Anticipatory bail under money-laundering law remains subject to stringent twin conditions when custodial interrogation is necessary.

Anticipatory bail in money-laundering prosecutions is subject to the same stringent safeguards as regular bail, and the Section 45 twin conditions apply at the pre-arrest stage. Where the complaint indicates involvement in creating shell companies, routing accommodation entries, and laundering proceeds of crime, the need for custodial interrogation may outweigh a request for pre-arrest protection. In this matter, the alleged proceeds of crime were still to be traced and recovered, and further interrogation was considered necessary to uncover the wider conspiracy and associated entities. Pre-arrest bail was therefore declined because the statutory conditions for grant of relief were not satisfied.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether the statutory twin conditions apply with full force at the pre-arrest stage.

Analysis: The complaint and the subsequent supplementary complaint were founded on material indicating that the applicant was instrumental in facilitating the acquisition of dummy or shell companies and in routing funds through accommodation entries for the laundering of proceeds of crime. The statutory scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, particularly the definitions of proceeds of crime and money-laundering, the burden provision, and the bail restrictions in Section 45, was applied to the facts. Relying on the controlling law that the rigour of Section 45 is not excluded merely because relief is sought under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court held that anticipatory bail in money-laundering matters must satisfy the same stringent safeguards. The need for custodial interrogation was emphasised because a substantial part of the alleged proceeds of crime remained to be traced and recovered, and further interrogation was considered necessary to uncover the wider conspiracy and associated entities.

Conclusion: The statutory conditions for grant of pre-arrest bail were not satisfied, and the request for anticipatory bail was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: The twin conditions governing bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 apply equally to anticipatory bail, and where custodial interrogation is necessary in a money-laundering case involving unrecovered proceeds of crime, pre-arrest bail should not be granted.

---