Anticipatory bail under PMLA faces strict twin-condition scrutiny; parity with a differently placed co-accused is insufficient.

Anticipatory bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is treated as an exceptional remedy, especially in prosecutions involving alleged economic offences and proceeds of crime. When bail is opposed, Section 45 requires satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Parity with a co-accused does not automatically justify relief where the co-accused is differently situated on facts or under the statutory proviso, and the mere fact that arrest has not yet been made during investigation does not override the statute's restrictive framework.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether parity with a co-accused and the fact that arrest had not yet been made justified grant of anticipatory bail.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The application was examined in the light of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which requires the Court, when bail is opposed, to be satisfied 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 matter involved allegations of economic offences and proceeds of crime of substantial value. Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was treated as an extraordinary remedy to be used sparingly, especially in economic offences.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Issue (ii): Whether parity with a co-accused and the fact that arrest had not yet been made justified grant of anticipatory bail.

Analysis: Parity was rejected because the co-accused was a woman and was treated differently on the facts and the statutory proviso. The applicant was regarded as the main accused, and the cited precedents were found inapplicable on their facts. The absence of arrest during investigation did not by itself displace the statutory restrictions and the seriousness of the allegations under the money-laundering law.

Conclusion: Parity and non-arrest during investigation did not justify grant of anticipatory bail.

Final Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was refused in view of the statutory bar-like rigour under the money-laundering law and the nature of the alleged economic offence.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, anticipatory bail may be declined where the twin conditions under Section 45 are not satisfied and the allegations disclose a serious economic offence; parity with a differently situated co-accused does not automatically warrant relief.

---