PMLA bail standards defeat regular bail where investigation shows a prima facie laundering role and concealment of proceeds of crime.

Regular bail in a money-laundering prosecution under the PMLA was refused because the Court found the allegations, investigation material and Section 50 statements sufficient to show a prima facie role in an alleged laundering syndicate. It noted that the ECIR arose from a separate predicate offence, that the material indicated concealment and laundering of proceeds of crime through multiple channels, including foreign entities, and that the stringent Section 45 bail conditions weighed against release. On that basis, the gravity of the accusations and the collected evidence did not justify regular bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in a money-laundering case under the special bail framework governing offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The application was considered in the context of the predicate offence, the material collected in investigation, the statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the allegations of large-scale laundering through the liquor scam. The Court noted that the new ECIR was founded on a separate predicate offence registered by the State police, that the investigation disclosed a prima facie role of the applicant in the alleged syndicate, and that the material indicated concealment and laundering of proceeds of crime through multiple channels, including foreign entities. The Court also took into account the stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and held that the gravity of the allegations, the applicant's alleged role, and the material collected during investigation did not justify release on regular bail.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to regular bail and the request for bail was rejected.

---