Regular bail under PMLA remains subject to Section 45 threshold and prima facie scrutiny of economic offence allegations.

Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was tested against Section 45(1) after the 2018 amendment, together with the general bail principles and the triple test. The Court treated the statutory threshold under Section 45(1) as applicable and held that, on a prima facie assessment, the seriousness of the alleged economic offence, the proceeds-of-crime allegations, and the material on record did not satisfy the conditions for release. Apprehensions of tampering and witness influence were found unfounded, but the applicant was still not shown to meet the statutory rigour. Bail was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant satisfied the statutory conditions governing regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, including the effect of Section 45(1) after the 2018 amendment. (ii) Whether, on the facts, the applicant was entitled to regular bail having regard to the triple test, the gravity of the alleged economic offence, and the risk of flight or interference with the trial.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant satisfied the statutory conditions governing regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, including the effect of Section 45(1) after the 2018 amendment.

Analysis: The Court noted the competing positions on the effect of the 2018 amendment to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the continued relevance of the twin conditions. It also noticed the later Supreme Court observations indicating that the mandate of Section 45 could not be ignored in bail matters arising under the Act. For the purpose of deciding the present application, the Court proceeded on the basis that the application had to be tested on the touchstone of Section 45(1) as well as the general principles governing bail.

Conclusion: The statutory threshold under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was treated as applicable.

Issue (ii): Whether, on the facts, the applicant was entitled to regular bail having regard to the triple test, the gravity of the alleged economic offence, and the risk of flight or interference with the trial.

Analysis: The Court found that the apprehensions of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses were unfounded, but it accepted that the accused could still be regarded as facing a serious economic offence allegation involving proceeds of crime and layering through group entities. It further held that, although the applicant's presence could be secured by conditions such as surrender of passport and existing look-out measures, the material on record did not permit a finding that he was not guilty of the alleged offence or that he was unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. On a prima facie assessment, the twin conditions and the gravity of the allegations weighed against release.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to regular bail.

Final Conclusion: The bail request failed because the Court found that the statutory requirements and the overall prima facie circumstances did not justify release at this stage.

Ratio Decidendi: In a regular bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Court must consider both the general bail factors and the statutory rigour of Section 45(1), and bail cannot be granted unless the accused crosses that threshold on a prima facie assessment.

---