Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the statutory restrictions under Section 45 and the facts alleged against him.
Analysis: The application was considered under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the backdrop of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which imposes the twin conditions for bail when the prosecution opposes release. The Court proceeded on the basis that the amended provision must be presumed to be constitutionally valid until set aside, and therefore the statutory embargo could not be ignored in a bail application. On the facts, the allegations involved very large-scale laundering, the proceeds of crime were not fully traced, key witnesses were employees of the financial establishment, and there were prima facie materials suggesting involvement in the offence. The Court also found a real risk of absconding and of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
Conclusion: Bail was refused because the statutory conditions for release were not satisfied and the factual matrix did not justify enlargement on bail.
Ratio Decidendi: In a bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Court must apply the statutory twin conditions under Section 45 and presume the provision valid unless struck down, and bail may be denied where prima facie guilt, flight risk, or witness intimidation risk is established.