Issues: Whether a woman accused of money laundering is exempt from the twin conditions for bail under the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether regular bail should be granted on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 45(1) exempts every woman accused from the statutory twin conditions without permitting sub-classification based on education, status, or professional standing. The expression "may be" makes the proviso enabling and discretionary, not an automatic entitlement to bail. The exemption is confined to the twin conditions; ordinary bail considerations, including the prima facie case, gravity, attributed role, likelihood of absconding, and possibility of witness or evidence tampering, continue to apply. The protective dispensation is consistent with substantive equality and the protection available to women under Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The petitioner had undergone more than seven months of custody; the prosecution complaint had been filed and no further custodial interrogation was shown to be necessary. With 73 proposed witnesses and voluminous documentary material, the trial at the pre-cognizance stage was unlikely to conclude soon. The record did not disclose tangible material establishing flight risk, vulnerable witnesses, or a likelihood of interference with evidence, which was substantially documentary and electronic and already in the investigating agency's custody.

Conclusion: The statutory discretion under the first proviso to Section 45(1) was exercisable in favour of the petitioner, and regular bail was warranted subject to protective conditions.

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable to challenge an Enforcement Case Information Report and consequential proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: An ECIR may be an internal administrative document and not equivalent to an FIR registered under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; consequently, precedents limiting a challenge solely under Section 482 to the ECIR itself do not restrict the constitutional jurisdiction invoked under Article 226. The constitutional power of judicial review cannot be curtailed by the administrative nomenclature of the initiating document, particularly where the ECIR generates coercive consequences including search, seizure, attachment, arrest and prosecution. A challenge to the ECIR and its consequential proceedings constitutes a single cause of action and cannot be fragmented merely because the ECIR is described as an internal record. Further, proceedings for money laundering are founded on the existence of criminal activity and proceeds of crime; where the predicate offence has ceased through acceptance of a closure report, the continuing legality of action founded on that offence is open to judicial scrutiny.

Conclusion: A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable to examine the legality of an ECIR and all consequential action founded on it. The preliminary objection to maintainability is rejected.

Issues: Whether a scheduled-offence case could be committed to the designated Special Court under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 when that Special Court had not taken cognizance of the money-laundering complaint.

Analysis: Section 44(1)(c) applies where the court handling the scheduled offence and the Special Court handling the money-laundering complaint have both taken cognizance and are different courts. Cognizance by the Special Court is an express statutory precondition, not an anticipated or dispensable formality. A pre-cognizance notice under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 does not amount to cognizance. The absence of the sanction required under Section 197(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 also prevented cognizance against the former public servant. Further, committal is discretionary and intended to avoid delay and inconsistent findings; it could not justifiably be used to displace a scheduled-offence trial that had substantially concluded, thereby prejudicing the accused's right to speedy trial.

Conclusion: The committal application was premature and was rightly refused; the issue is decided against the petitioner.

Issues: Whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could be exercised to challenge a provisional attachment order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on the alleged absence of a scheduled offence and alleged excess in the quantification of proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provides a time-bound adjudication of provisional attachment, followed by appeals to the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court. Writ jurisdiction despite that remedy is confined to exceptional cases of patent arbitrariness, mala fides, or manifest lack of jurisdiction. The provisional attachment order referred to FIRs alleging cheating, which is a scheduled offence, and the Enforcement Directorate had contemporaneously transmitted information to the jurisdictional police under Section 66(2). A pre-registered case concerning the scheduled offence is not indispensable for provisional attachment under Section 5. The objections concerning advertisements directed outside India and the amount treated as proceeds of crime concern quantification and disputed facts, appropriately examinable in the statutory proceedings.

