PMLA bail depends on a prima facie scheduled offence; absent that, alleged proceeds of crime cannot justify detention.

Bail under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was held maintainable because no prima facie scheduled offence was established. The alleged offence under the Information Technology Act, 2000 was found not made out, as the relevant conduct was not in exercise of statutory powers. The alleged conspiracy and cheating under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 failed for want of criminal intent and dishonest inducement, and the corruption allegations were unsustainable because the applicant was not a public servant and no corrupt gain was shown. In the absence of a prima facie predicate offence, no proceeds of crime could be attributed and the rigours of Section 45 were treated as satisfied for bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 on the basis that no prima facie scheduled offence was made out and, consequently, no proceeds of crime could be attributed to her.

Analysis: The bail application turned on whether the alleged predicate offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 were prima facie established. The allegations under Section 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 were held not to be made out because the applicant and NSE were not acting in pursuance of powers conferred under that Act. The allegations under Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were found not to disclose the required criminal intent or dishonest inducement, as the call-recording arrangement pre-existed the involvement of the alleged co-conspirator and NSE itself was aware of electronic monitoring. The allegations under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were also found unsustainable because the applicant was not a public servant and no pecuniary advantage or corrupt gain was shown. On that basis, no prima facie scheduled offence and no consequent proceeds of crime were established, and the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 were satisfied for grant of bail.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no prima facie scheduled offence is made out, the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 cannot be invoked to deny bail on the basis of alleged proceeds of crime.

---