2026 (3) TMI 154 - HC - Money Laundering

Prima facie satisfaction under Section 45 PMLA may warrant bail where allegations are inferential and risks are mitigable by conditions.

Application for regular bail under Section 45 PMLA was considered on the twin conditions of prima facie belief in non-guilt and non-risk of reoffending; ... Entitlement to regular bail under Section 45 - Satisfaction of the twin conditions - parity with co-accused - laundering of proceeds of crime generated through illegal liquor operations - investigation substantially complete - criminal syndicate comprising senior bureaucrats, political functionaries, intermediaries and private persons, which manipulated the excise policy and liquor procurement system to generate illegal commissions and unaccounted income. Satisfaction of the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA - HELD THAT: - The Court applied the statutory test under Section 45 and held that a prima facie satisfaction - not a finding of acquittal - is required. Having weighed the material on record (statements under Section 50 PMLA, digital chats, diary entries, prosecution complaints) against factors such as the stage of investigation, absence of direct overt acts linking the applicant to a money trail in the main charge-sheet, and the ability to secure presence by conditions, the Court concluded that both limbs are met. The Court found prosecutorial apprehensions of guilt and risk of reoffending to be generalized and addressed by stringent bail conditions; consequently, the statutory twin conditions were satisfied on a prima facie basis and bail was appropriate. [Paras 95, 98, 99] The twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA are prima facie satisfied and entitle the applicant to bail subject to conditions. Parity with co-accused - Whether parity with co-accused who have been enlarged on bail requires similar treatment of the applicant - HELD THAT: - The Court recognised parity as a relevant consideration in bail adjudication. It observed that several principal accused have already been granted bail and that the Supreme Court directed consideration of the applicant's bail keeping those prior orders in mind. On prima facie appraisal the Court concluded that consistency and parity weighed in the applicant's favour, particularly because investigation qua the applicant was substantially complete and the principal conspirators had been released. The Court held that continued detention inconsistent with parity would warrant reconsideration and favoured release subject to stringent conditions. [Paras 89, 90] Parity with co-accused who have been granted bail militates in favour of enlarging the applicant on bail. Investigation substantially complete - speculative apprehension of tampering insufficient - Whether the stage and completeness of investigation, custody duration and the nature of tampering fears justify continued custody - HELD THAT: - The Court found that the prosecution complaint has been filed and that investigation qua the applicant was substantially complete; no further custodial interrogation was shown to be necessary. The period of custody was limited (approximately two months) and the prosecution's apprehension of tampering was general and lacking particularized material. The Court held that such speculative fears do not justify continued detention where investigation is complete and where tailored bail conditions (reporting, non-contact with witnesses, passport surrender, etc.) can mitigate risks. The Court emphasised that gravity of the offence alone cannot override Article 21 safeguards when the statutory twin conditions are otherwise satisfied. [Paras 86, 87, 92, 93] Completed investigation and absence of specific tampering material negate the need for continued custody; risks can be mitigated by stringent bail conditions. Final Conclusion: On a prima facie appraisal the Court was satisfied that the twin conditions of Section 45 PMLA are met, parity with co-accused and the substantially complete stage of investigation favour release, and speculative tampering fears can be addressed by stringent conditions; accordingly the bail application is allowed and the applicant is to be released on bail subject to the conditions directed by the Court. Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the twin conditions prescribed therein and the principle of parity with co-accused.Analysis: The Court examined the material on record at the prima facie stage, including prosecution complaints, statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA, digital chats and supplementary chargesheets, while noting that detailed appreciation of evidence is reserved for trial. The Court considered (i) the status of the investigation and the fact that prosecution complaints have been filed, (ii) duration and cumulative effect of multiple arrests and prior bail orders, (iii) the nature and evidentiary basis of allegations against the applicant (largely statements and inferential material), (iv) the prosecution's apprehension of tampering which was not substantiated by particulars, and (v) parity with several co-accused who had been enlarged on bail and related Supreme Court directions to the High Court to consider parity. The Court applied the statutory framework of Section 45 PMLA requiring prima facie satisfaction of (a) reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and (b) that the accused is not likely to commit an offence while on bail, and evaluated whether appropriate bail conditions could mitigate perceived risks.Conclusion: The Court concluded that, on prima facie consideration, the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are satisfied and that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. The bail is therefore allowed subject to stringent conditions to be fixed by the Trial Court, including surrender of passport, regular appearance, prohibition on contacting witnesses, and non-tampering with evidence. This conclusion is in favour of the petitioner.Ratio Decidendi: At the bail stage under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, where investigation is substantially complete, allegations are primarily inferential or statement-based, and risks of tampering or absconding can be adequately mitigated by stringent conditions, a court may prima facie satisfy the twin conditions of Section 45 and grant bail, particularly where parity with similarly placed co-accused and prior judicial orders favour release.