Bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - application of Section 45 PMLA - parity between co-accused in grant of bail - custody period as factor in bail - effect of antecedent bail in predicate offenceBail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - application of Section 45 PMLA - parity between co-accused in grant of bail - custody period as factor in bail - effect of antecedent bail in predicate offence - Whether the petitioner should be released on bail in the PMLA offence. - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that the petitioner had already been granted bail in the appeal arising from the predicate offence and that that order has not been challenged. The Court observed that a co-accused (Sukhpal Singh Khaira) in the present PMLA proceedings has been granted bail and that the petitioner has been in custody for approximately one and a half years. Applying Section 45 of the PMLA in the facts of this case, the Court found the rigour of that provision satisfied by reason of the custody period and parity with the co-accused. On that basis the Court exercised its discretion in favour of bail, directing release subject to conditions mirroring those imposed by the High Court in the order granting bail to the co-accused. [Paras 7, 8, 9]Petitioner ordered released on bail in Complaint Case No.1/2022, subject to conditions the same as those imposed by the High Court in the order dated 27.01.2022 in CRM-M No.51885/2021 (Sukhpal Singh Khaira).Final Conclusion: Special leave petition disposed of by directing grant of bail to the petitioner in the PMLA proceedings, subject to conditions pari passu with those imposed on the co-accused; pending applications disposed of.

Special Leave Petition dismissed as not pressed - liberty to file fresh petition if predicate-offence challenge succeeds - revival of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002Special Leave Petition dismissed as not pressed - Disposition of the Special Leave Petition when not pressed - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded that the learned Additional Solicitor General did not press the present Special Leave Petition at this stage and, accordingly, the petition was dismissed as not pressed. The dismissal is therefore by reason of non-pressing and not on merits of the substantive contentions. [Paras 2]Special Leave Petition dismissed as not pressed at this stage.Liberty to file fresh petition if predicate-offence challenge succeeds - revival of proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Effect of a successful challenge to the predicate offence on revival of PMLA proceedings and the Enforcement Directorate's right to seek revival - HELD THAT: - The Court noted that a separate SLP has been filed by the complainant of the predicate offence challenging the order quashing that offence. The Court granted leave to the Enforcement Directorate to file a fresh petition for revival of proceedings under the PMLA in the event the complainant's SLP is allowed. This preserves the ED's procedural right to seek revival without deciding the merits of the predicate-offence challenge or of any PMLA revival application at this stage. [Paras 1, 3]If the complainant's Special Leave Petition against quashing of the predicate offence is allowed, the Enforcement Directorate shall have liberty to file a fresh petition for revival of PMLA proceedings.Final Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed as not pressed; the Enforcement Directorate is granted liberty to file a fresh petition for revival of proceedings under the PMLA if the complainant's challenge to the quashing of the predicate offence succeeds.

Money Laundering - seeking grant of anticipatory bail - illegal transfer and misuse of the public funds from State Govt. accounts in fraudulent manner for personal gain - it was held by High Court that 'Taking into consideration the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and materials available on record as also in view of section 45 of the P.M.L. Act, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail and as such, his application for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected.' - HELD THAT:- It is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. SLP dismissed.

Interim order - modification of interim order - bank guarantee - fixed deposit - renewal of fixed deposit pending appeal - interest on fixed deposit - pending appellate proceedings - preservation of rights on meritsInterim order - bank guarantee - fixed deposit - renewal of fixed deposit pending appeal - Modification of the High Court's interim direction to accept Bank Guarantees in lieu of Fixed Deposits and directions regarding custody and renewal of the Fixed Deposit pending the appeal. - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court modified the impugned interim order by directing that the Bank Guarantees furnished by the respondent be returned to the respondent and that the appellant shall continue to renew the Fixed Deposit, which the appellant has invested in a Fixed Deposit after encashment, until final disposal of the appeal pending before the High Court. The assurance given by the appellant that the Fixed Deposit will be renewed was accepted and the modification was limited to the interim arrangement, without adjudicating the merits of the appeal. The direction is procedural and preserves the financial status quo in the form of the renewed Fixed Deposit while enabling the respondent to have its Bank Guarantees returned. [Paras 6]Bank Guarantees to be returned to the respondent; appellant to continue renewal of the Fixed Deposit until final disposal of the appeal.Interest on fixed deposit - pending appellate proceedings - preservation of rights on merits - Referral to the High Court to consider the respondent's claim to interest on the Fixed Deposit and preservation of all substantive questions in the pending appeal. - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court refrained from deciding entitlement to interest and other substantive questions, directing that at the time of final disposal of the appeal the High Court will consider the respondent's prayer regarding entitlement to receive interest accrued on the Fixed Deposit. The Court expressly kept all questions involved in the appeal open and emphasised that the High Court should not be influenced by the modification of the interim order made by this Court. Thus, the question of interest and the merits were remitted for consideration by the High Court. [Paras 6, 7]High Court to consider the respondent's claim to interest on the Fixed Deposit at final disposal; all substantive questions kept open for adjudication by the High Court.Final Conclusion: The appeal is disposed by modifying the interim order: Bank Guarantees are returned to the respondent while the appellant shall continue to renew the Fixed Deposit pending the High Court's disposal of the appeal; entitlement to interest and all other substantive issues are left open for the High Court to decide at final disposal.

