Double jeopardy and PMLA bail: HC held Article 20(2) inapplicable and refused release under Section 45 twin conditions.
Double jeopardy under Article 20(2) was held inapplicable because the earlier prosecution had not ended in conviction or acquittal, and the alleged laundering was treated as a continuing offence involving fresh acts during the subsistence of the earlier investigation. Regular bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was refused because the twin conditions were not satisfied, having regard to the alleged siphoning, untraced proceeds of crime, proclaimed-offender status, and the risk of flight or interference with the process. The age and health plea was not treated as determinative, and the trial was directed to proceed expeditiously.
Issues: (i) Whether the fresh prosecution was barred by Article 20(2) of the Constitution on the ground of double jeopardy. (ii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the allegations, their conduct, and the stage of the trial.
Issue (i): Whether the fresh prosecution was barred by Article 20(2) of the Constitution on the ground of double jeopardy.
Analysis: The protection against double jeopardy operates only after a prior prosecution has culminated in conviction or acquittal. The earlier proceeding was still pending. The alleged laundering activity was also treated as a continuing offence, and the present case was held to concern fresh acts and layering of proceeds of crime during the subsistence of the earlier investigation.
Conclusion: The plea under Article 20(2) was rejected and the prosecution was held not to be barred.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to regular bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the allegations, their conduct, and the stage of the trial.
Analysis: The statutory twin conditions for bail under Section 45 were held to apply with full force. In view of the large quantum of alleged siphoning, the untraced proceeds of crime, the petitioners' status as proclaimed offenders, and the risk of flight and interference with the process, the Court found that the jurisdictional satisfaction required for bail could not be recorded. The age and health plea was not treated as determinative.
Conclusion: Regular bail was refused.
Final Conclusion: The petitioners failed on both the constitutional objection and the bail claim, and the request for release was declined while the trial court was directed to proceed expeditiously.
Ratio Decidendi: Double jeopardy does not arise unless the earlier prosecution has ended in conviction or acquittal, and in a PMLA bail matter the twin conditions under Section 45 must be satisfied before release can be granted.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
