Pre-arrest bail in money-laundering case refused where repeated summons were ignored and investigation evasion was inferred.

Pre-arrest bail in a money-laundering prosecution was sought under Section 438 CrPC, but the record showed repeated summons under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, delayed and incomplete compliance, and continued non-appearance despite further opportunities. That conduct was treated as evasion rather than cooperation, and the discretionary nature of anticipatory bail was assessed in light of the statutory rigour of Section 45 PMLA. On that basis, the request for pre-arrest bail was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail in a money-laundering case despite repeated non-compliance with summons and conduct indicating evasion of investigation.

Analysis: The petition sought protection under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in relation to proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The material on record showed repeated summons under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the petitioner's delayed and incomplete compliance, and continued non-appearance even after further opportunities. The Court treated this conduct as indicative of evasion rather than cooperation. It also noted that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary discretionary relief and that, in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the statutory rigour of Section 45 has to be kept in view before granting such relief.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to pre-arrest bail and the request was rejected.

---