled offence subsists and there is material showing involvement in concealment, layering, acquisition or use of those proceeds.

Issues: (i) Whether the rigour of the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was attracted on the facts of the case. (ii) Whether the materials showed reasonable grounds to deny regular bail in view of the alleged proceeds of crime and the alleged laundering activity.

Issue (i): Whether the rigour of the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was attracted on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The bail jurisdiction under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is controlled by Section 45, read with the overriding effect of Sections 65 and 71. The Court noted the settled position that the twin conditions are mandatory in ordinary cases, but they are not an absolute bar and must be applied reasonably. On the facts, the Court found that the alleged money-laundering trail largely related to amounts received before the alleged date of the predicate offence and that only a small amount could be linked to the period after that date. The Court therefore held that the statutory embargo was not attracted in the manner urged by the prosecution.

Conclusion: The twin conditions under Section 45 were held not to stand in the way of bail.

Issue (ii): Whether the materials showed reasonable grounds to deny regular bail in view of the alleged proceeds of crime and the alleged laundering activity.

Analysis: The Court examined the alleged credit entries, property purchases, and statements recorded under Section 50. It held that amounts remitted before the alleged date of the predicate offence could not be treated as proceeds of crime for the present prosecution. The Court also found that the statement of the co-accused was not substantive evidence sufficient, by itself, to establish laundering of the properties standing in benami names. In the result, the Court concluded that further custody was unnecessary after filing of the complaint and that the applicant had made out a case for release.

Conclusion: The materials were held insufficient to deny regular bail, and bail was granted.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded, and the applicant was ordered to be released on regular bail subject to conditions designed to secure appearance and prevent interference with the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: For bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, alleged tainted transactions occurring before the alleged predicate offence date cannot, without more, be treated as proceeds of crime for attracting the full rigour of Section 45, and a co-accused's statement alone is not substantive evidence to deny bail.

Issues: Whether the applicant, facing prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, was entitled to regular bail in view of long incarceration, the stage of the proceedings, and the effect of the earlier setting aside of the cognizance order.

Analysis: The application was examined in the setting of the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the applicant had remained in custody for about one year, the complaint had already been filed, the trial had not commenced, and the maximum punishment was seven years. It further considered that the earlier cognizance order had been set aside and the intervening detention period was not in accordance with Section 309(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Relying on the principles that prolonged incarceration cannot be used as a substitute for trial and that continued custody must be justified by the progress of the proceedings, the Court concluded that the rigour of Section 45 yielded to the constitutional requirement of reasonable procedure in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The applicant was held entitled to regular bail.

Ratio Decidendi: In a money-laundering prosecution, the statutory restrictions on bail do not operate as an absolute bar where the accused has undergone prolonged incarceration, the trial has not begun within a reasonable time, and continued custody is inconsistent with the constitutional protection of personal liberty.

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in view of prolonged pre-trial incarceration and the filing of the charge sheet; (ii) whether continued custody could be justified when prosecution sanction for the Central Government employee had not been obtained.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in view of prolonged pre-trial incarceration and the filing of the charge sheet.

Analysis: The applicant had remained in custody for a substantial period, the investigation qua him was stated to be complete, and the charge sheet had already been filed. The allegations were serious, but the Court treated liberty, prolonged custody, and the absence of any near-term prospect of trial as material considerations in assessing bail. The Court also noticed that the case involved a large number of witnesses and voluminous documents, making early commencement of trial uncertain.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the applicant and supported grant of regular bail.

Issue (ii): Whether continued custody could be justified when prosecution sanction for the Central Government employee had not been obtained.

Analysis: The applicant was treated as a deputationist from the Central Government, and the Court held that prosecution sanction had to be obtained from the competent parent authority. It noted that sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 had not been obtained from the Central Government authority concerned. In that situation, the Court considered continued detention unjustified pending the prosecution sanction process.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the applicant and against continued custody.

Final Conclusion: Regular bail was granted because continued incarceration was found unwarranted in the circumstances, particularly after filing of the charge sheet and in the absence of the required prosecution sanction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where investigation is complete, charge sheet has been filed, and the requisite prosecution sanction for a public servant has not been obtained from the competent authority, continued pre-trial custody is not justified and regular bail may be granted.

Issues: Whether regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be granted despite the rigours of Section 45, in view of the applicant's prolonged custody, the stage of trial, and the right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The allegation against the applicant was that he played a facilitating role in the movement and layering of proceeds of crime through related entities and in the indirect takeover of the corporate debtor. However, the Court noted that the applicant was in judicial custody since 01.07.2024, the trial in the complaint had not commenced, and the predicate prosecution was still at a preliminary stage with a large volume of witnesses and documents. The Court also noted that investigation remained pending and there was no material showing that any money trail had been traced to the applicant or that he had acquired property from the alleged proceeds of crime. Referring to the principles that stringent bail conditions cannot justify unreasonably long pre-trial detention, the Court held that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could not eclipse the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and speedy trial where trial completion was not likely in the near future.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the applicant.

