PMLA bail restrictions override general CrPC powers, with statutory presumption and burden of proof applying at the bail stage.

Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 imposes mandatory bail restrictions through a non obstante clause for offences covered by Part A of the Schedule, and those restrictions operate alongside the Act's overriding provisions in Sections 65 and 71. The statutory presumption under Section 24 treats proceeds of crime as involved in money laundering unless rebutted, and that burden remains relevant at the bail stage. The Gujarat High Court note explains that these special conditions apply even when bail is sought under Section 439 CrPC, so an accused cannot avoid the statutory presumption by arguing that proceeds of crime are not yet established. Pending investigation and prosecution material were considered sufficient to prevent satisfaction of the Section 45 test at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be granted in view of the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether the presumption regarding proceeds of crime and the burden of proof under the Act were applicable at the bail stage.

Analysis: Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 contains a non obstante clause and prescribes additional and mandatory conditions for bail in cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment of more than three years under Part A of the Schedule. The Act also gives overriding effect to its provisions through Sections 65 and 71, while Section 24 creates a presumption that proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering unless the contrary is proved. The Court held that these statutory restrictions apply even when bail is sought under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and that the accused cannot avoid the statutory presumption merely by contending that the proceeds of crime were not yet established. The Court further held that, in view of the pending investigation and the material referred to by the prosecution, the satisfaction required under Section 45 could not be reached at that stage.

Conclusion: The bail application was liable to be rejected, and the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were held applicable.

Ratio Decidendi: In bail matters under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the special statutory restrictions in Section 45 override the general bail power under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the accused bears the burden of rebutting the statutory presumption relating to proceeds of crime.

---