Mandatory twin conditions for bail under money-laundering law were not met, so regular bail was refused.

Regular bail under Section 439 CrPC read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was refused because the statutory twin conditions were not met. The Court reiterated that, when bail is opposed, the Public Prosecutor must be heard and the applicant must show reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. On the material before it, including the complaint and the applicant's statements, the Court found prima facie indicators of bogus and paper transactions, unsupported claims of goods movement, journal voucher adjustments, and diversion of funds. Treating money-laundering as a serious economic offence, the Court held the mandatory conditions remained unsatisfied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in view of the statutory twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The application was considered under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court noted that the statutory bar requires the Public Prosecutor to be heard and, where opposed, requires reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of money-laundering and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. On the material placed before it, including the prosecution complaint and the applicant's statements, the Court found prima facie material showing bogus and paper transactions through the applicant's concerns, absence of supporting documents for claimed movement of goods, journal voucher adjustments, and diversion of funds. The Court also treated the offence as a serious economic offence and relied on the settled position that the twin conditions are mandatory and must be satisfied even in a bail application under Section 439.

Conclusion: The twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were not satisfied and bail was refused.

---