Issues: Whether cancellation of regular bail was warranted where the bail order bypassed the statutory requirements and evidentiary presumptions applicable to an alleged money-laundering offence.

Analysis: Cancellation of bail may rest either on post-release supervening misconduct or, independently, on inherent perversity or foundational illegality in the order granting bail. Although no post-release misconduct was established, that requirement does not apply where the original bail order ignores vital material or mandatory statutory restrictions.

Analysis: The material comprising cash ledgers, digital transaction records and transaction slips recovered during search was relevant documentary evidence at the bail stage. The presumption concerning proceeds of crime could not be displaced by requiring direct oral implication by depositors. The accused's status as an external broker did not exclude liability where the statutory language covers persons directly or indirectly involved in processes connected with proceeds of crime. The money-laundering allegation remained independently assessable notwithstanding delay or closure of a predicate FIR, and the period of custody could not override the mandatory twin conditions for bail.

Conclusion: The bail order was inherently perverse and contrary to the mandatory requirements governing bail under the anti-money-laundering statute; cancellation of bail was therefore justified without proof of supervening misconduct.

Issues: Whether cognizance of a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, taken after the commencement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 without affording the proposed accused an opportunity of hearing, is sustainable.

Analysis: Complaints under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are governed by the cognizance provisions of the criminal procedure law, as those provisions are not inconsistent with that Act. For complaints governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the proviso to Section 223(1) prohibits cognizance without first giving the accused an opportunity of hearing. The admitted absence of such hearing is an illegality that vitiates the cognizance proceedings and is not a curable irregularity requiring proof of prejudice.

Conclusion: The cognizance order was unsustainable and was set aside; the matter was restored to the Special Court for a fresh cognizance decision after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether money-laundering proceedings against the petitioners could continue when the entity from which they were alleged to have received tainted funds had been finally discharged on the finding that the transaction did not involve proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The allegations against the petitioners arose solely from their transactions with the said entity. That entity stood discharged in both the scheduled-offence and PMLA proceedings, under unchallenged orders which found that the money forming the subject of the transaction was not proceeds of crime. Under Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3, property must have been derived or obtained from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence before an offence of money laundering can arise. In the absence of proceeds of crime linked to the transaction, the foundational ingredient for the alleged offence was absent.

Conclusion: The PMLA proceedings and the orders issuing process and refusing discharge were quashed qua the petitioners, in favour of the petitioners.

Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail in a money-laundering case despite their declaration as fugitive economic offenders, alleged evasion of process, and the restrictions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The investigating agency had knowledge that the applicants resided in Australia but repeatedly issued summons at their Indian address without pursuing service abroad through the prescribed process. Such steps did not amount to substantial compliance with service requirements and could not support a presumption of due service or deliberate evasion. The earlier concession for keeping look-out circulars and non-bailable warrants in abeyance to enable their return also weakened the allegation that they were avoiding the process of law.

Analysis: The restrictions under Section 45 do not impose an absolute bar to bail. On the available material, reasonable grounds existed to believe that the statutory conditions were satisfied. The filing of the prosecution complaint and the absence of prior arrest also meant that any further custodial requirement had to be pursued before the Special Court. Further investigation alone did not justify denial of protection, since investigative needs could be met through conditions and deemed custody where required for discovery.

Conclusion: The applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to conditions securing their cooperation with investigation and attendance before the trial court.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable through the authorised representative of the political party; (ii) whether the availability of remedies before the Adjudicating Authority and appellate fora under the anti-money-laundering framework barred the writ petition; and (iii) whether interim protection against the ECIR proceedings and freezing order was warranted.

Analysis: The authorisation issued by a member of the National Working Committee was valid because that Committee was the party's highest executive authority. The challenge to the initiation of the ECIR and the alleged arbitrariness of the freezing action could be considered in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding alternate statutory remedies, particularly as the merits required pleadings. The freezing order recorded analysis of substantial fund transfers to several entities; the legality of those transfers could not be adjudicated at the interim stage. The petitioners also had other unfrozen accounts containing substantial funds, and no prima facie case or balance of convenience supported interim protection.