Conclusion: No manifest lack of jurisdiction was established; the challenges to the attachment, including the predicate-offence and quantification objections, must be pursued through the statutory remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issues: (i) Whether a compromise decree entered after attachment of the property conferred an enforceable right upon the petitioner to challenge the attachment; (ii) Whether an order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, passed by a single Member (Finance) of the Adjudicating Authority, is constitutionally invalid; (iii) Whether property acquired before registration of the predicate offence can be attached as proceeds of crime; (iv) Whether the provisional attachment order lacked the requisite reasons to believe that non-attachment would frustrate proceedings; (v) Whether the confirmation order lacked an independent finding of reasons to believe regarding possession of proceeds of crime.

Issue (i): Whether a compromise decree entered after attachment of the property conferred an enforceable right upon the petitioner to challenge the attachment.

Analysis: The attachment predated the compromise decree, and the petitioner was aware of it from the encumbrance certificate. Title had not been transferred in execution of the compromise decree. An agreement reached with knowledge of the existing attachment did not create any right, title, or interest in the attached property.

Conclusion: The compromise decree did not confer an enforceable interest enabling the petitioner to challenge the attachment, against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether an order under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, passed by a single Member (Finance) of the Adjudicating Authority, is constitutionally invalid.

Analysis: The Adjudicating Authority performs statutory scrutiny of attachment proceedings and does not exercise functions transferred from regular courts. The statutory scheme permits a single-member bench, including a non-judicial member, and provides a full appellate mechanism before the Appellate Tribunal and thereafter the High Court. The constitutional principles governing tribunals taking over High Court functions were therefore inapplicable.

Conclusion: An order of the Adjudicating Authority passed by a single Member (Finance) is legally valid and constitutionally unobjectionable, against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether property acquired before registration of the predicate offence can be attached as proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The governing test is whether the property is directly or indirectly derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The date on which the property was acquired, by itself, does not exclude the authority to attach it where it is treated as proceeds of crime under the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: Property acquired before registration of the predicate offence may be attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, against the petitioner.

Issue (iv): Whether the provisional attachment order lacked the requisite reasons to believe that non-attachment would frustrate proceedings.

Analysis: The provisional attachment order recorded, after setting out the predicate offence and alleged money-laundering transactions, that immediate attachment was necessary because non-attachment was likely to frustrate proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. A factual challenge to that recorded satisfaction falls within the statutory appellate process rather than writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment order contained the requisite reasons to believe, against the petitioner.

Issue (v): Whether the confirmation order lacked an independent finding of reasons to believe regarding possession of proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The confirmation order contained detailed discussion of the material and recorded satisfaction that the concerned persons were in possession of proceeds of crime before issuing notice under the statutory procedure. Its reasons reflected an independent assessment and were not a mere repetition of the provisional attachment findings.

Conclusion: The confirmation order contained an independent and legally sufficient finding of reasons to believe, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The attachment and adjudication proceedings withstand the challenges raised, and the petitioner has no enforceable claim over the attached property on the basis of the subsequent compromise decree.

Ratio Decidendi: A single non-judicial member of the Adjudicating Authority may validly adjudicate under the statutory scheme, and attachment is sustainable where the competent authorities record legally sufficient reasons to believe that property constitutes proceeds of crime and requires preservation.

Issues: (i) Whether Section 6(5)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 permits a single Finance Member of the Adjudicating Authority to decide proceedings under Section 8; (ii) Whether the provisional attachment order satisfied the requirement of reasons to believe that non-attachment would frustrate proceedings; (iii) Whether the Adjudicating Authority independently recorded reasons to believe that the petitioners possessed proceeds of crime; and (iv) Whether properties acquired before the scheduled offence may be attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether Section 6(5)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 permits a single Finance Member of the Adjudicating Authority to decide proceedings under Section 8.

Analysis: The Adjudicating Authority is a statutory mechanism for scrutiny of attachment proceedings and does not displace functions formerly exercised by constitutional courts. Section 6(5)(b) authorises constitution of a bench with one or two members. The statutory appeals to the Appellate Tribunal and thereafter to the High Court on facts and law preserve adjudicatory safeguards. The principles governing tribunals assuming functions of High Courts do not invalidate a single-member non-judicial bench under this statutory scheme.

