PMLA bail turns on twin Section 45 conditions and the Section 24 presumption; prima facie laundering justified refusal.

In prosecutions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, bail depends on satisfaction of the twin conditions in Section 45 and rebuttal of the Section 24 presumption. On the stated facts, allegations of scheduled offences, large-scale diversion and layering of funds, and a prima facie case of money laundering meant the accused could not show reasonable grounds that he was not guilty or would not reoffend while on bail. The plea of ill-health was found insufficient given the seriousness of the alleged economic offence and the availability of treatment, so bail was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the twin conditions under Section 45 and the presumption under Section 24, including the plea of ill-health.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed a scheduled offence and a prima facie case of money laundering involving large-scale diversion and layering of funds. The Court noted that the first condition under Section 45 stood satisfied, but the petitioner failed to satisfy the second condition that there were reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty and that he would not commit any offence while on bail. The presumption under Section 24 operated against the petitioner and was not rebutted. The medical ground was held insufficient in view of the seriousness of the alleged economic offence and the availability of treatment.

Conclusion: Bail was not granted, and the petition was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, bail can be granted only if the accused satisfies the statutory twin conditions under Section 45 and rebuts the presumption under Section 24; a prima facie case of large-scale laundering is sufficient to refuse bail where those requirements are not met.

---