PMLA anticipatory bail threshold: special statutory restrictions and prima facie material defeated pre-arrest protection

In a PMLA prosecution, the Court applied the special bail restrictions under Section 45 and held that anticipatory bail depends on satisfaction, from the material on record, that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. The complaint and investigation materials disclosed a prima facie link to routing, possession, concealment and use of proceeds of crime, and the Court treated the proviso for women, sick or infirm persons as discretionary rather than automatic. Given the gravity of the allegations and the statutory scheme, the petitioners did not satisfy the bail threshold and pre-arrest protection was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether the statutory conditions governing bail were satisfied on the material placed before the Court.

Analysis: The allegations and the prosecution complaint disclosed a prima facie case that the petitioners were linked to routing, possession, concealment and use of proceeds of crime generated from the predicate offences. The Court noted the statutory scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, including the definitions of proceeds of crime and money-laundering, the continuing nature of the offence, the powers of inquiry and summons, the statutory presumption, and the mandatory bail restrictions under Section 45. The proviso to Section 45 was held to be discretionary and not an automatic entitlement merely because one applicant was a woman and the other was stated to be infirm or aged. In view of the gravity of the allegations and the material collected during investigation, the Court found that the petitioners had not shown grounds to satisfy the bail threshold under the special statute.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to anticipatory bail and the applications were liable to be rejected.

Final Conclusion: The special statutory restrictions governing money-laundering prosecutions prevailed, and the Court declined pre-arrest protection in light of the prima facie material indicating involvement in the offence.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the Court is satisfied, on the material before it, that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail, and the proviso for women, sick or infirm persons operates only as a discretionary exception.

---