Outcome: Interim relief was refused, and the matter was directed to proceed on affidavits.

Issues: Whether the money-laundering complaint against the petitioner should be quashed for want of material establishing his involvement with proceeds of crime.

Analysis: Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 covers direct or indirect involvement, knowing assistance, or participation in processes connected with proceeds of crime, including their concealment, possession, acquisition, use, or projection as untainted property. The complaint and supporting material specifically attributed to the petitioner the receipt of loan funds ostensibly for construction materials and their immediate re-transfer, substantially in full, to the personal accounts of the principal accused. These transactions prima facie indicated knowing participation in routing, concealing, and disbursing the tainted funds. The earlier quashing in favour of the bank manager was distinguishable because no comparable material showed that the manager had assisted in handling or laundering the proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The material prima facie disclosed the petitioner's involvement in the offence of money laundering; quashing was not warranted and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issues: Whether the challenge to the provisional attachment of property should be pursued before the Adjudicating Authority under the statutory mechanism.

Analysis: The petitioners were granted liberty to place all grounds and supporting documents before the Adjudicating Authority, which is to consider their explanation and documents while undertaking final adjudication and issue a reasoned order.

Outcome: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to pursue the statutory remedy before the Adjudicating Authority.

Issues: Whether prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, after conviction for the predicate offence, is barred by the protection against double jeopardy.

Analysis: Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prohibits a second trial for the same offence or, in specified circumstances, another offence founded on identical facts. The offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 concerns involvement in processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime, including their concealment, possession, acquisition, use or projection as untainted property. Its ingredients are separate from those of the scheduled or predicate offence. Whether the assets constitute proceeds of crime requires adjudication on evidence before the Special Court and cannot be pre-emptively determined in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 following conviction for the predicate offence does not constitute a second trial for the same offence and is not barred by double jeopardy; the issue is against the petitioners.

Issues: Whether the petitioner-company's agent/authorized signatory could be permitted to appear pursuant to summons issued for investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The summons contemplated attendance by a Director or Authorized Signatory on behalf of the company. The company gave an undertaking through its Director that all directors would cooperate with the investigation and would personally appear whenever required. The investigating authority expressed no objection to accepting that undertaking and recording the statement of the authorized agent.

Conclusion: The authorized agent/signatory may appear in compliance with the summons, while the company and its directors must cooperate with the investigation and appear whenever required.

Issues: Whether the Adjudicating Authority's order concerning attachment of the petitioner's bank account could stand without consideration of the petitioner's detailed objections.

Analysis: The petitioner's detailed objections to the proposed attachment were not addressed in the impugned order, although objections of other persons were considered. The respondents accepted that the petitioner's objections required consideration and an appropriate order.

Conclusion: The matter is remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for consideration of the petitioner's objections and for passing necessary orders; all other contentions remain open.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in a money-laundering investigation, including on medical grounds.

Analysis: The material at the investigation stage indicated that the petitioner allegedly facilitated the award of a sub-contract to an entity connected with his son and that the alleged proceeds were transferred to family members. The absence of a direct credit to the petitioner's account was not determinative. The allegations, financial material and need to trace the money trail required further investigation; at the pre-arrest bail stage, the evidence was not to be assessed conclusively. The statutory twin conditions for bail were not capable of being satisfied in the petitioner's favour at that stage. The available medical record did not establish a continuing serious condition, medical emergency, or urgent intervention warranting protection from arrest.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail, either on merits or medical grounds.

Issues: (i) Whether Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars the High Court from modifying a condition imposed in its earlier bail order; (ii) Whether the condition requiring deposit of Rs. 64,00,000 in fixed deposit as a prerequisite to bail warranted revocation.

Issue (i): Whether Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars the High Court from modifying a condition imposed in its earlier bail order.

