Amended PMLA bail conditions applied, and serious allegations plus non-cooperation led to refusal of bail.

Amended Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 remained binding because the post-amendment text had neither been stayed nor struck down, so the twin bail conditions applied to the petitioners. On the facts, the Court found serious allegations of money-laundering, collection of public funds, substantial investor loss, and non-cooperation with investigators, which negatived any reasonable basis to believe the petitioners were not guilty or unlikely to reoffend while on bail. Bail was therefore refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amended bail restriction under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 applied to the petitioners and, if so, whether they satisfied the twin conditions for grant of bail.

Analysis: The petitioners were accused of money-laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court noted that although Section 45 had earlier been declared unconstitutional in relation to its pre-amendment form, the provision was subsequently amended and the amended text had not been stayed or struck down. The Court held that the amended provision was therefore binding. On the facts, the Court found serious allegations of collection of public funds, large-scale loss to investors, non-cooperation with the investigating agency, and circumstances indicating that the petitioners could not be treated as persons against whom there were reasonable grounds to believe they were not guilty or that they would not commit offences while on bail.

Conclusion: The petitioners failed to satisfy the conditions governing bail under the amended Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and bail was refused.

---