Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to continue on bail pending trial, and whether the impugned order rejecting such relief was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The appellant had undergone incarceration for about eight years in the predicate offence and had not been arrested during the investigation, which commenced in 2016. In these circumstances, the earlier interim order granting bail was confirmed, with liberty reserved to the prosecution to seek cancellation if the terms and conditions of bail were violated or if other grounds for cancellation arose.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the bail granted by the trial court in terms of the earlier interim order was directed to continue during the pendency of the trial.

Issues: Whether a person who is not an accused in his individual capacity could be directed to appear and remain in judicial custody merely as the representative of companies prosecuted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The appellant was not named as an accused in his personal capacity in the ECIR, yet the trial court directed him to represent the companies and remanded him to judicial custody. The companies, being juristic persons, could be represented in accordance with law, and the governing procedural framework did not justify sending a non-accused individual to custody merely because he was a director. The direction was therefore inconsistent with the settled position that a corporation may be prosecuted, but custodial sentence cannot be imposed on a juristic person.

Conclusion: The direction remanding the appellant to judicial custody was unsustainable and was set aside. The appeal was allowed and the appellant was ordered to be released from custody.

Ratio Decidendi: A person who is not an accused in his individual capacity cannot be remanded to judicial custody merely to represent corporate accused persons in prosecution proceedings; juristic persons may be prosecuted, but custodial sentence is inapplicable to them.

Issues: Whether the order granting bail to the respondent, a woman accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, warranted interference and whether additional conditions were required while permitting the bail to stand.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 confers discretion to grant bail in the case of a woman accused, and the analogous first proviso to Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not create an automatic entitlement to release. The considerations governing grant of bail are distinct from those relevant to cancellation of bail. The respondent had remained in custody for more than 620 days, and the Court declined to interfere with the High Court's exercise of discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The bail order was allowed to stand with further safeguards in addition to the conditions already imposed by the High Court.

Conclusion: Interference with the grant of bail was declined, and the respondent's bail was upheld with additional conditions.

Issues: Whether a blanket exemption from personal appearance could be granted under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The request was for a blanket exemption from appearance before the Trial Court. The order records that Section 205 does not permit such an unrestricted exemption as a matter of course. At the same time, it notes that if sufficient and cogent reasons exist on a given occasion, an application for exemption may be made through counsel, and the Trial Court would consider it on its own merits in accordance with law.

Conclusion: Blanket exemption from personal appearance was declined. The petitioner may, however, seek exemption on appropriate grounds in accordance with law before the Trial Court.

Issues: (i) Application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned judgment; (ii) Grant of interim stay on operation of the impugned order; (iii) Protection from arrest without leave of this Court; (iv) Issuance of notice and listing for final hearing.

Issue (i): Whether exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned judgment should be allowed.

Analysis: The Court examined the procedural request for exemption and granted procedural relief permitting the petition to proceed without a certified copy of the impugned judgment pending further orders.

Conclusion: Exemption from filing a certified copy is allowed.

Issue (ii): Whether the operation of the impugned order should be stayed pending final hearing.

Analysis: Considering the pendency of the petition and the need to maintain the status quo until adjudication, the Court stayed the operation of the impugned order until final hearing.

Conclusion: Operation of the impugned order is stayed until final hearing.

Issue (iii): Whether the respondent should be protected from arrest without leave of this Court pending final hearing.

Analysis: The Court imposed protective interim relief restraining arrest in order to preserve the respondent's position until the matter is finally determined.

Conclusion: The respondent shall not be arrested without leave of this Court.

Issue (iv): Whether notice should be issued and the matter listed for final hearing.

Analysis: The Court ordered issuance of notice to the respondent and fixed a date for final hearing to enable adjudication on merits.

Conclusion: Notice is issued and the matter is listed for final hearing on 10 October 2023.

Final Conclusion: The Court has granted interim and procedural reliefs allowing the petition to proceed to final hearing while preserving the respondent's position by staying the impugned order and restraining arrest without leave.

Outcome: Delay condoned. The petition challenging the grant of bail was not interfered with and was disposed of, with liberty to seek incorporation of additional bail conditions before the High Court.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to a direction that, if arrested in the pending money-laundering case, he be released on bail on terms to be fixed by the trial court and subject to statutory conditions.

Analysis: The Court directed that in the event of arrest in the pending proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the appellant shall be released on bail by the arresting officer, investigating officer, or trial court on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court. The appellant was also required to comply with the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and to regularly appear before the trial court. The impugned order was set aside in view of this direction.

Conclusion: The appellant succeeded and obtained protection against custody on arrest in the pending PMLA case, subject to conditions fixed by the trial court.

Issues: Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the order refusing to stay the investigation and whether the petitioner should be left to pursue remedies available in law.

Analysis: The impugned order was read as a whole and it showed application of mind to the question whether the investigation ought to be stayed. The concern was that interference at this stage would have the effect of stifling the investigation at an incipient stage. The Court also noted that the petitioner remained at liberty to pursue remedies available in law, including under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and that such remedy would be considered on its own merits without being impeded by the earlier observations.

Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the order refusing to stay the investigation and left the petitioner to pursue available legal remedies.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with an order declining to stay an investigation should not be made where it would stifle the investigation at an incipient stage and an independent statutory remedy remains available.