Issues: (i) Whether, on the materials placed, the petitioner was shown to be involved in money-laundering connected with proceeds of crime arising from the alleged land-related scheduled offence. (ii) Whether the statutory conditions for grant of bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were satisfied.

Issue (i): Whether, on the materials placed, the petitioner was shown to be involved in money-laundering connected with proceeds of crime arising from the alleged land-related scheduled offence.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested on a chain of circumstantial material, including searches, seized registers, survey reports, mobile-phone extracts, witness statements under Section 50, and the alleged linkage of the 8.86 acres of land with the petitioner. The Court held that money-laundering under Section 3 is an independent offence, and the concept of proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u) requires property derived or obtained from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. On the materials considered at the bail stage, the Court found that the record did not conclusively establish the petitioner's direct involvement in acquisition, possession, concealment, or laundering of the subject property so as to negate bail.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory conditions for grant of bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 were satisfied.

Analysis: Section 45 requires an opportunity to oppose bail and, if opposed, satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Court applied the broad-probabilities approach recognised in the governing precedents, treated the Section 50 statements as admissible but not conclusive at the bail stage, and held that the material did not justify a finding of guilt at this stage. The Court further held that the likelihood condition under Section 45 was not attracted on the facts placed before it.

Conclusion: The statutory bail conditions were held to be satisfied in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: Bail was granted after the Court found that the materials did not defeat the petitioner under the PMLA bail framework and that the case, at this stage, did not justify continued custody.

Ratio Decidendi: For bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Court must assess broad probabilities from the material collected in investigation and may not conduct a mini-trial; where the available material does not reasonably establish the accused's involvement in dealing with proceeds of crime, bail may be granted.

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to interim bail on medical grounds in the absence of material showing that the patient had no chances of recovery.

Analysis: The application was founded on the serious illness of the applicant's uncle. The Court noted that, despite the medical certificate and the asserted emergency, there was nothing on record to show a medical opinion that recovery was not possible. The Court also took into account the respondent's apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, the applicant could influence witnesses and tamper with documentary evidence, and found those concerns not to be unfounded at that stage.

Conclusion: Interim bail was declined.

Final Conclusion: The request for temporary release failed, while a limited direction was issued to facilitate the applicant's hospital visit in custody.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim bail on medical grounds will not be granted in the absence of credible material showing the necessity for such relief, especially where apprehensions of witness influence or evidence tampering remain plausible.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim bail on medical grounds under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The petitioner had undergone bariatric surgery and was shown to suffer from multiple comorbidities and recurrent post-operative complications. The medical material, including the AIIMS Board report and the prescription from DDU Hospital, indicated that strict and specialised dietary care was essential for recovery and that the dietary requirements were not being adequately met in jail. The Court applied the settled principle that medical bail under the proviso to Section 45(1) is warranted where the accused is sick or infirm and the required specialised treatment or sustained care cannot be effectively provided in custody.

Conclusion: The petitioner was found entitled to interim bail on medical grounds, since the required care and diet could not be satisfactorily provided in jail.

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned bail order warranted interim stay on the ground that the material, documents and submissions of the Enforcement Directorate were not properly considered. (ii) Whether the bail order suffered from non-consideration of the statutory requirements under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 and denial of adequate opportunity to oppose bail.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned bail order warranted interim stay on the ground that the material, documents and submissions of the Enforcement Directorate were not properly considered.

Analysis: The challenge to the bail order was examined only for interim relief in the pending petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The order granting bail was found to reflect insufficient consideration of the record, including the enforcement agency's written note, relevant factual material, and the objections raised to the reasoning adopted in the bail order. The Court treated the apparent non-consideration of relevant material as a serious matter going to the correctness of the impugned order at this stage.

Conclusion: The impugned bail order was held fit to be stayed pending consideration of the main petition.

Issue (ii): Whether the bail order suffered from non-consideration of the statutory requirements under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 and denial of adequate opportunity to oppose bail.

