Anticipatory bail under PMLA in complex moneylaundering with layered mule accounts denied to protect custodial interrogation and evidence recovery.

Anticipatory bail applications under PMLA were assessed against the twin test requiring reasonable grounds to believe the accused/applicants are not guilty and are unlikely to commit offences while on bail; the court found no such grounds after detailing extensive, organized layering of funds, mule accounts, and links between mobile numbers, multiple bank accounts and a payment platform, and therefore refused anticipatory bail. The court also reasoned custodial interrogation was necessary in a complex transnational moneylaundering investigation to prevent evidence destruction, tampering and bribery, and to facilitate further discovery, thereby permitting investigators to arrest and interrogate the accused.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 can be granted to the accused/applicants in view of the ongoing investigation, the twin test under Section 45 PMLA, and the prosecuting agency's need for custodial interrogation.

Analysis: The Court examined the statutory twin test in Section 45 PMLA which requires that when the Public Prosecutor opposes bail the court must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty of money laundering and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Court considered the scope of inquiry at bail stage (assessment on probabilities and prima facie material), the distinct treatment of economic/socio-economic offences, and the relevance of custodial interrogation in complex, transnational money-laundering schemes. The prosecution material showed an intricate horizontal and vertical layering of transactions, continued receipt of fresh complaints, alleged destruction of electronic evidence, assaults on investigating officers, bribing of local police, and active involvement of the accused in creating and operating numerous mule accounts and entities used to upload funds to an overseas payment platform. Given these circumstances and the ongoing need to unearth further layers and involvement (including bank officials), the Court found that investigators' requirement for custodial interrogation was reasonable and that the twin conditions of Section 45 PMLA were not satisfied.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail is refused; the applications are dismissed and the decision is in favour of the Respondent.

---