Seeking pre-arrest bail - Money Laundering - non-compliance of summons u/s 50 of PMLA - twin conditions u/s 45 of PMLA complied with or not - application of judicial mind or not - it was held by High Court that 'This Court did not found any infirmity or illegality therein and declines to exercise the judicial discretion leaving it open to the respondents to proceed in the matter in accordance with law to complete the investigation.' HELD THAT:- After completion of investigation, yesterday, a complaint under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has been filed. The rejoinder affidavit shows that the appellant has cooperated for investigation - Accordingly, the interim order dated 18th September, 2023 is made absolute subject to the further condition that the appellant shall always remain present before the Trial Court and shall cooperate with the Trial Court for disposal of the case. Appeal allowed.

Special leave petition - interference with impugned judgment - regular bail application - disposal of pending applicationsSpecial leave petition - interference with impugned judgment - Dismissal of the special leave petition against the impugned judgment. - HELD THAT: - The Court, having heard counsel, recorded its decision not to interfere with the impugned judgment and dismissed the special leave petition. No substantive alteration or reversal of the impugned judgment was ordered; the petition is rejected on merits as recorded by the Court. [Paras 1]Special leave petition dismissed.Regular bail application - Clarification that the dismissal of the special leave petition shall not affect any future application for regular bail. - HELD THAT: - The Court expressly clarified that its dismissal of the special leave petition and the impugned judgment shall have no bearing on any application for grant of regular bail that may be filed in future, thereby leaving the adjudication of such bail applications to the appropriate forum on their own merits. [Paras 2]Dismissal will not prejudice or govern future regular bail applications.Disposal of pending applications - Final disposal of any pending applications before the Court in the present proceedings. - HELD THAT: - The Court directed that any pending applications connected with the present petition stand disposed of upon the dismissal of the special leave petition, concluding the Court's proceedings in this matter. [Paras 3]Pending applications, if any, disposed of.Final Conclusion: The special leave petition is dismissed; the Court clarified that this dismissal does not prejudice any future regular bail application, and any pending applications in these proceedings are disposed of.

Condonation of delay - Exemption from filing documents - Interference with High Court order - Surrender to trial court - Liberty to apply for regular bailCondonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay in filing the Special Leave Petition - HELD THAT: - The Court considered the delay application and granted condonation. The order records that delay is condoned after hearing counsel and perusal of the record, thereby permitting the petition to be taken on file.Delay is condoned.Exemption from filing documents - Application for exemption from filing certain documents - HELD THAT: - The Court reviewed the exemption application and allowed it, thereby permitting the petitioner relief from strict compliance with the filing requirement as sought in the exemption application.Exemption application is allowed.Interference with High Court order - Challenge to the High Court's impugned order by way of Special Leave Petition - HELD THAT: - After considerable hearing and careful perusal of the material on record, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The petition was considered on its merits and the Court declined to overturn the High Court's decision.Special Leave Petition dismissed; no interference with the High Court order.Surrender to trial court - Direction to the petitioner regarding surrender pursuant to dismissal - HELD THAT: - Having dismissed the petition, the Court directed that the petitioner surrender before the concerned Trial Court within three weeks from the date of the order. This is an operative direction to effectuate the consequences of dismissal.Petitioner directed to surrender before the concerned Trial Court within three weeks.Liberty to apply for regular bail - Petitioner's entitlement to seek regular bail after surrender - HELD THAT: - The Court clarified that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file an application for release on regular bail. Any such application is to be considered by the Trial Court on its own merits and in accordance with law, without any fetter imposed by this Court.Petitioner is at liberty to apply for regular bail; such application to be considered on merits and in accordance with law.Final Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition is dismissed after condoning delay and allowing the exemption application; the petitioner is directed to surrender to the Trial Court within three weeks and is permitted to move for regular bail, which shall be considered on its merits and in accordance with law.

