Bail in money-laundering cases depends on individual role and Section 45 restraint, not parity alone.

Bail in a money-laundering prosecution was assessed on the accused's individual role, the collected material, and the statutory restraint under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, rather than on parity alone. The record disclosed a prima facie case, including a central role attributed to one applicant and a significant facilitating role attributed to the other. Co-accused who obtained bail were treated as differently placed because they had surrendered within time. The plea based on bail in the scheduled offence or non-arrest during investigation was found untenable on these facts, and the bail applications were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused applicants were entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a money-laundering prosecution, particularly on the ground of parity with co-accused and in view of the alleged role, evidence, and the bar under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The applications were assessed on the basis that bail in economic offences depends on the individual role of the accused, the material collected, and other relevant factors, and not on parity alone. The record was found to disclose a prima facie case against the applicants, including a central role attributed to one applicant as the principal secretary and a key role attributed to the other in arranging a substantial part of the tainted . The Court also noted that the co-accused who had obtained bail were differently placed, having surrendered within the stipulated time, whereas the present applicants had delayed surrender despite awareness of the process. The plea that bail in the scheduled offence or non-arrest during investigation entitled them to bail was held untenable in the facts of the case, and the statutory restriction under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was treated as applicable.

Conclusion: The applicants were not entitled to bail, and the bail applications were liable to be rejected.

---