PMLA bail refused where material showed proceeds of crime and twin conditions under Section 45 were not satisfied.

Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was refused because release is permissible only if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not commit an offence while on bail. The record showed investigation linked to the scheduled offence, recorded conversations with public officials, transfer of substantial funds into the applicant's accounts from the concerned firms, and no satisfactory explanation for those funds. The pendency of investigation in the scheduled offence, and the absence of a charge-sheet there, did not by itself defeat proceedings under the money-laundering law. The applicant was not entitled to bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in view of the twin conditions under Section 45 and the material indicating receipt and use of proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The application was considered on the basis that the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is a distinct offence and that release on bail can be granted only when the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. On the material placed, the record disclosed investigation against the applicant arising out of the scheduled offence, recorded conversations with public officials, transfer of substantial amounts into the applicant's accounts from the concerned firms, and absence of a satisfactory explanation for the funds. The Court also held that the pendency of investigation under the scheduled offence and the absence of a charge-sheet therein did not, by itself, negate proceedings under the money-laundering law.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to bail.

---