Analysis: The Court noted that the bail court had not appropriately dealt with the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 before granting bail. It also accepted, for the purpose of interim relief, that the grievance that the Enforcement Directorate was not given sufficient opportunity to present its opposition required serious examination in the main petition. These deficiencies were treated as relevant to the question whether the impugned order should continue to operate during pendency of the challenge.

Conclusion: The Court found sufficient prima facie grounds to stay the operation of the bail order.

Final Conclusion: Interim protection was granted against the operation of the bail order, and the challenge to that order was left for fuller consideration by the roster bench in the main proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: An interim stay of a bail order may be granted where the order appears to have been passed without proper consideration of relevant material and without due regard to the statutory bail requirements that govern the case.

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail by invoking Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the petitioners could avoid the rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on the ground that the amended provision could not operate retrospectively and whether the twin conditions for bail were satisfied.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail by invoking Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The petitioners had not undergone detention for one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment. The statutory threshold for invoking Section 436A was therefore not met.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to bail on the basis of Section 436A.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners could avoid the rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on the ground that the amended provision could not operate retrospectively and whether the twin conditions for bail were satisfied.

Analysis: The earlier rejection of bail had already recorded that the twin conditions were not satisfied. That finding had been carried in challenge and had not been displaced. The Court also noted that the constitutional position on the amended bail provision stood settled and that the amendment operated retrospectively. No change in circumstances was shown to warrant a different view.

Conclusion: The petitioners failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 and could not seek bail on the plea of non-retrospectivity.

Final Conclusion: The petitions for bail were not maintainable on the facts and legal position then prevailing, and the request for release was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: In bail matters under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, where the statutory twin conditions remain unsatisfied and no material change in circumstances is shown, bail cannot be granted; Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies only when its custody threshold is met.

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, having regard to the medical condition, the nature of the allegations, and the surrounding circumstances.

Analysis: The applicant placed medical material showing multiple ailments requiring constant supervision and treatment. The Court also noted that the earlier ECIR had been quashed, that the present FIR arose from the same set of facts, that no seizure of duplicate hologram had been shown, and that the prosecution allegations were still to be tested in trial. In these circumstances, and considering the protection already granted to some co-accused, the Court found it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Conclusion: The applicant was held entitled to regular bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Regular bail may be granted where the accused demonstrates a substantial medical need for treatment and the prosecution case remains untested, particularly when the record does not disclose strong supporting recovery material.

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act in view of the twin conditions under Section 45 and the material indicating receipt and use of proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The application was considered on the basis that the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is a distinct offence and that release on bail can be granted only when the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. On the material placed, the record disclosed investigation against the applicant arising out of the scheduled offence, recorded conversations with public officials, transfer of substantial amounts into the applicant's accounts from the concerned firms, and absence of a satisfactory explanation for the funds. The Court also held that the pendency of investigation under the scheduled offence and the absence of a charge-sheet therein did not, by itself, negate proceedings under the money-laundering law.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to bail.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable in view of the statutory remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the petitioners, as persons claiming interest in the attached property, had an efficacious remedy before the Special Court and the Appellate Tribunal against the attachment confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable in view of the statutory remedies under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The availability of an effective statutory remedy is a well-recognised restraint on the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Court noted that the petitioners did not bring their case within any accepted exception to the rule against entertaining a writ petition where the statute provides a complete redressal mechanism. No case of lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice in the jurisdictional sense, or challenge to the vires of the statute was made out so as to justify bypassing the statutory forum.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the Court declined to entertain it.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners, as persons claiming interest in the attached property, had an efficacious remedy before the Special Court and the Appellate Tribunal against the attachment confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis: Under Section 8 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, a claimant having a legitimate interest in the property and alleging quantifiable loss may seek restoration before the Special Court during trial, and Rule 3-A of the Prevention of Money-Laundering (Restoration of Property) Rules, 2016 provides the procedure for such restoration. In addition, Section 26 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 provides an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against an order of the Adjudicating Authority. The Court found that these remedies were available to the petitioners and were adequate to address their grievance regarding the manner of attachment.

