Summary
The appellant sought regular bail in a money-laundering prosecution concerning alleged conversion of demonetised cash through fictitious bank drafts. Applying Section45 as it then stood, while leaving its constitutional validity for separate proceedings, the Court upheld refusal of bail and called for expeditious day-to-day trial unaffected by its tentative observations.
Issues
- Whether temporary release for the appellant’s mother’s illness established entitlement to regular bail.
- Whether the then-existing Section45 threshold was satisfied on the material presented.
- Whether tax payment and permitted bank deposits displaced the money-laundering allegations.
Provisions considered
- Section45, as applied on10November2017, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002The Court applied the then-existing additional bail requirements; its constitutional validity was expressly left undecided. (¶¶ 14, 16–19, 24–27)
- Sections2(1)(u),2(1)(v),2(1)(y),3 and4, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002Definitions and the offence provisions were applied to the alleged conversion process at the bail stage. (¶ 22–23)
Held
- Interim release had primarily addressed the mother’s illness and did not determine regular bail. The earlier regular-bail refusal remained operative unless reversed or reconsidered on changed circumstances; observations in the temporary-release order did not remove the statutory threshold. (¶ 15–16)
- The appellant had deferred his constitutional challenge and requested consideration under the prevailing statute. The Court therefore did not decide Section45’s constitutional validity or the conflicting reading-down decisions, reserving those issues for the writ petition. (¶¶ 14, 24–26)
- Statements, banking material and alleged use of fictitious drafts provided substantial prima facie material. The Court could not record reasonable grounds that he was not guilty or unlikely to commit a relevant offence while on bail. These were bail assessments, not findings controlling trial. (¶¶ 19–23, 27–30)
- Absence of deposit limits in KYC-compliant accounts and payment of income tax did not confer immunity for the alleged money-laundering process or dispense with explaining the source of funds. The material had to be considered as a whole. (¶ 28)
Result
Appeals dismissed; regular bail refusal upheld. Trial Court advised to proceed expeditiously day to day and decide the evidence independently, uninfluenced by the bail observations. Constitutional validity left open.