Bail - Interference with High Court order - Special Leave Petition - Disposal of pending interlocutory applicationBail - Interference with High Court order - Special Leave Petition - Supreme Court will not interfere with the High Court's grant of bail to the respondent and the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. - HELD THAT: - The Court, after hearing the counsel including the Additional Solicitor General for the petitioner, found no reason to intervene in the impugned High Court order granting bail to the respondent. No further reasons or legal errors warranting interference were recorded by the Court. Consequently the special leave petition seeking that relief was dismissed.The High Court's bail order is left undisturbed and the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.Disposal of pending interlocutory application - The pending interlocutory application is disposed of as a sequel to the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. - HELD THAT: - Having dismissed the Special Leave Petition, the Court disposed of the related pending interlocutory application without separate adjudication.Pending interlocutory application stands disposed of.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's grant of bail to the respondent, dismissed the Special Leave Petition, and disposed of the pending interlocutory application.

Mandatory twin requirements - extraneous considerations in granting relief - mitigating circumstances: advanced age and cooperation during investigation - exercise of discretionary jurisdiction - refusal to interfere despite procedural lapse - pronouncement not to be treated as precedent - question of law left openMandatory twin requirements - extraneous considerations in granting relief - Whether the High Court had failed to consider and apply the mandatory twin requirements and had granted relief on extraneous considerations. - HELD THAT: - The Court agreed with the petitioner's grievance that the High Court did not deal with the mandatory twin requirements and had granted indulgence to the respondents on extraneous considerations. This finding records that the High Court's discretion was exercised without attention to the compulsory legal criteria that should govern such relief. The Court, however, did not proceed to set aside the High Court order on the basis that procedural omission alone was identified; instead, it treated that omission as a determinative defect in the High Court's reasoning while addressing the appropriate remedial outcome in light of the case facts.High Court failed to apply the mandatory twin requirements and granted relief on extraneous considerations; this defect is recognised by the Court.Mitigating circumstances: advanced age and cooperation during investigation - exercise of discretionary jurisdiction - refusal to interfere despite procedural lapse - question of law left open - pronouncement not to be treated as precedent - Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court order notwithstanding that procedural requirements were not observed. - HELD THAT: - Notwithstanding the identified failure by the High Court, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court order in the special facts of the case. The Court noted the respondents are reportedly senior citizens and had cooperated during the investigation, factors which it treated as mitigating and sufficient to justify non-interference in these petitions. The Court expressly left the substantive question of law open for future consideration and cautioned that the impugned order shall not operate as a precedent in other cases. Thus, the Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to refuse interference on facts while preserving the legal issue for determination elsewhere.Special leave petitions disposed of without interference on facts; question of law left open and impugned order not to be treated as precedent.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to apply the mandatory twin requirements and granted relief on extraneous considerations, but, in view of the respondents' advanced age and cooperative conduct, declined to disturb the High Court order in these special facts; the legal question is left open and the order is not to be treated as precedent; the special leave petitions are disposed of.

Temporary bail - permanent bail on medical grounds - first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PML Act - interference with Sessions Court order - medical board assessmentInterference with Sessions Court order - temporary bail - Validity of the High Court's interference with the Sessions Court order granting bail - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court erred in keeping the Sessions Court's bail order in abeyance and subjecting the grant of bail to further medical examination. The Sessions Court had granted bail on medical grounds relying on the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PML Act; the High Court directed a medical board and, on receipt of its report, concluded that permanent bail was not justified but granted temporary bail for two months for treatment. Having examined the medical record and the submissions, the Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's interference with the Sessions Court order. Notwithstanding that conclusion, the Court exercised its discretion to enlarge the period of temporary bail on the basis of the petitioner's medical treatment needs, while upholding the High Court's authority to examine the medical evidence before deciding permanence of bail.No error in the High Court's interference; temporary bail enlarged to four months from the date of the order subject to the High Court's conditions.Permanent bail on medical grounds - first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PML Act - medical board assessment - Whether the petitioner was entitled to permanent bail on medical grounds under the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PML Act - HELD THAT: - The Court reviewed the medical records and the medical board's report relied upon by the parties. The Sessions Court had not addressed merits because it granted bail on medical grounds; the High Court independently examined the medical evidence and formed the view that permanent bail was not warranted. The Supreme Court did not accept the contention that the petitioner must be released on permanent bail without further scrutiny; it affirmed the High Court's approach of evaluating the medical evidence and, on the facts before it, declined to grant permanent bail while permitting a limited period of temporary release for treatment.Permanent bail was not granted; temporary bail for four months was allowed to facilitate treatment, subject to the High Court's conditions.Final Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition is disposed of by confirming the High Court's authority to re-examine medical grounds for bail; the petitioner is granted temporary bail for four months (no extension to be entertained) subject to the conditions imposed by the High Court, and all pending applications stand disposed of.

