Money-laundering bail restrictions upheld where prima facie materials showed proceeds-of-crime layering and statutory twin conditions were unmet.

Grounds of arrest were treated as duly served where the arrest order recorded reasons to believe, and the materials showed the grounds were prepared, read over and understood at the time of arrest; the challenge on non-furnishing was rejected. On bail under the money-laundering statute, the Court applied the twin statutory conditions and found that investigation materials, including statements on receipt of funds, multiple cash transactions, unexplained capital increase and alleged layering of proceeds of crime, prima facie supported the prosecution case. The Court held that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the accused was not guilty and no basis to find that he would not reoffend on bail, so release was refused.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the grounds of arrest were duly served on the petitioner; (ii) whether the petitioner satisfied the twin conditions for grant of bail under the prevention of money laundering law.

Issue (i): whether the grounds of arrest were duly served on the petitioner.

Analysis: The arrest order recorded reasons to believe that the petitioner was guilty of an offence under the Act, and the materials showed that the grounds of arrest were prepared, served, read over and understood at the time of arrest. The challenge that the grounds were not furnished was therefore not accepted.

Conclusion: The challenge to arrest on this ground was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the petitioner satisfied the twin conditions for grant of bail under the prevention of money laundering law.

Analysis: The materials collected during investigation, including the statements regarding receipt of large sums from the co-accused, cash deposits and withdrawals in multiple bank accounts, the unexplained increase in capital in the petitioner's business concern, and the allegation of layering of proceeds of crime, were treated as sufficient to prima facie support the prosecution case. In view of the statutory embargo on bail, the Court held that there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was not guilty, and also no basis to conclude that he was unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. The gravity of the economic offence and the governing bail restrictions under the special statute were applied.

Conclusion: The petitioner did not satisfy the statutory conditions for bail and was not entitled to release.

Final Conclusion: Bail under the special money-laundering statute remains restricted by the mandatory statutory safeguards, and the materials on record were found sufficient to justify continued custody at this stage.

Ratio Decidendi: For offences under the special money-laundering law, bail can be granted only when the Court is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail; prima facie materials showing receipt and layering of proceeds of crime defeat that threshold.

---