PMLA bail can be refused despite pending predicate offence proceedings where non-cooperation and flight risk are established.

Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were treated as capable of continuing independently of the final outcome of the predicate offence, with the explanation to Section 44 and the bail restrictions in Section 45 permitting action once a scheduled offence is alleged. Bail was declined because the petitioner had not fully cooperated with the investigation, had withheld documents concerning overseas entities, and could not treat the right to silence as a complete answer to investigative demands. The Court also accepted the prosecution's apprehension of flight risk arising from the petitioner's NRI status and overseas links, and found custody necessary to secure material evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the pendency of proceedings in the predicate offence, the alleged non-cooperation in investigation, and the statutory restrictions governing grant of bail.

Analysis: The alleged laundering arose out of a scheduled offence investigation and the Court held that proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are not dependent upon the completion of the predicate-offence proceedings. The statutory scheme, including the explanation to Section 44 and the bail restrictions under Section 45, permits independent action under the Act once a scheduled offence is alleged. The Court further found that the petitioner had not cooperated fully with the investigation, had withheld material documents relating to overseas entities, and could not insist on invoking the right to silence as a complete answer to investigative demands. The Court accepted the prosecution's apprehension that the petitioner, being an NRI with strong overseas links, posed a flight risk and that custody was necessary to secure material evidence.

Conclusion: Bail was declined and the petitioner was held not entitled to release.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed after the Court found no merit in the plea for bail under the PMLA framework and treated the alleged non-cooperation and risk of evasion as decisive against release.

Ratio Decidendi: Proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 can proceed independently of the final outcome of the predicate-offence case, and bail may be refused where the statutory bail conditions are not satisfied and the investigation shows non-cooperation, withholding of material evidence, or a real risk of abscondence.

---