PMLA bail threshold applied on broad probabilities, with continued detention found unjustified on the available material.

In a PMLA bail matter, the Calcutta HC applied the statutory bail restrictions on broad probabilities and reasonable grounds rather than a detailed assessment of guilt. The Court noted that the petitioner had appeared pursuant to summons, had not been arrested during investigation under Section 19, and the record did not show direct receipt of illegal gratification or a sufficient basis to infer future offending. Finding that the material did not justify continued detention on the facts, the Court held that the bail threshold was met and released the petitioner on bail subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner, who had appeared in response to summons in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, was entitled to bail; (ii) Whether the material on record disclosed such a strong prima facie case and likelihood of future involvement as to justify continued detention under the bail restrictions applicable to the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner, who had appeared in response to summons in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, was entitled to bail.

Analysis: The petitioner had responded to summons issued during investigation and had appeared before the Special Court. The Court considered that the Enforcement Directorate had not arrested her during investigation under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and that the materials did not show direct receipt of illegal gratification by her for recruitment. The Court also noted that while the matter involved allegations of concealment and use of proceeds of crime, the petitioner's custody had already continued for more than five months and the facts did not justify further detention in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to bail and the prayer for bail was allowed.

Issue (ii): Whether the material on record disclosed such a strong prima facie case and likelihood of future involvement as to justify continued detention under the bail restrictions applicable to the Act.

Analysis: For the purpose of bail, the Court applied the settled approach that it need not conduct a detailed examination of guilt and must proceed on broad probabilities and reasonable grounds for believing, while keeping in view the statutory restrictions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. On the available material, the Court found no evidence that the petitioner had personally received money for recruitment, and held that the record did not establish a basis to deny bail on the apprehension of repetition of offence. The Court further treated the petitioner's case as distinguishable from the person alleged to have generated the illicit funds, and held that the continuing detention was unwarranted.

Conclusion: Continued detention was not justified and the statutory bail threshold was treated as satisfied in the petitioner's favour.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was released on bail subject to the stated conditions, and the bail proceeding was disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: In a money-laundering bail matter, the Court assesses the statutory bail bar on broad probabilities and reasonable grounds for believing rather than a conclusive determination of guilt, and continued detention is unjustified where the material does not show a sufficient basis to deny bail on future-risk considerations.

---