Outcome: The matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court for constitution of a third Judge, and the special leave petitions were posted for further hearing.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim bail on medical grounds and whether the medical report placed on record could be accepted for that purpose.

Analysis: The medical report of the G.B. Pant Institute was not disbelieved, and the Court accepted that a person has the right to obtain treatment of choice at private expense. On that basis, interim relief on medical grounds was considered appropriate for a limited period.

Conclusion: Interim bail on medical grounds was granted for six weeks, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court and the additional safeguards directed by the Court.

Issues: Whether the interim order precluded the trial court or High Court from considering an application for default bail independently of the judgment dated 26 April 2023.

Analysis: The order clarified that the interim arrangement would not prevent the trial court or, as the case may be, the High Court from examining an application for default bail under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on its own merits. The clarification specifically stated that such consideration could proceed independently and without reliance on the earlier judgment.

Conclusion: The bar against considering default bail applications was removed, and such applications could be decided independently.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to continuation of interim protection in view of the long lapse of time since registration of the ECIR and the fact that he was named only in the supplementary complaint.

Analysis: The appellant had not been arrested for nearly eleven years after the ECIR was registered. He was not named in the original prosecution complaint and was implicated only in the supplementary complaint filed much later. These circumstances were treated as sufficient to justify interference and continuance of protection.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the interim protection granted to the appellant was made absolute.

Outcome: Leave granted and the appeal was allowed in terms of the signed order.

Issues: Whether paragraph 51 of the earlier judgment required clarification so as to confine the ruling to the question referred to the larger Bench and preserve consideration of other pending issues by an appropriate Bench.

Analysis: The order records that paragraph 51 of the earlier judgment be read with the stated correction. The corrected paragraph makes clear that the finding on default bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rendered in relation to the reference before the Court, that the impugned High Court order was upheld on that basis, and that any other pending issues in the appeals would be addressed by an appropriate Bench.

Conclusion: The clarification was granted and the corrected statement of paragraph 51 was directed to be treated as part of the earlier judgment.

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent's continued incarceration warranted interference and release on bail. (ii) Whether the High Court's interpretation of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be treated as a precedent.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent's continued incarceration warranted interference and release on bail.

Analysis: The respondent had remained in custody for more than three years and had undergone nearly half of the maximum sentence that could be imposed. The apprehension of flight risk was considered capable of being addressed by suitable conditions, including surrender of passport. In these circumstances, continued detention was held unnecessary.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court's interpretation of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be treated as a precedent.

Analysis: The interpretation adopted by the High Court on Section 45 was found not to be in tune with the law laid down by the Court. The Court expressly clarified that such interpretation shall not be treated as precedent in any other case.

Conclusion: The High Court's interpretation of Section 45 was disapproved and denied precedential value.

Final Conclusion: The special leave petition was rejected, the status quo order was vacated, and the respondent's release was left to the conditions imposed by the Special Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where prolonged custody has already resulted in substantial pre-trial incarceration and the risk of absconding can be neutralised by conditions, continued detention is not necessary; an erroneous interpretation of law by the High Court does not operate as precedent when expressly disapproved.