PMLA bail restrictions under Section 45 defeated release where prima facie laundering material and trial delay were insufficient.

In a PMLA prosecution, regular bail remained subject to the statutory twin conditions under Section 45, and the applicant failed to show that he was not guilty or would not commit an offence while on bail. Prima facie material, including the Supreme Court's earlier finding in the applicant's own matter, indicated involvement in money laundering and use of proceeds of crime, so bail was refused. Delay in trial did not justify release because the main cause of non-progress was the non-appearance and non-cooperation of other accused, and parity, custody period, political change, and family circumstances were insufficient to outweigh the seriousness of the allegations.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 despite the rigours of Section 45, and whether delay in trial, parity, and personal circumstances justified release.

Analysis: The applicant sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in a case alleging commission of offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The material on record, including the earlier finding recorded by the Supreme Court in the applicant's own matter, was relied upon to indicate prima facie involvement in money laundering and receipt or use of proceeds of crime. The Court held that the statutory limitations under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 remained applicable and that the applicant had not satisfied the twin conditions of being not guilty and not likely to commit an offence while on bail. The plea based on delay was rejected because the trial had not progressed primarily on account of the non-appearance and non-cooperation of other accused, not due to any fault attributable to the applicant. The Court also did not accept that change in political circumstances, custody period, parity, or family considerations justified bail in the face of the seriousness of the allegations and the recorded material.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to bail and the application was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, bail cannot be granted unless the accused satisfies the statutory twin conditions under Section 45, and delay in trial will not by itself justify release where the delay is not attributable to the prosecution alone and the material indicates prima facie involvement in laundering proceeds of crime.

---