Section 45 PMLA bail requires broad probabilities; weak predicate offence, incomplete money trail, and parity justified release.

Under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the bail inquiry turned on broad probabilities and reasonable grounds, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, and the weak prima facie material on the predicate offence did not justify continued detention. The prosecution also failed to show a sufficiently unbroken money trail: the Section 50 statements were not enough by themselves, the principal witness account had inconsistencies, and independent corroboration was missing at key links. Completion of investigation, prior joining of inquiry, absence of flight risk, lack of antecedents, and parity with similarly placed co-accused supported release. Regular bail was granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged predicate offence and the material collected by the prosecution disclosed a sufficient basis for invoking the rigours of bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether the statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the alleged money trail established a prima facie unbroken link of proceeds of crime to the petitioner; (iii) Whether parity, completion of investigation, and the petitioner's antecedents justified grant of regular bail.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged predicate offence and the material collected by the prosecution disclosed a sufficient basis for invoking the rigours of bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The governing test under Section 45 requires reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. The standard is one of broad probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the predicate offence, at least on the material placed before it, appeared weak, since there was no convincing material showing imports at inflated prices or consequent wrongful gain to the petitioner. The Court further held that the existence of scheduled offences under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sufficient at this stage to sustain the PMLA proceedings, but the strength of the underlying allegations remained relevant to the bail inquiry.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioner for the purpose of bail, as the material did not show strong prima facie grounds to deny release under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (ii): Whether the statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the alleged money trail established a prima facie unbroken link of proceeds of crime to the petitioner.

Analysis: The Court held that Section 50 statements are admissible, but their evidentiary weight must ordinarily be tested at trial, and a co-accused's confession is not substantive evidence against another accused except for limited corroborative use. On the facts, the Court found material inconsistencies in the statements of the principal witness and noted the absence of reliable independent corroboration at critical links in the alleged chain. The Court also found that the alleged trail through the various entities was not sufficiently established by contemporaneous bank material, while certain ledgers and Excel sheets were treated as hearsay or non-contemporaneous working papers. The Court therefore concluded that the alleged money trail was not shown with sufficient certainty at the bail stage.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioner, as the prosecution had not shown an adequately unbroken money trail connecting the alleged proceeds of crime to him at this stage.

Issue (iii): Whether parity, completion of investigation, and the petitioner's antecedents justified grant of regular bail.

Analysis: The Court noted that the petitioner had joined investigation on several occasions, the prosecution complaint had been filed, relevant devices and documents had already been seized or duplicated, and the petitioner was not shown to be a flight risk. The Court also treated the fact that similarly placed co-accused had either not been arrested or had already obtained bail as a relevant circumstance, though not by itself decisive. Considering the documentary nature of the case, the absence of prior criminal antecedents, and the limited need for further custodial interrogation, the Court found bail to be justified.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioner, and parity together with completion of investigation supported grant of bail.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner was found entitled to regular bail because the prosecution material did not establish, at the bail stage, a sufficiently strong prima facie case showing guilt under the money-laundering charge, and the surrounding circumstances also supported release on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: For bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Court must assess only broad probabilities and reasonable grounds, and where the alleged proceeds of crime are not supported by a convincingly unbroken money trail or reliable corroboration at critical links, regular bail may be granted.

---