PMLA bail granted where predicate offences were not shown to subsist and no proceeds of crime were identified.

Bail under the PMLA was granted because the predicate scheduled offences were not shown to subsist and no proceeds of crime were identified against the applicant. The Court noted that the Himachal Pradesh FIRs had either ended in accepted cancellation reports or cancellation reports had been filed, so there was no independent material showing a continuing scheduled offence linked to the applicant. Mere allegations of unexplained cash or illegality in mineral dealings, without linkage to a scheduled offence, were insufficient to justify continued custody. The applicant had already spent more than 18 months in custody, the investigation was complete, and there was no material showing flight risk, witness intimidation, or evidence tampering.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in view of the cancellation reports in the predicate Himachal Pradesh FIRs, the absence of any identified proceeds of crime attributable to the applicant, and the period of incarceration already undergone.

Analysis: The bail request turned on whether the foundational scheduled offences were established and whether any proceeds of crime had been identified so as to attract the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The predicate FIRs from Himachal Pradesh had either resulted in accepted cancellation reports or cancellation reports had been filed, and no independent material was shown to establish a subsisting scheduled offence against the applicant from those FIRs. The Court also noted that the complaint did not identify any asset of the applicant as proceeds of crime, and that mere allegations of unexplained cash or illegality in mineral dealings, without linkage to a scheduled offence, were insufficient to sustain continued custody under the PMLA. The applicant had remained in custody for more than 18 months, the investigation was complete, and no material was shown to indicate flight risk, tampering with evidence, or intimidation of witnesses.

Conclusion: Bail was granted in favour of the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the predicate scheduled offence is not shown to subsist and no proceeds of crime are identified against the accused, continued detention under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not justified and bail may be granted, particularly when custody is prolonged and trial is not likely to conclude expeditiously.

---