Bail in money-laundering case refused as prima facie evidence, fund trails, and offence gravity outweighed release grounds.

Bail in a money-laundering prosecution was refused where the complaint and supplementary complaint disclosed a prima facie case against the applicant, a former bank MD/CEO, for allegedly extending financial benefits to connected entities and receiving reciprocal benefits through family-controlled companies. The Court relied on witness statements, fund-trail material, property attachments, and allegations of layering and siphoning of proceeds of crime, and found that the seriousness and magnitude of the alleged economic offence outweighed the grounds for release. It also noted that the amendment issue to Section 45 of the PMLA did not need to be decided for disposal of the bail application.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail should be granted in a prosecution for money laundering arising out of alleged banking and loan fraud.

Analysis: The complaint and supplementary complaint disclosed a prima facie case that the applicant, while serving as MD/CEO of a bank, allegedly used his position to extend financial benefit to connected entities and to receive benefits in return through family-controlled companies. The material referred to multiple witness statements, fund trails, attachment of properties, and allegations of layering and siphoning of proceeds of crime. The Court held that the seriousness and magnitude of the alleged economic offence, the extent of the material collected, and the prima facie support for the accusation outweighed the grounds urged for release on bail. The Court also noted that the issue concerning the amendment to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 need not be decided for disposal of the bail application.

Conclusion: Bail was refused because a prima facie case was made out and the gravity of the offence militated against release.

---