PMLA bail scrutiny turns on scheduled offence linkage, prima facie proceeds of crime, and the strict Section 45 twin conditions.

In a PMLA bail context, the court's analysis turned on whether the alleged scheduled offences, prima facie recovery material, and the tracing of proceeds of crime satisfied the stringent conditions for bail. It treated the IPC offences as scheduled offences, considered the allegations of stealing and selling REET question papers, and held that disputed claims over the nature of recoveries were matters for trial. Applying the reverse burden under Section 24 and the twin requirements under Section 45(1), it found no reasonable grounds to believe the accused was not guilty, and held the proviso for cases below one crore rupees inapplicable because the alleged proceeds exceeded that threshold.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the existence of a scheduled offence, prima facie material of proceeds of crime, and the monetary threshold under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The bail court proceeded on the basis that offences under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 constituted scheduled offences, and that the allegations and recovery material disclosed prima facie involvement of the petitioner in stealing and selling the REET question papers. The recovered amounts from multiple persons were treated as indicating use and concealment of proceeds of crime, while the competing claim that some recoveries were legitimate was held to be a matter for trial. In view of the reverse burden under Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the twin requirements under Section 45(1) of the same Act, the Court found that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was not guilty, and the proviso based on the amount being below one crore rupees was held inapplicable because the alleged proceeds exceeded that threshold.

Conclusion: Bail was refused and the petitioner was not entitled to enlargement on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: For bail in a money-laundering case, the Court must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and the statutory threshold for the proviso is not crossed; where prima facie material shows scheduled-offence linkage and proceeds of crime above the threshold, bail can be denied.

---