Anticipatory bail in money-laundering cases can be considered without Section 45 constraints when facts justify pre-arrest protection.

High Court and Court of Session have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC, so direct filing before the High Court is maintainable. Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 does not govern pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC, and its twin conditions cannot be transplanted into that stage. On the facts, the petitioner's gender, the documentary nature of the investigation, seizure of records, the stage of inquiry, and the absence of material showing immediate necessity of arrest justified pre-arrest protection. Anticipatory bail was granted subject to conditions restraining interference with investigation and requiring cooperation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the anticipatory bail application directly under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the bar and twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 applied to a pre-arrest bail application. (iii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances, anticipatory bail ought to be granted to the petitioner.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the anticipatory bail application directly under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The objection that the petitioner should first have approached the Special Court was rejected. The Court treated the High Court and the Court of Session as having concurrent jurisdiction to consider an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438. The mere fact that the application was presented directly before the High Court did not render it not maintainable.

Conclusion: The application was maintainable before the High Court.

Issue (ii): Whether the bar and twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 applied to a pre-arrest bail application.

Analysis: The Court relied upon the declared position that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 does not govern proceedings under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It distinguished the statutory scheme governing pre-arrest bail from the conditions applicable to post-arrest bail, and held that the special conditions under Section 45 could not be transplanted into an anticipatory bail request.

Conclusion: Section 45 did not bar consideration of anticipatory bail under Section 438.

Issue (iii): Whether, on the facts and circumstances, anticipatory bail ought to be granted to the petitioner.

Analysis: The Court considered the petitioner's status as a woman, the absence of material showing immediate necessity of arrest, the stage of investigation, the seizure of records and documents, and the limited risk of tampering at that stage. It also noted that the investigation was substantially documentary in nature and that the apprehension of arrest was not unfounded in view of the respondent's suspicion regarding her involvement. Balancing the gravity of the allegations with the facts of the case, the Court found the petitioner entitled to protection against arrest.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner succeeded and was granted anticipatory bail, subject to conditions regulating surrender, appearance before the investigating agency, and non-interference with the investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail may be granted in a money-laundering investigation where the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction, Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 does not control Section 438 proceedings, and the facts do not justify denial of pre-arrest protection.

---