PMLA regular bail refused as Section 45 twin conditions were not satisfied despite prolonged custody and trial delay.

Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was refused because the Court found material linking the applicant to an alleged liquor-scam laundering network, including statements, digital evidence, and fund trails. Prolonged custody and alleged trial delay did not outweigh the statutory rigor of Section 45, as the Court was not satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was not guilty or would not commit an offence while on bail. The investigation had substantially progressed, complaints had been filed, and issues concerning the admissibility of evidence were left for trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 despite prolonged custody, alleged delay in trial, and the statutory restrictions under Section 45 of the Act.

Analysis: The application arose from allegations of a large-scale liquor scam in which the applicant was prima facie shown to have played a significant role in the alleged syndicate, received commission from suppliers, and participated in the acquisition and concealment of proceeds of crime. The Court noted that investigation against the applicant had substantially progressed, multiple prosecution complaints had been filed, and there was material in the form of statements, digital evidence, and flow of funds linking the applicant to the alleged laundering activity. Although prolonged incarceration and the right to speedy trial were pressed into service, the Court held that delay by itself could not override the statutory rigor of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 where the Court was not satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant was not guilty and would not commit an offence while on bail. The Court also treated the grounds of arrest as having been communicated in writing and reserved issues relating to evidentiary admissibility for trial.

Conclusion: The applicant did not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the prayer for regular bail was refused.

---