PMLA arrest safeguards and reliance on co-accused statements justified bail where custody was unnecessary.

In a PMLA bail matter, the Madhya Pradesh HC treated compliance with Section 19 arrest safeguards as essential, requiring the designated officer to record reasons and form an opinion on legally reliable material. It also applied the principle that a Section 50 statement is not admissible against its maker when recorded in custody in proceedings of the same investigating agency. On the stated facts, the applicant had not been summoned before arrest, no earlier statement was recorded from him, no material was called from the licensing authority, and the alleged guilt rested mainly on co-accused statements. As no further custodial interrogation was required, bail was warranted and the application was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether bail should be granted in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 where the arrest was questioned for non-compliance with the mandatory arrest procedure and the material relied upon consisted primarily of statements of co-accused persons.

Analysis: The Court treated compliance with the arrest safeguards under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as essential and held that the designated officer must record reasons and form an opinion on the basis of material that is legally reliable. It also relied on the principle that a statement recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, when the maker is in custody in proceedings of the same investigating agency, is not admissible against the maker. On the facts, the applicant had not been summoned before arrest, no statement had been recorded from him earlier, no material had been called from the licensing authority, and the opinion of guilt was stated to rest mainly on co-accused statements. The Court also noted that no further custodial interrogation was required.

Conclusion: Bail was warranted and the application was allowed.

---