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 mandatory statutory conditions for release; the court exercised its discretionary bail jurisdiction and rejected parity arguments because the petitioner's prior record and prima facie involvement-supported by statements recorded under the P.M.L.A.-distinguished him from co-accused who obtained bail. The court noted that admissibility of statements under Section 50 of the P.M.L.A. is settled law, and concluded that release would risk trial interference and further offences; accordingly bail was refused.

---

---

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.

---