Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking blanket interim protection from arrest and supervision of multiple ongoing criminal investigations was maintainable without seeking quashing of the FIRs or ECIRs.

Analysis: The petition sought wide interim protection in relation to multiple investigations, but the Court held that such blanket protection cannot be granted in the course of pending investigation. Relying on settled principles that High Courts should be slow to interfere at the investigative stage, the Court noted that an accused apprehending arrest has statutory remedies by way of anticipatory bail and, where appropriate, quashing proceedings. The Court further held that a writ court cannot convert Article 226 into a substitute for those remedies, particularly where no prayer for quashing of the FIRs or ECIRs was made. In such circumstances, granting a blanket no-arrest or no-coercive-order would impede investigation and would be contrary to the settled law governing criminal process.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the request for blanket interim protection was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition under Article 226 cannot be used to obtain a blanket pre-arrest protection during ongoing investigations when the petitioner has not sought quashing of the criminal proceedings and has adequate statutory remedies available under the criminal law framework.

Issues: Whether an accused who was not arrested during investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and who appeared before the Special Court in response to process could be treated as being in custody and required to seek bail, or whether the Court ought to direct execution of bond under Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Analysis: The prosecution complaint had already been filed and cognizance taken, while the accused had not been arrested during investigation. The Court applied the statutory scheme of Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, together with the principle laid down in Tarsem Lal, that a person who appears before the Special Court pursuant to summons is not to be treated as being in custody and ordinarily need not apply for bail. In such a situation, the Special Court may require only a bond for appearance. The Court also held that the accused being in custody in another case did not justify bypassing the statutory course, because the Enforcement Directorate had not sought custody for further investigation and had not arrested him during investigation under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The rejection of bail on the rigours of Section 45 was therefore held to be misdirected.

Conclusion: The accused was entitled to be released forthwith on furnishing bond under Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the order rejecting bail was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The special court's refusal to apply the summons-and-bond procedure was unsustainable, and the petitioner's release on bond was directed in place of a bail adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: An accused not arrested during investigation who appears before the Special Court in response to process is not to be treated as in custody, and the Court should ordinarily require a bond for appearance rather than insist upon a bail application or invoke the stricter bail limitations applicable to arrested accused persons.

Issues: Whether a person who was not arrested by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 before filing of the prosecution complaint could, on appearance pursuant to summons, be denied release on bond under Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and instead be made to undergo a bail examination on merits.

Analysis: The record showed that the petitioner was not arrested during investigation under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and had appeared before the Special Court in response to summons. The governing principle applied was that, in such a situation, summons is meant to secure appearance and the accused is not to be treated as being in custody merely because he has appeared. The court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling that, as a normal rule, summons should issue and the Special Court may require execution of a bond under Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The rigours of bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were held to be inapposite where no bail application was required in the first place and no request for custody for further investigation had been made by the Enforcement Directorate.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to release upon furnishing bond under Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the order refusing that course and dealing with the matter as a bail refusal was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the petitioner was directed to be released on bond in accordance with the statutory summons procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused is not arrested by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 before filing of complaint, appearance pursuant to summons does not by itself create custody and the Special Court should ordinarily secure attendance through bond under Section 91 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 rather than subject the person to a bail determination on merits.

Issues: Whether the accused was entitled to bail on the ground that the charge-sheet was not placed before the court within the statutory period, and whether the bar under the NDPS Act could defeat such entitlement.

Analysis: The application was for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in an NDPS prosecution. The Court found that the accused had been in custody since 07.05.2024, the statutory period expired on 02.11.2024, and although the charge-sheet had been despatched earlier, it was not placed before the court within time. The record showed that on the relevant dates no charge-sheet was before the court dealing with the bail matter, and the later delay in placing it could not be used to curtail the accused's accrued right. The Court treated the lapse as a technical and procedural failure on the part of the prosecution machinery and held that the accused's right to be released on bail could not be denied on that account, notwithstanding the seriousness of the NDPS allegations.

Conclusion: The accused was held entitled to bail and the application was allowed.

Issues: Whether the petitioner, facing custody under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, was entitled to interim bail on medical grounds under the first proviso to Section 45 of that Act.

Analysis: The statutory bar under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was treated as the governing rule, with the first proviso carving out an exception for a person who is sick or infirm. The relevant standard was whether the ailment was serious, life-endangering, and incapable of adequate treatment in custody or in jail hospital, and whether specialised medical intervention was required. On the facts, the medical record disclosed persistent elbow injury, repeated referrals, high-risk status for surgery, and a need for treatment in a specialised hospital. The Court also accepted that the petitioner had not received stable and effective treatment despite multiple hospital admissions and that the prevailing medical condition justified temporary release for surgery.

Conclusion: The petitioner satisfied the requirement of being sick or infirm for the purpose of the first proviso to Section 45, and interim bail was granted for undergoing surgery.

Final Conclusion: Temporary release was justified on medical and humanitarian grounds, and the petitioner was directed to surrender after the limited interim period on terms fixed by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim bail under the medical exception to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 may be granted where the accused's condition is shown to be sufficiently serious, requires specialised treatment, and cannot be adequately managed in custody.

