PMLA bail principles applied where no scheduled offence was shown and the proceeds of crime requirement was not met.

Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was considered on the basis that the applicant was not shown as accused in any scheduled offence. The Court noted that "proceeds of crime" under the Act must arise from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, and the alleged cricket-betting income did not satisfy that definition on the facts presented. As Section 45's twin bail conditions apply only where the statutory preconditions are met, the restrictive embargo was treated as inapplicable. The matter was therefore assessed under ordinary bail principles, with investigation complete and the complaint already filed, and the applicant was released on bail with conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant, accused of money-laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, was entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, having regard to the requirement of a scheduled offence and the applicability of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The complaint alleged involvement in cricket-betting related transactions, but the applicant was not shown to be an accused in any scheduled offence. The statutory definition of "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires property derived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. On the facts presented, the alleged betting-related income was held not to fall within that definition. Since Section 45(1) applies to persons accused of offences punishable under Part A of the Schedule, the restrictive twin conditions for bail were held inapplicable on the applicant's case. The Court treated the matter as one to be considered under the ordinary bail principles in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and also noted that investigation was over and the complaint had been filed.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to bail and the stringent bar under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 did not apply.

Final Conclusion: The bail application was allowed with conditions, and the applicant was ordered to be released on regular bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory embargo on bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not attracted unless the accused is connected with a scheduled offence and the alleged property answers the description of "proceeds of crime" derived from such offence.

---