Money-laundering bail under PMLA was refused because prima facie material showed a serious laundering network and grave allegations.

In a PMLA bail application, the Delhi HC treated money-laundering as a distinct continuing offence linked to the alleged proceeds of crime and assessed the prosecution material on a prima facie basis. The Court found indications of a serious laundering network involving shell companies, foreign accounts and alleged fabrication of records, and considered the conventional bail factors of flight risk, tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. Although the accused was not shown to be a flight risk, the gravity of the allegations, the alleged active role and the economic nature of the offence weighed against release. Bail was therefore declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be granted in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the nature of the offence, the alleged role of the accused, and the risks of flight, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses.

Analysis: The bail request was examined in the context of the PMLA, where the offence of money-laundering was treated as distinct from the scheduled offence and as a continuing offence connected with the alleged proceeds of crime. The material placed before the Court was considered sufficient, at least prima facie, to indicate a serious laundering network involving layering through shell companies, foreign accounts, and alleged fabrication of records. The Court also considered the conventional bail factors, namely whether the accused was a flight risk, whether there was any real possibility of tampering with evidence, and whether witnesses could be influenced. The Court found that the accused was not shown to be a flight risk, but held that the gravity of the allegations, the alleged active role, and the nature of the economic offence weighed against grant of bail. The Court further noted the statements and material relied upon by the prosecution and concluded that, at that stage, bail was not warranted.

Conclusion: Bail was declined; the application was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court refused to enlarge the accused on bail in a money-laundering prosecution, holding that the seriousness of the allegations and the prima facie material outweighed the grounds urged for release.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for money laundering, bail may be refused where the Court finds prima facie material showing a serious laundering operation and concludes that the gravity of the offence and the surrounding circumstances justify denial of liberty notwithstanding the absence of a clear flight risk.

---