PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of innocence and no likelihood of reoffending; relief was refused.

In a PMLA prosecution alleging acquisition, concealment, transfer and projection of proceeds of crime through immovable properties and bank accounts, anticipatory bail could not be granted unless the Court was satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accused was not guilty and was not likely to commit any offence while on bail. On the materials before it, that statutory threshold was not met, so the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in light of the statutory rigour of the bail conditions.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed involvement in acquisition, concealment, transfer and projection of proceeds of crime through transactions in immovable properties and bank accounts. In such a case, the governing bail provision requires the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Applying that statutory test to the materials on record, the Court found that the petitioner had not established a case for the extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was refused.

Final Conclusion: The application failed because the statutory conditions governing bail in money-laundering offences were not satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the Court is satisfied, on the material before it, that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

---