PMLA bail turns on mandatory twin conditions, continuing offence principles, and material showing involvement in proceeds of crime.

Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is governed by the mandatory twin conditions in Section 45, requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and no likelihood of reoffending. The court examined complaint material, Section 50 statements, seizure evidence and the investigation record, and treated money-laundering as a continuing, independent offence with the Section 24 burden operating against the accused at the bail stage. It also noted that a person need not be named in the scheduled offence if the material shows knowing involvement in proceeds of crime. Parity with a co-accused was rejected because the attributed role was materially different.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the statutory twin conditions and the material collected during investigation. (ii) Whether the petitioner could succeed on the plea that he was not shown as an accused in the predicate offence and on the plea of parity with a co-accused.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the statutory twin conditions and the material collected during investigation.

Analysis: Bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is controlled by mandatory twin conditions, namely, the existence of reasonable grounds for believing that the is not guilty and the absence of likelihood of reoffending while on bail. The Court examined the complaint, witness statements under Section 50, seizure material, and the investigation narrative, which indicated involvement in concealment, acquisition, use, and projection of proceeds of crime through illegal mining, transportation of stone chips, and cash deposits used for obtaining ferry tender benefits. The Court also relied on the settled principle that money-laundering is a continuing and independent offence, and that the evidentiary burden under Section 24 operates against the accused at the bail stage.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to satisfy the twin conditions, and regular bail was not warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner could succeed on the plea that he was not shown as an accused in the predicate offence and on the plea of parity with a co-accused.

Analysis: The Court held that being named in the scheduled offence is not a prerequisite for prosecution under Section 3 of the Act if the person knowingly assists or is involved in the process connected with proceeds of crime. It further held that the plea of parity was unavailable because the role attributed to the petitioner was materially distinct from the co-accused whose bail had been granted, and negative equality cannot be invoked to repeat an allegedly erroneous benefit. The Court also noted that economic offences require a stricter approach at the bail stage.

Conclusion: The petitioner's objections on the absence of predicate-offence accusation and on parity were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The application for regular bail was not fit to be allowed in view of the prima facie material indicating involvement in money-laundering and the failure to meet the statutory bail threshold.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, bail can be granted only if the Court forms a prima facie view that the accused satisfies the mandatory twin conditions under Section 45, and a person need not be an accused in the scheduled offence if the material shows knowing involvement in the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime.

---