Supreme Court Held That Bail Under PMLA Requires Mandatory Compliance with Twin Conditions Under Section 45 – High Court Order Granting Bail Set Aside – Respondent Directed to Surrender Within One Week – Appeal Allowed (Para 22-24)

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Constitution of India (COI) – Article 20(3) – Protection Against Self-Incrimination (Para 8, 18)

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 439 – Special Powers of High Court and Sessions Court to Grant Bail (Para 13)

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 38, 120B, 378, 379, 406, 409, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 – Criminal Conspiracy, Theft, Criminal Breach of Trust, Cheating, Forgery (Para 3)

• Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Sections 2(1)(y), 3, 4, 17, 24, 45, 50, 65, 71 – Definitions, Punishments, Search, Burden of Proof, Bail Conditions, Non-Obstante Clause (Para 3, 4, 11-16)

• Bihar Mineral (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rule, 2019 – Section 39(3) – Prevention of Illegal Mining (Para 3)

Subjects: Bail – Money Laundering – Twin Conditions – Non-Obstante Clause – Search Operations – Proceeds of Crime – Hawala Network – Revenue Loss – Illegal Mining – Special Legislation – Prima Facie Case – Non-Compliance – Aggravated Crime – Judicial Interpretation – Predicate Offence – Procedural Law

Nature of the Litigation: Appeal filed by Union of India through Enforcement Directorate challenging High Court’s order granting bail to Kanhaiya Prasad in connection with money laundering case under PMLA. (Para 2)

Relief Sought: Appellant sought setting aside of High Court order granting bail for non-compliance with mandatory conditions under Section 45 of PMLA. (Para 2)

Reason for Filing the Case: Appellant contended that High Court misinterpreted Article 20(3) of COI and failed to comply with twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA while granting bail. (Para 8)

Previous Decisions: High Court of Patna granted bail to respondent despite serious allegations of money laundering and non-compliance with Section 45 of PMLA. (Para 7)

Issues: a. Whether High Court erred in granting bail without fulfilling twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA? (Para 8) b. Whether statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA were admissible despite Article 20(3) of COI? (Para 18) c. Whether offence of money laundering is independent of predicate offence? (Para 19)

Submissions/Arguments: Appellant: Argued High Court misinterpreted mandatory bail conditions under Section 45 and relied on inadmissible statements under Section 50 of PMLA. (Para 8) Respondent: Contended that statements under Section 50 were inadmissible and respondent had cooperated with ED and paid income tax dues. (Para 9)

Ratio Decidendi: a. Section 45 of PMLA imposes mandatory twin conditions for granting bail, overriding general provisions of CrPC. (Para 12) b. Statements under Section 50 of PMLA are admissible and do not violate Article 20(3) of COI. (Para 18) c. Offence of money laundering is independent of predicate offence and involves handling proceeds of crime post-criminal activity. (Para 19)