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be sustained where the alleged predicate offences were committed before the schedule was amended with effect from 1 June 2009, but the appellants remained in possession of the proceeds of crime thereafter; (ii) Whether the proceedings lacked pecuniary jurisdiction on the ground that the value of the mortgaged properties was below the monetary threshold.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be sustained where the alleged predicate offences were committed before the schedule was amended with effect from 1 June 2009, but the appellants remained in possession of the proceeds of crime thereafter.

Analysis: The alleged fraud was committed during 13 June 2005 to 16 May 2007, but the proceeds of crime were found to have remained with the appellants after the amendment to the schedule came into force. The decisive consideration was whether the appellants continued to possess the proceeds of crime after the Act and the amendment were in operation. Since the appellants were still dealing with the property and the proceeds of crime after 1 June 2009, the temporal objection based on the earlier commission period was not accepted.

Conclusion: The proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were held to be maintainable and the objection based on the pre-amendment period failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings lacked pecuniary jurisdiction on the ground that the value of the mortgaged properties was below the monetary threshold.

Analysis: The proceedings were treated as relating to offences under Part A of the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, for which no pecuniary limit applies. The Court further held that jurisdiction under the Act is tested with reference to the quantum of fraud and the proceeds of crime, not merely the value of the mortgaged immovable properties. On the facts, the amount involved was far above any relevant threshold in any event.

Conclusion: The pecuniary-jurisdiction challenge was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed in their entirety, and the attachment and consequential proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the accused remain in possession of the proceeds of crime after the relevant statutory regime is in force, proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are not defeated merely because the predicate offence was committed earlier; and offences in Part A of the Schedule are not subject to a monetary threshold for jurisdiction.

- Whether the Applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Sections 45 and 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) read with Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with the ECIR registered under Sections 3 and 14 of PMLA.

- Whether the 'twin conditions' under Section 45(1) of PMLA for grant of bail, namely (i) reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offence, and (ii) that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, are satisfied in the present case.

- Whether the Applicant has cooperated with the investigation and whether custodial interrogation is necessary.

- The admissibility and evidentiary value of the material relied upon by the Respondent Agency, including statements recorded under the Income Tax Act and documents seized from the Applicant's accountant.

- The impact of prior bail granted by other courts in predicate offences on the present bail application under PMLA.

- Whether the Applicant has misused the liberty granted in prior proceedings or evaded investigation.

- The applicability and interpretation of relevant Supreme Court precedents concerning anticipatory bail under PMLA and custodial interrogation.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Entitlement to anticipatory bail under Sections 45 and 65 of PMLA read with Section 482 BNSS

Legal framework and precedents: Section 45(1) of PMLA mandates that no person accused of an offence under the Act shall be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor is given an opportunity to oppose and the court is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit any offence while on bail. This 'twin conditions' test has been reiterated in several Supreme Court decisions including Directorate of Enforcement v. M. Gopal Reddy and others, Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India, and others.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the investigation has been ongoing for five years, during which the Applicant has appeared before the Respondent Agency 13 times and provided documents. The Respondent Agency had not taken steps to arrest the Applicant despite multiple summons. The Court found that the 'twin conditions' under Section 45 are satisfied because the Respondent Agency failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe the Applicant's guilt or likelihood to commit an offence while on bail.

Key evidence and findings: The Respondent Agency filed a prosecution complaint and supplementary complaint but did not arrest the Applicant during the prolonged investigation. The Applicant's cooperation and response to summons, including written explanations for non-appearance due to health and family reasons, were acknowledged. The Court also noted that the Applicant was granted interim and regular bail in predicate offences, which was not misused.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the 'twin conditions' test strictly and found that the Respondent Agency's failure to arrest and the Applicant's cooperation weigh in favor of granting anticipatory bail. The prolonged investigation without arrest indicated lack of sufficient material to form a reasoned opinion of guilt.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondent Agency argued that the Applicant was the kingpin of a coal pilferage syndicate, had evaded summons, and that custodial interrogation was necessary. The Court rejected these contentions on the facts that the Applicant had cooperated extensively and that no fresh offence was committed during the investigation period. The Court also held that the Applicant's responses to summons were adequate and justified.

Conclusion: The Applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Sections 45 and 65 of PMLA as the conditions prescribed therein are met.

Issue 2: Necessity of custodial interrogation and Applicant's cooperation with investigation

Legal framework and precedents: Supreme Court decisions such as P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement and State v. Anil Sharma emphasize that custodial interrogation is qualitatively different and more effective than questioning a suspect under bail. However, custodial interrogation should not be granted if the accused cooperates and there is no necessity.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the Applicant had appeared 13 times and provided necessary documents. The Respondent Agency had not arrested the Applicant for custodial interrogation despite multiple summons. The Court found no necessity for custodial interrogation given the Applicant's cooperation and the prolonged investigation.

Key evidence and findings: The Applicant's repeated appearances and written responses to summons, including justifications for non-appearance, were considered. The Court also noted the absence of any fresh offence during the investigation period.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that custodial interrogation is not warranted if the accused cooperates and investigation is not hampered. The Applicant's conduct did not justify custodial interrogation.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondent Agency contended that custodial interrogation was necessary to elicit information and prevent tampering with evidence. The Court acknowledged this but balanced it against the Applicant's cooperation and absence of evidence of evasion or tampering.

