Bail under PMLA denied where statutory presumption and twin conditions were not rebutted by the accused.

In a prosecution under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, the Court applied the statutory framework under Sections 3, 4, 24 and 45 while examining whether the petitioner could be released on bail. The allegations of receipt, transfer and use of alleged proceeds of crime through the petitioner's proprietorship account were treated as sufficient to keep the burden against the petitioner under Section 24, and the material on record was found inadequate to rebut the presumption of involvement. The Court held that reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was not guilty were not shown, the twin conditions for bail were not satisfied, and bail was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the statutory presumption, the burden of proof, and the twin conditions governing bail.

Analysis: The bail request was examined on the basis of the allegations of receipt, transfer, and use of alleged proceeds of crime through the account of the petitioner's proprietorship concern. The statutory framework under Sections 3, 4, 24, and 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was applied. The burden under Section 24 was treated as operating against the petitioner, and the material on record was found insufficient to rebut the presumption of involvement in money-laundering. The Court found that the petitioner had not shown reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty of the offence, and the record indicated active involvement in acquisition, disposal, transfer, concealment, and use of the alleged proceeds of crime. The stringent twin conditions under Section 45 were held not to be satisfied.

Conclusion: Bail was declined, as the petitioner failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for release under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

---