Bail in money laundering cases turns on individual roles, gravity of allegations, and need for custodial interrogation.

Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was considered on allegations of disproportionate assets and laundering through fixed deposits and other deposits. The Court treated the accusations against the main accused as involving serious disputes over the explanation for gold, diamonds and agricultural income, and regarded the matter as an economic offence of gravity; bail was refused to the main accused petitioner. For the co-accused petitioners, there was no specific allegation beyond their relationship with the main accused, custodial interrogation was no longer necessary, and bail was granted on an individual assessment balancing liberty and trial requirements.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail was to be granted in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on the facts alleged against the main accused and the co-accused petitioners.

Analysis: The allegation against the main accused rested on acquisition of disproportionate assets and alleged laundering of proceeds of crime through fixed deposits and other deposits. The materials relied upon by the prosecution included investigation into the claimed valuation of gold and diamonds, the alleged sale of diamonds, and the asserted agricultural income. On that material, the Court found serious disputes as to the explanation offered by the main accused and treated the offence as an economic offence of gravity. At the same time, the co-accused petitioners were found to have no specific allegation against them beyond their relationship with the main accused, and the Court noted that custodial interrogation was no longer necessary. Bail in such matters had to be decided on an individual basis, balancing liberty and the need to secure presence at trial.

Conclusion: Bail was refused to the main accused petitioner and granted to the co-accused petitioners.

---