Conclusion: Custodial interrogation is not necessary; the Applicant's cooperation suffices.

Issue 3: Admissibility and evidentiary value of material relied upon by Respondent Agency

Legal framework and precedents: Section 22(1) of PMLA provides presumptions regarding records or property found in possession during search or seizure. However, the Supreme Court in Common Cause v. Union of India and Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement held that entries in books of account or loose sheets are corroborative evidence and independent evidence is necessary to prove guilt. Statements recorded under the Income Tax Act cannot be used indiscriminately for PMLA investigation.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted the Applicant's contention that the Respondent Agency relied on loose sheets and private ledgers maintained by the Applicant's accountant, which are not admissible evidence under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court recognized that the Respondent Agency has not yet examined the accountant and that the nexus between the Applicant and the alleged proceeds of crime is not established by admissible evidence.

Key evidence and findings: The Respondent Agency relied on statements of the Applicant's accountant and records seized during Income Tax searches. The Court observed that the Applicant contested the admissibility and reliability of such evidence.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that material must be admissible and corroborated by independent evidence to form a reasoned opinion of guilt. The mere presence of loose sheets or statements under a different statute is insufficient.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondent Agency invoked Section 22(1) PMLA to argue for presumptions as to records found in possession. The Court balanced this against the requirement of admissibility and corroboration, finding the Applicant's challenge to be substantial.

Conclusion: The evidence relied upon by the Respondent Agency is not sufficient or admissible to establish guilt at this stage.

Issue 4: Impact of prior bail in predicate offences on anticipatory bail application under PMLA

Legal framework and precedents: Supreme Court decisions such as Directorate of Enforcement v. Aditya Tripathi have clarified that grant of bail in predicate offences does not automatically entitle an accused to anticipatory bail under PMLA.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged that the Applicant was granted bail in predicate offences and that such liberty was not misused. However, the Court emphasized that the 'twin conditions' under PMLA must be independently satisfied.

Key evidence and findings: The Applicant was granted interim and regular bail in proceedings emanating from the FIR. No violation of bail conditions was recorded.

Application of law to facts: The Court found that while prior bail is relevant, it is not determinative. The Applicant's cooperation and absence of fresh offences weigh in favor of anticipatory bail under PMLA.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondent Agency argued that the Applicant's bail in predicate offences should not influence the present application. The Court agreed but considered it as part of the overall assessment.

Conclusion: Prior bail in predicate offences does not preclude anticipatory bail under PMLA but is a relevant factor in the overall assessment.

Issue 5: Whether the Applicant has misused liberty granted or evaded investigation

Legal framework and precedents: The Court referred to principles that bail can be cancelled if the accused misuses liberty or tampers with evidence. Non-appearance without justification can be a ground for cancellation.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found no evidence that the Applicant misused bail or evaded investigation. The Applicant appeared 13 times, responded to summons in writing, and provided justifications for non-appearance due to health and family reasons.

Key evidence and findings: The Applicant's letter dated 06.05.2025 offering to join investigation and provide assistance was noted. The Respondent Agency's complaint under Section 174 IPC for evasion was considered but not found sufficient to deny bail.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle of fair trial and liberty, finding the Applicant's conduct consistent with cooperation.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Respondent Agency alleged evasion and deliberate non-appearance. The Court found these allegations unsubstantiated in light of the Applicant's explanations and conduct.

Conclusion: The Applicant has not misused liberty or evaded investigation.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The 'twin conditions' under Section 45 of PMLA have been satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the case as the learned SPP was given an opportunity to oppose this Application and this Court is satisfied that there are reasonable ground for believing that the Applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence under PMLA as the investigation has taken considerable time and the Respondent Agency has already filed a Chargesheet and a Supplementary Chargesheet without taking any steps to arrest the Applicant for custodial investigation."

"The Applicant is not likely to commit an offence while on bail as the Status Report filed by the Respondent Agency does not mention that any offence has been committed since filing of the ECIR on 20.11.2020."

"Custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning the Applicant who is well ensconced with a favourable order granting Anticipatory Bail. However, given the Applicant's cooperation and absence of fresh offences, custodial interrogation is not necessary."

"The statement of one Mr. Niraj Singh, which was recorded under Section 132 (2) of the IT Act, cannot be used indiscriminately for the purpose of investigation under the PMLA. The Respondent Agency is wrongly relying upon a private ledger and loose sheets of documents maintained by Mr. Niraj Singh to presume that the money allegedly mentioned in the private ledger emanated from the Applicant, however, there is no evidence to show any nexus."

"Mere non-cooperation of the Applicant in responding to summons issued under Section 50 of PMLA would not be sufficient to render him liable to be arrested under Section 19 of the PMLA."

"The grant of anticipatory bail in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation if misused. However, in the present case, the Applicant has not misused any liberty granted to him in the Predicate Offence in the present proceedings under PMLA."

"In the event of there being any violation of the stipulated conditions, it would be open to the Respondent Agency to seek redressal by filing an Application seeking cancellation of the bail."