Analysis: Section 362 applies only to a judgment or final order disposing of a case. A bail order is interlocutory in nature and does not finally determine the criminal case; bail conditions may be varied where changed circumstances justify such variation. The inherent jurisdiction preserved by Section 482, read with the High Court's status as a constitutional court of record under Article 215, may be exercised to prevent injustice and secure the ends of justice. The contrary coordinate-bench view was treated as per incuriam because it did not consider the statutory meaning of judgment and the binding authorities treating bail orders as interlocutory.

Conclusion: Section 362 does not bar modification or revocation of a condition imposed in a bail order; the High Court may exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 where the circumstances warrant it.

Issue (ii): Whether the condition requiring deposit of Rs. 64,00,000 in fixed deposit as a prerequisite to bail warranted revocation.

Analysis: A bail condition requiring deposit of money without prima facie determination of guilt is unreasonably onerous and cannot convert criminal proceedings into a mechanism for recovery of alleged dues. The prosecution sanction against co-accused had been quashed, the trial proceedings had been closed and records consigned, and there was no prospect of an early conclusion of trial. The continuing restraint on the petitioner's funds, deposited only until conclusion of trial, caused failure of justice in the materially changed circumstances.

Conclusion: The deposit condition was revoked, and the fixed-deposit amount with accrued interest was directed to be released to the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The inherent jurisdiction was invoked to remove an unjustified continuing bail condition in light of the stalled criminal proceedings and the unreasonable financial restraint.

Ratio Decidendi: A bail order is interlocutory and is not protected from variation by the bar under Section 362; the High Court may, under its inherent jurisdiction, modify or revoke an onerous bail condition when changed circumstances make its continuance unjust.

Issues: (i) Whether the payments credited to the applicants for physical-education training prima facie constituted proceeds of crime so as to attract the offence of money-laundering and the bail rigours under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether post-arrest statements recorded under Section 50 could support the prosecution case; (iii) Whether parity, prolonged incarceration, delayed trial and the triple test justified regular bail.

Issue (i): Whether the payments credited to the applicants for physical-education training prima facie constituted proceeds of crime so as to attract the offence of money-laundering and the bail rigours under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Property can qualify as proceeds of crime only where it is derived or obtained as a result of an already accomplished scheduled offence. The payments relied upon were stated to be remuneration for training services, substantially received before the association was declared unlawful and before the predicate FIR. Neither applicant was charge-sheeted in the predicate offence, and no material prima facie established that the credited sums were derived from an identified and accomplished scheduled offence. Personal receipt of money may raise a question of dominion or control only after the money is first shown to be proceeds of crime; it cannot itself establish that foundational requirement. The amounts attributed to the applicants were also below the monetary threshold referred to in the proviso to Section 45.

Conclusion: The alleged payments were not prima facie shown to be proceeds of crime, and the applicants satisfied the applicable bail threshold under Section 45, in favour of the applicants.

Issue (ii): Whether post-arrest statements recorded under Section 50 could support the prosecution case.

Analysis: Statements recorded by the investigating agency after the applicants' formal arrest were prima facie affected by the protection against compelled self-incrimination and the bar relating to confessional statements. The remaining pre-arrest statements describing payments as honorarium established only receipt of money, not that the money was derived from a scheduled offence.

Conclusion: The post-arrest statements could not prima facie be relied upon against the applicants, and the pre-arrest statements did not establish proceeds of crime, in favour of the applicants.

Issue (iii): Whether parity, prolonged incarceration, delayed trial and the triple test justified regular bail.

Analysis: The applicants had remained in custody for over two years and three months; charges were yet to be framed against them, and the extensive prosecution material and large number of witnesses made an early trial unlikely. Continued pre-trial detention in those circumstances would offend personal liberty. Their role was not prima facie graver than that of co-accused already granted bail. They were not shown to be flight risks, the principal evidence was seized documentary and digital material, and no substantial risk of witness influence was established.

Conclusion: The applicants were entitled to regular bail on grounds of parity, prolonged incarceration, likely delay in trial and satisfaction of the triple test, in favour of the applicants.

Final Conclusion: The applicants obtained release on regular bail, while the merits of the pending trial remain open for independent determination.