Conclusion: A single-member bench comprising a Finance Member is competent to decide proceedings under Section 8; the constitutional challenge to Section 6(5)(b) fails, against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the provisional attachment order satisfied the requirement of reasons to believe that non-attachment would frustrate proceedings.

Analysis: The provisional attachment order recorded, after addressing the loans and attached properties, that immediate non-attachment was likely to frustrate proceedings under the Act. A factual challenge to that recorded satisfaction is not amenable to detailed examination in writ jurisdiction and is to be pursued through the statutory appellate mechanism.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment order contained the requisite reasons to believe and is not invalid on that ground, against the petitioners.

Issue (iii): Whether the Adjudicating Authority independently recorded reasons to believe that the petitioners possessed proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The adjudication order and the recorded reasons disclosed an independent assessment of the material, including the sources of income, earnings and assets from which the attached properties were claimed to have been acquired. The reasons were not a mere repetition of the Enforcement Directorate's findings.

Conclusion: The Adjudicating Authority independently formed and recorded the requisite satisfaction under Section 8, against the petitioners.

Issue (iv): Whether properties acquired before the scheduled offence may be attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The governing construction of "proceeds of crime" includes property directly or indirectly derived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The applicable precedent recognises the authority to proceed against property even where its acquisition predates registration of the predicate offence, provided it is linked to proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: Properties acquired before registration of the predicate offence are not immune from attachment under the Act, against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The statutory attachment and adjudication proceedings remain legally sustainable, with factual challenges available through the prescribed appellate process.

Ratio Decidendi: A single-member non-judicial bench validly constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 may adjudicate attachment proceedings, and recorded statutory satisfaction supported by the material cannot be reappraised in writ jurisdiction when an effective appellate remedy exists.

Issues: Whether a bank may unilaterally freeze a customer's account on suspicion arising from transaction volume, relying on enhanced due-diligence obligations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and KYC directions.

Analysis: Section 12AA imposes verification, record-examination and information-seeking obligations upon a reporting entity for compliance purposes. It does not confer adjudicatory or investigative authority on a bank to freeze an entire customer account. A bank is a custodian of account funds; where it detects suspicious transactions, it may undertake customer due diligence and report the matter to the competent agency, but cannot impose an indefinite blanket restriction without statutory authority. KYC directions similarly permit regulatory compliance measures and reporting, not unilateral freezing merely because transaction values exceed an account threshold. No FIR, criminal proceeding or complaint existed against the petitioner.

Conclusion: The unilateral freezing of the account was arbitrary and unsustainable in law; the bank was required to de-freeze the account.

Ratio Decidendi: Enhanced due-diligence and suspicious-transaction reporting obligations do not authorise a bank to unilaterally freeze a customer's entire account absent statutory power exercised by the competent authority.

Issues: Whether the petitioner satisfied the statutory twin conditions for regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The material indicated that the petitioner, as a senior corporate functionary, was allegedly involved in undervalued asset sales using revoked board resolutions and in the diversion and concealment of unaccounted sale proceeds. The alleged use of judicially permitted asset liquidation as a means to generate and siphon unrecorded cash was treated as conduct falling within money laundering, not a mere corporate or civil irregularity. The digital material and unresolved money trail did not support a finding, at the bail stage, that the petitioner was not guilty. The challenge to arrest based on alleged defects in electronic evidence did not establish an undeniable illegality capable of displacing the statutory bail conditions. The asserted age, medical condition, detention period and parity were insufficient, particularly given the petitioner's alleged distinct role, absconding co-accused, ongoing investigation, and risks of witness intimidation and evidence manipulation.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe that he was not guilty of money laundering or that he was unlikely to commit an offence while on bail; regular bail was therefore refused.

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 a property attached and confirmed as proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, can be released from attachment upon furnishing an equivalent bank guarantee.