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the Court could direct release of immovable properties provisionally attached by the enforcement authorities on the petitioner furnishing a monetary deposit equivalent to the value of the attached properties to be kept in fixed deposit with lien in favour of the authorities, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Release of provisionally attached immovable properties on furnishing monetary security

(a) Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Court considered and relied upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in a writ petition where, in the context of provisional attachment by the enforcement authorities arising out of alleged disproportionate assets and money-laundering proceedings, the Supreme Court declined to accept a bank guarantee but permitted substitution of attached properties by directing the furnishing of a fixed deposit receipt in a nationalised bank of the entire quantified amount with a lien in favour of the investigating agencies, as a pre-condition for lifting attachment; such fixed deposit was to remain subject to the final outcome of the pending criminal and PMLA matters and was treated as an interim arrangement without precedential effect.

2.2 The Court also referred to a decision of a Coordinate Bench which, applying the above Supreme Court order, held that where a fixed deposit of a specific quantified amount had been furnished in favour of the authorities pursuant to the Apex Court's directions, that fixed deposit itself constituted "properties involved in money laundering" and was liable to confiscation to the extent of the quantified "proceeds of crime"; consequently, properties exceeding that quantified amount could not be confiscated, and an order confiscating third-party immovable properties in excess of such amount was set aside.

(b) Interpretation and reasoning

2.3 The Court noted that, as per the Provisional Attachment Order and Schedule "C" thereto, the value of the petitioner's attached immovable properties was quantified at Rs. 25,66,462/-. This factual position was treated as undisputed.

2.4 The petitioner expressed willingness to deposit the entire quantified amount of Rs. 25,66,462/- with the respondent, to be invested in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank with a lien in favour of the respondent, subject to the final outcome of the proceedings.

2.5 Applying the ratio and approach adopted by the Supreme Court in the above-referred decision, and the subsequent application of that approach by the Coordinate Bench in the later decision, the Court reasoned that a similar conditional arrangement substituting the attached immovable properties with a fixed deposit of equivalent value, carrying a lien in favour of the enforcement authorities and remaining subject to the final adjudication, would adequately secure the interest of the respondent while permitting release of the petitioner's immovable properties.

2.6 The Court rejected the respondent's general objection to the maintainability and merits of the petition in view of the above precedents and the undisputed valuation of the attached property, and considered that the "special/peculiar facts and circumstances" of the case justified granting the conditional relief sought.

(c) Conclusions

2.7 The petition was disposed of by directing the respondent to release the immovable properties provisionally attached in Schedule "C" of the complaint, subject to the petitioner depositing the sum of Rs. 25,66,462/- with the respondent.

2.8 Upon such deposit, the respondent was directed to invest the amount in a fixed deposit, marking a lien to that extent, with the fixed deposit and lien remaining subject to the final outcome of the proceedings.

2.9 The Court expressly clarified that the order was passed having regard to the special/peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and shall not be treated as a precedent or have any precedential value for any purpose.

Issues: (i) Whether the Magistrate could accept the C-Summary Report without independently applying mind to the material placed before it. (ii) Whether committal of the scheduled offence to the Special Court under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 could be directed before the jurisdictional court had taken cognizance of the scheduled offence.

Issue (i): Whether the Magistrate could accept the C-Summary Report without independently applying mind to the material placed before it.

Analysis: The governing principle is that when a police report or summary report is placed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate must consider the report and the accompanying material and decide whether to accept it, disagree with it and proceed further, or direct further investigation. Acceptance of the report cannot rest merely on the informant's no-objection, because the Magistrate must form an independent judicial opinion on the material before it.

Conclusion: The C-Summary Report could not be accepted without application of mind; the impugned acceptance order was unsustainable and had to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether committal of the scheduled offence to the Special Court under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 could be directed before the jurisdictional court had taken cognizance of the scheduled offence.

Analysis: Section 44(1)(c) applies only after the court dealing with the scheduled offence has taken cognizance. The statutory scheme gives primacy to the Special Court under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act for trial coordination, but the stage of committal arises only after cognizance of the scheduled offence is taken by the jurisdictional court. If cognizance has not yet been taken, committal is premature.

Conclusion: The direction sending the papers to the Special Court was premature and liable to be set aside; the matter was required to be reconsidered afresh by the Magistrate.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded, the committal direction was annulled, and the proceedings were remitted to the Magistrate for fresh consideration of the C-Summary Report, leaving the merits open.

Ratio Decidendi: A Magistrate must independently apply mind before accepting a summary report, and committal under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 can arise only after cognizance of the scheduled offence has been taken by the jurisdictional court.

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking mandamus and certiorari was maintainable when the challenge essentially related to arrest, detention and remand, for which habeas corpus was the appropriate remedy.

Analysis: The reliefs sought were found to be misconceived because the challenge was directed against arrest and continued custody, matters which are ordinarily examined through a habeas corpus petition. The order also noted that the High Court rules require a habeas corpus petition to be placed before a Division Bench. In light of the constitutional and procedural framework, and the view taken on the proper forum and form of remedy, the Court declined to entertain the writ petition in its present avatar.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the form presented and the reliefs under mandamus and certiorari were declined.

Issues: (i) whether the accused was entitled to bail on merits under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the twin conditions under section 45; (ii) whether the accused was entitled to bail on medical grounds.

Issue (i): whether the accused was entitled to bail on merits under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in view of the twin conditions under section 45.

