Anticipatory bail in money laundering cases requires satisfying statutory twin conditions. The offence is independent of the predicate offence, making it possible to prosecute individuals not named in the initial crime report, provided they participate in laundering proceeds of crime derived from scheduled offences.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3, 4, 24, 45, 50 - Anticipatory bail - Economic offences - Twin conditions for bail under special legislation - Proclamation of abscondence - Maintainability of pre-arrest bail after issuance of process under Section 82/83 of Criminal Procedure Code. An application for anticipatory bail is maintainable even after issuance of process, but the court must balance individual liberty against the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the accused. The stringent twin conditions under the special legislation must be fulfilled. (Paras 36, 42, 87, 89)

(B) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 3 - Predicate offence - Whether an accused must be named in the scheduled offence to be prosecuted for money laundering. An offence under the special legislation is independent; it is not necessary that the person against whom money laundering is alleged be named in the original scheduled offence, provided there exist proceeds of crime related to a scheduled offence. (Paras 112, 114)

(C) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 50 - Admissibility of statements - Statements recorded during inquiry are deemed judicial proceedings and are admissible as substantive evidence, distinct from police statements recorded under the general code. (Paras 122)

(D) Bail - Economic offences - Consideration for grant of bail - Such offences constitute a separate class with deep-rooted conspiracies affecting national economic health; consequently, courts must exercise caution and apply a stricter threshold for bail. (Paras 140, 143)

Facts of the case:
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with an investigation into money laundering linked to illegal extraction and transportation of minerals. The applicant, having failed to comply with previous judicial directions from the highest court of the land to surrender despite a stipulated time-bound opportunity, remained absconding while proceedings were initiated against the applicant as a proclaimed offender.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant had engaged in significant financial transactions through front entities to launder proceeds acquired from illegal activities. The conduct of the applicant in defying repeated judicial orders further demonstrated a deliberate attempt to obstruct the legal process. The court concluded that the applicant failed to overcome the threshold requirements established for bail in serious economic offences.

Issues: Whether an application for anticipatory bail is maintainable after the issuance of a proclamation under the code of criminal procedure; whether an accused can be prosecuted for money laundering without being named in the predicate offence; and whether the applicant satisfied the statutory conditions for bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to grant pre-arrest bail is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, especially in economic offences. An accused who remains a fugitive from justice and defies apex court directions is not entitled to discretionary relief. Furthermore, the offence of money laundering is distinct, and the absence of the accused's name in the initial crime report does not provide immunity from prosecution once material suggests involvement in the handling of proceeds of crime.

Result: Application dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and application for anticipatory bail. (Para 1 , 13)
2. factual matrix of the pmla case and predicate offences. (Para 2 , 12)
3. parties' contentions regarding maintainability, predicate offences, and evidence. (Para 14 , 30)
4. maintainability of anticipatory bail following issuance of 82/83 crpc process. (Para 31 , 50)
5. statutory framework and object of pmla act 2002. (Para 51 , 87)
6. legal requirements and parameters for granting anticipatory bail. (Para 88 , 109)
7. prosecution under pmla does not require being named in the predicate offence. (Para 110 , 116)
8. section 50 pmla statements possess evidentiary value and are admissible. (Para 117 , 126)
9. existence of one scheduled offence validates the entire pmla investigation. (Para 127 , 131)
10. absconsion and defiance of court orders negate grant of discretionary bail. (Para 132 , 136)
11. gravity of economic offences requires a stringent approach to bail. (Para 137 , 146)
12. final order dismissing anticipatory bail application. (Para 147 , 151)

JUDGMENT :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

Prayer

1. The instant application has been filed under Section 482 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with the V^th Prosecution Complaint being ECIR Case No.04/2022(D) arising out of FIR No.85 of 2020 registered at Police Station Barharwa, Sahibganj, District Jharkhand under Sections 147, 149, 341, 342, 323, 379, 504, 506 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .

Factual Matrix

2. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the instant ECIR/complaint is that an official complaint vide Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) 03/2022 was recorded on the basis of the Barharwa P.S. Case No. 85/2020 dated 22.06.2020, under section 147, 149, 341, 342, 323, 379, 1208, 504, 506 of IPC against Pankaj Mishra and others that the informant Shambhu Nandan Kumar was threatened and obstructed on 22.06.2020 by the named persons to participate in tender for Barharwa Toll. It is alleged by the informant that he was ordered by Pankaj Mishra over phone, not to participate in the tender, on refusal of which, he was attacked by mob, on the behest of Pankaj Mishra. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed.

3. During the investigation of ECIR 03/2022, other FIRs were also identified to be lodged against the accused persons which has been merged in the instant ECIR and taken into the ambit of investigation to conduct a comprehensive investigation. In addition to section 120B of IPC invoked in the FIRs, which is scheduled offence, offences u/s 307/120B of IPC along with section 27 of Arms Act were identified and merged in the investigation under ECIR/RNZO 03/22 for a comprehensive investigation.

4. The prosecution complaint reveals that the main reason for not allowing the complainant to participate in the tender for Barharwa Toll was to gain control over the 06 Tolls which come under Nagar Panchayat. Investigation reveals that total 06 Tolls fixed by Barharwa Nagar Panchayat Toll fall in route connecting the mining sites and the main roads from where the mined items are transported to destined places. It was revealed during the investigation that the vehicles carrying the mined items had to cross Barharwa Toll before reaching main roads. It was revealed that apart from mining under valid license, a huge quantity of mining is being carried out illegally in Sahibganj District and adjoining areas. The investigation also revealed that main accused Pankaj Mishra is also involved in illegal collection of levies from the trucks carrying stone chips through his accomplices, including accused Bachhu Yadav too. The control over the Barharwa Nagar Panchayat Toll would have enabled the Accused Pankaj Mishra and his accomplices to have control and dominance over the area and thereby enabling them to easily monitor the number of vehicles and quantity of mining proceeds being carried out in t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 573

Cases Referred (10)