Bail - Grant of bail pending trial - Length of custody vis-a -vis maximum sentence - Completion of investigation and filing of draft charges - Parity with co-accused released on bail - Rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002Bail - Length of custody vis-a -vis maximum sentence - Completion of investigation and filing of draft charges - Parity with co-accused released on bail - Rigour of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Appellant entitled to grant of bail pending trial subject to conditions. - HELD THAT: - The Court, without deciding whether the amended rigor of Section 45 applies, granted bail to the appellant. The determinative reasons were: (a) the substantial period of actual custody already undergone by the appellant relative to the maximum sentence prescribed for the offences charged; (b) the investigation having been completed with draft charges circulated, indicating that further custodial interrogation was not warranted on that basis; and (c) parity with other co-accused who had already been released on bail. The Court recorded the prosecution's contentions regarding accused being declared Proclaimed Offender, delayed surrender, and the nature of the alleged foreign-exchange transactions, but found these did not outweigh the factors favouring bail. The Court therefore exercised its discretion to release the appellant on bail subject to specified security, sureties and supervisory conditions, and directed prompt production before the trial Court and speedy verification of sureties.Bail granted subject to furnishing specified cash security and two like sureties and compliance with conditions imposed by the Trial Court; appellant to be produced and sureties verified within the time prescribed.Final Conclusion: Appeal allowed; appellant released on bail subject to furnishing cash security and two like sureties and compliance with enumerated conditions, with directions for immediate production before the Trial Court and prompt verification of sureties.

Enlargement on bail - pre-trial detention duration - disability as a factor in bail consideration - release on bail in connected FIR - PMLA detention - exercise of discretion in peculiar facts and circumstancesEnlargement on bail - disability as a factor in bail consideration - pre-trial detention duration - release on bail in connected FIR - PMLA detention - Petitioner to be enlarged on bail by the Special Court subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed. - HELD THAT: - The Court, having heard counsels, exercised its discretion to enlarge the petitioner on bail in view of the petitioner's disability, the fact that he had earlier been released on bail in connection with the FIR for the scheduled offences on 23.08.2019, and that he has been under detention in connection with the complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act since October 2018. The Court noted that the petitioner has already undergone more than two and a half years of imprisonment in connection with the PMLA complaint. The order granting bail was passed by applying judicial discretion to the combined impact of prolonged pre-trial detention and the petitioner's disability, and was confined to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.Special leave petitions disposed of; petitioner directed to be enlarged on bail subject to terms to be imposed by the Special Court.Final Conclusion: Special leave petitions disposed; bail granted to the petitioner on the noted grounds of disability, prior bail in the connected FIR, and prolonged detention under the PMLA, subject to conditions to be fixed by the Special Court.

Independent agency preliminary enquiry - Public confidence and seriousness of allegations - Effect of resignation on initiation of enquiry - Right to personal hearing before preliminary enquiryIndependent agency preliminary enquiry - Public confidence and seriousness of allegations - Direction for an independent agency to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the allegations was sustainable and should not be interfered with. - HELD THAT: - The Court held that given the nature and seriousness of the allegations and the persons involved, an independent agency was required to conduct a preliminary enquiry. The direction was justified as a measure to preserve public confidence in view of the factual scenario. The Court emphasised that what was directed was only a preliminary enquiry by an independent agency and, on that basis, declined to disturb the impugned order.The direction for a preliminary enquiry by an independent agency is sustained and not interfered with.Effect of resignation on initiation of enquiry - Resignation of the Home Minister after the impugned order did not preclude directing an independent enquiry. - HELD THAT: - The Court rejected the submission that the subsequent resignation of the Home Minister would bar an independent enquiry. It noted that the persons concerned had held the offices of Home Minister and Commissioner of Police for a long period and that the resignation did not diminish the need for independent scrutiny given the relationship and positions held.Resignation of the Home Minister is not a ground to decline an independent preliminary enquiry.Right to personal hearing before preliminary enquiry - The petitioner was not entitled as of right to be personally heard before the initiation of the preliminary enquiry directed against the State and represented by the State government. - HELD THAT: - The Court was not persuaded by the contention that the petitioner, although a Minister at the relevant time, was mandatorily entitled to be heard in his individual capacity before a preliminary enquiry could be directed. It observed that the State government was represented and that such a preliminary enquiry could be ordered without personal hearing of the petitioner in his individual capacity.No mandatory right to individual personal hearing of the petitioner prior to directing the preliminary enquiry.Final Conclusion: Special leave petitions are dismissed; the impugned direction for a preliminary enquiry by an independent agency is upheld; intervention application closed and pending applications disposed of.

