PMLA bail twin conditions must be satisfied before release, and allegations of laundering justified denial of bail.

Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was controlled by the twin conditions in Section 45(1): satisfaction of the Public Prosecutor and a judicial finding of reasonable grounds to believe the accused was not guilty and was unlikely to reoffend while on bail. The Madras HC treated those requirements as mandatory in an economic offence context. On the facts alleged-use of inflated or fabricated documents, diversion of loan funds through group entities, and laundering of proceeds of crime-the petitioners failed to place material showing reasonable grounds of innocence. The seriousness of the allegations, the amount involved, and the stated modus operandi weighed against release, and the bail petitions were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in the light of the twin conditions under Section 45(1) and the allegations of laundering proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The petitions arose from allegations of borrowing funds on the strength of inflated or fabricated documents, diversion of loan amounts through group entities, and laundering of proceeds of crime. The governing provision required satisfaction of the Public Prosecutor and a judicial finding that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused was not guilty and was not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Court treated these requirements as mandatory and emphasized the stringent nature of the provision in economic offence cases. It noted that the petitioners did not place material sufficient to establish reasonable grounds of innocence, and the seriousness of the allegations, the amount involved, and the stated modus operandi weighed against release on bail.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to bail and the bail petitions were dismissed.

---