Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act granted where prima facie innocence and no live predicate offence link were shown.

Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was considered on the statutory twin conditions, with the medical-ground plea not pressed and the objection regarding written grounds of arrest rejected. The Court found no prima facie material linking the petitioner to the forged foundational deed for the Cheshire Home Road property, treated the purchase through banking channels and lack of mens rea material as consistent with bona fide purchase, and noted that no scheduled offence was shown in relation to the Pugru Mauza and Siram Mauza properties. It also relied on custody period, trial stage, voluminous evidence, and absence of flight risk, witness tampering, or likely reoffending to conclude that the bail conditions were satisfied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether the statutory twin conditions for bail were satisfied.

Analysis: The prayer for bail on medical grounds was not pressed and was not considered. The objection based on alleged non-compliance with the requirement of written grounds of arrest was not accepted. On the merits, the allegations concerned three properties. For the Cheshire Home Road property, the materials did not show prima facie involvement of the petitioner in creating the forged foundational deed or in knowingly joining a laundering conspiracy; the petitioner's purchase through banking channels and the absence of material showing mens rea supported the view that he was a bona fide purchaser. For the Pugru Mauza and Siram Mauza properties, no scheduled offence had been registered or shown to be pending in relation to those properties, and the absence of a predicate offence weighed against treating the transactions as money laundering at this stage. The Court also considered the period of custody, the stage of the trial, the large volume of witnesses and documents, and the absence of material suggesting flight risk, witness tampering, or likely reoffending.

Conclusion: The petitioner satisfied the statutory bail conditions and was held entitled to be released on regular bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 may be granted where the Court finds prima facie that the accused is not guilty, is not likely to commit an offence while on bail, and the material does not establish a live nexus with a predicate offence or conscious laundering intent.

---