Anticipatory bail under PMLA denied where tracing of diverted funds and surviving scheduled offences satisfied Section 45 constraints.

Anticipatory bail in a PMLA prosecution was held to be governed by Section 45's twin conditions, and the Court declined pre-arrest protection where the record showed a prima facie nexus with proceeds of crime. The material indicated diversion of home-buyers' funds through related entities, transfers traced to the petitioner's account and associated concerns, and a continuing money-laundering investigation linked to surviving scheduled offences. The Court treated money-laundering as an independent offence and found no reasonable grounds to conclude that the petitioner was not guilty or would not commit an offence while on bail, so the request for anticipatory bail was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the existence of surviving scheduled offences, the material showing diversion of home-buyers' funds and the rigour of Section 45 of the Act.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed a continuing money-laundering probe arising from multiple scheduled offences, not merely from the original FIRs that had later been assailed. The material on record showed that the petitioner had held directorial positions in several group companies, that substantial amounts from home-buyers' funds had been diverted through related entities, and that transfers were traced into the petitioner's account and to entities associated with him. The Court treated the offence of money-laundering as independent and held that the existence of subsequent FIRs taken on record in the ECIR sustained the foundation of the investigation. The Court also held that the limitations under Section 45 of the Act apply with full force to anticipatory bail, and that the record did not permit a finding that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was not guilty or would not commit an offence while on bail.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail and the relief was declined.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed because the Court found a prima facie case of money-laundering, held that the statutory bail restrictions governed the request for pre-arrest protection, and refused to interfere with the prosecution's continued investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: In a money-laundering case, anticipatory bail is subject to the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and it may be refused where the material shows a prima facie nexus with proceeds of crime and continuing scheduled offences.

---