Money Laundering bail application: stereotyped witness statements and improper supplementary evidence led to conditional bail being granted.

The article addresses a money laundering bail grant where the court found witness statements to be stereotyped and mechanically recorded, undermining their probative value, and noted that accomplice statements cannot solely implicate another accused and serve only for corroboration; consequence: such statements were given reduced weight. It records that supplementary evidence was collected post charge-sheet without requisite prior judicial leave and therefore cannot be permitted to prejudice liberty. The court applied prima facie case assessment balancing presumption of innocence, nature and gravity of accusations, custody period, and absence of specific risk of tampering or flight; consequence: stringent conditional bail was ordered to secure trial attendance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant is entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 483 BNSS in FIR No. 01/2024 alleging offences under Sections 384, 409, 120-B IPC and Sections 11, 13(1)(a), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, having regard to stage of investigation, absence of prosecution sanction, custodial necessity, parity with co-accused and the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21.

Analysis: Applicable legal framework includes the Triple Test for bail (risk of flight, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and custodial interrogation necessity), the requirement of prosecution sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act before cognizance and trial can commence, principles governing admissibility and reliance on Section 161 and Section 164 statements of witnesses and co-accused, and the protection against punitive pre-trial detention under Article 21. Material considerations examined include: (a) stage of investigation and filing of charge-sheet/supplementary charge-sheet; (b) absence of valid prosecution sanction at the time of adjudication; (c) custody of documentary and digital material with investigating agencies reducing risk of evidence tampering; (d) absence of recovery of alleged proceeds from the applicant; (e) parity with co-accused who have been granted bail; (f) probative weight of witness statements shown to be mechanically similar and the limited role of uncorroborated accomplice testimony at the bail stage; and (g) the likelihood of protracted trial rendering continued custody punitive. On these factors, specific countervailing assertions of the prosecutiongrave and organized nature of alleged economic offence, voluminous material, and apprehension of interferencewere weighed against the lack of particularized evidence showing flight risk, specific attempts to tamper after arrest, or necessity for custodial interrogation. Consideration was given to precedents on criminalizing policy decisions and on treating economic offences with caution while balancing liberty rights where investigation is substantially complete and safeguards can be imposed.

Conclusion: Bail under Section 483 BNSS is granted to the applicant on furnishing bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two local sureties of like amount, subject to specified conditions including surrender of passport, cooperation with investigation, prohibition on influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, reporting of change of address, and compliance with any further conditions by the trial court; the observations are confined to the bail application and do not express any opinion on merits of the case.

---