PMLA bail refused where prima facie laundering material, ongoing investigation, and risk of tampering outweighed the Section 167(2) CrPC plea.

In a PMLA prosecution involving alleged large-scale misappropriation and laundering of depositor funds, the HC found that the gravity of the allegations, prima facie material showing acquisition and transfer of assets through family members and associates, limited attachment of properties, and the ongoing investigation weighed against regular bail. The Court also noted the statutory burden under Section 24 of the PMLA and the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. The plea based on Section 167(2) CrPC was not accepted at that stage, and bail was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether the plea based on Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be accepted.

Analysis: The petition arose from allegations of large-scale misappropriation of depositors' money and laundering of proceeds of crime. The material before the Court indicated that the amount involved was very substantial, that only a limited portion of the properties stood attached, and that the investigation had disclosed acquisition and transfer of assets in the names of family members and associates. The Court also noted the petitioner's statement, the pending nature of further investigation, and the statutory burden under Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. In the circumstances, the Court held that the gravity of the offence, the prima facie material, and the possibility of absconding or tampering with evidence militated against grant of bail. The plea founded on Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also not accepted at that stage.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to bail; the rejection of bail was upheld.

---