Final Conclusion: The applicant was held entitled to release on bail because continued incarceration without a realistic prospect of timely trial could not be sustained in the face of Article 21, notwithstanding the statutory bail restrictions under the PMLA.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an undertrial's detention is becoming unreasonably prolonged and the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, constitutional courts may grant bail even under a stringent special statute, as the right to personal liberty and speedy trial prevails over the statutory bail embargo.

Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the applicant's role as an external auditor, the stage of the predicate and PMLA proceedings, and the prolonged period of incarceration.

Analysis: The application was considered in the context of the statutory restrictions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the constitutional protection of personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The material showed that the applicant was not shown to be the beneficiary of any proceeds of crime, no property belonging to him had been attached, and the predicate as well as PMLA proceedings were still at an early stage. The Court also noted that the trial involved a large number of witnesses and documents and was not likely to conclude in the near future. In these circumstances, continued custody was found to be unjustified notwithstanding the rigours of the bail provision.

Conclusion: Regular bail was held to be warranted and the applicant was entitled to release on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the trial under PMLA is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time and the accused is not shown to be a beneficiary of the proceeds of crime, constitutional considerations of liberty and speedy trial may override the statutory rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA for the purpose of bail.

Issues: Whether the petitioner, being a woman accused in a PMLA case, was entitled to bail under the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether the materials collected in investigation disclosed a sufficient role in the alleged generation, concealment and use of proceeds of crime to justify of bail.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 does not create an automatic right to bail merely because the accused is a woman. The discretion remains with the Court, and the statutory relaxation does not dispense with judicial assessment of the facts. The record indicated that the petitioner was alleged to have played an active role in the paper leak operation, including arranging a printer at her residence, maintaining continuous contact with the co-accused, and facilitating concealment of cash allegedly linked to the proceeds of crime. The investigation also referred to financial benefits, unexplained cash deposits, and recovery of money at the instance of the co-accused from premises connected with the petitioner's family. At the bail stage, these materials were sufficient to show involvement in the alleged offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to bail on the strength of the woman proviso alone, and the bail application was liable to be rejected.

Final Conclusion: Bail was declined because the statutory relaxation under Section 45 did not compel release and the investigation materials disclosed a prima facie role in the alleged money-laundering activity.

Ratio Decidendi: The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is discretionary and does not mandate bail merely on account of the accused being a woman; bail may be refused where investigation materials prima facie show involvement in the offence and in relation to proceeds of crime.

- Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given his arrest under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA-2002).

- Whether the applicant's involvement in the offence of money laundering, specifically in connection with the illegal online betting platform "Sky-exchange" operated under the umbrella of the "Mahadev Online Book" syndicate, is prima facie established.

- Whether the statement recorded under Section 50 of PMLA-2002 against the applicant is admissible and sufficient to implicate him.

- Whether the applicant's alleged transactions and association with other accused persons, including the handling of proceeds of crime and layering of illegal funds, constitute sufficient grounds for his continued detention.

- Whether the applicant's claim of absence of mens rea, lack of direct involvement in the predicate offence, and reliance on co-accused bail orders justify his release.

- The applicability of the proviso to Section 45 of PMLA-2002 regarding the threshold amount of proceeds of crime and its impact on bail eligibility.

- The relevance and weight of electronic evidence and statements under the Evidence Act and PMLA in the context of bail.

- The balance between the applicant's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and the State's interest in safeguarding the economy from grave economic offences.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Prima facie involvement of the applicant in money laundering under PMLA-2002

Relevant legal framework includes Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA-2002 defining the offence and punishment for money laundering, and Section 2(1)(u) defining "proceeds of crime". The Court also referred to Section 45 of PMLA-2002 which requires "reasonable grounds for believing" the accused's involvement for bail considerations.

The Court examined the investigation details revealing the applicant's user ID "sfhkd20" on the Sky-exchange betting platform, extracted from digital devices seized from co-accused Govind Kumar Kedia. The applicant admitted using this ID and engaging in illegal betting. Further, the applicant's bank accounts showed large credits from entities linked to his brother, fraudulently recorded as loans but admitted to be cash transactions, indicating layering of proceeds of crime.

Statements of other accused corroborated the applicant's involvement in illegal betting and money laundering activities. Analysis of the applicant's son's mobile phone revealed communication and transactions related to cash collection, indicating the applicant's instrumental role through family members.

The Court applied the law to facts by holding that the evidence prima facie establishes the applicant's knowledge and active participation in the money laundering scheme, negating the applicant's claim of ignorance or lack of mens rea.

