PMLA bail restriction not attracted where no scheduled offence is shown against the applicant in a betting case

In a bail matter involving alleged cricket betting, the HC examined whether the PMLA's bail restriction applied where the applicant was not charged with any scheduled offence. It held that, on the material before it, the alleged betting income did not prima facie constitute "proceeds of crime" under the PMLA, so the special bar in Section 45(1) was not prima facie attracted. The application was therefore to be considered under ordinary criminal bail principles, and the Court also found that the stage of proceedings did not justify continued custody. Bail was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 where the alleged activity was cricket betting and the applicant was not charged with any scheduled offence.

Analysis: The complaint invoked the offence of money-laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court examined the definitions of "proceeds of crime" under Section 2(u) and "scheduled offence" under Section 2(y) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and noted that the applicant was not arraigned for any scheduled offence forming the predicate offence. On that basis, the Court held that the alleged income from betting did not prima facie fall within "proceeds of crime" for the purposes of Section 3. The Court further held that the restriction on bail contained in Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was not prima facie attracted and that the application had to be considered under the ordinary bail principles under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court also took note of Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 but found that the stage of the case and the allegations against the applicant did not warrant continued custody.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to bail and the application was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The decision grants liberty on bail by holding that the special bail restriction under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was not attracted in the absence of a scheduled offence against the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the applicant is not shown to be charged with a scheduled offence, the statutory bar on bail under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not prima facie attracted and bail may be considered under the ordinary criminal law principles.

---