PMLA bail proviso applied where alleged laundering role was limited, threshold was not met, and ordinary bail factors favored release.

Bail under the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA was found available where the petitioner's alleged role was limited to acquisition and transfer of land, with the attributed value below the threshold relied upon to invoke the statutory bar. The Court noted that witness status in the predicate offence does not by itself preclude prosecution for money laundering, but on the facts the alleged proceeds did not justify denial of the proviso. It also held that cooperation with investigation, absence of flight risk or tampering risk, limited role, parity, and chronic illness satisfied the ordinary bail test, and bail was granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 without satisfying the twin conditions. (ii) Whether the overall facts, including parity, medical condition and the test for grant of bail, justified release on bail.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 without satisfying the twin conditions.

Analysis: The allegations attributed to the petitioner were confined to the acquisition and subsequent transfer of a land parcel stated to be worth Rs. 10.83 lakhs. The Court accepted that, on the respondent's own showing, the value attributed to the transaction remained below the threshold urged to attract the full rigour of the twin conditions. The Court also noted that the petitioner had been cited as a witness in the predicate case, that the predicate offence and the offence of money laundering are distinct, and that witness status in the scheduled offence does not by itself bar prosecution under the money-laundering law. Even so, on the specific factual matrix before it, the alleged value of the proceeds involved in the petitioner's role did not justify denial of the benefit of the proviso.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 45 and was not required to satisfy the twin conditions for bail.

Issue (ii): Whether the overall facts, including parity, medical condition and the test for grant of bail, justified release on bail.

Analysis: The Court found that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation, had joined the proceedings on multiple occasions, and had not been shown to be a flight risk or a person likely to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The Court also took note of the petitioner's chronic physical ailments and treated him as falling within the category of sick and infirm for bail purposes. The Court further considered the absence of arrest of other similarly placed persons and the limited role attributed to the petitioner in the alleged laundering chain. On these considerations, the triple test for bail was found satisfied.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail, the Court holding that the statutory bail restriction under the money-laundering law did not defeat relief on the facts of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged role of the accused in a money-laundering case is confined to a transaction below the threshold relied upon for the statutory bail bar, and the accused satisfies the ordinary bail considerations of cooperation, non-flight risk and no likelihood of tampering, the benefit of the proviso to the bail restriction can be granted.

---