Mandatory bail conditions in money-laundering cases prevail where the original bail order disregards material evidence and statutory presumptions.

Cancellation of regular bail may be justified without post-release misconduct where the original bail order is inherently perverse or ignores mandatory statutory restrictions. Documentary material recovered in search, including cash ledgers, digital transaction records and slips, was relevant at the bail stage, and the presumption regarding proceeds of crime could not be displaced merely because depositors did not directly implicate the accused. An external broker may fall within conduct connected directly or indirectly with proceeds of crime. Delay or closure of a predicate FIR does not prevent independent assessment of the money-laundering allegation, and custody duration cannot override the mandatory twin bail conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether cancellation of regular bail was warranted where the bail order bypassed the statutory requirements and evidentiary presumptions applicable to an alleged money-laundering offence.

Analysis: Cancellation of bail may rest either on post-release supervening misconduct or, independently, on inherent perversity or foundational illegality in the order granting bail. Although no post-release misconduct was established, that requirement does not apply where the original bail order ignores vital material or mandatory statutory restrictions.

Analysis: The material comprising cash ledgers, digital transaction records and transaction slips recovered during search was relevant documentary evidence at the bail stage. The presumption concerning proceeds of crime could not be displaced by requiring direct oral implication by depositors. The accused's status as an external broker did not exclude liability where the statutory language covers persons directly or indirectly involved in processes connected with proceeds of crime. The money-laundering allegation remained independently assessable notwithstanding delay or closure of a predicate FIR, and the period of custody could not override the mandatory twin conditions for bail.

Conclusion: The bail order was inherently perverse and contrary to the mandatory requirements governing bail under the anti-money-laundering statute; cancellation of bail was therefore justified without proof of supervening misconduct.

---