Anticipatory bail in money laundering cases may be refused where custodial interrogation and asset tracing are necessary.

Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was treated as applicable to anticipatory bail, requiring assessment of reasonable grounds and the risk of further offending while on bail. On the material before it, the Court found conduct suggesting evasion of investigation, inconsistent statements, alleged suppression of incriminating material, and the need to trace assets and prepare an inventory for restoration to investors. Those factors justified custodial interrogation, and the request for protection was not sufficient to outweigh the seriousness of the alleged laundering activity. Anticipatory bail was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in view of the statutory rigour of Section 45 and the need for custodial interrogation.

Analysis: The allegations concerned laundering of proceeds of crime through a network of companies and alleged diversion and disposal of assets, including conduct said to have continued during the period of interim protection. The statutory regime under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, applies to anticipatory bail as well, and the Court must assess the existence of reasonable grounds and the likelihood of further offending while on bail. On the material placed, the accused was found to have evaded investigation, given false answers during interrogation, filed statements inconsistent with those answers, and allegedly interfered with searches by directing an associate to suppress incriminating material. These circumstances, coupled with the stated need to trace assets and prepare an inventory for restoration to investors, justified custodial interrogation. The considerations urged for protection did not outweigh the seriousness of the conduct or the investigative .

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was declined.

---