PMLA bail restrictions applied where prima facie layering of proceeds of crime and a reasoned remand order were found.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, bail was examined against the strict Section 45 twin conditions and the validity of remand. The remand order was treated as reasoned because it referred to the material in possession, the alleged coal washery transactions, the need for further investigation, and the inability to complete investigation within 24 hours; the plea of illegal custody was said to require evidence and did not by itself displace the remand in bail proceedings. On the merits, the record showed a prima facie role in acquiring and transferring coal washeries through allegedly sham and layered transactions, so the accused failed to show reasonable grounds of innocence or a low risk of reoffending, and bail was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the alleged insufficiency of reasons in the remand order and the plea of illegal custody entitled the applicant to bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether the applicant satisfied the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the alleged insufficiency of reasons in the remand order and the plea of illegal custody entitled the applicant to bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The arresting authority had recorded reasons to believe on the basis of material in its possession, and the Special Judge also recorded reasons while authorising remand. The remand order was distinguished from a non-speaking order because it referred to the purchase of coal washeries, the need for further investigation, and the inability to complete investigation within 24 hours. The claim of illegal custody and invalid arrest was treated as a matter requiring evidence and not as a ground that by itself displaced the remand order in bail proceedings.

Conclusion: The plea based on defective remand and alleged illegal custody was rejected and did not entitle the applicant to bail.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant satisfied the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The material showed a prima facie role attributed to the applicant in acquiring and transferring coal washeries through transactions alleged to be sham, layered and intended to conceal proceeds of crime. The Court held that the allegations disclosed serious economic offences and that the applicant had not shown reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty or that he was unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. The Court relied on the stringent bail regime under Section 45 and treated the defence version of lawful purchase and valuation as matters for trial.

Conclusion: The applicant did not satisfy the twin conditions for bail and the issue was answered against him.

Final Conclusion: The bail request failed because the remand and arrest were found to be in accordance with law and the material on record showed a prima facie case of money laundering, with the statutory bail restrictions remaining unsatisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, bail can be refused where the record discloses prima facie involvement in layering or concealment of proceeds of crime and the accused fails to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45, and a remand order containing reasons cannot be treated as illegal merely because the accused disputes the factual basis of arrest.

---