TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 when he was not shown as an accused in the scheduled offence and the material did not prima facie establish that the alleged amounts were proceeds of crime.
Analysis: The application was considered under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The decisive question was whether the rigours of Section 45(1) applied. The Court found that the applicant was not arraigned in the predicate offence and that the alleged cricket-betting activity, on the material then available, did not prima facie bring the alleged income within the definition of proceeds of crime under Section 2(u). Since the scheduled offence requirement was not satisfied, the special embargo under Section 45(1) was held to be inapplicable, and the bail request was to be tested under the general principles governing bail, subject to conditions. The Court also noted that investigation was substantially complete and that conditions could secure the applicant's presence.
Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to bail.
Final Conclusion: The Court granted regular bail by holding that the stringent bail restriction under Section 45(1) was not attracted on the facts, and that the applicant could be released on appropriate conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the accused is not shown to be involved in a scheduled offence and the material does not prima facie establish proceeds of crime, the special bail embargo under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not attracted and bail may be considered under the ordinary principles governing bail.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
