PMLA regular bail: bare association and uncorroborated links were insufficient, and prolonged custody favoured release.

Regular bail under PMLA turned on whether the prosecution could satisfy the twin conditions in Section 45. Mere association with PFI and SDPI, or email and phone links reflecting those entities, was treated as insufficient without corroboration of specific money-laundering acts. The alleged transactions attributed to the petitioner were comparatively small, and the prosecution had not prima facie shown that the funds were derived from a scheduled offence so as to constitute proceeds of crime. Prolonged pre-trial custody and parity with a co-accused who had been granted bail also supported release. The petitioner was held entitled to regular bail subject to conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 in view of the alleged role, the quantum of transactions attributed to him, the absence of prima facie material showing proceeds of crime, parity with a co-accused, and the length of pre-trial custody.

Analysis: The allegations against the petitioner were assessed against the statutory rigour of the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner's association with PFI and SDPI, by itself, and the existence of an email handle or phone contacts reflecting those entities, was held insufficient to deny bail without corroborative material linking those indicators to specific money-laundering acts. The petitioner was also noticed to have been arrayed as an accused only in the 7th supplementary prosecution complaint, while the transactions attributed to him were comparatively small in the context of the alleged overall inflows into SDPI's accounts. The Court further noted that the amount traceable to the petitioner was far below the monetary threshold referred to in the proviso to Section 45 and that, prima facie, the prosecution had not demonstrated how the funds were derived from a scheduled offence so as to constitute proceeds of crime. The protracted custody of the petitioner and the parity principle arising from the bail granted to a co-accused also weighed in favour of release.

Conclusion: The petitioner satisfied the requirements for grant of regular bail and was entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions.

---