Continuing offence in money-laundering justifies refusal of anticipatory bail where investigation and statutory bar weigh against pre-arrest protection

In a PMLA pre-arrest bail request, the Court treated alleged money-laundering as a distinct, continuing offence and held that the statutory bar, the gravity of the allegations, the scale of the properties involved, and the need for effective investigation justified refusal of anticipatory bail. It also noted that custodial interrogation could not be ruled out on the facts presented. The objections based on double jeopardy and retrospective operation were rejected because the prosecution for the predicate offence and the money-laundering proceedings were distinct, and the relevant inquiry concerned the continuing dealing with alleged proceeds of crime rather than only the date of original acquisition.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 in the facts alleged. (ii) Whether the objections based on double jeopardy and retrospective operation of the money-laundering provisions could defeat the request for pre-arrest bail.

Issue (i): Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 in the facts alleged.

Analysis: The alleged laundering was treated as an independent and continuing offence, and the Court considered that possession and use of alleged proceeds of crime could attract the statutory bar against bail. The nature and gravity of the allegations, the scale of the properties involved, the need for effective investigation, and the limited stage of the matter weighed against grant of pre-arrest protection. The Court also took note of the statutory presumption regarding proceeds of crime and held that custodial interrogation could not be ruled out on the facts presented.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was not warranted and the request was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the objections based on double jeopardy and retrospective operation of the money-laundering provisions could defeat the request for pre-arrest bail.

Analysis: The prosecution for the scheduled offences and the prosecution for money-laundering were treated as distinct, and the alleged laundering was viewed as arising after the predicate criminal activity. The Court held that the constitutional protection against double jeopardy was not attracted. It further held that the relevant consideration was the laundering process and continued possession of alleged proceeds of crime, not merely the date of the original acquisition, and therefore the plea of retrospective criminalisation did not assist the applicant.

Conclusion: The objections were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The statutory framework and the seriousness of the allegations justified refusal of pre-arrest bail, leaving the applicant to face investigation and further proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: In a money-laundering case, the relevant inquiry for bail is the continuing process of dealing with alleged proceeds of crime, and where the statutory conditions and investigative necessity are engaged, anticipatory bail may be refused even if the predicate conduct is said to predate later amendments.

---