Anticipatory bail under PMLA denied where non-arrest during investigation and Section 45 conditions did not justify release.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the mere fact that the applicant was not arrested during investigation did not create any entitlement to anticipatory bail, because the power of arrest under Section 19 remains available where the authorised officer has reason to believe guilt on material in possession. The Court also held that the statutory rigour of Section 45 applies to anticipatory bail, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to reoffend while on bail. Finding prima facie material linking the applicant to the alleged extortion and laundering network, the Court held that the twin conditions were not satisfied and refused anticipatory bail.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-arrest of the applicant during investigation entitled him to anticipatory bail under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the applicant satisfied the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 so as to merit anticipatory bail.

Issue (i): Whether non-arrest of the applicant during investigation entitled him to anticipatory bail under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Section 19 confers power to arrest where the authorised officer has reason to believe, on material in possession, that a person is guilty of an offence under the Act. The mere fact that arrest was not made during investigation does not extinguish that power or create a right to anticipatory bail. The Court also noted that the applicant's reliance on cooperation with investigation and on the absence of arrest could not, by itself, justify grant of anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged economic offences and money laundering.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the applicant.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant satisfied the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 so as to merit anticipatory bail.

Analysis: Section 45 requires satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Court found prima facie material showing the applicant's role in the alleged extortion and laundering network, including handling of cash, maintenance of accounts, and association with the principal accused. In view of the seriousness of the alleged economic offence, the possibility of interference with witnesses and the insufficiency of material to satisfy the statutory conditions, the Court held that the rigour of Section 45 applied equally to anticipatory bail and that the applicant had not met the requisite threshold.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the applicant.

Final Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was not warranted, as the Court found prima facie involvement in a serious money-laundering case and held that the statutory bail conditions were not satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the absence of arrest during investigation does not by itself justify anticipatory bail, and the rigour of Section 45 applies even to applications under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---