Money-laundering bail under Section 45 is not an absolute bar where custody is prolonged and the role is derivative.

Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act does not create an absolute bar to regular bail; bail remains a judicial discretion exercised on the available material, subject to the prosecution's right to oppose and a prima facie assessment of guilt and future conduct. Where the alleged role is only derivative of the scheduled offence, such as conversion of proceeds of crime into cryptocurrency for commission, and the accused is not shown to be the principal offender or broadly involved in concealment, possession, acquisition, use or projection of tainted property, bail may be justified. Prolonged custody, a large witness list, and no near prospect of trial completion support release under Article 21.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the restrictions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 barred grant of regular bail in the facts of the case. (ii) Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail having regard to the alleged role, the link with the scheduled offence, and the prolonged custody.

Issue (i): Whether the restrictions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 barred grant of regular bail in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The conditions under Section 45 require opportunity to the prosecution to oppose bail and a prima facie conclusion that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. The Court considered the nature of money-laundering as dependent on proceeds of crime arising from a scheduled offence and noted that the provision does not create an absolute restraint on bail. The Court also treated the bail inquiry as one guided by judicial discretion on the available material, not by a final determination on merits.

Conclusion: The statutory bar did not operate as an absolute prohibition, and bail could be considered on the facts.

Issue (ii): Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail having regard to the alleged role, the link with the scheduled offence, and the prolonged custody.

Analysis: The alleged role was limited to conversion of proceeds of crime into cryptocurrency for commission, and the applicant was not shown to be the principal offender in the scheduled offence. The Court noted that the alleged activity was dependent on the principal offence and that the applicant was not attributed concealment, possession, acquisition, use, or projection of tainted property in a broader sense. The Court further considered the length of custody, the stage of the proceedings, the large number of witnesses, and the absence of any immediate prospect of trial completion, and held that continued detention would impinge upon the right to speedy trial under Article 21.

Conclusion: The applicant was entitled to regular bail.

Final Conclusion: The application succeeded and the applicant was ordered to be released on regular bail on conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: In a money-laundering bail application, Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 does not impose an absolute bar; where the alleged role is derivative of the scheduled offence, the prosecution material is only prima facie, and custody has become unduly prolonged with no near prospect of trial completion, bail may be granted consistently with Article 21.

---