Conclusion: The petitioners were required to pursue the statutory remedies before the Special Court and the Appellate Tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the attachment was not examined on merits in writ jurisdiction, and the petitioners were left to work out their remedies under the statutory framework.

Ratio Decidendi: When a special statute provides an efficacious mechanism for restoration and appellate review, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to bypass that forum unless a recognised exception to the alternative-remedy rule is established.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the existence of surviving scheduled offences, the material showing diversion of home-buyers' funds and the rigour of Section 45 of the Act.

Analysis: The allegations disclosed a continuing money-laundering probe arising from multiple scheduled offences, not merely from the original FIRs that had later been assailed. The material on record showed that the petitioner had held directorial positions in several group companies, that substantial amounts from home-buyers' funds had been diverted through related entities, and that transfers were traced into the petitioner's account and to entities associated with him. The Court treated the offence of money-laundering as independent and held that the existence of subsequent FIRs taken on record in the ECIR sustained the foundation of the investigation. The Court also held that the limitations under Section 45 of the Act apply with full force to anticipatory bail, and that the record did not permit a finding that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was not guilty or would not commit an offence while on bail.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to anticipatory bail and the relief was declined.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed because the Court found a prima facie case of money-laundering, held that the statutory bail restrictions governed the request for pre-arrest protection, and refused to interfere with the prosecution's continued investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: In a money-laundering case, anticipatory bail is subject to the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and it may be refused where the material shows a prima facie nexus with proceeds of crime and continuing scheduled offences.

Issues: Whether bail granted in a complaint under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was liable to be cancelled on the ground that the trial court ignored relevant considerations and misapplied the bail principles governing an accused not arrested during investigation.

Analysis: The petition for cancellation of bail was assessed on the settled principles that bail can be interfered with where the court granting it ignores relevant material, relies on irrelevant considerations, or passes an order that is unjustified or perverse. The complaint under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 had been filed without the accused having been arrested during investigation. In that situation, the governing principles were those clarified in the line of decisions dealing with production of an accused after complaint, where the normal course is issuance of summons and, if the accused appears, acceptance of bond may follow without treating the person as being in custody. The Court also considered that the rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was not attracted in the facts of the case as noticed by the trial court, and that the trial court had relied on the then-applicable Supreme Court guidance on appearance of an accused not arrested during investigation. The Court found no legal infirmity in the trial court's approach warranting cancellation of bail.

Conclusion: The bail order was not shown to be illegal, perverse, or based on irrelevant considerations, and cancellation was not justified.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the bail order failed, and the respondent's release in the complaint case was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused in a PMLA complaint was not arrested during investigation, the court on appearance is ordinarily to proceed by summons and bonds rather than custody, and bail already granted will not be cancelled unless the order is vitiated by non-consideration of relevant factors, irrelevant considerations, or perversity.

The petitioners sought to quash Provisional Attachment Order No. 02/2019 dated 23.09.2019 issued u/s 5(1) of the PMLA by respondent no. 3, which attached land admeasuring 26.76 hectares situated in Satna, M.P., valued at Rs. 4,68,60,710/-. The petitioners argued that the proceedings were a gross misuse and abuse of PMLA provisions, alleging the charges were false and unsubstantiated. The respondent no. 3 filed Original Complaint OC 1208/2019 dated 14.10.2019 u/s 5(5) of PMLA and issued a Notice to Show Cause dated 22.10.2019 u/s 8(1) of PMLA. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the attachment u/s 8(3) of PMLA on 02.03.2020. The petitioners' appeal against this confirmation is pending before the Appellate Tribunal.

The Original Complaint No. 1208/2019 was filed by respondent no. 3 u/s 5(5) of PMLA. The petitioners contended that the complaint and subsequent proceedings were based on false allegations and should be quashed. The Adjudicating Authority issued a notice to show cause u/s 8(1) of PMLA, and the provisional attachment was confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority.

