Anticipatory bail in money-laundering cases remains subject to PMLA twin conditions despite filing of ECIR and complaint.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the statutory arrest and bail safeguards continue even after an ECIR is prepared and a prosecution complaint is filed; those steps do not remove the Public Prosecutor's right to oppose bail or the court's duty to apply the twin conditions in section 45. The material discussed indicated a prima facie laundering role involving routing proceeds of crime through dummy bank accounts, forged documents, and accommodation entries, and the court treated anticipatory bail as an exceptional remedy in serious economic offences. On that basis, pre-arrest protection was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the power to oppose and the twin conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ceased to apply because the ECIR had been prepared and the prosecution complaint had been filed; (ii) Whether the petitioner made out a case for anticipatory bail in a money-laundering prosecution on the material collected during investigation.

Issue (i): Whether the power to oppose and the twin conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ceased to apply because the ECIR had been prepared and the prosecution complaint had been filed?

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats money-laundering as an independent and continuing offence. Section 19(1) confers power of arrest on the basis of recorded reasons to believe and does not create any stage-based bar merely because an ECIR has been prepared or a complaint has been filed. Section 45 requires that the Public Prosecutor be given an opportunity to oppose bail and, where opposed, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and will not commit an offence while on bail. The filing of an ECIR or complaint does not extinguish these safeguards or the authority's right to oppose bail.

Conclusion: The objection that the Enforcement Directorate had no right to oppose anticipatory bail after filing of the ECIR and complaint was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner made out a case for anticipatory bail in a money-laundering prosecution on the material collected during investigation?

Analysis: The material collected in investigation indicated a prima facie role in routing proceeds of crime through dummy bank accounts, forged documents, and accommodation entries to conceal and layer tainted money. The court applied the settled principles that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, is to be granted sparingly in serious economic offences, and requires close attention to the gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused. On the facts, the court found material suggesting direct involvement in laundering activity and no exceptional circumstance warranting pre-arrest bail.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to satisfy the statutory and discretionary requirements for anticipatory bail.

Final Conclusion: The application for anticipatory bail did not succeed and the petitioner was denied pre-arrest protection in the money-laundering case.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the court is satisfied on the statutory twin conditions, and the filing of an ECIR or complaint does not dilute the Public Prosecutor's right to oppose bail or the court's duty to test the existence of a prima facie laundering role.

---