PMLA anticipatory bail barred by prima facie proceeds of crime findings and Section 45 restrictions on pre-arrest relief

In a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Orissa HC noted that the alleged acquisition of properties prima facie fell within "proceeds of crime" and attracted the offence of money laundering under Section 3. The Court referred to the statutory presumption under Section 24 and the restrictive effect of Section 45, and treated issues relating to the scheduled offence as matters for the court in seisin of that case. On the material before it, the Court found no demonstrated need for custodial interrogation and declined anticipatory bail, holding that the prima facie PMLA case and the statutory bar under Section 45 weighed against pre-arrest protection.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the allegations relating to proceeds of crime and the rigour of Section 45.

Analysis: The complaint was based on allegations that the petitioner had acquired properties which, on the material placed, prima facie fell within the expression "proceeds of crime" and attracted the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court noted the statutory presumption under Section 24 of the Act and the restriction flowing from Section 45, and observed that the plea regarding the scheduled offence and related issues was a matter for the court in seisin of the case. The Court also noticed that custodial interrogation had not been shown to be necessary during the investigation.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined because a prima facie case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was made out and the statutory restrictions under Section 45 weighed against grant of pre-arrest bail.

---