Regular bail in a PMLA case was granted where documentary evidence predominated and further custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Regular bail was granted in a PMLA prosecution because the scheduled offence case had not yet resulted in a charge-sheet, the prosecution evidence was largely documentary, bank transactions were traceable, and properties had already been attached. The Court treated the money trail allegation as linked to shell entities and asset purchases, but found that further custodial interrogation was not shown to be necessary given the material already collected and the petitioner's continued custody since 12 January 2018. Bail was made subject to bond, sureties, and conditions restraining travel abroad, change of address without intimation, and interference with witnesses or investigation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the stage of the scheduled offence case, the material collected in investigation, the nature of the evidence, and the petitioner's continued custody.

Analysis: The allegations were that the petitioner had received cash routed from the SBL group through shell entities and that the funds were ultimately used for purchasing movable and immovable assets through RAG Buildtech. The scheduled offence complaint by the CBI had not yet culminated in filing of charge-sheet, and the PMLA proceedings were stated to be linked with the scheduled offence under the statutory scheme requiring joint trial. The Court also noted that the prosecution material was substantially documentary in nature, that bank transactions were traceable, that properties had already been attached, and that the petitioner had remained in custody since 12 January 2018. In these circumstances, further custodial interrogation was not shown to be necessary.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the petitioner on execution of the prescribed bond and sureties, subject to conditions against leaving the country without permission, changing address without intimation, and influencing witnesses or interfering with investigation.

---