2025 (2) TMI 1454 - HC - Money Laundering

Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act denied where accused's antecedents and risk to trial and re offending existed.

Bail applications under the P.M.L.A. require assessment of the accused's role, criminal antecedents, likelihood of tampering or re-offending, and ... Bail under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act - money-laundering participation in proceeds of crime - facilitated the examinee with the leaked question papers - admissibility of statements u/s 50 of the P.M.L.A. - parity in grant of bail - mandatory conditions for grant of bail under Section 45(1)(ii) of the P.M.L.A. - High Court exercise of discretion in bail matters - Article 21 right to speedy trial - Bail is the rule and jail the exception - HELD THAT:- This Court is fully conscious of the law regarding the issue of parity in deciding bail applications. It is crucial to consider the specific facts of each case, the role of the accused in the alleged crime, the nature and severity of the offence, and its broader implication over the society. Additionally, the commission method, the court's legitimate concerns about potential tempering, the likelihood of the accused re-offending, and the accused prior record must all be considered. The petitioner's criminal record places him differently from the other co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail. As far as admissibility of statements recorded under Section 50 of the P.M.L.A. is concerned, the law is no more res integra. In the present case the role of the accused is being pointely mentioned and prima facie established by the prosecution and the accused petitioner has already committed an offence under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992. This Court in the matter of Jagan Gurjar [2024 (12) TMI 1691 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] granted the bail to the accused after observing that the petitioner was involved solely on the statements of the other co-accused and there was no call details available on the record indicating the involvement of the accused regarding hatching conspiracy and providing arms to the main accused. Similarly, in the case of Kaluram Bishnoi [2022 (9) TMI 1695 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] the Co-ordinate Bench granted the bail under Section 3/4 of the P.M.L.A., as the bail application of the other co-accused were granted without considering the impact of mandatory condition enshrined under Section 45(1)(ii) of P.M.L.A. Therefore, the judgments referred by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of instant case. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not satisfied that the petitioner shall appear before the trial and there is strong likelihood that if the petitioner is released on bail then it may effect the trial and the petitioner may also commit criminal offences. Therefore, considering the above aspects, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the instant bail application of the petitioner is hereby dismissed. Issues: Whether the petitioner accused of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is entitled to bail.Analysis: The matter involves alleged involvement of the petitioner in a conspiracy to leak examination papers and receiving/arranging proceeds as part of a syndicate, with investigation materials and statements under Section 50 PMLA indicating facilitation and receipt of advance payment. Section 3 and Section 4 of the PMLA define money-laundering offences and conduct connected with proceeds of crime. Section 45(1)(ii) PMLA imposes a mandatory condition for bail that the court must be satisfied the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Relevant precedents cited by the respondent uphold admissibility of statements under Section 50 PMLA and the mandatory nature of Section 45 requirements. Consideration of parity with co-accused is subject to role-specific facts; criminal antecedents, multiple pending cases, prima facie evidence of involvement, and risk of tampering or absconding inform the bail determination. The petitioners reliance on authorities granting bail in lengthy-trial scenarios was distinguished on facts, and the court found prima facie satisfaction of involvement and substantial criminal antecedents supporting denial of bail.Conclusion: Bail is refused; the petition for bail is dismissed.Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA, bail must be refused where the court is not satisfied that the accused is not likely to commit an offence while on bail; prima facie involvement together with criminal antecedents and risk of tampering or absconding justify denial of bail in this case.