Delhi High Court Says Predicate-Offence Bail Protection Does Not Automatically Extend to PMLA Proceedings

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an anticipatory bail application in a money-laundering case, holding that protection granted in proceedings concerning a predicate offence does not automatically extend to separate proceedings under India’s Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

In an order dated 18 August 2026 in Ram Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement (BAIL APPLN. 2393/2026), Justice Madhu Jain said PMLA proceedings are distinct from proceedings arising from the scheduled or predicate offence. The petitioner therefore could not claim pre-arrest protection in the Enforcement Directorate case solely because protection had previously been granted in relation to the underlying FIR.

₹26.18 crore in alleged proceeds of crime

The court recorded that material placed before it traced alleged proceeds of crime of approximately ₹26.18 crore to the petitioner. It also considered statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, analysis of bank accounts and the financial trail relied on by the Directorate of Enforcement.

The court further noted that summons requiring the petitioner’s personal appearance had been issued on 21, 22 and 26 May 2026. According to the order, he did not personally appear and instead submitted a written response through counsel. The court treated this conduct, together with the financial material before it, as relevant when assessing the anticipatory bail application.

Section 45 test not satisfied

The High Court concluded that the petitioner had not satisfied the condition under Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA requiring reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty of the alleged offence. The anticipatory bail application was therefore dismissed.

The court expressly clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and should not be treated as findings on the merits of the underlying money-laundering case.

The decision is relevant to AML enforcement practice because it reinforces the procedural independence of a PMLA investigation from the predicate offence on which the alleged proceeds of crime are based. Protection obtained in the underlying criminal case does not, by itself, neutralise separate arrest and bail considerations under the anti-money-laundering statute.