Ratio Decidendi: For a money-laundering prosecution, dominion or control over funds is legally relevant only after the funds are prima facie shown to be derived from an accomplished scheduled offence; prolonged pre-trial incarceration and an unlikely early trial can independently justify bail despite statutory restrictions.

Issues: Whether the petitioner made out an exceptional and bona fide medical exigency warranting permission to travel abroad despite the conditions of bail and the prosecution's apprehension of flight risk.

Analysis: The right to travel abroad is an aspect of personal liberty, but it is not absolute and must be weighed against the nature of the allegations, the conduct of the accused, and the risk of evading prosecution. The request was examined in the context of a serious money-laundering prosecution, the stage of trial, the petitioner's financial capacity and international links, and the absence of cogent medical material showing that the proposed foreign treatment was the only available line of treatment or that equivalent treatment was unavailable in India. The Court also noted that medical facilities in India are comparable to foreign facilities and that a preference for treatment abroad cannot override the requirement of securing the accused's presence for trial.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to establish a bona fide exceptional medical case, and the refusal of permission to travel abroad was held to be justified.

Ratio Decidendi: Permission to travel abroad by an on bail may be refused where the claimed medical necessity is not substantiated by reliable medical material and the Court finds a real risk that foreign travel may impede the criminal process.

Issues: (i) Whether retention of the seized records, cash, jewellery and electronic devices was validly authorised under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether quashing of the ECIR precluded continuation of the retention proceedings when operation of the quashing judgment had been stayed by the Supreme Court; (iii) Whether the proceedings were barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether retention of the seized records, cash, jewellery and electronic devices was validly authorised under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: An order under Section 17(4), read with Section 20(1), concerns retention for adjudication and requires material giving rise to recorded reasons to believe that the property is required for proceedings under Section 8. The material disclosed unexplained capital contributions and unsecured loans, financial links with entities under investigation, and an absence of satisfactory evidence regarding the source and flow of funds. The statutory requirements for retention were therefore met.

Conclusion: The retention order was validly made and was rightly affirmed.

Issue (ii): Whether quashing of the ECIR precluded continuation of the retention proceedings when operation of the quashing judgment had been stayed by the Supreme Court.

Analysis: Stay of the operation of the judgment quashing the ECIR rendered that judgment ineffective during the pendency of the Supreme Court proceedings. The position preceding the quashing consequently continued, and the ECIR could not be treated as remaining quashed for purposes of the retention proceedings.

Conclusion: Continuation of the retention proceedings was not invalidated by the quashing judgment.

Issue (iii): Whether the proceedings were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The Explanation to Section 8(3) excludes the period during which investigation remains stayed by a court when computing the 365-day period. Upon excluding the operative stay period, the prosecution complaint was filed within the prescribed period.

Conclusion: The proceedings were within limitation.

Final Conclusion: The statutory retention process and its appellate confirmation remained legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory material establishes recorded reasons to believe that seized property may be involved in money laundering, retention may continue for adjudication; a stayed quashing order cannot defeat the underlying proceedings, and the period of judicial stay is excluded in computing the statutory limitation period.

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in view of the cancellation reports in the predicate Himachal Pradesh FIRs, the absence of any identified proceeds of crime attributable to the applicant, and the period of incarceration already undergone.

Analysis: The bail request turned on whether the foundational scheduled offences were established and whether any proceeds of crime had been identified so as to attract the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The predicate FIRs from Himachal Pradesh had either resulted in accepted cancellation reports or cancellation reports had been filed, and no independent material was shown to establish a subsisting scheduled offence against the applicant from those FIRs. The Court also noted that the complaint did not identify any asset of the applicant as proceeds of crime, and that mere allegations of unexplained cash or illegality in mineral dealings, without linkage to a scheduled offence, were insufficient to sustain continued custody under the PMLA. The applicant had remained in custody for more than 18 months, the investigation was complete, and no material was shown to indicate flight risk, tampering with evidence, or intimidation of witnesses.

