PMLA bail restrictions applied as alleged laundering role, independent offence principle, and lack of parity led to refusal of bail.

Regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was examined in light of the Act's twin conditions, the continuing nature of money-laundering, the presumption under the statute, and the alleged involvement in proceeds of crime. The High Court treated the complaint and statements as prima facie showing dealings in non-saleable land, cash transactions, and transfers through family members linked to the proceeds of crime. It held that non-impleadment in the predicate offence did not assist the petitioner because money-laundering is an independent offence. The plea of parity was rejected as the petitioner's attributed role was materially different from the co-accused, and bail was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether regular bail should be granted in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the statutory twin conditions, the alleged role of the petitioner in dealing with proceeds of crime, and the plea of parity.

Analysis: The petition was considered against the statutory scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, particularly the definitions of proceeds of crime and money-laundering, the continuing nature of the offence, the presumption under the Act, and the mandatory bail restrictions. The material relied upon in the prosecution complaint and the recorded statements was treated as prima facie indicating that the petitioner was involved in illegal dealings in non-saleable land, cash transactions, and transactions through family members, all said to be connected with proceeds of crime. The contention that the petitioner was not shown as an accused in the predicate offence was rejected on the ground that money-laundering is an independent offence. The plea of parity was also declined because the role attributed to the petitioner was held to be materially different from the co-accused who had earlier obtained bail. The seriousness of the alleged economic offence and the absence of reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was not guilty were also weighed against grant of bail.

Conclusion: The application for regular bail was rejected and the petitioner was not found entitled to bail.

---