PMLA bail restrictions apply to anticipatory bail, and anticipatory bail may be denied in serious money-laundering cases.

Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 applies to anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 CrPC when bail is sought in a money-laundering case, and the earlier contrary view was rejected by the SC. The Court also found anticipatory bail unsustainable on the facts because the allegations involved serious economic offences, the investigation was continuing, and the material indicated a need for further inquiry into the accused's role and nexus. The anticipatory bail order was set aside, and the matter was left to proceed in accordance with law, including consideration of any regular bail application on its own merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the restrictions contained in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 apply to an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a money-laundering case; (ii) whether the grant of anticipatory bail was sustainable on the facts, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of investigation.

Issue (i): Whether the restrictions contained in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 apply to an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a money-laundering case.

Analysis: The statutory bar on release contained in Section 45 is attached to offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Once anticipatory bail is sought in connection with an offence under that Act, the underlying rigour of Section 45 is attracted, even though the application is made under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The earlier understanding that Section 45 would not govern anticipatory bail proceedings was held to be incorrect.

Conclusion: The restrictions under Section 45 apply to anticipatory bail proceedings in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the contrary view was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the grant of anticipatory bail was sustainable on the facts, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations and the stage of investigation.

Analysis: The allegations concerned serious economic offences involving money laundering, and the investigation was still continuing. The material collected by the investigating agency indicated the need for further inquiry, including the role and nexus of the accused. The order granting anticipatory bail did not properly account for the seriousness of the alleged offence or the settled caution required in economic offences.

Conclusion: The grant of anticipatory bail was held to be unsustainable and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the anticipatory bail order was quashed, and the accused was left to be dealt with in accordance with law, including consideration of any regular bail application on its own merits.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the statutory restrictions on bail contained in Section 45 govern even an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---