Strict Section 45 bail threshold under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act applied, and regular bail was refused.

In a prosecution for money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, regular bail was refused because the Court could not record the prima facie satisfaction required to relax the statutory rigour of Section 45. The material, including statements recorded under Section 50 and circumstances linked to the scheduled offence, did not establish that all conditions for bail under Section 45 were met. The Court applied the strict twin-condition threshold and held that no case for indulgence was made out, so the bail petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the restrictions under Section 45.

Analysis: The petition was for regular bail in a case alleging money laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The material relied upon included the petitioner's statements under Section 50 of the Act and the circumstances arising from the scheduled offence. The Court found that, at the stage of bail, it was unable to record prima facie satisfaction on the requirements necessary to dilute the statutory rigour of Section 45. Applying the principle that all the statutory conditions under Section 45 must be satisfied before bail can be granted, the Court held that no case for indulgence was made out.

Conclusion: Regular bail was declined and the petition was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution under the money-laundering law was held to attract the strict bail threshold, and the petitioner did not satisfy that threshold for release.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot be granted unless the statutory conditions under Section 45 are satisfied and the Court records the requisite prima facie satisfaction.

---