Anticipatory bail under PMLA barred where prima facie money-laundering allegations and Section 45 conditions were not satisfied.

Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was applied to anticipatory bail, and relief was declined because the complaint prima facie disclosed laundering of proceeds of crime through continuing company-related transactions. The Court treated the alleged conduct as a continuing offence under Section 3 of the PMLA and found no reasonable ground to believe the applicant was not guilty or would not reoffend while on bail. The applicant's challenge to the predicate offence, reliance on Section 186 of the Companies Act, 2013, and pleas based on age, illness and parity were all rejected because the allegations were linked to Section 447 and the co-accused's case rested on different facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in view of the rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the applicant could displace the complaint by contending that the alleged predicate offence was not maintainable as a scheduled offence or by relying on age, illness and parity with a co-accused.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in view of the rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The complaint disclosed allegations of laundering of proceeds of crime arising from company transactions and continuing transfers, and the alleged activity was treated as a continuing offence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The statutory bar and conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 applied to anticipatory bail as well, and the Court found no reasonable ground to believe that the applicant was not guilty of the offence or that he would not commit any offence while on bail.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant could displace the complaint by contending that the alleged predicate offence was not maintainable as a scheduled offence or by relying on age, illness and parity with a co-accused.

Analysis: The Court held that the complaint prima facie disclosed offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and that the alleged liability was connected with a continuing loss to the company and its shareholders. The contention based on Section 186 of the Companies Act, 2013 did not avail the applicant because the allegations were treated as falling within Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 and the prosecution was not regarded as vitiated on the ground urged. The plea of parity was rejected because the co-accused had obtained relief on a different factual foundation, including medical examination and other circumstances. The applicant's age and the belated medical certificate were held insufficient to satisfy the statutory test.

Conclusion: The applicant failed to establish any ground for anticipatory bail on the basis of maintainability, illness, age or parity.

Final Conclusion: The request for anticipatory bail was rejected because the complaint disclosed a prima facie money-laundering case and the statutory conditions for bail were not satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Section 45 applies to anticipatory bail as well, and bail cannot be granted unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail; a prima facie continuing laundering offence defeats such relief.

---