Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the twin conditions under Section 45 and the materials linking the applicant to the alleged proceeds of crime.
Analysis: The application arose from allegations that funds generated from the BIKEBOT scam were routed through another person and a further amount was transferred to the applicant's account, along with an allegation of cash payments. The Court noted that the applicant was not named in the FIRs or in the earlier complaint proceedings, that the alleged transfer into his account was not shown to have come directly from the accounts receiving the alleged proceeds of crime, and that the cash allegation lacked corroborative material beyond a statement and presumption. The Court also noted that similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail or anticipatory bail. On that basis, the Court held that the dispute whether the transfer represented proceeds of crime or repayment of an earlier loan was a matter for trial, and found prima facie satisfaction of the statutory bail conditions.
Conclusion: The applicant was held entitled to bail and the bail application was allowed.