PMLA bail restrictions under section 45 apply strictly; extraordinary constitutional powers cannot bypass the statutory twin conditions.
Under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, bail is controlled by the statutory twin conditions in section 45, and release cannot be granted unless those requirements are met. The Court also stated that an accused need not be named in the predicate offence to face prosecution under the Act, and that arrest before cognizance is not impermissible where the authorised officer has material to believe an offence has been committed. On the facts, the surrounding transactions, retention of substantial proceeds, investigation material, and criminal history did not show the money was untainted or justify the claim of lack of knowledge. Parity and custody period were rejected as grounds to bypass the statutory bar.
Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, and whether the statutory conditions under section 45 were satisfied.
Analysis: The complaint arose from alleged laundering of large sums through bank transactions and related contracts. The Court held that the accused need not be named as an accused in the predicate offence for prosecution under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002. It further held that arrest before cognizance is not impermissible where the authorised officer has material to believe that an offence under the Act has been committed. The Court found that the material on record, including the receipt and continued retention of substantial amounts, the surrounding transactions, the investigation material and the accused's criminal history, did not support the claim that the money was untainted or that the applicant lacked knowledge of the proceeds of crime. The Court also held that the conditions in section 45 of the Act are mandatory for grant of bail and that the High Court cannot exercise an Article 142-type extraordinary power to bypass those conditions. The plea based on parity with co-accused and custody period was also rejected.
Conclusion: The statutory conditions for bail were not satisfied and the applicant was not entitled to bail.
Final Conclusion: The bail request in a money-laundering prosecution was rejected after holding that the restrictions under the special statute controlled the grant of liberty and that the surrounding material did not justify release.
Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, bail can be granted only when the statutory twin conditions are satisfied; the High Court cannot ignore those conditions by invoking extraordinary powers reserved to the Supreme Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
