PMLA bail under twin conditions refused where materials showed a nexus to proceeds of crime and active involvement.

In a PMLA bail context, the Gujarat HC view is that proceedings can continue even if the predicate offence remains pending, provided the scheduled offence is registered and the allegations show a nexus with proceeds of crime. Money laundering is treated as an independent offence, Section 19 arrest is an investigative power based on reason to believe, and Section 50 statements may be considered at the bail stage. Bail under Section 45 remains subject to the twin conditions of reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not reoffend; on the material noted, including statements, digital evidence and hisaab sheets, the applicant was held not entitled to release. Parity, delay and medical grounds were found insufficient to override the statutory rigour.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 despite the pending predicate offence, and whether the statutory conditions for bail under Section 45 were satisfied.

Analysis: The application arose from allegations that the applicant, then District Collector, was involved in a land-use conversion racket in which illegal gratification was collected and layered as proceeds of crime. The Court held that proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are maintainable even when the predicate offence is still pending, so long as the scheduled offence is registered and the allegations disclose a nexus with proceeds of crime. Relying on the statutory scheme and binding precedent, the Court treated money laundering as an independent offence, the power of arrest under Section 19 as an investigative power exercised on reason to believe, and statements recorded under Section 50 as relevant at the bail stage. The Court further held that the bail enquiry under Section 45 is governed by the twin conditions, requiring reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and will not commit an offence while on bail, and found that the material collected, including statements, digital evidence, and hisaab sheets, prima facie indicated the applicant's active role and receipt of a substantial share of the alleged illegal gratification. The Court also rejected parity, delay, and medical grounds as insufficient to displace the statutory rigour.

Conclusion: The applicant did not satisfy the twin conditions for bail and was held not entitled to release.

---