Anticipatory bail in money-laundering cases remains exceptional where section 45 conditions and grave allegations are not satisfied.

In money-laundering prosecutions, anticipatory bail remains an exceptional remedy and section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 governs pre-arrest protection through its statutory conditions. The Court treated economic offences as a distinct and serious class affecting society, and held that the cited precedent did not assist because it did not decide anticipatory bail. On the facts, the Court found a prima facie case of involvement in a large financial transaction and declined pre-arrest protection.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a money-laundering prosecution involving alleged economic offences, and whether the statutory bar and twin conditions under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 permit pre-arrest protection.

Analysis: The application was considered in the context of alleged laundering of a substantial amount and the applicant's asserted readiness to cooperate. The Court treated section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as governing the grant of bail in such cases and noted that economic offences form a distinct class because of their impact on society. Relying on the settled principle that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy to be exercised sparingly, particularly in economic offences, the Court held that the applicant's reliance on the cited precedent did not assist him because that decision did not decide the question of anticipatory bail. On the facts, the Court found that the matter disclosed a prima facie case of involvement in a large financial transaction and that anticipatory bail was not justified.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was refused and the application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions for economic offences such as money laundering, anticipatory bail remains an exceptional relief and may be declined where the statutory conditions and the gravity of the allegations do not justify pre-arrest protection.

---