PMLA bail restrictions prevail over general bail principles where Part A offences and statutory presumptions are engaged.

Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 governs bail for Part A scheduled offences and overrides the general bail power under Section 439 CrPC; the Court applied the amended statutory scheme as it stood at the time of consideration and rejected reliance on the earlier Part B position. On merits, prima facie material showed foreign transfers into family members' accounts through banking and hawala-linked channels, and the statutory presumption under Section 24 placed the burden on the applicant to show untainted property. That burden was not discharged at the bail stage, so bail was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 applied to the applicant's request for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether, on the material collected, the applicant was entitled to bail on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 applied to the applicant's request for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The Court held that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is a special provision with overriding effect and its twin conditions govern bail applications in respect of offences falling within Part A of the Schedule. The Court rejected the contention that the applicant could avoid those conditions by invoking the pre-amendment position relating to Part B offences, and held that the amended scheme of the Act had to be applied as it stood on the date of consideration.

Conclusion: The rigours of Section 45 applied, and the applicant could not claim consideration under the ordinary bail principles alone.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the material collected, the applicant was entitled to bail on merits.

Analysis: The Court found prima facie material showing transfer of large sums into the bank accounts of the applicant's family members abroad, including transactions traced through foreign banking channels and hawala-linked entries. In view of the statutory presumption under Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the burden lay on the applicant to show that the alleged proceeds were untainted property, which the Court held he had not discharged at the bail stage.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to bail on merits.

Final Conclusion: The application for regular bail failed both on the applicability of the statutory bail restrictions and on the merits, resulting in refusal of relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 involving Part A scheduled offences, the special bail restrictions in Section 45 override the general bail power under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and bail cannot be granted unless the statutory twin conditions are satisfied.

---