PMLA bail under twin conditions denied where investigation showed a prima facie nexus with laundering of proceeds of crime.

Under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, regular bail can be granted only if there are reasonable grounds to believe the is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence on bail. The Court assessed the material collected during investigation on broad probabilities, not as a trial, and found prima facie evidence that the applicant allegedly received and routed hawala funds linked to proceeds of crime, with knowledge of the persons involved. Treating money laundering as a serious economic offence, the Court held that the twin bail conditions were not satisfied and declined bail.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant made out a case for grant of regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the twin conditions under Section 45, the material collected during investigation, and the prima facie involvement in laundering of proceeds of crime.

Analysis: Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. At the bail stage, the Court does not conduct a trial on evidence but forms a view on broad probabilities from the material collected during investigation. The record indicated that the applicant was not alleged to have committed the predicate offence, but the investigation and statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 showed his alleged role in receiving and routing hawala funds connected with the Mahadev Book operations, knowledge of the persons involved, and linkage with transactions said to be proceeds of crime. The Court treated money laundering as an economic offence of serious character and found sufficient prima facie material to show involvement in the offence under Section 3 of the Act.

Conclusion: The applicant did not satisfy the statutory bail conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and bail was declined.

Final Conclusion: The decision rests on the finding that the material collected during investigation disclosed a prima facie case of money laundering and justified continued custody pending trial.

Ratio Decidendi: In bail proceedings under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Court may refuse bail where the investigative material on broad probabilities shows a prima facie nexus with laundering of proceeds of crime and the twin statutory conditions are not met.

---