Analysis: The statutory scheme aims to prevent laundering of illicit funds and to preserve assets derived from criminal activity for eventual confiscation or restitution. The attached property was prima facie traceable to proceeds of crime and remained identifiable and available. The Act contains no provision permitting substitution of such attached immovable property with a bank guarantee. Its release would expose the asset to sale, development, depletion, and generation of further profits, defeating the statutory objective of preventing persons from benefiting from proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: Substitution of the attached property with a bank guarantee cannot be permitted; the attachment remains in force.

Issues: (i) Whether the continued retention of the seized jewellery, Indian currency, foreign currency and documents complied with the requirements of Sections 17, 20 and 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether retention of jewellery claimed by Petitioners 2 to 5 without independent notice and opportunity of hearing was valid; (iii) Whether the writ petition was barred by the alternative appellate remedy under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the continued retention of the seized jewellery, Indian currency, foreign currency and documents complied with the requirements of Sections 17, 20 and 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Search, seizure and continued retention under the statutory scheme require recorded reasons to believe founded on material, and the Adjudicating Authority must be satisfied that the property is prima facie involved in money laundering and required for adjudication. The retention order did not disclose meaningful consideration of the partnership records, loan-closure documents, repayment material, jewellery bills, valuation reports, affidavits, income-tax records, travel documents and other evidence produced to establish lawful acquisition. It reproduced allegations founded on suspicion without identifying cogent material linking the seized assets to proceeds of crime. Fresh allegations in the counter affidavit could not cure deficiencies in the recorded order.

Conclusion: The retention order did not satisfy the mandatory requirements for continued retention and was invalid, in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether retention of jewellery claimed by Petitioners 2 to 5 without independent notice and opportunity of hearing was valid.

Analysis: Substantial portions of the seized jewellery were claimed by Petitioners 2 to 5, who were neither accused in the scheduled offences nor independently notified in the retention proceedings. A person whose property rights are directly affected must receive reasonable notice and an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: Retention without notice and hearing to the affected claimants violated principles of natural justice, in favour of the petitioners.

Issue (iii): Whether the writ petition was barred by the alternative appellate remedy under Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: An alternative statutory remedy is not an absolute bar to judicial review where the challenge alleges lack of jurisdiction, breach of mandatory statutory safeguards and violation of natural justice. The challenge to compliance with Sections 17 and 20 and to the absence of the required adjudicatory satisfaction fell within Article 226 jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The availability of an appeal under Section 26 did not bar the writ petition, in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: Continued retention of property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires a reasoned determination based on material connecting the property with proceeds of crime, while preserving notice and hearing safeguards; the investigation against the accused may proceed in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory powers of search, seizure and continued retention under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot rest on suspicion alone and require recorded reasons, cogent supporting material, adjudicatory satisfaction and compliance with natural justice.

Issues: Whether the complaint concerning alleged money laundering was required to be taken up by the competent department and its outcome communicated to the petitioner.

Analysis: The department stated that it would take up the email/complaint and take appropriate steps in accordance with law. The Court declined to prescribe a stipulated time for completion, while expecting responsible action and communication of developments to the petitioner. No adjudication on the underlying allegations was made.

Outcome: Writ petition disposed of.

Issues: Whether interim bail on humanitarian grounds was warranted where the applicant's spouse was undergoing treatment for metastatic ovarian carcinoma.

Analysis: The medical material reflected stable disease with a mild reduction in lesions, no immediate emergency or critical procedure, and maintenance chemotherapy administered periodically in a day-care setting. The material did not establish that the applicant's presence was medically indispensable or that available family support was inadequate. In view of the gravity of the allegations, the applicant's position, and the risks of flight, witness influence, and evidence tampering, the statutory rigours for bail could not be relaxed merely on humanitarian considerations absent an emergent or exceptional circumstance.

Conclusion: Interim bail was declined. Limited custody parole for three specified days was granted to enable the applicant to meet his ailing wife.

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.