Analysis: The application was tested against the stringent bail regime under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which requires reasonable grounds for believing that the is not guilty of money laundering and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The material placed before the Court, including the prosecution complaint, the enforcement investigation, the quantified proceeds of crime, the alleged role of the accused as a key beneficiary, and the continuing nature of the investigation, was found sufficient to displace the plea that the accused had made out a case for bail. The Court also treated the offence as an economic offence requiring a stricter approach, and rejected the contention that the accused was entitled to bail merely because the predicate offences were under challenge or because the scheduled offence argument was advanced.

Conclusion: The accused was not entitled to bail on merits and the conclusion was against the accused.

Issue (ii): whether the accused was entitled to bail on medical grounds.

Analysis: The Court considered the consolidated medical status material prepared after examination by AIIMS departments and jail medical authorities. The reports showed that the accused was stable, under regular review, and receiving prescribed medicines from the jail dispensary. On that material, the Court was not satisfied that the medical condition justified release on bail.

Conclusion: The accused was not entitled to bail on medical grounds and the conclusion was against the accused.

Final Conclusion: The bail request failed both on merits and on medical grounds, so the accused was not released from custody.

Ratio Decidendi: In bail matters under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the applicant must satisfy the twin conditions in section 45 on the basis of reasonable grounds, and where the material indicates a prima facie laundering case with continuing investigation, bail should be declined; ordinary medical complaints will not justify release unless the condition is shown to be serious enough to warrant such relief.

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this application for interim bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS') and Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PMLA') are:

• Whether interim bail can be granted on humanitarian grounds to the Applicant to attend to his critically ill mother, despite the serious nature of the charges under PMLA and prior adverse bail orders.
• The scope and applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA regarding grounds for interim bail, particularly whether illness of a family member qualifies as a ground under this provision.
• The assessment of medical evidence and factual verification regarding the health condition of the Applicant's mother and whether her condition necessitates the Applicant's physical presence for treatment.
• The risk of the Applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses if interim bail is granted.
• The procedural propriety and conditions under which interim bail may be granted in the context of the Applicant's prior bail history and compliance with court orders.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Grant of Interim Bail on Humanitarian Grounds

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 483 of BNSS and Section 45 of PMLA govern the grant of interim bail in cases involving serious offenses including money laundering. The Court acknowledged the stringent nature of PMLA bail provisions, which require careful balancing of humanitarian considerations against the risk of prejudice to the investigation and trial.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court recognized the Applicant's plea for interim bail on humanitarian grounds, specifically to attend to his critically ill mother who had sustained serious spinal injuries. The Court noted the Applicant's prior compliance with bail conditions and his readiness to surrender post the interim bail period. However, the Court was mindful of the serious charges and prior findings about risk of evidence tampering.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Applicant's mother suffered a fracture and partial collapse of vertebrae D-11 and L-1 following an accident. Medical reports indicated the need for advanced diagnostics such as MRI and possible surgical intervention. The Applicant is the sole male family member available to assist, as the sister resides abroad.

Application of Law to Facts: Balancing the humanitarian need against the risk of prejudice, the Court granted interim bail for fifteen days, imposing stringent conditions to mitigate risks. The Court emphasized that any observations regarding merits were without prejudice to the trial court's jurisdiction.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Respondent argued that the mother's medical condition was stable and did not require the Applicant's presence, relying on hospital records showing only one outpatient visit. The Court considered the Applicant's submission that the mother was bedridden and unable to attend follow-ups without assistance. The Court found the humanitarian ground sufficient to warrant interim bail, subject to conditions.

Conclusions: Interim bail was granted for a limited period on humanitarian grounds, with conditions designed to prevent tampering or interference with the investigation.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA to Grounds of Family Illness

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 45 of PMLA outlines grounds for bail but does not explicitly include illness of a family member as a ground. The Court examined whether humanitarian grounds can be read into this provision.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court acknowledged the Respondent's submission that illness of a family member is not a ground under Section 45 of PMLA. However, it exercised judicial discretion to grant interim bail on humanitarian grounds, emphasizing the exceptional nature of the case and the limited duration of bail.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Court relied on medical evidence and the Applicant's prior bail history to justify the exercise of discretion.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied a purposive interpretation, balancing strict statutory provisions with humanitarian considerations.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Respondent's strict interpretation was considered but not accepted to the extent of denying relief entirely.

Conclusions: While illness of a family member is not a statutory ground under Section 45 of PMLA, the Court granted interim bail on humanitarian grounds as an exception, subject to safeguards.

Issue 3: Verification of Medical Condition and Necessity of Applicant's Presence

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Courts require credible medical evidence to grant bail on health grounds, ensuring that the claimed medical exigency is genuine and necessitates the accused's presence.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court considered the status report submitted by the Respondent, which indicated that the mother had only one outpatient visit and was not admitted to hospital, suggesting stable condition. The Court also considered the Applicant's submissions and medical reports indicating serious spinal injury requiring further diagnostics and treatment.

Key Evidence and Findings: Medical reports showed fracture and partial collapse of vertebrae; Applicant's mother was reportedly bedridden and unable to attend follow-ups without assistance.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court found that despite the Respondent's report, the medical condition was serious enough to justify interim bail for the Applicant to assist in treatment arrangements.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court balanced the Respondent's factual verification against the Applicant's medical evidence and humanitarian plea.

