Anticipatory bail in PMLA proceedings granted where custodial interrogation was not required and standard conditions applied.

Anticipatory bail was extended to bank officials facing PMLA proceedings after the enforcement agency conceded that custodial interrogation was not required. The Court considered that statements of relevant persons had already been recorded, the applicants were in service, and the allegations concerned opening bank accounts without proper verification in an alleged money-laundering network. It granted protection without expressing any view on the merits, subject to standard conditions requiring availability for interrogation, cooperation with trial, and non-tampering with evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants, being bank officials facing proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, were entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly when the prosecuting agency stated that custodial interrogation was not required.

Analysis: The application concerned allegations that the applicants had facilitated opening of bank accounts without proper verification in the course of the alleged money-laundering network. The Court noted that the record showed statements of the relevant persons had already been recorded and, on a specific query, the enforcement agency conceded that no further custodial interrogation of the applicants was necessary. In that backdrop, and considering the nature of the accusation and the applicants' positions and service status, the Court found it appropriate to extend the protection of anticipatory bail without expressing any view on the merits. The Court also directed compliance with standard conditions ensuring availability for interrogation, non-tampering with evidence, and cooperation with trial.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was granted to the applicants.

---