PMLA bail rejected where predicate conviction, proceeds-of-crime material, and confirmed attachment outweighed the applicant's explanations.

Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was refused where the applicant's predicate corruption conviction, investigation material showing proceeds of crime, and confirmed provisional attachment together supported the complaint. The court found the applicant's explanation for alleged gifts and sale advances insufficient to displace the evidence collected during investigation. The applicant's prolonged absence before the trial court, which led to issuance of a non-bailable warrant, further weighed against grant of bail. On these facts, the precedents cited on bail did not assist the applicant, and the bail application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The application arose from an Enforcement Directorate complaint based on predicate offences involving a trap case and allegations of disproportionate assets. The record reflected that the applicant had been convicted in the predicate corruption case, that the investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 had disclosed proceeds of crime, and that a provisional attachment order had been confirmed. The applicant's explanation regarding gifts and sale advances was not found sufficient to dislodge the material collected in investigation. The applicant also had not appeared before the trial court for a considerable time, resulting in issuance of non-bailable warrant. On these facts, the precedents relied on for bail did not assist the applicant.

Conclusion: Bail was not granted and the application was rejected.

---