Conclusions: The Court accepted the necessity of the Applicant's presence for medical treatment of his mother as a valid ground for interim bail.

Issue 4: Risk of Evidence Tampering and Influence on Witnesses

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Courts are cautious in granting bail in PMLA cases due to the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, often imposing strict conditions to prevent such risks.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted prior findings that bail could pose a risk of tampering. To mitigate this, the Court imposed stringent conditions including daily reporting to police, prohibition on contacting witnesses, and surrender after bail period.

Key Evidence and Findings: Previous orders reflected concerns about potential interference; however, the Applicant's compliance history and undertaking to abide by conditions were considered.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court balanced the risk against humanitarian grounds and imposed conditions accordingly.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Respondent's concerns were acknowledged but addressed through bail conditions rather than outright denial.

Conclusions: The Court ensured safeguards against tampering while granting interim bail.

Issue 5: Procedural History and Compliance with Bail Conditions

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court considered the Applicant's prior interim bail grants, surrender, and compliance with court orders as relevant to the exercise of discretion.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Applicant had previously been granted interim bail on medical grounds and had surrendered as ordered. The Court noted the Applicant's willingness to comply with conditions and surrender after the interim bail period.

Key Evidence and Findings: Past orders granting and extending interim bail, dismissal of regular bail, and Supreme Court's refusal to interfere were noted.

Application of Law to Facts: The Applicant's past conduct supported the grant of interim bail on humanitarian grounds.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Respondent pointed out the Applicant's failure to avail custody parole earlier, but the Court did not treat this as a bar to interim bail.

Conclusions: The Applicant's compliance history favored granting interim bail with conditions.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held that:

"Any observation made hereinabove shall not tantamount to be an expression on the merits of the case before the learned Trial Court and has been made for the consideration of the interim Bail alone in the prevailing circumstances."

This underscores the limited scope of the interim bail order, preserving the trial court's authority on merits.

The Court established the principle that even though Section 45 of PMLA does not explicitly include family illness as a ground for bail, humanitarian grounds may be considered for interim bail, subject to strict conditions and safeguards.

Final determinations included granting interim bail for fifteen days with conditions:

• Applicant to furnish personal bond and sureties.
• Restriction on leaving NCT of Delhi.
• Mandatory disclosure and operation of mobile numbers.
• Prohibition on contacting or influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
• Daily reporting to Police Station between 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM.
• Obligation to surrender after expiry of interim bail period.

These conditions aimed to balance humanitarian concerns with the integrity of the investigation and trial process.

Issues: Whether the Look Out Circulars should be suspended and permission to travel abroad should be granted to the petitioners.

Analysis: The request was examined in the light of the existing orders of the Special Judge and the earlier closure or suspension of the LOCs at the instance of the investigating agencies. The objections raised by the bank were found to be generic and unsupported by particulars. The Court also noted that no material had been shown to establish that the petitioners had attempted to misuse earlier concessions or hamper the proceedings. The right to travel was treated as an integral facet of the right to life, and the travel sought was considered for stated personal reasons. Conditions similar to those already imposed in related proceedings were found sufficient to balance the competing interests.

Conclusion: The prayer for suspension of the LOCs and permission to travel abroad was allowed, subject to conditions including travel restrictions, reporting obligations, an indemnity bond, and an FDR.

Ratio Decidendi: Restrictions on foreign travel cannot be sustained in the absence of specific material showing a real risk of misuse, and the right to travel forms part of the protection of personal liberty under Article 21.

Issues: Whether the Applicants were entitled, at the interim stage, to directions for de-freezing of bank accounts and release of frozen movable assets for educational and living expenses pending the main appeals under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The requested relief was examined only on the basis of the applications and supporting material, without entering into wider questions on the scope of proceeds of crime. The material placed for the claimed educational necessity was found to be inadequate: one Applicant produced offer letters but no specific basis for the alleged large requirement, another showed only a GMAT-related email without score, applications, or admission material, and the third produced no documentary support. The specific tuition requirement identified on record could be met from unfreezed funds already available in other bank accounts, and no persuasive material showed a genuine need to access additional frozen funds. The asserted need for living expenses was also found unsubstantiated, particularly where two Applicants were already employed professionals. Since the freezing had been confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority and upheld by the Appellate Tribunal, releasing substantial funds at this stage would risk undermining the statutory scheme and could not be justified on the basis of vague and unsupported assertions.

Conclusion: The Applicants were not entitled to the interim directions sought, and the applications were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim release of frozen properties under the PMLA cannot be granted on vague or unsubstantiated assertions of need where the claimed necessity is unsupported by credible documentation and the relief would risk defeating the statutory scheme.

