Anticipatory bail denied in money-laundering case involving immovable property under Section 45 PMLA provisions

The MP HC dismissed an anticipatory bail application under PMLA for money-laundering offences involving ill-gotten immovable property. The court found prima facie evidence establishing nexus between the primary offender and applicant, who appeared to be an accessory to money-laundering. Citing rigorous provisions of Section 45 PMLA and SC precedent in P. Chidambaram case, the court held that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly, particularly in economic offences affecting society's economic fabric. The application was dismissed considering the serious nature of allegations and evidence collected by investigating agency.

---

---

Issues:
Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with a complaint for money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis:
1. The applicant filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. due to the fear of arrest in connection with a money laundering case under the PMLA Act.
2. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in laundering ill-gotten property with the Joshi family, generated through illegal activities.
3. The applicant claimed innocence, stating that he entered a partnership without knowledge of the property's illegal origin and cooperated with investigations.
4. The applicant argued that a non-bailable warrant was issued hastily, despite his cooperation and compliance with investigative procedures.
5. The applicant contended that he was not involved in money laundering and cited previous cases to support his claim for anticipatory bail.
6. The respondent opposed the bail application, asserting that the applicant was an accessory to money laundering and benefited from the proceeds of crime.
7. The respondent highlighted the ongoing investigations and nexus between the applicant and the principal offenders, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence.
8. The respondent argued that the offence under the PMLA Act is non-bailable and cognizable, requiring strict adherence to the provisions of Section 45 of the Act.
9. The Court considered the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA Act, emphasizing the need for the Public Prosecutor's opposition and satisfaction of the court before granting bail.
10. The Court found a prima facie nexus between the applicant and the primary offender in the money laundering case, denying anticipatory bail based on the seriousness of the allegations.
11. Custodial interrogation was deemed necessary despite the lack of previous arrest during the investigation, given the premeditated nature of economic offences affecting society.
12. Citing precedent, the Court emphasized the cautious use of anticipatory bail in economic offence cases due to their impact on the societal economic fabric.
13. After evaluating the facts and circumstances, the Court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail, concluding that no grounds existed for granting relief to the applicant.

---