Money-laundering bail under PMLA: discretionary proviso to section 45 and statutory presumption under section 24 defeated relief.

In a money-laundering bail matter, the court treated section 50 statements, co-accused disclosures, bank records and electronic evidence as admissible material, and held that money laundering is an independent offence distinct from the predicate offence. It found that the proviso to section 45 is discretionary, not mandatory, and could not be invoked on the facts because the alleged laundering formed part of a larger organised conspiracy. Applying section 24, the court held that once foundational facts were shown the burden shifted to the applicant to rebut the statutory presumption, which he failed to do. Bail was therefore not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in the money-laundering case, including the benefit of the proviso to section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether the twin conditions under section 45 and the presumption under section 24 stood satisfied or rebutted.

Analysis: The material relied upon included statements under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, co-accused disclosures, bank records, cash deposits, transfers to associates, and electronic evidence indicating purchase, relabelling, sale, and circulation of spurious anti-cancer medicines. The Court treated statements recorded under section 50 as admissible material in PMLA proceedings and held that the offence of money laundering is independent of the predicate offence. It further held that the proviso to section 45 is discretionary and not mandatory, and that the monetary-threshold exemption could not be invoked on the facts because the alleged laundering formed part of a larger organised conspiracy. The Court also applied section 24 and held that once foundational facts were shown, the burden shifted to the applicant to rebut the presumption, which he failed to do. The argument based on bail in the predicate offence was rejected as insufficient to satisfy the distinct PMLA bail standard.

Conclusion: The applicant failed to satisfy the twin conditions under section 45 and failed to rebut the statutory presumption under section 24; bail was not warranted.

---