Anticipatory bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act requires demonstration of reasonable innocence and lack of likelihood to reoffend; both criteria unmet, justifying denial of bail.

JUDGMENT :

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.

1. These anticipatory bail applications arising out of same Prosecution Complaint and based on similar factual and legal matrix are taken up together for disposal.

1.1 Both these applications were taken up for the first time before the predecessor bench in the month of January 2025 and thereafter, the matter continued getting adjourned for one or the other reason before different predecessor benches, and first effective hearing before me took place on 17.01.2026, when after hearing learned senior counsel for accused/ applicants as well as learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement (DoE), the matters were reserved for orders.

1.2 From January 2025 till 15.10.2025, despite there being no interim protection from arrest, DoE opted not to arrest either of the accused persons. By way of order dated 15.10.2025, the predecessor bench directed that subject to joining investigation, the accused/applicants shall not be arrested till next date, which order continues.

2. Broadly speaking, prosecution case as culled out of the Prosecution Complaint No. ECIR/HIU-1/07/2024 dated 28.03.2024 under Section 44 read with Section 45 and Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is as follows.

2.1 The CBI registered two cases bearing RC No.2212022E0041 dated 26.08.2022 for offence under Section 120B read with Section 420 IPC and Section 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, and RC No.2212023E0036 dated 27.12.2023 for offence under Section 403 read with 120B and and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.

2.2 According to the said RCs, large scale laundering and siphoning off of public money was being carried out by duping innocent citizens in the name of investments and part-time jobs, etc. The money received in primary accounts was siphoned off into various other accounts located across the country. The proceeds of frauds were found to have been layered across multiple mule bank accounts in the country followed by encashing of the same through overseas ATMs, primarily in Dubai or by uploading on overseas fintech platforms mainly through PYYPL using Visa and Master Cards issued by Indian banks. PYYPL provides an internationally accepted Master Card and is regulated by Abu Dhabi Global Market Financial Services Regulatory Authority.

2.3 The offences under Section 420 /120B IPC for which the CBI registered the RCs are Scheduled Offences under Part A, Paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the PMLA. The proceeds of crime having been generated through those Scheduled Offences, the DoE initiated investigation under PMLA for tracing the proceeds of crime and to unearth and identify the persons involved in the process and activities connected with the crime.

2.4 In the course of investigation, after technical analysis of intelligence inputs, it came out that large number of Debit Cards issued by the banks in India to Indian account holders had been misused through the UAE based payment platform PYYPL in order to siphon off the proceeds of cyber frauds. In all, 5599 accounts of HDFC Bank, 3168 accounts of IDFC First Bank and 1434 accounts of IndusInd Bank were identified through transactions with PYYPL during the period from August 2023 to December 2023. Most of the said accounts were sourced through digital platform where KYC validations happened either by video KYC or over-the-counter by bank staff. Further detailed analysis of bank account statements of the targeted accounts linked with common mobile phone numbers was carried out by DoE.

2.5 The