PMLA bail refusal turns on prima facie laundering evidence, alleged confession, and risk to investigation.

In a PMLA bail context, the materials from investigation, the alleged confession, and the gravity of laundering allegations were treated as supporting the prosecution case. The court also considered the risk of interference with investigation and evidence, and the fact that bail had previously been refused. The Supreme Court's permission to renew the request after three months did not, on these facts, justify release. The petitioner was therefore not entitled to bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The application was considered in the context of the allegations of laundering of proceeds of crime, the materials collected during investigation, and the earlier rejection of bail. The Court found prima facie support for the prosecution version, noted the petitioner's alleged confession and the supporting material on record, and considered the seriousness of the accusations and the possibility of interference with investigation and evidence. The liberty granted by the Supreme Court to renew the bail request after three months did not, by itself, justify release on bail in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to bail.

---