Broad probability test in PMLA bail matters allows release where continued detention lacks cogent justification.

In bail proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the note explains that Section 45(1) is assessed on broad probabilities from the material on record and does not require a conclusive finding of innocence at the bail stage. It also notes that Section 19 requires possession of material and recorded reasons to believe before arrest, while Section 24 governs the burden of proof regarding proceeds of crime. On the facts described, the applicant had cooperated with the investigating agency, the complaint was already filed, and the record did not disclose cogent justification for continued detention; bail was therefore granted on those materials.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in view of the rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the requirements of Sections 19 and 24 of that Act.

Analysis: The application arose from allegations of money laundering connected with diversion of funds through allegedly forged import documentation and related bank transactions. The record showed that the applicant had repeatedly appeared before the investigating agency, furnished statements and documents, and the complaint had already been filed before the Special Court. The material also indicated that the principal actor described as the kingpin and mastermind had not been arrested, while the applicant's role was treated as connected mainly with the concerns through which funds were routed and with properties said to have been acquired from proceeds of crime.

The Court noted that Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires material in possession and recorded reasons to believe before arrest, and that Section 24 concerns the burden of proof in proceedings relating to proceeds of crime. Applying the approach adopted in bail jurisprudence under special statutes, the Court held that the satisfaction contemplated by Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 must be assessed on broad probabilities and cannot demand a conclusive finding of innocence at the bail stage. On the materials before it, the Court found no cogent evidence justifying further detention and accepted that the case for bail was made out.

Conclusion: The applicant was held entitled to bail.

Final Conclusion: Bail was granted in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, with the Court treating the statutory rigour as not barring release on the facts presented.

Ratio Decidendi: In a bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the satisfaction required by Section 45(1) is to be formed on broad probabilities from the material on record and need not amount to a final determination of guilt or innocence.

---