Anticipatory bail in money-laundering cases denied where documentary material indicated involvement in proceeds of crime and laundering activity.

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was refused because the complaint and material on record indicated involvement in generation and use of proceeds of crime from scheduled offences. The Court treated economic offences as standing on a different footing in bail matters and noted that proceedings for the predicate offence are separate from money-laundering proceedings. On the seriousness of the allegations and the documentary material suggesting laundering activity, no ground was made out for anticipatory bail, and the applications were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The applications were under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The complaint alleged that the applicants were involved in generation and utilization of proceeds of crime arising from scheduled offences, and that the material on record disclosed documentary evidence of their involvement in the laundering activity. The Court also noted that economic offences stand on a different footing in bail matters and that proceedings for the predicate offence are separate from proceedings for money laundering. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and the material indicating involvement of the applicants, no ground was made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

Conclusion: The applicants were not entitled to anticipatory bail and the applications were rejected.

---