Anticipatory bail in money laundering cases may be refused where the accused evades investigation and parity with regular bail fails.

Anticipatory bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was refused where the petitioner made a third attempt for such relief, had earlier failed to obtain it, and had not joined the investigation despite repeated summons. The Court treated avoidance of investigation and concealment of earlier proceedings as factors against granting extraordinary relief. It also rejected parity with a co-accused who had received regular bail, holding that regular bail is not equivalent to anticipatory bail and that the co-accused was on a different footing. Anticipatory bail was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in proceedings arising under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The petition was a third attempt for anticipatory bail. The petitioner had earlier failed to secure relief and had also not joined the investigation despite repeated summons. The Court held that the petitioner's conduct in avoiding the investigation, together with the concealment of earlier proceedings, weighed against the grant of extraordinary relief. The plea of parity was rejected because regular bail granted to a co-accused could not be equated with anticipatory bail, and the co-accused's situation was found to be on a different footing.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: Extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail may be refused where the accused has repeatedly avoided investigation and parity with a co-accused on regular bail is not available.

---