Anticipatory bail in money-laundering cases remains subject to PMLA restrictions; absence from the FIR is not enough for relief.

Anticipatory bail in a money-laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was refused because bail is constrained by the statutory scheme of Sections 3 and 45, including in proceedings under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court treated alleged involvement in concealment and transfer of society funds, and the applicant's role as manager, as sufficient to engage the PMLA allegations. It held that not being named as an accused in the scheduled-offence FIR was not, by itself, a ground for relief. The seriousness of economic offences and the applicant's non-appearance despite warrant issuance also weighed against grant of anticipatory bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to an applicant accused of involvement in money-laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The applicant was found to be the manager of the concerned society at the relevant time and the allegation was that he was involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, including concealment and transfer of society funds. The Court held that the mere circumstance that he was not shown as an accused in the FIR relating to the scheduled offence was not, by itself, a ground to grant anticipatory bail. Relying on the statutory scheme of Section 3 and the rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Court applied the principle that bail in money-laundering matters, including anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is subject to the statutory restrictions. The Court also noted the seriousness of economic offences and the applicant's non-appearance before the court despite issuance of warrant.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined and the application was dismissed.

---