PMLA bail restrictions and parity principles limit release where proceeds of crime and section 45 conditions are not met.

In a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Jharkhand HC discussed the statutory concept of proceeds of crime, the offence of money-laundering, and the mandatory twin conditions for bail under section 45, applying them also to bail under section 439 CrPC. It noted that property derived directly or indirectly from criminal activity linked to a scheduled offence falls within proceeds of crime, and that concealment, acquisition, use, layering, or projection of such property as untainted attracts section 3. On the facts analysed, prima facie material connected the accused with receipt, layering, cash withdrawal, and transfer of proceeds of crime; the plea of parity was rejected because the co-accused's role was materially different. Regular bail was therefore treated as unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether regular bail could be granted in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 despite the statutory restrictions under section 45 and the plea of parity with a co-accused.

Analysis: The bail court analysed the scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, particularly the definition of proceeds of crime, the offence of money-laundering, the statutory presumption, and the mandatory conditions for bail. It held that proceeds of crime include property derived directly or indirectly from criminal activity relatable to a scheduled offence, and that involvement in concealment, acquisition, use, layering, or projecting such property as untainted property attracts section 3. It further held that section 45 imposes mandatory twin conditions for bail, which apply even to applications under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On the facts, the petitioner was found prima facie involved in the land-forgery and money-laundering racket, with material showing receipt, layering, cash withdrawal, and transfer of proceeds of crime. The plea of parity was rejected because the role attributed to the petitioner was materially different from the co-accused who had obtained bail, and negative equality is not available.

Conclusion: Regular bail was not warranted, as the statutory conditions for release were not satisfied and the parity plea failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a money-laundering case, bail cannot be granted unless the mandatory twin conditions under section 45 are satisfied, and parity cannot be claimed where the accused's role and material are materially different from those of a co-accused who obtained bail.

---