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

• Whether the applicant, who is not named in the FIR or charge sheet of the predicate offence, can be held liable under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) for alleged money laundering related to the corporate debtor's insolvency resolution process;
• The applicability and interpretation of the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, specifically whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail;
• The effect of the ongoing arbitration proceedings challenging the Facility Agreement alleged to be a sham transaction and its impact on the prosecution's case;
• The relevance and application of the doctrine of parity in bail applications, especially when co-accused with allegedly graver charges have been granted bail or not arrested;
• The constitutional safeguards under Article 21 of the Constitution of India concerning liberty and speedy trial vis-`a-vis the stringent bail provisions under the PMLA;
• The assessment of risk factors such as flight risk, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses in the context of bail;
• The evidentiary threshold for bail under PMLA and the extent to which the court should delve into merits at the bail stage;
• The permissibility of bail where the trial of the predicate offence is pending or delayed indefinitely and the impact of such delay on the accused's right to liberty.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Liability of Applicant under PMLA despite not being named in Predicate Offence

The predicate offence registered by the CBI pertains to fraud, criminal breach of trust, and siphoning off funds by the corporate debtor and its promoters. The applicant was not named in the FIR or the charge sheet of the predicate offence. The applicant's role is as a partner in Umaiza Infracon LLP, the successful resolution applicant under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

The Court considered whether the applicant's involvement in the CIRP and the alleged Facility Agreement, which is challenged in arbitration, can be the basis for money laundering charges under the PMLA. The respondent alleged that the applicant acted on directions of ex-promoters to regain control of the company using proceeds of crime. However, the applicant denied knowledge of any proceeds of crime or involvement in sham transactions.

The Court noted that the Facility Agreement is under arbitration and thus the allegations based solely on this document cannot be conclusively accepted at this stage. The Court emphasized that the existence of proceeds of crime under the PMLA is contingent upon establishing the predicate offence, which is still at a preliminary stage and has not commenced trial. The Court relied on precedent holding that trial under PMLA cannot be decided unless the trial of the predicate offence concludes.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Bail Conditions under Section 45 of PMLA

The Court examined the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA requiring reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit the offence again if released on bail. The Court relied heavily on Supreme Court precedents, including Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Mohd. Muslim cases, which clarify that the court's role at bail stage is to consider broad probabilities rather than weigh evidence meticulously. The satisfaction of "not guilty" is prima facie and based on reasonable material on record.

The Court reiterated that stringent bail conditions under special statutes like PMLA must be balanced with the constitutional right to personal liberty under Article 21. It recognized the need to prevent punitive or preventive detention through prolonged incarceration without trial. The Court also noted that delay in trial and the maximum sentence prescribed (usually seven years under PMLA) are relevant factors in bail consideration.

Issue 3: Impact of Delay in Trial and Constitutional Safeguards

The Court highlighted the significant delay in commencement and likely conclusion of the trial, with thousands of documents and numerous witnesses involved in both predicate and PMLA cases. It referred to authoritative judgments emphasizing that prolonged detention without trial violates Article 21 and that bail is the rule, jail the exception.

The Court observed that the applicant had been in custody for about eleven months, had cooperated fully with investigations, and there was no evidence of flight risk or tampering with evidence. The Court also noted that co-accused with similar or graver allegations had been granted bail, reinforcing the principle that statutory restrictions cannot override constitutional rights indefinitely.

Issue 4: Doctrine of Parity and Selective Arrests

The Court acknowledged the respondent's submission that parity is not a ground for bail under PMLA but held that selective arrests and non-arrest of main beneficiaries can be a relevant consideration. It cited precedents where bail was granted due to the non-arrest of masterminds or principal accused, emphasizing fairness and non-arbitrariness in enforcement actions.

The Court found that the applicant's role was not materially different from co-accused who had been granted bail, and the non-arrest of key ex-promoters weakened the prosecution's case for continued custody.

Issue 5: Application of Law to Facts and Treatment of Competing Arguments

The applicant's counsel argued that the CIRP and takeover of SOL by Umaiza were lawful and judicially approved, and that the applicant had no knowledge of proceeds of crime. The respondent contended that the applicant was part of a conspiracy to launder proceeds of crime through sham entities and transactions.

The Court carefully balanced these contentions, noting that the allegations against the applicant were primarily based on circumstantial evidence and disputed documents under arbitration. The Court emphasized the need to protect the applicant's liberty in the absence of conclusive proof and in light of procedural safeguards.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"The trial in case under the PMLA cannot be finally decided unless the trial of predicate/scheduled offence concludes."

"The court at the stage of considering the application for grant of bail, is expected to consider the question from the angle as to whether the accused was possessed of the requisite mens rea. The court is not required to record a positive finding that the accused had not committed an offence under the act."

"The stringent provisions regarding the grant of bail, such as Section 45 (1) of the PMLA, cannot become a tool which can be used to incarcerate the accused without trial for an unreasonably long time."

"The Constitutional Courts can always exercise their powers to grant bail on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India and stringent provisions for the grant of bail such as those provided in Section 45 of the PMLA do not take away the power of Constitutional Courts to do so."

"The continued detention of the applicant cannot be justified on the sole ground of statutory bar under Section 45."

"No evidence has been led to show that the present applicants are a flight risk. In fact, records would show that both the applicants have joined investigation on multiple occasions. There is no incident alleged by the respondent wherein the applicants have tried to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses."

Core principles established include:

• The necessity of a prima facie assessment of guilt and risk at the bail stage under PMLA, without delving into trial merits;
• The constitutional primacy of personal liberty and speedy trial over statutory bail restrictions when trials are unreasonably delayed;
• The relevance of parity and fairness in enforcement actions, especially when key accused remain at large;
• The recognition that CIRP processes approved by NCLT cannot be lightly disregarded in criminal proceedings without proper adjudication;
• The requirement that bail conditions must be balanced with the realities of trial delays and the nature of offences.

