PMLA bail hinges on broad-probability review; weak nexus to predicate offence and laundering chain justified release on bail.

Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires a prima facie assessment on broad probabilities that the accused is not guilty and will not commit an offence on bail, without conducting a mini-trial. Applying that standard, the Court found the applicant's alleged link to the laundering chain too weak at this stage: he was not named or charge-sheeted in the predicate FIR, that FIR had been quashed on compromise, earlier witness statements did not implicate him, and later attributions appeared materially improved. The Court also held that continued custody served no substantial investigative purpose after filing of the complaint, so bail was granted on terms.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant satisfied the twin conditions for grant of bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether the material on record, including the status of the predicate offence and the alleged role attributed to the applicant, justified continued custodial detention.

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

Analysis: Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is governed by the stringent requirements that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. At the bail stage, the Court does not undertake a mini-trial, but examines the record on broad probabilities. The alleged proceeds of crime, the connection of the applicant with the laundering chain, and the evidentiary value of co-accused statements were considered only to the extent necessary for a prima facie assessment.

Conclusion: The applicant was found to have satisfied the bail parameters, and the twin conditions did not stand in the way of release on bail.

Issue (ii): Whether the material on record, including the status of the predicate offence and the alleged role attributed to the applicant, justified continued custodial detention.

Analysis: The applicant was not named in the predicate FIR, was not charge-sheeted there, and that FIR had already been quashed on compromise. The Court also noted that the principal witnesses did not name the applicant in their earlier statements, and the later attribution of role appeared materially improved. The connection sought to be drawn from shareholding, common transactions, and statements of co-accused was treated as insufficient at this stage to establish a firm prima facie nexus with the alleged laundering activity. The Court further observed that continued detention served no substantial investigative purpose after filing of the complaint.

Conclusion: The material was held insufficient to justify further custody, and bail was granted.

Final Conclusion: The regular bail application was allowed and the applicant was directed to be released on terms and conditions imposed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: For grant of bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Court must make a prima facie assessment on broad probabilities, and where the applicant is not shown in the predicate case, the predicate FIR has been quashed, and the evidence linking him to proceeds of crime remains weak or improved at a late stage, continued custody is not warranted.

---