Mandatory twin conditions for PMLA bail applied, and unexplained cash evidence defeated release on bail.

Where the alleged offence falls within Part A of the Schedule to the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, Section 45 imposes mandatory twin conditions for bail and overrides the general bail provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure; bail could not be granted on a relaxed standard. On the facts, the cash and demonetised currency recovered from the petitioner's premises were not satisfactorily explained, and the affidavits and recorded statements did not establish a credible lawful source. The statutory requirements of reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was not guilty and would not commit an offence on bail were not met, so bail was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory restrictions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 applied to bail in the case of offences alleged against the petitioner. (ii) Whether, on the facts and materials placed, the petitioner satisfied the conditions for grant of bail under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory restrictions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 applied to bail in the case of offences alleged against the petitioner.

Analysis: The offence alleged against the petitioner was treated as one falling within Part A of the Schedule under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The Court held that the later amendment history and the reliance placed on the Punjab and Haryana High Court decision did not displace the binding effect of the Supreme Court's ruling in Gautam Kundu, which had held that Section 45 contains mandatory twin conditions and overrides the general bail provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure by reason of the special statute and its non obstante clause.

Conclusion: The restrictions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 applied to the bail request.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts and materials placed, the petitioner satisfied the conditions for grant of bail under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Court found that the cash and demonetized currency recovered from the petitioner's premises were not satisfactorily explained. The affidavits of alleged purchasers and the statements recorded under the special statute did not establish a credible lawful source for the money. In the absence of reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was not guilty and would not commit any offence while on bail, the statutory preconditions for release were not met.

Conclusion: The petitioner did not satisfy the conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Final Conclusion: Bail was refused because the special statutory bail restrictions governed the case and the petitioner failed to meet the mandatory threshold for release.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged offence falls within the Schedule to the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, the twin conditions under Section 45 are mandatory and override the general bail provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

---