PMLA bail refused where prosecution material showed a prima facie nexus to alleged laundering and statutory conditions were unmet.

Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was refused because the prosecution material, including Section 50 statements, financial trail evidence, and surrounding circumstances, showed a prima facie nexus between the petitioner and the alleged laundering of proceeds of crime. The Court held that the twin conditions under Section 45 were not satisfied and that the proviso to Section 45(1) did not assist the petitioner, as the alleged amount exceeded the threshold and no case for discretion was made out. Pleas based on parity, delay in investigation, absence from the predicate offence, and retraction of statements were found insufficient.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in the light of the twin conditions under Section 45, the proviso thereto, the material collected by the Enforcement Directorate, and the plea of parity.

Analysis: The petition was examined on the basis of the statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the financial trail into the account of the petitioner's son's firm, the alleged association between the petitioner and the co-accused, and the surrounding circumstances indicating layering and integration of alleged proceeds of crime. The Court found that the prosecution had placed sufficient material at the bail stage to show a prima facie nexus between the petitioner and the alleged laundering activity. The contention based on absence of the petitioner's name in the predicate offence, delay in investigation, retractions, and parity with co-accused was found insufficient to displace the prosecution material. The argument based on the proviso to Section 45(1) was also not accepted, as the Court held that the alleged amount exceeded the threshold and, in any event, no case for exercise of discretion in favour of the petitioner was made out.

Conclusion: Bail was declined because the Court found a prima facie case against the petitioner and held that the statutory bail requirements under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were not satisfied.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner's custody was continued and no bail relief was granted on the facts and material placed before the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: In a bail request under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, where the prosecution material discloses a prima facie nexus with laundering of alleged proceeds of crime and the statutory conditions are not met, bail may be refused notwithstanding pleas of parity, delay, or retraction of statements.

---