PMLA bail conditions under Section 45 remained unsatisfied where prima facie material showed assistance in fake deed manipulation and linked bank trail.

In a PMLA bail assessment, the Court examined whether the accused satisfied the Section 45 twin conditions in light of allegations that he helped supply blank pages and original volumes to facilitate fake deeds, along with bank-account credits and cash deposits treated as linked proceeds. The Court treated money laundering as an independent and continuing offence, applied the presumption under Section 24, and held that the material disclosed prima facie involvement. It rejected the argument that the accused was not named in the scheduled offence and declined parity because his role was distinct from co-accused granted bail. Bail was refused for failure to meet the statutory conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the statutory twin conditions under Section 45, the alleged role in supplying blank pages and original volumes for fake deeds, the bank-account trail, and the plea of parity.

Analysis: The prosecution material was examined on the basis of the supplementary complaint and the statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The allegations showed that the petitioner, working at the office of the Registrar of Assurances, was said to have assisted co-accused persons in removing or supplying original volumes and blank pages, enabling preparation and re-insertion of fake deeds into official records. The complaint also referred to substantial credits and cash deposits in the petitioner's bank accounts, treated as proceeds linked to the alleged laundering activity. The statutory scheme was considered, including the definitions of proceeds of crime and money laundering, the continuing nature of the offence, the presumption under Section 24, and the mandatory twin conditions under Section 45 requiring reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The plea that the petitioner was not an accused in the scheduled offence was rejected as legally untenable because money laundering is treated as an independent offence. The plea of parity was also rejected because the petitioner's alleged role was found to be distinct from the co-accused who had been granted bail. The Court further noted the gravity of economic offences and the prima facie material against the petitioner.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to satisfy the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the bail request was rejected.

---