Strict bail scrutiny in money laundering matters: direct involvement in routing alleged proceeds of crime justified refusal of regular bail.

In a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Court found material showing the petitioner's direct and active role in routing alleged proceeds of crime through bank accounts arranged for bogus entries. Applying the settled bail approach in economic offences, it considered the nature and gravity of the accusations, supporting materials, risk of tampering or abscondence, and the wider public interest, noting that socio-economic offences call for a stricter approach. The petitioner's role was treated as distinguishable from cases involving health grounds or lack of direct involvement, and regular bail was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the alleged role in routing and laundering proceeds of crime and the governing principles for bail in economic offences.

Analysis: The materials relied upon in the complaint were found to disclose a direct and active role of the petitioner in the alleged money-laundering network. The petitioner was described as the person managing the transactions and facilitating the movement of funds through bank accounts arranged for providing bogus entries. The Court treated the statements and complaint allegations as showing that cash linked with the alleged proceeds of crime was routed through multiple accounts on the petitioner's instructions, and that the petitioner was a key participant in the alleged modus operandi.

The Court applied the settled approach for bail in economic offences, including the considerations of the nature and gravity of the accusation, the supporting materials, the possibility of tampering or abscondence, and the wider public interest. It also relied on the principle that socio-economic offences require a stricter approach because of their wider societal impact. On the facts, the Court held that the petitioner's role was distinguishable from cases where bail had been granted on health grounds, lack of direct role, or other special circumstances.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to regular bail.

---