Anticipatory bail under money-laundering law refused where complaint material linked petitioner to proceeds of crime and Section 45 restrictions applied.

Material in the complaint alleging large-scale laundering of money and diversion of investors' funds, together with attribution of proceeds of crime to the petitioner, was treated as sufficient to defeat the claim for anticipatory bail under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner's plea that he was only a salaried director was rejected on the complaint material, and authorities cited for bail were distinguished on facts. In view of the restrictions under Section 45 and the evidentiary material against the petitioner, the threshold for anticipatory bail was not met and bail was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 in view of the material collected in the complaint and the restrictions under Section 45 of the Act.

Analysis: The complaint disclosed allegations of large-scale laundering of money and diversion of investors' funds, and the record indicated that proceeds of crime were attributed to the petitioner. The claim that the petitioner was only a salaried director was not accepted in view of the complaint material. The Court also noted that the authorities relied upon by the petitioner turned on different facts and could not dilute the limitations governing bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002. In light of the statutory restrictions and the materials against the petitioner, the threshold for anticipatory bail was not satisfied.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was refused.

---