The Notice to Show Cause dated 22.10.2019 was issued by the Adjudicating Authority u/s 8(1) of PMLA following the filing of the Original Complaint. The petitioners argued that this notice, along with the complaint and attachment order, should be quashed as they were based on unsubstantiated allegations.

The petitioners requested the substitution of the attached land with a bank guarantee of equivalent value (Rs. 4,68,60,710/-). They argued that the attachment caused significant financial losses and hindered their business operations. The court noted various precedents, including Supreme Court orders, allowing such substitutions. The court ordered the substitution of the attached land with a bank guarantee, which should be kept alive by periodical renewal until the conclusion of the trial arising out of ECIR No. 03/INSZO/2014.

The respondent no. 3 argued that the application was not maintainable in Delhi due to forum non-conveniens, as the petitioner, attached property, and respondent were based in Madhya Pradesh. However, the court found that the Original Complaint was filed in Delhi, and related proceedings, including the CBI FIR and trial, were also in Delhi. Therefore, the court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

The application was allowed, and the attached land was ordered to be substituted by a bank guarantee. The court clarified that this order should not be taken as an opinion on the merits of the case.

List on 29.07.2024, the date already fixed.

Issues: Whether the arrest complied with Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and whether any infirmity in forwarding the arrest material under Section 19(2) or in the remand proceedings vitiated the detention.

Analysis: The petitioner's arrest was examined against the statutory requirements that the authorised officer must have material in possession, record reasons to believe in writing, and inform the arrestee of the grounds of arrest. The record showed that the written grounds of arrest were furnished on the date of arrest and acknowledged by signature. The Court also noted repeated non-appearance to summons, the surrounding circumstances relied upon by the investigating agency, and the special court's remand order, which reflected application of mind to the grounds of arrest and the prima facie allegations under the money-laundering provisions. As to Section 19(2), the Court held that forwarding the material to the Adjudicating Authority a day or two later did not by itself establish non-compliance, since the provision did not prescribe same-day transmission as a mandatory requirement.

Conclusion: The arrest was held to be in conformity with Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and no illegality was found in the remand orders or the subsequent proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the written grounds of arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are supplied and acknowledged on the date of arrest, and the remand court applies its mind to the record, the arrest satisfies Section 19 despite later forwarding of material to the Adjudicating Authority under Section 19(2).

Issues: (i) Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail solely on the ground of delay in trial; (ii) whether the delay in commencement of trial was attributable to the applicant; (iii) whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in the CBI and ED cases on merits.

Issue (i): Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail solely on the ground of delay in trial.

Analysis: The order read the earlier Supreme Court liberty as permitting a fresh bail application where trial delay was one relevant consideration, but not as creating an automatic entitlement to bail merely because trial had not commenced or had progressed slowly. The Court held that the bail plea still had to be tested on merits, with speedy trial being an additional factor and not the sole ground, especially in serious corruption and money-laundering matters.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to bail solely on the ground of delay in trial.

Issue (ii): Whether the delay in commencement of trial was attributable to the applicant.

Analysis: The Court examined the pre-charge proceedings and noted repeated applications concerning supply and inspection of documents, alongside the practical complexity of a multi-accused case with voluminous records. It held that several applications were related to the accused's procedural rights and could not automatically be branded as delay tactics, yet the overall pre-trial process had not moved at a snail's pace in a manner attributable solely to the prosecution or the trial court. The Court found that the applicant had nonetheless contributed to the delay in the pre-charge stage through repeated document-related applications.

Conclusion: The delay in commencement of trial was not wholly attributable to the applicant, though his applications contributed to the delay in the pre-charge proceedings.

Issue (iii): Whether the applicant was entitled to regular bail in the CBI and ED cases on merits.

