PMLA bail granted where the accused had a lesser role and had only knowingly assisted, not generated or benefited from proceeds of crime.

Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was granted where the applicant was not alleged to be the generator or beneficiary of the proceeds of crime and the Special Court had found that he only knowingly assisted the process. The Supreme Court had already enlarged the prime accused on bail under Section 45(1)(ii), and the applicant's comparatively lesser role weighed against continued custody. On that basis, the Court found no reason to refuse bail and allowed the application.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the Supreme Court's grant of bail to the co-accused and the applicant's comparatively lesser role.

Analysis: The applicant was not alleged to be the generator or beneficiary of the proceeds of crime, and the Special Court had recorded that he had not laundered the proceeds of crime but had only knowingly assisted the process. The co-accused, described as the prime accused, had already been enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court under Section 45(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. In that setting, and given the finding that the applicant's role was lesser than that of the co-accused, the Court found no reason to refuse bail.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to bail and the application was allowed.

---