Regular bail under PMLA where proceeds are prima facie unproven and tripletest risks are not established, bail granted with conditions

Under the PMLA framework, the court finds that co-accused statements alone, being contradictory and uncorroborated, do not prima facie establish that the applicant held proceeds of crime; absence of forged remittance forms, no applicantoperated outward remittance account, and documentary explanations for relatives' receipts weaken the presumption. Applying the triple test (flight, tamper, influence) the court found no material on risk of flight, witness tampering, or reoffending and noted a stalled trial undermining speedytrial rights under Article 21; accordingly the applicant was granted regular bail subject to conditions and surety.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail in proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the twin conditions prescribed by Section 45 PMLA and the right to personal liberty including speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The statutory twin conditions require reasonable grounds for believing the applicant guilty and that he is likely to commit an offence while on bail; these must be applied to the available material. Statements of co-accused recorded under Section 50 PMLA are prima facie but shown to be contradictory and largely uncorroborated by independent documentary or electronic evidence directly linking the applicant to alleged outward remittances or demonstrating proceeds of crime in his hands as defined under Section 2(1)(u) PMLA. Explanations for transactions involving the applicant's wife and mother are supported prima facie by bank records, income-tax returns and TDS certificates. Investigation qua the applicant is concluded (third supplementary prosecution complaint filed) and custodial interrogation ordered by the Supreme Court has been completed. Prolonged pre-trial detention, when trial is unlikely to commence soon and documentary evidence is already in possession of investigating agency, engages the right to speedy trial under Article 21 and militates against continued incarceration. The statutory presumption under Section 24 and the gravity of the offence were considered against the totality of evidence, the absence of direct tracing of laundered funds to the applicant, lack of material demonstrating present risk of tampering or flight, and ability to secure attendance by imposing stringent conditions.

Conclusion: The applicant is entitled to regular bail. The application is allowed and the applicant is admitted to bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and a like surety, subject to conditions including regular appearance, surrender of passport, prohibition on contacting prosecution witnesses, providing residential address and operational mobile number to the Investigating Officer, and intimation of any change in address or mobile number.

---