PMLA bail threshold and sanction objection rejected where prima facie laundering role was disclosed

Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was refused because the material disclosed a prima facie role in facilitating the alleged laundering activity, and the applicant did not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 requiring reasonable grounds to believe he was not guilty and not likely to commit an offence on bail. The Court also rejected the objection that prosecution of a public servant required prior sanction, holding that the alleged conduct was not shown to be part of official duty and appeared to relate to participation in the crime itself. On that basis, the bail plea failed on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant satisfied the twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether sanction for prosecution was necessary before proceeding against a public servant accused of money laundering.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant satisfied the twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The bail plea was examined on the basis of the ECIR, the prosecution complaint, and the applicant's recorded role in facilitating clearance of delivery orders after receipt of illegal levy in the coal transportation racket. The material was found to disclose a specific and prima facie role in the alleged laundering activity. In light of the statutory rigour of Section 45, the Court held that the applicant was not entitled to be released unless there were reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty and was not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Court found that those twin requirements were not satisfied and that long incarceration, by itself, could not override the seriousness of the allegations and the prima facie material.

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

Issue (ii): Whether sanction for prosecution was necessary before proceeding against a public servant accused of money laundering.

Analysis: The plea for sanction was rejected on the ground that the alleged conduct was not an act done in the course of official duty and, prima facie, related to participation in the crime itself. On that basis, the Court held that absence of sanction did not vitiate the prosecution for the purposes of bail consideration.

Conclusion: Sanction for prosecution was not required on the facts presented.

Final Conclusion: The bail application failed on merits because the Court found prima facie involvement in the alleged offence and non-fulfilment of the statutory bail threshold, while also rejecting the objection based on want of sanction.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, bail can be granted only if the statutory twin conditions are satisfied on prima facie material, and a sanction objection does not avail where the alleged acts are not shown to be part of official duty.

---