Predicate offence closure and PMLA interim bail: accepted C-Summary treated as ending the foundation for release, prima facie.

Acceptance of a C-Summary in the predicate offence was treated as prima facie bringing the foundational criminal proceedings to an end for the limited purpose of interim bail in the connected PMLA case. Applying the principle that money-laundering depends on a scheduled offence and cannot survive where the underlying criminal case is finally discharged, acquitted, or quashed, the Court held that the rigours of section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 did not, prima facie, prevent interim release on the facts. The Court also rejected the argument that a revision period automatically stayed the order accepting the C-Summary, and considered custody length, lack of antecedents, and parity.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after acceptance of the C-Summary report in the predicate offence, the applicants were entitled to interim bail in the connected money-laundering prosecution and whether the rigours of section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 would continue to operate.

Analysis: The prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was founded on a scheduled offence which had been registered on the basis of the complaint lodged before the Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The subsequent acceptance of the C-Summary report by the competent criminal court meant that the foundational criminal proceedings had, prima facie, come to an end. Reliance was placed on the principle stated in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary that money-laundering is dependent on illegal gain of property as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, and that if the person is finally discharged, acquitted, or the criminal case is quashed, no money-laundering action can survive. The Court treated the accepted C-Summary, for the limited purpose of interim bail, as having a similar effect. It also rejected the contention that the mere availability of a revision period operated as an automatic stay of the order accepting the C-Summary. Considering the long custody, absence of criminal antecedents, and parity between the applicants, the Court found that interim release was justified pending any challenge to the C-Summary and without expressing any view on the merits of the main PMLA case.

Conclusion: The applicants were entitled to interim bail, and the bail conditions under section 45 were held, prima facie, not to stand in the way of such release in the circumstances of the case.

---