PMLA bail and parity require strict twin-condition scrutiny, and unequal roles defeat release on co-accused parity.

Bail under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act remains subject to the statutory twin conditions, assessed on a prima facie reading of the material. The Court noted allegations of illegal mining, routing of cash proceeds, use of bank accounts in the principal accused's name, and concealment and projection of tainted money as untainted property, treating money-laundering as an independent and continuing offence. It also recognised the statutory presumption regarding proceeds of crime and the evidentiary value of inquiry statements. Parity with a co-accused is unavailable unless the factual matrix is identical or substantially similar; where the accused's role is materially different, negative equality cannot be claimed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner made out a case for bail under the stringent conditions applicable to offences under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether the grant of bail to a co-accused entitled the petitioner to bail on parity.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner made out a case for bail under the stringent conditions applicable to offences under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The allegations were found to disclose prima facie involvement of the petitioner in illegal mining, receipt and routing of cash proceeds, operation of bank accounts in the name of the principal accused, and concealment and projection of tainted money as untainted property. The Court treated money-laundering as an independent and continuing offence and held that the statutory rigour of the special law applied even in a bail application under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also relied on the mandatory twin conditions for bail, the statutory presumption regarding proceeds of crime, and the evidentiary value of statements recorded during inquiry under the special Act.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to satisfy the Court that there were reasonable grounds to believe that he was not guilty of the alleged offence or that he would not reoffend while on bail.

Issue (ii): Whether the grant of bail to a co-accused entitled the petitioner to bail on parity.

Analysis: The Court held that parity depends on identical or substantially similar and factual matrix, and that negative equality cannot be claimed where the co-accused stands on a different footing. On the materials placed, the petitioner's role was found to be more directly connected with the laundering of proceeds of crime and the handling of the principal accused's bank accounts, whereas the co-accused relied upon for parity was found distinguishable.

Conclusion: The plea of parity was rejected and did not justify release on bail.

Final Conclusion: In view of the prima facie materials, the statutory restrictions on bail, and the inapplicability of parity, no exceptional ground was found to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: In bail matters under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, the Court must apply the mandatory twin conditions under Section 45 on a prima facie assessment of the material, and parity cannot be claimed where the accused's role is materially different or where granting similar relief would amount to negative equality.

---