Anticipatory bail under PMLA denied where prolonged unexplained absence from proceedings weighed against the applicant's conduct.

Anticipatory bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was refused where the applicant, despite knowing the proceedings and having previously challenged them, remained absent from the trial court for a prolonged period. The Court treated this continued non-appearance as unjustified and held that delay in the matter and transfer of the file did not explain or excuse the absence. It also noted the reliance placed on Supreme Court bail law, but held that the applicant's own conduct remained material in assessing pre-arrest bail. On that basis, the request for anticipatory bail was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether his conduct of remaining absent from the proceedings disentitled him to pre-arrest bail.

Analysis: The application arose from allegations of involvement in a money-laundering conspiracy connected with fraudulent withdrawal of railway funds. The record showed that the applicant had knowledge of the proceedings, had challenged them through earlier proceedings, and yet did not appear before the trial court for a prolonged period. The Court treated this non-appearance as unjustified, and held that the delay and transfer of the case file did not explain the continued absence. The submission based on the Supreme Court's law on bail was noted, but the Court held that the applicant's own conduct remained material to the consideration of anticipatory bail.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail, and the request was rejected.

---