PMLA bail turns on broad probabilities, and incomplete investigative material may not justify continued custody.

Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was granted because the material at the bail stage did not conclusively show the accused's direct involvement in dealing with proceeds of crime linked to the scheduled offence. The Court treated money-laundering as an independent offence, but held that the available searches, statements and other investigative material did not establish reasonable grounds to deny bail. Applying the Section 45 test on broad probabilities rather than a mini-trial, it found that the accused was not shown to be guilty on the record then before the Court and that the likelihood condition for continued custody was not made out.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on the materials placed, the petitioner was shown to be involved in money-laundering connected with proceeds of crime arising from the alleged land-related scheduled offence. (ii) Whether the statutory conditions for grant of bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were satisfied.

Issue (i): Whether, on the materials placed, the petitioner was shown to be involved in money-laundering connected with proceeds of crime arising from the alleged land-related scheduled offence.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested on a chain of circumstantial material, including searches, seized registers, survey reports, mobile-phone extracts, witness statements under Section 50, and the alleged linkage of the 8.86 acres of land with the petitioner. The Court held that money-laundering under Section 3 is an independent offence, and the concept of proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) requires property derived or obtained from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. On the materials considered at the bail stage, the Court found that the record did not conclusively establish the petitioner's direct involvement in acquisition, possession, concealment, or laundering of the subject property so as to negate bail.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory conditions for grant of bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were satisfied.

Analysis: Section 45 requires an opportunity to oppose bail and, if opposed, satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Court applied the broad-probabilities approach recognised in the governing precedents, treated the Section 50 statements as admissible but not conclusive at the bail stage, and held that the material did not justify a finding of guilt at this stage. The Court further held that the likelihood condition under Section 45 was not attracted on the facts placed before it.

Conclusion: The statutory bail conditions were held to be satisfied in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: Bail was granted after the Court found that the materials did not defeat the petitioner under the PMLA bail framework and that the case, at this stage, did not justify continued custody.

Ratio Decidendi: For bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Court must assess broad probabilities from the material collected in investigation and may not conduct a mini-trial; where the available material does not reasonably establish the accused's involvement in dealing with proceeds of crime, bail may be granted.

---