Summary order. Delay condoned; notice issued returnable in four weeks; Dasti service granted; respondent accepted notice.

Bail - prima facie findings - conditions of bail - retraction of statements under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money laundering Act, 2002 - prima facie absence of mastermind role - cancellation of bailBail - prima facie findings - conditions of bail - retraction of statements under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money laundering Act, 2002 - prima facie absence of mastermind role - cancellation of bail - Whether the Court should interfere with the impugned order granting bail to the respondent. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the impugned order granting bail which rested on identified prima facie factual findings: prolonged incarceration already undergone by the respondent; the maximum sentence exposure; absence of criminal antecedents; limited interrogation in custody; that the evidence included statements under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money laundering Act, 2002 which were retracted; and a prima facie conclusion that those statements do not establish the respondent as the mastermind. The Court treated those findings as prima facie for the limited purpose of considering bail and noted stringent conditions imposed by the trial court. The legality of one specific bail condition (limited interrogation condition) is being considered in another matter and was not challenged by the respondent in this petition. The Court observed that any breach or misuse of liberty under the bail order would permit the petitioner to seek cancellation of bail before the appropriate forum. In light of the foregoing, the Court found no ground to interfere with the impugned exercise of discretion in granting bail.The Special Leave Petition is dismissed and the impugned order granting bail is not interfered with; liberty to seek cancellation of bail remains open on breach or misuse.Final Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition challenging the grant of bail is dismissed; the Supreme Court declines to interfere with the trial court's prima facie findings and conditions of bail, while leaving open the remedy of cancellation if bail conditions are breached.

Custody not required - release on bail - arrest in connection with E.C.I.R. - impugned order set asideCustody not required - release on bail - Direction that, if the petitioner is arrested in connection with E.C.I.R. No. RPZO/09/2022 / CC No. 5956 of 2023, she shall be released on bail on such terms as the Special Judge may consider fit and proper; the impugned order is set aside. - HELD THAT: - The respondent, through its counsel, informed the Court that the Directorate of Enforcement would not require the custody of the petitioner. On that basis the Court disposed of the petition by directing that in the event of the petitioner's arrest in relation to the specified E.C.I.R. and case, she shall be released on bail subject to terms to be determined by the Special Judge. The Court therefore set aside the impugned order. The Court recorded that it had gone through the materials disclosed and heard the parties before passing the direction.Petition disposed with direction for bail upon arrest and impugned order set aside.Final Conclusion: The petition is disposed of: following the respondent's concession that custody is not required, the Court directed that if the petitioner is arrested in connection with the named E.C.I.R. and case she shall be released on bail on terms to be fixed by the Special Judge; the impugned order stands set aside and pending applications are disposed.

Bail pending trial - pre-trial incarceration - prosecution witness - absence of charges framed - release on bail in the interest of justice - observations for disposal without adjudication on meritsBail pending trial - pre-trial incarceration - prosecution witness - absence of charges framed - Grant of bail to the appellant, Benoy Babu, pending trial in Complaint Case No. 31 of 2022 (ECIR/HIU-II/14/2022). - HELD THAT: - The Court considered that the appellant was an employee (Regional Manager) of the liquor manufacturer and is not an accused in the CBI charge-sheet but appears as a prosecution witness; it was asserted that no money was paid by or to him. The appellant had already suffered about thirteen months' incarceration and formal trial had not commenced as charges have not been framed. Having regard to these circumstances and the period of pre-trial detention already undergone, the Court exercised its discretionary power to admit the appellant to bail pending trial. The Court further clarified that the observations made in granting bail are confined to disposal of the present appeal and do not constitute findings on the merits of the underlying allegations.Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside and appellant directed to be released on bail in Complaint Case No. 31 of 2022 (ECIR/HIU-II/14/2022).Final Conclusion: The appeal is allowed and the appellant, Benoy Babu, is directed to be released on bail in Complaint Case No. 31 of 2022 (ECIR/HIU-II/14/2022); the Court's observations are limited to disposal of the appeal and do not decide the merits.

Summary order. Permission to withdraw the Special Leave Petition granted; the Special Leave Petition dismissed as withdrawn.

Interim order made absolute - investigation without arrest - grant of leaveInterim order made absolute - investigation without arrest - Interim order dated 16th October, 2023 to be made absolute in view of investigation conducted without arrest of the appellant - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded that during the course of the investigation the appellant was not arrested. Having heard the parties, the Court held that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the interim order passed on 16th October, 2023 should be made absolute. The order was therefore confirmed on the same terms and conditions as the interim order, and the appeal was allowed. [Paras 3, 4, 5]Interim order dated 16th October, 2023 is made absolute on the same terms and conditions; appeal allowed.Final Conclusion: Leave granted; interim order dated 16th October, 2023 made absolute on the same terms and conditions; appeal allowed.

