Anticipatory bail under PMLA: High Court direct jurisdiction upheld and pre-arrest protection granted on case-specific facts.

Concurrent jurisdiction exists for applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so an accused may move the High Court directly without first approaching the Court of Session. The twin conditions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act govern post-arrest bail and do not apply to anticipatory bail, while Section 24 does not bar pre-arrest protection at that stage. On the facts, the age of the alleged offence, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of recovery, prior cooperation, lack of witness-tampering allegations, and an unexplained need for custodial interrogation justified grant of anticipatory bail. Protection against arrest was granted subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable directly before the High Court; (ii) whether the restrictions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 apply to anticipatory bail proceedings; (iii) whether, in the facts of the case, the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail.

Issue (i): Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable directly before the High Court.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was treated as permitting concurrent jurisdiction in the High Court and the Court of Session for applications under Section 438. The Court held that a litigant is not bound to first approach the Court of Session before invoking the High Court's jurisdiction under that provision.

Conclusion: The direct applications before the High Court were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the restrictions in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 apply to anticipatory bail proceedings.

Analysis: Relying on the earlier constitutional and statutory interpretation of the bail regime under the money-laundering law, the Court held that the twin conditions in Section 45 govern post-arrest bail and do not control anticipatory bail under Section 438. The Court also held that Section 24, on the burden of proof, operates in the manner explained during the legislative process, i.e. after charge is framed.

Conclusion: Section 45 did not bar consideration of anticipatory bail, and Section 24 was not a ground to deny pre-arrest protection at the stage then before the Court.

Issue (iii): Whether, in the facts of the case, the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail.

Analysis: The Court considered the age of the predicate offence, filing of the charge-sheet, absence of recovery from the applicants, lack of departmental proceedings, substantial progress in the trial, prior cooperation with the investigation, recording of their statements, and the absence of any specific allegation of witness influence or evidence tampering. The Court also found the need for custodial interrogation insufficiently explained.

Conclusion: The applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail.

Final Conclusion: The applications were allowed and protection against arrest was granted on conditions requiring bonds, sureties, cooperation with investigation, and regular appearance before the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: Concurrent jurisdiction exists for Section 438 applications before the High Court and the Court of Session, Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 does not govern anticipatory bail, and pre-arrest bail may be granted where custodial interrogation is not justified on the facts.

---