PMLA bail threshold and prima facie scheduled-offence material justified refusal of bail on the record before the HC.

Prima facie material showed scheduled offences, recovery of arms, Section 50 statements and financial transactions through accounts controlled by the petitioner, family members and a trust, so invocation of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was sustained against the accused petitioner. On bail, the Court applied the mandatory twin conditions under Section 45 and the statutory presumption under Section 24, relying on evidence of cash deposits, immediate withdrawals, routing of funds through multiple accounts, and the absence of proper books, audited statements and income tax returns. The petitioner failed to show reasonable grounds for believing he was not guilty or would not reoffend, so bail was declined.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the material on record disclosed scheduled offences and a prima facie basis to invoke the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the accused petitioner. (ii) Whether the accused petitioner satisfied the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the material on record disclosed scheduled offences and a prima facie basis to invoke the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against the accused petitioner.

Analysis: The record showed that the prosecution was founded on FIRs which included offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Arms Act, 1959 and later invoked offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, all of which were treated as scheduled offences. The Court noticed material indicating recovery of arms, statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and financial transactions through accounts controlled by the petitioner, family members and the trust. On that basis, the contention that no scheduled offence existed or that the PMLA could not be invoked was found to be contrary to the material on record.

Conclusion: The existence of scheduled offences and a prima facie basis for proceeding under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was accepted against the accused petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused petitioner satisfied the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Court relied on the investigation material showing substantial cash deposits, immediate withdrawals, routing of funds through multiple accounts, and exclusive control over trust accounts. It further noted the absence of proper books of account, audited statements and income tax returns for the relevant period, and treated the statements recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as material admissible at this stage. Applying the mandatory twin conditions under Section 45 and the statutory presumption under Section 24, the Court held that the petitioner had not shown reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty or that he would not commit an offence while on bail.

Conclusion: The accused petitioner did not satisfy the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Final Conclusion: Bail was declined because the Court found a prima facie case under the money-laundering statute and held that the statutory bail threshold was not met on the material then available.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, bail can be granted only if the accused satisfies the mandatory twin conditions under Section 45, and prima facie material showing scheduled offences, proceeds of crime, and fund-layering justifies refusal of bail.

---