Final determination on the bail application was to grant bail to the applicant subject to furnishing of personal bond and sureties, surrender of passport, restrictions on travel, communication with investigation, and non-interference with witnesses or evidence.

Issues: Whether the arrest of the petitioner under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, and the subsequent remand, were vitiated for want of compliance with the statutory safeguards and whether the Judicial Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to authorise custody.

Analysis: The Court held that judicial review in matters of arrest under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act is limited to verifying compliance with the statutory and constitutional safeguards, namely, whether the officer was duly authorised, whether the arrest was founded on material giving rise to recorded reasons to believe, and whether the grounds of arrest were informed. On the material placed, the arresting officer had recorded reasons in writing, referred to the relevant material relating to the predicate offence and money-laundering allegations, and supplied the arrest memo and grounds of arrest. The Court further held that once the arrest was not shown to be illegal under Section 19, the remand order could not be faulted on that ground. On jurisdiction, the Court found that in the absence of the Special Court during vacation, the Judicial Magistrate at Shimla had territorial jurisdiction to receive the arrestee and authorise custody in terms of Section 19(3) of the Act.

Conclusion: The arrest and remand were held to be valid, and the petitioner's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a challenge to arrest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, the Court may examine only whether the statutory preconditions and constitutional safeguards were complied with; it will not undertake a merits review of the sufficiency of the material, and a lawful arrest cannot be invalidated merely because the arrestee was later remanded by a competent Magistrate.

Issues: Whether a woman facing proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is entitled to anticipatory bail under the proviso to Section 45 of that Act.

Analysis: The application invoked Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for anticipatory bail in an ECIR alleging offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court noted that the case arose out of overlapping criminal material, including the earlier vigilance case and the partnership dispute involving the principal witness, but the decisive question was the effect of the first proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Relying on the principles stated by the Supreme Court that the proviso gives a special but discretionary protection to a woman, and that denial of such benefit requires specific reasons, the Court found the applicant entitled to the statutory indulgence on the facts presented.

Conclusion: The applicant was held entitled to anticipatory bail, and the direction for release in the event of arrest was made absolute, subject to conditions.

Issues: Whether discharge in the predicate offence required quashing of the ECIR and summons issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The issue turned on the relationship between the scheduled offence and proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court reiterated that the offence of money-laundering is an independent offence, though its source is a scheduled offence and the existence of proceeds of crime remains essential. A discharge in the predicate case does not, by itself, automatically extinguish the ECIR or nullify summons issued for inquiry under Section 50. The validity of such proceedings depends on the stage of the matter, the material collected, the status of the discharge challenge, and whether proceeds of crime are traceable on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The discharge in the predicate offence did not warrant quashing of the ECIR or the summons, and the petition failed.

Final Conclusion: Proceedings under the Act were held to be maintainable notwithstanding the petitioner's discharge in the predicate case, and the Court declined to interfere.

Ratio Decidendi: Money-laundering proceedings are not automatically vitiated by discharge in the scheduled offence; they may continue where the statutory elements of proceeds of crime and inquiry under the Act remain independently justiciable.

Issues: (i) Whether the bail condition requiring immediate deposit of the passport could be modified when the existing passport had expired and renewal was pending; (ii) Whether the requirement of furnishing a surety bond could be waived or substituted in view of the applicant's foreign nationality and inability to procure a local surety.

Issue (i): Whether the bail condition requiring immediate deposit of the passport could be modified when the existing passport had expired and renewal was pending.

Analysis: The applicant had already been permitted by the Trial Court to apply for a fresh passport, and the Court noted that issuance of the renewed passport would take time. In those circumstances, insisting on immediate deposit of the expired passport would prevent release on bail without serving a meaningful purpose. To secure the applicant's presence and prevent misuse of the renewed document, the Court directed that the applicant need not deposit the passport immediately, the FRRO shall ensure that he does not leave the country, and the renewed passport, when issued, shall be deposited directly before the Trial Court under intimation to the Court.

Conclusion: The passport condition was modified in favour of the applicant.

Issue (ii): Whether the requirement of furnishing a surety bond could be waived or substituted in view of the applicant's foreign nationality and inability to procure a local surety.

Analysis: The Court considered that bail conditions must be workable, proportionate, and not punitive, while still securing the accused's presence and preserving the integrity of the trial. Relying on the governing principles that a surety requirement is the norm but may be relaxed in exceptional cases of genuine inability, the Court accepted that the applicant, being a foreign national without social roots in India, could not readily procure a local surety. At the same time, the Court balanced the flight-risk concern by requiring enhanced cash security and strict compliance with other attendance and travel restrictions.

Conclusion: The surety condition was relaxed and replaced by a personal bond with enhanced cash surety, in favour of the applicant.

Final Conclusion: The bail conditions were materially modified to remove the immediate passport-deposit requirement and to substitute the local surety requirement with cash security, while maintaining safeguards to secure the applicant's presence during trial.

Ratio Decidendi: Bail conditions must be proportionate and practicable, and a court may relax or substitute a surety condition where the accused demonstrates genuine inability to furnish surety, provided effective safeguards remain in place to secure attendance and protect the trial process.