PMLA arrest and bail standards: Bombay HC rejected blanket proceeds-of-crime assumption and granted bail for lack of objective material.

In a prosecution based on alleged disproportionate assets, the Bombay HC held that the Enforcement Directorate could not treat the entire amount mentioned in the predicate FIR as proceeds of crime while the predicate investigation remained incomplete and the extent of unexplained assets was still indeterminate. It further found the arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA vulnerable because the material then available was limited to the FIR allegations and did not meet the objective standard for arrest; statements recorded after arrest could not cure that defect. Considering prolonged custody and the unlikely early commencement of trial, the Court held that the applicant satisfied the Section 45 twin conditions and was entitled to bail.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, in a prosecution arising from alleged disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Enforcement Directorate could proceed on the footing that the entire amount mentioned in the predicate FIR constituted proceeds of crime while the predicate investigation was still pending; (ii) whether the arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was supported by objective material and whether statements recorded after arrest could be relied upon to oppose bail; (iii) whether prolonged incarceration and the remote possibility of commencement of trial entitled the applicant to bail under the twin conditions of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): whether, in a prosecution arising from alleged disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Enforcement Directorate could proceed on the footing that the entire amount mentioned in the predicate FIR constituted proceeds of crime while the predicate investigation was still pending;

Analysis: The predicate offence alleged possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income, an offence whose core ingredient is the failure to satisfactorily account for the assets in question. The Court noted that the CBI investigation in the predicate offence was still incomplete and no chargesheet had been filed. In such a situation, the identity and extent of any assets that could ultimately be treated as unexplained, and therefore as proceeds of crime, remained indeterminate. The Court held that the Enforcement Directorate could investigate money-laundering activities, but it could not proceed on an assumed and complete characterization of all assets mentioned in the FIR as proceeds of crime before the predicate authority had concluded whether the applicant could satisfactorily account for them.

Conclusion: The applicant's contention was accepted; the blanket assumption that the entire alleged disproportionate assets were proceeds of crime was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): whether the arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was supported by objective material and whether statements recorded after arrest could be relied upon to oppose bail;

Analysis: The Court found that, when the applicant was arrested, the material available with the Enforcement Directorate was substantially confined to the allegations in the predicate FIR. That material, at best, gave rise to suspicion, but did not disclose the level of credible material required to satisfy the objective standard for arrest under Section 19. The Court also noted that statements recorded under Section 50 after arrest could not cure the deficiency in the arrest material. Further, the applicant's own custodial statement could not be relied upon against him in the circumstances described by the Court.

Conclusion: The arrest was held to be vulnerable for want of objective material, and the post-arrest statements were not accepted as a sufficient basis to oppose bail.

Issue (iii): whether prolonged incarceration and the remote possibility of commencement of trial entitled the applicant to bail under the twin conditions of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Court observed that the predicate investigation itself was incomplete, so the stage for filing the appropriate complaint linked to the eventual predicate chargesheet had not yet arisen. Consequently, trial under the money-laundering prosecution was not likely to begin in the foreseeable future. The applicant had already undergone incarceration for more than one year and three months. In these circumstances, and applying the settled approach to the twin conditions under Section 45, the Court held that continued custody would be unjustified.

Conclusion: The applicant satisfied the twin test for bail and was entitled to release.

Final Conclusion: Bail was granted because the predicate offence remained under investigation, the arrest lacked sufficient objective basis, and continued detention would serve no meaningful trial purpose in the near future.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the predicate offence itself depends on completion of investigation to determine whether assets are satisfactorily explained, the enforcement agency cannot conclusively treat the entire alleged amount as proceeds of crime for arrest and custody purposes before the predicate investigation is completed, and bail may follow if the statutory twin conditions are otherwise satisfied.

---