Anticipatory bail under money laundering law denied where Section 45 twin conditions and Section 24 presumption were not satisfied.

Anticipatory bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was tested against the special safeguards in Section 45, which require hearing the Public Prosecutor and, on opposition, judicial satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The analysis also noted that the presumption under Section 24 operates against the accused unless rebutted, and that Section 45's rigour applies even to pre-arrest bail requests. On the material presented, the Court was not satisfied that the statutory threshold for anticipatory bail was met, and bail was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in light of the twin conditions under Section 45 and the statutory presumption under Section 24.

Analysis: The prayer for anticipatory bail was considered in the context of the special statutory regime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The controlling legal framework requires the Public Prosecutor to be heard and, where opposition is raised, requires the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The order also proceeds on the basis that the presumption under Section 24 operates against the accused unless the contrary is proved, and that the rigour of Section 45 applies even to anticipatory bail applications. The material placed before the Court did not persuade it to hold that the petitioner met the statutory threshold for pre-arrest bail.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was refused.

---