Regular bail under money-laundering law may follow when the alleged laundering link is debatable and trial delay is substantial

Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is assessed on the prima facie strength of the laundering nexus, parity with similarly placed co-accused, and the stage of trial. Where the alleged proceeds of crime remain debatable, the evidentiary value of co-accused statements is left for trial, and investigation is continuing without the trial having commenced, the rigours of Section 45 may not by themselves bar bail. Custodial concerns such as absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses can be addressed through strict bail conditions, including seizure of documents and deposit of passports.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to regular bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the applicability of Section 45 of that Act, the existence of a prima facie case, parity with co-accused, and the stage of the trial.

Analysis: The applicants were arrested in connection with a money-laundering prosecution founded on scheduled offences involving alleged betting and forged SIM card transactions. The material placed before the Court showed that the scheduled offence complaints had already resulted in charge sheets, several co-accused had been granted regular bail, and two of those co-accused were similarly situated partners in the same firm. The Court found that the question whether the alleged betting income constituted "proceeds of crime" was debatable on the present record, and that the evidentiary value of statements of co-accused and statements recorded by the Enforcement Directorate was a matter for trial. The Court also held that the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 did not, on the facts of the case, stand in the way of bail, and noted that the trial had not commenced, the investigation was continuing, and the applicants had remained in custody for a substantial period. The Court further found that the risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses could be addressed by conditions of bail, especially since passports had been deposited and most relevant documents had already been seized.

Conclusion: Regular bail was granted to the applicants.

Final Conclusion: The applicants were found fit for enlargement on bail on the facts and circumstances of the case, with liberty safeguarded through strict conditions and monetary deposit requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged laundering nexus is not prima facie clear, co-accused with similar have been granted bail, and the trial is not likely to conclude soon, bail may be granted notwithstanding the prosecution's reliance on Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, if the risk to the process can be controlled by conditions.

---