PMLA bail under the twin conditions and presumption of guilt was denied where investigation material prima facie showed laundering activity.

Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, bail remains subject to the twin conditions in Section 45, read with the presumption under Section 24, so the accused must show reasonable grounds for believing he is not guilty and is not likely to reoffend. The Court treated Section 50 statements and seizure material, including cash recoveries, diaries, code words, mobile contacts and related documents, as sufficient to prima facie indicate a continuing process involving proceeds of crime. Parity was rejected because the petitioner's alleged role was materially distinct, and long custody and medical grounds were found insufficient to dilute the statutory rigour.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner satisfied the twin conditions for bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) whether the materials collected during investigation, including statements under Section 50 and seizure material, prima facie established involvement in money-laundering; (iii) whether parity, long incarceration, and medical grounds justified grant of bail.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner satisfied the twin conditions for bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Bail under Section 45 requires reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The statutory scheme, read with the presumption under Section 24, places the initial burden on the accused to displace the prosecution case at the bail stage. The Court found that the material collected in investigation disclosed an organised commission-collection syndicate, the petitioner's alleged share in the tender-linked proceeds, and routing through his personal secretary and associates. On that material, the Court was not satisfied that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was not guilty.

Conclusion: The twin conditions were not satisfied, and bail was refused.

Issue (ii): whether the materials collected during investigation, including statements under Section 50 and seizure material, prima facie established involvement in money-laundering.

Analysis: The Court treated statements recorded under Section 50 as admissible material in PMLA proceedings and relied on the recovery of large cash amounts, diaries, code words, mobile contacts, and documents to hold that the prosecution had prima facie shown generation, possession, concealment, acquisition, and use of proceeds of crime. The Court also held that an offence under Section 3 is not confined to the final act of projection as untainted property and that the prosecution need not establish the complete money trail at the bail stage where the surrounding material already indicates involvement in a continuing process connected with proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The investigation material was found sufficient to prima facie implicate the petitioner in money-laundering.

Issue (iii): whether parity, long incarceration, and medical grounds justified grant of bail.

Analysis: The Court held that parity applies only where the factual role is materially identical, and the petitioner's alleged position at the top of the commission-collection structure made his case distinct from co-accused who had obtained bail. Long custody and filing of the complaint were found insufficient by themselves to dilute the rigour of Section 45. The medical plea was not accepted as the material placed did not show a fatal or otherwise exceptional condition warranting release on that basis.

Conclusion: Neither parity nor incarceration nor medical grounds justified bail.

Final Conclusion: The Court held that the petitioner had not made out a special case for bail in a grave economic offence involving alleged laundering of proceeds of crime, and the bail application was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In a PMLA bail application, where the prosecution material prima facie shows involvement in a continuing process connected with proceeds of crime, the Court must apply the twin conditions under Section 45 along with the presumption under Section 24, and bail cannot be granted unless those statutory thresholds are affirmatively overcome.

---