Competing arguments about the applicant's non-involvement in the predicate offence and absence of direct evidence were rejected, as the Court emphasized that at bail stage, only prima facie material is required, not conclusive proof.

Conclusion: The applicant's prima facie involvement in money laundering is established, justifying his continued detention.

Issue 2: Admissibility and evidentiary value of the applicant's statement under Section 50 of PMLA-2002

The applicant contended that the statement under Section 50 is inadmissible as per recent Supreme Court rulings, and no other evidence connects him to the offence.

The Court acknowledged the principle that statements under Section 50 are subject to trial scrutiny but noted that such statements form part of the prima facie material for bail consideration. The Court also noted the corroborative electronic evidence and other witness statements supporting the applicant's involvement.

The Court applied the principle that bail courts do not weigh evidence meticulously but examine broad probabilities and reasonable grounds to believe involvement.

Conclusion: The Section 50 statement, along with corroborative material, is sufficient at this stage to deny bail.

Issue 3: Applicability of proviso to Section 45 of PMLA-2002 regarding threshold proceeds of crime

The applicant argued that the estimated proceeds of crime linked to him were below Rs. 1 crore, invoking the proviso to Section 45 that could favor bail.

The Court observed that the total proceeds of crime generated by the syndicate were massive (Rs. 450 crores monthly), and the applicant's role in layering and integration stages was significant. The Court held that the proviso does not absolve the applicant given the prima facie evidence of his involvement in the money laundering chain.

Conclusion: The proviso to Section 45 does not apply to the applicant's case to grant bail.

Issue 4: Reliance on co-accused bail orders and delay in trial

The applicant sought parity with a co-accused who was granted bail by the Supreme Court and highlighted the delay in framing charges as grounds for bail.

The Court distinguished the applicant's role and evidence from that of the co-accused, noting that the allegations and material against the applicant were more substantial and distinct. The Court also emphasized that delay in trial cannot override the gravity of the offence and prima facie evidence of guilt.

Conclusion: Bail granted to co-accused is not a precedent for the applicant; delay in trial is not a sufficient ground for bail in grave economic offences.

Issue 5: The nature of economic offences and public interest in bail considerations

The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents highlighting that economic offences involving large-scale conspiracies and public funds require stringent bail considerations. The Court emphasized the serious threat posed by money laundering to the national economy and interest.

The Court balanced the applicant's fundamental rights against the State's interest and concluded that the gravity of offence and prima facie evidence outweigh the applicant's right to bail at this stage.

Conclusion: The offence's seriousness militates against bail.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The Court will not weigh the evidence to find the guilt of the accused which is, of course, the work of Trial Court. The Court is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material collected during the investigation and the said view will not be taken into consideration by the Trial Court in recording its finding of the guilt or acquittal during trial which is based on the evidence adduced during the trial."

"Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country."

"The offence of money-laundering is committed by an individual with a deliberate design with the motive to enhance his gains, disregarding the interests of nation and society as a whole and which by no stretch of imagination can be termed as offence of trivial nature. Thus, it is in the interest of the State that law enforcement agencies should be provided with a proportionate effective mechanism so as to deal with these types of offences as the wealth of the nation is to be safeguarded from these dreaded criminals."

Final determination: The bail application is rejected as the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the applicant's involvement in money laundering under PMLA-2002, and he is likely to commit further offences if released on bail. The applicant's role is distinguished from co-accused who have been granted bail, and the serious nature of the offence and evidence against him preclude bail at this stage.

Outcome: The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Appellate Tribunal and, at an appropriate stage, the Court again.

Issues: Whether the seizure of the petitioner-company's BMW car and the freezing of its bank account under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were lawful in the absence of any established nexus between the petitioner-company and the alleged proceeds of crime, and whether the statutory procedure for search, seizure and freezing had been followed.

Analysis: The petitioner-company was found to have no demonstrated link with the person alleged to be involved in money laundering, and no material was placed to connect the seized car or the frozen account with proceeds of crime. The car was shown to have been purchased on finance, and the bank account contained business funds, yet the Enforcement Directorate did not establish a nexus between those assets and the alleged offences. The statutory scheme under Section 17 requires the authorised officer to form and record a reason to believe, act in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and forward the recorded reasons and material to the Adjudicating Authority. The record did not show compliance with these safeguards, and the seizure and freezing were treated as mechanical and unsupported by authority of law.

Conclusion: The seizure of the BMW car and the freezing of the petitioner-company's bank account were held to be illegal and unsustainable, and the relief sought by the petitioner was granted.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a PMLA case on the ground of prolonged custody and pending trial, and whether Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 permitted release despite multiple pending cases.

