PMLA bail granted where pre-existing transactions were not linked to laundering, custody was prolonged, and parity favoured release.

Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was granted where the monetary transactions between the applicant and the co-accused predated the alleged REET 2021 and were not linked by the Enforcement Directorate to laundering activity. The Court also considered that the applicant was not shown to have directly entered the strong room or stolen the paper, the complaint had already been filed, he had spent a substantial period in judicial custody, and the main co-accused had obtained bail from the Supreme Court. On that basis, the rigours of Section 45 were treated as satisfied for bail purposes.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the pre-existing bank transactions, the stage of investigation, the custody period, and parity with the co-accused.

Analysis: The applicant showed that the monetary transactions between him and the co-accused predated the REET 2021 episode, and the Enforcement Directorate had not linked those transactions with the alleged laundering activity. The Court also noted that the applicant was not directly of entering the strong room or stealing the paper with the co-accused, that the complaint had already been filed, that he had remained in judicial custody for a substantial period, and that the main co-accused had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court. In this background, the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were held to stand satisfied for the purpose of bail.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the applicant.

---