PMLA bail remains subject to twin conditions, and parity cannot rescue an accused with a materially different role.

In a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, bail was refused because the statutory twin conditions for release under Section 45 were not satisfied. The court treated the material as showing a prima facie role in the alleged laundering activity, including involvement in the transaction, the land transfer, and linkage of funds to a firm beneficially owned by the petitioner. The jurisdiction challenge was not accepted at the bail stage, and parity with a co-accused was rejected because bail depends on the accused's own role and factual similarity; negative equality could not be claimed. The petitioner therefore failed to show reasonable grounds to believe he was not guilty or would not reoffend on bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, including on the grounds that no offence under the Act was made out, the court lacked jurisdiction, and parity with a co-accused justified release.

Analysis: The application was examined in the light of the statutory scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, especially the meaning of proceeds of crime, the offence of money-laundering, the powers of investigation and summons, the statutory presumption, and the bail restrictions under Section 45. The material placed before the Court showed a prima facie role of the petitioner in the alleged laundering activity, including influence over the transaction, connection with the land transfer, and linkage of funds to a firm beneficially owned by him. The Court held that the twin conditions under Section 45 had to be satisfied even in a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and that the petitioner had not shown reasonable grounds to believe that he was not guilty or that he would not commit an offence while on bail. The challenge based on jurisdiction was not accepted at the bail stage, and the plea of parity was rejected because parity depends on role and factual similarity, and negative equality cannot be claimed merely because another accused obtained bail.

Conclusion: Bail was declined because the statutory conditions for release were not satisfied and the petitioner's role was treated as materially distinct from the co-accused who had obtained bail.

Final Conclusion: The petition was rejected after a prima facie assessment of the money-laundering allegations, the statutory rigour governing bail under the Act, and the absence of a valid parity claim.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, bail can be granted only if the court is satisfied on the twin conditions under Section 45, and parity cannot override a materially different role or create a right to negative equality.

---