Analysis: The petitioner had already been denied bail in the present matter and in connected ECIR proceedings. The allegations involved a serious economic offence with a key role attributed to the petitioner in preparation and manipulation of documents. The Court considered the principles governing bail in serious economic offences and noted that custody by itself does not override the overall circumstances, including the gravity of accusation, the petitioner's involvement in multiple ECIR cases, and the likelihood that the delay in trial was being contributed to by accused persons through repeated petitions. Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was examined, but sub-section (2) was found to bar release on bail where multiple cases or offences were pending against the same person. The authorities relied upon by the petitioner were distinguished on the ground that they did not involve the same multiple-case situation.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to regular bail and the prayer for bail was rejected.

Final Conclusion: Prolonged custody did not outweigh the gravity of the economic offence and the statutory bar arising from multiple pending cases, so no bail relief was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: In a serious economic offence, regular bail may be declined where the accused is involved in multiple pending cases and the applicable statutory framework bars release notwithstanding custody-based claims.

Issues: Whether proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act could be quashed where the allegation against the applicant was only of assisting in generation of proceeds of crime, without any allegation of possession, acquisition, use, concealment, or post-generation dealing with proceeds of crime.

Analysis: Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act treats money laundering as an offence involving direct or indirect attempt, knowing assistance, or involvement in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime. The definition of proceeds of crime in Section 2(1)(u) and the authoritative interpretation of Section 3 establish that liability arises from involvement in the process or activity connected with such proceeds, but the factual foundation must still show a prima facie nexus between the accused and the proceeds of crime. The materials before the Court did not attribute to the applicant any possession, acquisition, use, concealment, or other post-generation handling of proceeds of crime. The allegation was confined to his role in the underlying banking transactions and in not reporting excesses in monthly returns. On those facts, the case did not disclose the essential ingredients of the PMLA offence against him.

Conclusion: The proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act against the applicant were held not to make out a prima facie offence and were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere participation in the predicate transactions or assistance in generation of illicit funds, any allegation of possession, acquisition, use, concealment, or other dealing with proceeds of crime, does not by itself constitute the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issues: Whether the discharge order passed by the trial court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was vitiated by absence of proper reasoning and non-application of mind, warranting interference in revision and remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The discharge order was found to be substantially a reproduction of the rival stands and contained stereotyped conclusions without a meaningful discussion of the materials relied upon by the prosecution. In a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the trial court was required to examine whether the foundational facts indicating the commission of money laundering were made out, and whether there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The order under challenge did not demonstrate that this scrutiny had been undertaken. The revisional court held that an order rejecting discharge must show proper application of mind to the materials on record, especially where liberty is at stake and where the prosecution rests upon documents, statements and the alleged proceeds of crime. The absence of such analysis rendered the order perverse and unsustainable, though no finding was recorded on the merits of the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The revision petitioner succeeded. The discharge order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Dissenting Opinion: The other Judge held that the complaint and supporting materials disclosed a prima facie case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the connected predicate offences, that the material could be appreciated at trial, and that the revision lacked merit. On that view, the criminal revision was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A discharge order under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 must disclose a real judicial evaluation of the materials and reasons showing why a prima facie case exists or does not exist; a cryptic or mechanical order is liable to be set aside in revision and remanded for reconsideration.

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner's arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was illegal for want of proper communication of the grounds of arrest in writing. (ii) Whether the petitioner made out a case for bail in view of the material showing involvement in money-laundering and the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner's arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was illegal for want of proper communication of the grounds of arrest in writing.

Analysis: Section 19 requires the authorised officer to have material in possession, record reasons to believe in writing, and inform the arrestee of the grounds of arrest as soon as may be. The arrest communication placed before the Court showed detailed grounds, and the petitioner acknowledged having read and understood them. The remand proceedings also recorded that the arrest grounds were placed before the court promptly and that no grievance was raised at the stage of remand. The Court relied on the settled position that contemporaneous communication of grounds of arrest satisfies the statutory and constitutional mandate, and that the written communication requirement as clarified in later precedent was prospective.

Conclusion: The arrest was held to be in compliance with Section 19 of the Act and was not found illegal.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner made out a case for bail in view of the material showing involvement in money-laundering and the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Court found prima facie material showing the petitioner's nexus with the company through which the property transaction was routed, the flow of cash deposits and transfers, and the use of the petitioner's group infrastructure and employees. It held that at the bail stage the Court is to form only a prima facie view and that the presumption under Section 24 and the stringent twin conditions under Section 45 apply. On the materials available, the Court concluded that reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was not guilty were not made out, and the custody period alone did not outweigh the seriousness of the allegations.

Conclusion: The petitioner did not satisfy the twin conditions for bail and the request for release was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The application was dismissed after the Court found no illegality in the arrest and no entitlement to bail on the materials then available.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, contemporaneous communication of the grounds of arrest in compliance with Section 19 is sufficient, and bail cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied that the twin conditions under Section 45 are met on a prima facie assessment of the record.