Summary order. The Special Leave Petition was permitted to be withdrawn and is dismissed as withdrawn.

Complaint under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - interim order made absolute - interim relief - arrest not effected during investigationComplaint under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - interim relief - arrest not effected during investigation - Whether the interim order dated 13th October, 2023 should be made absolute in view of the material on record. - HELD THAT: - The Court perused the complaint filed under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, noting it comprises 190 pages and reflects a detailed investigation. The record shows that statements of the appellant were recorded on two occasions in July 2018, and that the Enforcement Directorate did not arrest the appellant during the course of the investigation. Having regard to these peculiar facts, the Court found it appropriate to grant the interim relief on a final basis. The Court therefore concluded that the interim order of 13th October, 2023 should be made absolute on the same terms and conditions as originally granted.Interim order dated 13th October, 2023 is made absolute and the appeal is allowed.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court made the previously granted interim order of 13th October, 2023 absolute on the same terms, and allowed the appeal, having regard to the detailed investigation record and the fact that the appellant was not arrested during investigation.

Summary order. Special Leave Petition dismissed as withdrawn.

Interim protection from arrest - Service of notice on Central Agency - Liberty to effect additional service - Condition of cooperation and attendanceInterim protection from arrest - Condition of cooperation and attendance - Petitioner to be protected from arrest in connection with ECIR No.AMZO/18/2020 on specified conditions. - HELD THAT: - The Court granted an interim order restraining the arrest of the petitioner in relation to ECIR No.AMZO/18/2020. The protection is conditional: the petitioner must at all times cooperate and remain present before the concerned Court on all dates fixed. The order is interlocutory and limited to the period pending further orders or until the returnable date specified by the Court.Arrest of the petitioner is stayed meanwhile, subject to her cooperation and attendance on all fixed dates.Notice - Service of notice on Central Agency - Liberty to effect additional service - Issuance of notice and liberty to effect service upon the Central Agency. - HELD THAT: - The Court directed that notice be issued returnable on 4th December, 2023 and expressly granted liberty to serve notice upon the Central Agency in addition to the respondent served. This procedural direction enables further service where necessary and fixes the next date for consideration of the petition.Notice issued returnable on 4th December, 2023, with liberty to serve the Central Agency in addition.Final Conclusion: Notice issued returnable on 4th December, 2023; petitioner granted interim protection from arrest in connection with ECIR No.AMZO/18/2020 pending that date, subject to unconditional cooperation and attendance before the concerned Court; liberty given to effect additional service on the Central Agency.

Summary order. Petition dismissed as not pressed; no opinion expressed on the merits; pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 - prima facie observations in bail order not prejudicial to trial - condonation of delay - dismissal of Special Leave PetitionCondonation of delay - Application for condonation of delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions. - HELD THAT: - The Court recorded satisfaction with the explanation for delay and accordingly condoned the delay. The order therefore proceeds on the basis that the petitions are maintainable notwithstanding the initial delay in filing.Delay in filing condoned.Exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 - prima facie observations in bail order not prejudicial to trial - dismissal of Special Leave Petition - Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 to interfere with the impugned order granting bail and containing certain observations. - HELD THAT: - After hearing counsel, the Court declined to interfere with the impugned order under Article 136. The Court explained that the observations made in the impugned judgment were prima facie in nature and were confined to the limited purpose of considering bail; those observations were not intended to, and would not, prejudice the trial on merits. On this basis the discretionary jurisdiction was not invoked to set aside or modify the impugned order.Special Leave Petitions dismissed; impugned order left undisturbed with clarification that its prima facie observations for bail will not prejudice the trial.Final Conclusion: Delay in filing the petitions is condoned. The Court declined to exercise Article 136 jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order; the observations in that order are treated as prima facie for the limited purpose of bail and shall not prejudice the trial. The Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed and the pending application is disposed of.

Seeking pre-arrest bail - Money Laundering - non-compliance of summons u/s 50 of PMLA - twin conditions u/s 45 of PMLA complied with or not - application of judicial mind or not - it was held by High Court that 'This Court did not found any infirmity or illegality therein and declines to exercise the judicial discretion leaving it open to the respondents to proceed in the matter in accordance with law to complete the investigation.' HELD THAT:- Issue notice returnable on 10th November, 2023 - In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with the case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (ECIR/JLZO/01/2018 dated 17th October, 2018), subject to the condition that the petitioner shall continue to cooperate with the investigation.