Mandatory twin conditions under money-laundering law control bail, and parity or delay cannot override the statutory threshold.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, bail remains subject to the mandatory twin conditions in section 45, which apply even where release is sought under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court treated money laundering as an independent offence and accepted statements under section 50, together with documentary material, as sufficient at the prima facie stage to show involvement in a process connected with proceeds of crime. Parity was held to depend on the accused's actual role, and prolonged incarceration did not override failure to satisfy the statutory bail threshold. Bail was therefore refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the twin conditions in section 45. (ii) Whether the appellant could claim bail on parity or on the ground of delay in trial and prolonged incarceration.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the twin conditions in section 45.

Analysis: The offence of money laundering is an independent offence under section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and is attracted where a person is knowingly involved in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime, including concealment, possession, acquisition, use, or projecting it as untainted property. Statements recorded under section 50 of the Act and the documentary material collected in the investigation were held sufficient at the prima facie stage to show the appellant's involvement. The Court reiterated that the rigours of section 45 are mandatory and apply even to bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and that the statutory presumption under section 24 operates unless rebutted.

Conclusion: The appellant did not satisfy the statutory requirements for bail and was not entitled to release.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant could claim bail on parity or on the ground of delay in trial and prolonged incarceration.

Analysis: The Court held that parity is not an absolute rule and depends on the specific role attributed to the accused. The appellant's role was found to be materially distinct from the co-accused whose cases were relied upon. The Court also held that the apprehension of long trial and prolonged incarceration did not override the failure to satisfy section 45, and that relief based on delay had to be considered in the light of the statutory scheme and the seriousness of economic offences. Economic offences were treated as grave offences affecting the financial health of the country, warranting a different approach in bail matters.

Conclusion: The appellant could not secure bail on parity or on the ground of delay and prolonged incarceration.

Final Conclusion: The bail appeal was rejected after the Court found that the appellant failed to cross the statutory threshold under the money-laundering law and that the circumstances relied upon did not justify interference with the refusal of bail.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, bail cannot be granted unless the accused satisfies the mandatory twin conditions in section 45 on a prima facie basis, and parity or delay cannot override that statutory mandate where material shows involvement in a money-laundering process connected with proceeds of crime.

---