PMLA bail requires strict twin conditions, and parity or prolonged custody cannot outweigh grave money-laundering allegations.

In a PMLA bail application, the Court applied the statutory twin conditions and required reasonable grounds to believe the accused was not guilty and was not likely to commit any offence on bail. Finding prima facie material of involvement in a grave economic offence, ongoing investigation into the proceeds of crime, and a real risk of interference with evidence and witnesses, it held that the threshold was not met and bail was unwarranted. It further held that parity, prolonged custody and Article 21 personal liberty could not override the seriousness of the allegations, the applicant's distinct role and influence, or the need to protect the investigation. Bail was therefore declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant satisfied the statutory twin conditions for grant of bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of parity, prolonged custody and personal liberty.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant satisfied the statutory twin conditions for grant of bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The application arose from allegations of laundering proceeds of crime generated from a large-scale liquor scam. The Court treated the offence as grave and economic in nature. It held that, in a bail application under the special scheme of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the applicant had to satisfy the statutory threshold under Section 45 of that Act by showing reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty and that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail. On the material placed, the Court found prima facie material indicating involvement, continuing investigation to trace residue proceeds of crime, and a real apprehension of interference with evidence and witnesses.

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

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of parity, prolonged custody and personal liberty.

Analysis: The Court held that parity could not be applied mechanically because the applicant's alleged role, influence and position were materially different from those of co-accused. It also held that prolonged custody and the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India could not override the seriousness of the allegations, the need to preserve the integrity of the investigation, and the statutory rigour applicable to economic offences. The Court further found that the applicant's public position created a substantial risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses if enlarged on bail.

Conclusion: The grounds of parity, delay and personal liberty did not warrant release on bail.

Final Conclusion: The bail request failed under the special statutory standard governing money-laundering prosecutions, and the Court declined to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, bail can be granted only if the accused satisfies the statutory twin conditions under Section 45, and ordinary bail considerations such as parity or delay cannot prevail over the gravity of the offence and the need to protect the ongoing investigation.

---