Conclusion: Bail was granted in favour of the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the predicate scheduled offence is not shown to subsist and no proceeds of crime are identified against the accused, continued detention under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not justified and bail may be granted, particularly when custody is prolonged and trial is not likely to conclude expeditiously.

Issues: Whether a Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, acquires jurisdiction to try a scheduled offence on committal of that case under Section 44(1)(c), even if it is not the notified court to try the scheduled offence.

Analysis: Section 44(1)(a) provides that the offence of money-laundering and the connected scheduled offence are triable by the Special Court for the area where the offence is committed. Section 44(1)(c) specifically contemplates committal of the scheduled offence to the Special Court where cognizance has been taken by a different court, and mandates that the Special Court proceed from the stage at which the case is committed. Section 71 gives overriding effect to the Act over inconsistent laws. Reading these provisions together, the Special Court under the Act becomes competent to try the scheduled offence after committal.

Conclusion: The Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, has jurisdiction to try the scheduled offence after committal under Section 44(1)(c), and the impugned order was sustained.

Issues: Whether the petitioner, after an earlier refusal of bail, established changed circumstances and continued delay in the proceedings sufficient to justify grant of regular bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The Court noted that successive bail applications are maintainable when fresh circumstances arise and that the earlier rejection does not bar reconsideration if subsequent developments materially alter the position. It examined the post-order changes, including grant of bail to the petitioner in the predicate offence, filing of the charge sheet there, filing of a supplementary complaint against other accused in the money-laundering case without their arrest, and the continued pre-cognizance stage with a voluminous record and numerous witnesses. The Court also relied on the constitutional primacy of Article 21 and the principle that prolonged incarceration without realistic prospects of early trial may outweigh the statutory rigour of bail restrictions under the PMLA.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to bail on the ground of changed circumstances and continued delay, and the plea for bail was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were not finally advanced to trial in a manner that justified further incarceration, and conditional liberty was granted to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: In a PMLA case, where subsequent material developments show genuine changed circumstances and the trial remains unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, the constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21 can justify grant of bail notwithstanding the rigour of Section 45.

Issues: (i) Whether information shared by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 could lawfully be acted upon for registration of crime under other laws; (ii) Whether the invocation of offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 disclosed sufficient prima facie material to prevent interdiction of investigation at the threshold.

Issue (i): Whether information shared by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 could lawfully be acted upon for registration of crime under other laws.

Analysis: Section 66(2) expressly permits the Director or authorised authority, on forming an opinion that provisions of any other law have been contravened, to share the information with the concerned agency for necessary action. The provision is intended to ensure that material uncovered during investigation under one enactment is not confined to that statute when it discloses violations under other laws. The communication in question was detailed and disclosed alleged contraventions under FEMA and other penal statutes, so it could not be treated as lacking authority merely because the information originated from proceedings under PMLA.

Conclusion: The sharing of information and the consequential registration of crime were held to be legally sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the invocation of offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 disclosed sufficient prima facie material to prevent interdiction of investigation at the threshold.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed a network of foreign funding, withdrawal of funds through ATMs using debit cards, concealment of identity through false naming, circulation of cards, and alleged channelisation of funds into regions affected by left wing extremism. The Court held that at the stage of investigation it was not required to return findings of guilt, and that the material on record was not so barren as to justify judicial interference. The alleged conduct was considered sufficient to permit investigation into unlawful activity, raising of funds for a terrorist act, and conspiracy or preparation related thereto.

Conclusion: The invocation of UAPA and continuation of investigation were held to be justified at the prima facie stage.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were rejected, the criminal investigation was allowed to continue, and the Court declined to exercise inherent jurisdiction to halt the proceedings at the threshold.

Ratio Decidendi: Where statutory information-sharing power expressly authorises communication of contraventions of other laws, and the record discloses prima facie material suggesting serious offences touching national security, investigation should not be interdicted at its inception.

Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in the money-laundering proceedings.

Analysis: The nature and gravity of allegations indicated misuse of local area development funds through 32 tenders for sports equipment and diversion of public funds. The material from the investigation was considered insufficient to warrant release at that stage.

Conclusion: Regular bail was declined.