Summary order. Notice issued; caveator accepted notice. Status quo as to release from jail to be maintained until further orders and the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent in other cases; liberty to file reply; matter listed for hearing next week.

Summary order. Delay condoned; notice issued; stay of operation of the impugned order of the High Court of Delhi until further orders if the respondent has not already been released on bail.

Summary order. Special Leave Petitions dismissed and pending applications, if any, disposed of.

Special Leave Petition - judicial interference in ongoing criminal custody - custody and provision of medical attention - dismissal for absence of case for interferenceSpecial Leave Petition - dismissal for absence of case for interference - The Special Leave Petition seeking interference with the petitioner being taken into custody was dismissed. - HELD THAT: - The Court, after hearing learned senior counsel and considering the urgency and the material on record, observed that several co-accused had presented themselves and were in custody pursuant to earlier orders. Having considered the entirety of the circumstances, the Court found no ground to interfere with the proceedings or to grant the relief sought in the petition. The petitioner's medical condition was noted, but that did not, on the material before the Court, warrant the grant of the petition. The Court therefore dismissed the Special Leave Petition while recording an ancillary protective observation regarding medical care.Special Leave Petition dismissed; no interference with custody proceedings.Custody and provision of medical attention - protective observation - The Court directed that if the petitioner is taken into custody, medical attention shall be provided immediately if required. - HELD THAT: - Although the petition was dismissed on merits, the Court made an express protective observation to safeguard the petitioner's health: in the event the petitioner is taken into custody, he shall be immediately provided medical attention if required. This direction is a protective measure and does not amount to substantive relief granting immunity from custody.If taken into custody, the petitioner shall be immediately provided medical attention, if required.Final Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition is dismissed for want of a case for interference; the Court records that, if the petitioner is taken into custody, he shall be provided immediate medical attention if required, and all pending applications stand disposed of.

Special Leave Petition - interference with High Court order - dismissal of petition - bail application - leave to move fresh bail applicationSpecial Leave Petition - interference with High Court order - dismissal of petition - Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the impugned order of the High Court in the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner. - HELD THAT: - The Bench heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and, on consideration, was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. The Court found no sufficient ground to admit or sustain the Special Leave Petition and therefore dismissed it. The Court also disposed of the pending application filed in the matter.Special Leave Petition dismissed; impugned High Court order not interfered with.Bail application - leave to move fresh bail application - Whether the petitioner may seek relief by approaching the appropriate court for bail after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. - HELD THAT: - Although the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, the Supreme Court recorded that it remains open to the petitioner to move a fresh bail application before the appropriate court in accordance with law. This leaves the question of bail to be considered afresh by the competent forum without prejudice arising from this dismissal.Petitioner permitted to move a fresh bail application before the appropriate court in accordance with law.Final Conclusion: The Special Leave Petition is dismissed and the impugned High Court order is not interfered with; the petitioner may, however, approach the appropriate court afresh for bail in accordance with law.

Stay of proceedings - interim relief - issuance of noticeStay of proceedings - interim relief - Grant of interim stay of further proceedings in CC No. 56/2018 pending before the Special Court, Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. - HELD THAT: - The Court heard submissions of both parties and issued notice. The Solicitor General, appearing for the respondent, stated that in the peculiar facts of the case further proceedings in the complaint registered as CC No. 56/2018 before the Special Court, Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai may be stayed. Having considered the request and the circumstances presented, the Court granted interim relief by staying further proceedings in that complaint and issued notice.Further proceedings in CC No. 56/2018 pending before the Special Court, Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai are stayed and notice is issued.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court issued notice and granted an interim stay of further proceedings in CC No. 56/2018 before the Special Court, Principal Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

Summary order. [Notice issued returnable within four weeks; stay of operation of the impugned order; appointment of a senior advocate as amicus curiae; Registry directed to supply relevant papers to the amicus curiae]

Summary order. Delay condoned; notice issued returnable on 17.12.2019; service on respondent No.1 waived as counsel appears for Caveator; respondent No.1 permitted/ directed to file reply affidavit; notice to other respondents ordered.

Summary order. Delay condoned; notice issued; matter tagged with SLP (Crl.) No.6554 of 2019; status quo as on today to be maintained.

