Bail under money-laundering law remains subject to mandatory statutory conditions and prima facie Section 3 allegations

The High Court's bail power under Section 439 of the Code remained subject to the mandatory twin conditions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, as Section 44(2) did not displace those restrictions. The supplementary complaint materials were treated as sufficient to disclose a prima facie case under Section 3, which can cover direct or indirect dealing with proceeds of crime without prior prosecution for the scheduled offence. Further investigation and cognizance on the supplementary complaint were held legally permissible, and the bail request was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court's power to grant bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is controlled by the conditions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 despite Section 44(2) of that Act. (ii) Whether the materials collected in the supplementary complaint made out a prima facie case under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 so as to justify refusal of bail. (iii) Whether filing of the supplementary complaint and taking cognizance thereon was legally permissible.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court's power to grant bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is controlled by the conditions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 despite Section 44(2) of that Act.

Analysis: The non obstante clause in Section 44(2) was held to save the High Court's special power under Section 439 only from the operation of Section 44 itself. It does not exclude the application of Section 45, which independently imposes the statutory restrictions on bail. The twin conditions in Section 45 were treated as mandatory, and the special law was held to prevail over the general bail power under the Code where there is inconsistency.

Conclusion: The High Court's power under Section 439 remained subject to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the bail restrictions applied against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the materials collected in the supplementary complaint made out a prima facie case under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 so as to justify refusal of bail.

Analysis: Section 3 was construed broadly to cover any person who directly or indirectly assists, is involved in, or knowingly deals with proceeds of crime by concealment, possession, acquisition, use, or projection as untainted property. The Court held that prior prosecution for the scheduled offence is not a sine qua non for liability under Section 3. On the materials disclosed in the supplementary complaint, the petitioner's role as a senior field officer in monitoring agents and handling collections was treated as sufficient at the bail stage to negate the satisfaction required for release.

Conclusion: A prima facie case under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was made out, and the petitioner was not entitled to bail.

Issue (iii): Whether filing of the supplementary complaint and taking cognizance thereon was legally permissible.

Analysis: Further investigation was held permissible in proceedings under the special statute, and the subsequent complaint was treated as maintainable. The Court held that prosecution of offenders connected with the same transaction together was not alien to law and that the supplementary complaint did not prejudice the accused. The procedure was therefore viewed as consistent with the ends of justice and avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings.

Conclusion: The supplementary complaint and cognizance thereon were held to be legally permissible.

Final Conclusion: The statutory bail restrictions under the money-laundering law were held applicable, the allegations were found sufficient to resist bail at that stage, and the application for release was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: The bail power under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is subject to the mandatory twin conditions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and a person can attract liability under Section 3 even without being prosecuted for the scheduled offence if he knowingly deals with or conceals proceeds of crime.

---