Twin conditions for bail under money-laundering law were not met despite prolonged custody and completed investigation.

Regular bail under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act was refused because the record disclosed prima facie involvement in alleged laundering linked to the liquor syndicate, and the statutory limits in Section 45 remained applicable. Although the applicant relied on prolonged custody, completed investigation and speedy-trial concerns, the court found those factors insufficient against the seriousness of the allegations, attachment of properties, and indications of layering and handling of proceeds of crime. The applicant therefore failed to show reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty, and the twin conditions for bail were not met.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the twin conditions under Section 45 and the plea of prolonged pre-trial incarceration and completed investigation.

Analysis: The material on record, including the prosecution complaint and the digital evidence referred to in the order, was found to disclose prima facie involvement of the applicant in the alleged money-laundering activity linked to the liquor syndicate. The Court noted that although the applicant relied on long custody, completion of investigation, and the right to speedy trial, the record also indicated serious allegations, attachment of properties, and continuing concerns about the handling and layering of proceeds of crime. On that assessment, the Court held that the statutory limitations under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 were still attracted and that the applicant had not shown reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty of the offence.

Conclusion: Regular bail was declined because the applicant did not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002.

---