TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 apply to an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether the applicant made out a case for pre-arrest bail in view of the material collected during investigation and his repeated failure to join investigation.
Issue (i): Whether the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 apply to an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 treats offences under the Act as cognisable and non-bailable, and the twin conditions in Section 45 are mandatory before release on bail. The Court relied on binding precedent to hold that these conditions are not confined to regular bail and also operate when pre-arrest bail is sought in connection with a money-laundering offence. The Court further noted that proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are independent and the legislative purpose requires a strict approach where proceeds of crime are prima facie traced and the allegations disclose an economic offence of seriousness.
Conclusion: The twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 apply to anticipatory bail as well, and the applicant must satisfy them before relief can be granted.
Issue (ii): Whether the applicant made out a case for pre-arrest bail in view of the material collected during investigation and his repeated failure to join investigation.
Analysis: The Court found substantial prima facie material from seized diaries, sale agreements, bank records and statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 indicating a transaction pattern involving cash payments, benami arrangements and concealment of the true consideration for the properties in question. The material was treated as sufficient at the bail stage to indicate the involvement of proceeds of crime and to attract the bar under Section 45. The Court also held that repeated non-compliance with summons and failure to furnish requested documents amounted to non-cooperation with investigation, which weighed strongly against grant of pre-arrest bail in a case of this nature.
Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to anticipatory bail and the request for pre-arrest protection was rejected.
Final Conclusion: In a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, where the investigative material prima facie shows laundering of proceeds of crime and the accused has repeatedly avoided summons, pre-arrest bail can be refused on the combined force of the statutory bar and the conduct of the applicant.
Ratio Decidendi: The mandatory twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 govern anticipatory bail applications in money-laundering cases, and where the material collected during investigation prima facie indicates laundering of proceeds of crime and the accused does not cooperate with summons, pre-arrest bail ought to be declined.
TaxTMI 
