Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in view of the allegations of involvement in money laundering and the statutory restrictions on grant of bail.
Analysis: The complaint was examined on the basis of the material collected by the enforcement agency, but at the bail stage the Court was required to assess only a prima facie case and not undertake a meticulous evaluation of evidence. The governing approach under the PMLA twin conditions was treated as a broad-probabilities inquiry, with the Court being required to consider whether the accused was likely to be guilty and whether there was any material indicating a likelihood of repeating the offence if released. The Court noted that the alleged role rested substantially on assistance to the main accused, handling of transactions, and receipt or routing of funds, but also observed that the petitioner was young, there was no material showing personal gain, and the issue of mens rea required trial. It further found no material suggesting that the petitioner would commit a similar offence if enlarged on bail.
Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to bail.
Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of bail under the PMLA, the Court may grant bail on a prima facie assessment based on broad probabilities without recording a positive finding of non-guilt, and the statutory restrictions do not oust judicial discretion where the material does not justify continued pre-trial detention.