Analysis: On a prima facie assessment, the Court found material indicating the applicant's role in the alleged conspiracy, the creation of a fabricated public-feedback process, the increase in wholesale profit margin without justification, the alleged facilitation of licences and kickbacks, and the alleged destruction of electronic evidence. Applying the ordinary bail parameters and, in the ED case, the stringent twin conditions under the PMLA, the Court held that the applicant failed the triple test and that a prima facie case of money laundering was made out. The Court also held that economic offences of this nature warranted a stricter approach and that delay alone could not override the statutory safeguards.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to regular bail in either case on merits.

Final Conclusion: The bail applications were rejected, with the Court declining release on both the delay ground and on merits, while granting only a limited custodial visitation relief concerning the applicant's wife.

Ratio Decidendi: In serious economic offences, delay in trial is only one factor in bail adjudication and does not by itself justify release where the accused fails the ordinary bail tests and, in PMLA matters, cannot satisfy the twin statutory conditions.

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner had locus standi to maintain a public interest writ petition seeking directions in relation to a criminal investigation and alleged money-laundering proceedings. (ii) Whether the representations seeking action by the Enforcement Directorate and the State Government under the NIA Act could be directed to be considered on the facts pleaded.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner had locus standi to maintain a public interest writ petition seeking directions in relation to a criminal investigation and alleged money-laundering proceedings.

Analysis: The petitioner was found to be a stranger to the criminal proceedings and had not shown a legal or fundamental right requiring enforcement. Public interest litigation in criminal matters was held to require strict circumspection, and the objections as to maintainability and absence of locus standi were accepted. The pleadings and timing of the petition also supported the conclusion that the petition did not disclose a proper basis for invocation of public interest jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The petitioner had no locus standi to maintain the writ petition, and the objection to maintainability was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the representations seeking action by the Enforcement Directorate and the State Government under the NIA Act could be directed to be considered on the facts pleaded.

Analysis: The prayer for registration of a case and arrest under the PMLA was held to proceed on a misconception of the statutory scheme, because the Enforcement Directorate's role is confined to inquiry into proceeds of crime and related action under the PMLA, not to direct criminal registration in the manner sought. The Court also held that the material did not disclose any basis for a direction under Section 6 of the NIA Act, since the final report did not indicate the commission of scheduled offences attracting that statute.

Conclusion: No direction could be issued to consider the representations, and the claimed relief under the PMLA and the NIA Act was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and, in any event, disclosed no legal basis for the directions sought under the PMLA or the NIA Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A stranger to a criminal proceeding cannot invoke public interest jurisdiction to seek directions in aid of criminal prosecution or statutory action unless a clear public right and justiciable legal basis are shown; under the PMLA, the Enforcement Directorate acts in relation to proceeds of crime arising from a scheduled offence, not as a general investigating agency for the reliefs sought here.

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to bail in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the material indicating involvement in money laundering, the challenge to arrest and remand, and the principle of parity arising from the release of the principal accused.

Analysis: The material on record showed interception and seizure of smuggled betel nuts, statements indicating that the applicant was the actual consignee, and money trail evidence suggesting transfer and layering of alleged proceeds of crime through fictitious entities. On that basis, the Court found that the arrest could not be said to be wholly unjustified on a prima facie view. The Court also held that objections to the legality of arrest and remand were not determinative in the bail application in the manner urged, in view of the statutory scheme and the remedy indicated by the governing law. At the same time, the Court attached critical significance to the fact that Abdul Hannan Ali, the principal alleged offender and supplier, had been released on bonds despite graver allegations, while the applicant remained in custody. The Court treated this disparity as a relevant factor in favour of parity. The applicant's appearance before the investigating agency on several occasions and the totality of circumstances, including the relative role attributed to him as compared with the principal accused, were weighed in favour of grant of bail notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegations.

Conclusion: The applicant was held entitled to bail.

Final Conclusion: The bail application succeeded, and the Court granted release on bail while imposing standard conditions and rejecting the request to stay the order.

Ratio Decidendi: In a bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, parity with a principal accused released on bonds, when combined with the overall circumstances of the case, can justify grant of bail even where the prosecution relies on prima facie material of money laundering.