Continuing offence doctrine under PMLA defeats ex post facto challenge and bars anticipatory bail absent Section 45 compliance.

A prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was treated as maintainable despite the argument that Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 was inserted in the PMLA schedule later, because the Court regarded money laundering as a continuing offence and found the alleged laundering activity was not limited to the date of the underlying agreements. The Court further held that Section 45 governs anticipatory bail and required the applicant to satisfy the twin conditions of showing reasonable grounds that he was not guilty and would not commit an offence on bail. On the prima facie material, including the applicant's role in the agreements, cooperation and parity arguments failed and anticipatory bail was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant could avoid anticipatory bail by contending that Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 was inserted in the PMLA schedule only later and the alleged acts of 2008 could not be treated as a scheduled offence. (ii) Whether the applicant satisfied the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for grant of anticipatory bail, including on the grounds of cooperation and parity with a co-accused.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant could avoid anticipatory bail by contending that Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 was inserted in the PMLA schedule only later and the alleged acts of 2008 could not be treated as a scheduled offence.

Analysis: The complaint disclosed that the prosecution was founded on offences under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 and that the alleged transactions had continuing consequences through the alleged siphoning and outstanding loan balance. The Court treated the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as a continuing offence and held that the alleged laundering activity was not confined to the date of signing of the agreements. On that basis, the subsequent inclusion of the predicate offence in the schedule did not defeat the prosecution case or render it ex post facto in the manner suggested.

Conclusion: The ex post facto challenge was rejected and the prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was held maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant satisfied the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for grant of anticipatory bail, including on the grounds of cooperation and parity with a co-accused.

Analysis: The Court held that Section 45 applies to anticipatory bail applications and that the applicant had to show reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty and would not commit any offence while on bail. The complaint prima facie disclosed the applicant's role in signing the agreements and in the alleged laundering activity. The Court also found that parity was unavailable because the co-accused had obtained relief on distinct health-related considerations, while the applicant had failed to appear before the trial court despite warrant and could not rely merely on one appearance before the investigating agency.

Conclusion: The applicant failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45, and anticipatory bail was declined.

Final Conclusion: The application for anticipatory bail was dismissed because the material disclosed a prima facie case of money laundering and the statutory bail threshold under Section 45 was not met.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the offence is treated as continuing, Section 45 governs anticipatory bail as well as regular bail, and relief cannot be granted unless the applicant satisfies the statutory twin conditions on a prima facie basis.

---