Power of court to inspect documents produced in sealed cover - Right of accused to be confronted with documents during interrogation - Production of documents in sealed cover with authenticated seal - Interim protection continuation pending further ordersPower of court to inspect documents produced in sealed cover - Production of documents in sealed cover with authenticated seal - Respondent-Directorate of Enforcement directed to produce documents in a sealed cover bearing the authenticated seal of the Directorate. - HELD THAT: - The Court, while hearing competing contentions, directed production of the documents in a sealed cover with the authenticated seal of the Directorate of Enforcement. The direction was given without prejudice to the contentions of either party and as a procedural step to enable the Court to consider the material. The order records that whether the Court will subsequently look into the documents is a question to be decided in due course. [Paras 5, 6]Respondent directed to produce the documents in a sealed cover with the authenticated seal; the question of inspection reserved for determination by the Court.Right of accused to be confronted with documents during interrogation - Power of court to inspect documents produced in sealed cover - The Court reserved its decision on whether it should examine documents that the petitioner was not confronted with during interrogation. - HELD THAT: - The petitioner contended that the Court should not consider documents which he was not confronted with on specified interrogation dates. The Directorate contended the Court may look into documents regardless of confrontation. The Court did not adjudicate the legal question on the merits at this stage; instead it recorded the competing contentions and indicated that whether to look into the sealed documents will depend upon the Court's subsequent decision in the matter. [Paras 3, 4, 6]Decision on admissibility or inspection of those documents reserved for future determination.Interim protection continuation pending further orders - Interim protection granted earlier to the petitioner to continue till the next listed date. - HELD THAT: - The Court ordered that the interim protection granted to the petitioner on the specified earlier date shall continue until the matter is next listed for orders. This continuation was made without deciding the substantive questions raised and is linked to the listing directed by the Court. [Paras 7, 9]Interim protection continued until the date on which the matter is listed for further orders.Final Conclusion: The Directorate of Enforcement is directed to produce the disputed documents in a sealed cover bearing its authenticated seal; the Court has reserved the question whether it will examine those documents (including those not confronted to the petitioner during interrogation) for determination at a later date; interim protection for the petitioner is continued until the matter is listed for orders.

Summary order. Matter directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for urgent hearing, subject to curing of defects.

Exemption from filing certified copies - interim protection from coercive action - issuance of noticeExemption from filing certified copies - Application for exemption from filing certified copies of the impugned orders was allowed. - HELD THAT: - The Court granted the petitioner's application seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the impugned orders. The order records allowance of the application without detailed reasons and directs acceptance of uncertified or otherwise filed documents for the present proceedings.Application for exemption allowed.Interim protection from coercive action - No coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner until the next date of hearing. - HELD THAT: - As an interim measure, the Court restrained the respondent from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner pending further orders. The restraint operates until the next listed date and is recorded as part of the interim relief granted in the petition.Interim protection granted; no coercive action to be taken until the next hearing.Issuance of notice - Notice was issued in the petition. - HELD THAT: - The Court directed that notice be issued to the respondent in respect of the petition. The order records issuance of notice as a procedural step to secure the respondent's participation in subsequent proceedings.Notice issued.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the petitioner's application for exemption from filing certified copies, issued notice in the matter and granted interim protection by restraining any coercive action against the petitioner until the next date of hearing.

Summary order. Special Leave Petition dismissed; delay condoned; pending application disposed of.

Forum conveniens - interim protection - extension to enable approach to forumForum conveniens - The petitioners were directed to approach the High Court of Bombay as the forum conveniens. - HELD THAT: - The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court of Delhi's conclusion that, on the question of appropriate forum, the High Court of Bombay is the proper forum for the petitioners to seek relief. The Court recorded concurrence with the impugned judgment and did not retain the matter for determination itself but permitted the forum question to be pursued before the High Court of Bombay.The petitioners must approach the High Court of Bombay; the Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.Interim protection - extension to enable approach to forum - The interim protection previously granted by the High Court of Delhi was extended for a limited period to enable the petitioners to approach the High Court of Bombay for interim relief. - HELD THAT: - The Court continued the interim protection granted by the High Court of Delhi beyond its earlier expiry (15.12.2018) by extending it for one month from the date of the order. The extension was expressly to afford the petitioners time to apply to the High Court of Bombay for interim relief while pursuing the forum determined by the Court.Interim protection extended for one month from the date of the order to enable the petitioners to seek interim relief before the High Court of Bombay.Final Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court of Delhi's forum conveniens finding that the High Court of Bombay is the appropriate forum, extended interim protection for one month to permit the petitioners to approach that forum, and disposed of the Special Leave Petition; pending applications are disposed of.