Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused and the likelihood of delay in conclusion of trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The appellants were not alleged to be involved in the predicate offence and were added in supplementary complaints. The co-accused who had already been granted bail were stated to be involved in higher amounts of proceeds of crime than the appellants. The Court also noted the large number of witnesses and the voluminous documentary record, indicating that trial would take substantial time.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the appellants on parity, and the impugned order dismissing bail was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where co-accused similarly or more seriously placed have been granted bail and the trial is likely to take considerable time, bail may be granted on parity even in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

The Supreme Court, through Hon'ble Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale, issued an order scheduling the matter for listing after two weeks, as requested by counsel. The Court directed that "pleadings be completed in both the SLPs" in the interim. No substantive legal reasoning or holdings were articulated in this order.

Issues: Whether bail was to be granted in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 despite reliance on the twin conditions under Section 45, in view of the constitutional safeguards under Article 21, the documentary nature of the evidence, and the grant of bail to co-accused.

Analysis: The petitioner's case was considered in the light of the bail already granted to similarly placed co-accused. The Court noted that the prosecution case rested largely on documentary material already seized, that a large number of documents and witnesses would be involved at trial, and that there was no apparent risk of tampering with the seized evidence. The Court also observed that the person for whose benefit the alleged transactions were said to have occurred had not been arrayed as an accused, and that the petitioner had been granted bail in the predicate offences. In these circumstances, the Court applied the principle that the stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot operate so as to negate the constitutional protection against prolonged pre-trial incarceration under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot override the constitutional safeguard against unjustified prolonged pre-trial detention under Article 21 of the Constitution of India where the evidence is substantially documentary and already secured.

Issues: (i) Whether the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 exempts a woman accused from satisfying the twin conditions under clause (ii) of Section 45(1); (ii) Whether bail should be granted on the facts of prolonged custody, non-commencement of evidence, absence of antecedents, and the expected length of the trial.

Issue (i): Whether the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 exempts a woman accused from satisfying the twin conditions under clause (ii) of Section 45(1).

Analysis: The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 45 operates as an exception to clause (ii) of that provision. On that construction, a woman applying for bail is not required to satisfy the twin conditions. The respondent also accepted that the rigours of clause (ii) would not apply to a woman in view of the proviso.

Conclusion: The proviso exempts a woman accused from the twin conditions under Section 45(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (ii): Whether bail should be granted on the facts of prolonged custody, non-commencement of evidence, absence of antecedents, and the expected length of the trial.

Analysis: The accused had been in custody since 25 November 2023, the charge had been framed, evidence had not yet commenced, 67 witnesses were to be examined, no antecedents were shown, and the maximum punishment for the predicate offence was seven years. In those circumstances, the application was to be considered under the general bail provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the facts justified enlargement on bail pending trial.

Conclusion: Bail was warranted on the facts and the appellant was entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the appellant obtained bail subject to appropriate terms and conditions to be fixed by the Special Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 excludes women accused from the twin bail conditions, and once that exception applies, bail is to be assessed on the ordinary bail principles having regard to custody, antecedents, and the progress of trial.

Outcome: Time was sought for further hearing, the counter affidavit was directed to be filed, and the matter was listed on a subsequent date.

Issues: Whether a summons issued in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act can be quashed merely because the respondent has been discharged in the predicate offence.

Analysis: The respondent had been issued only a summons. The discharge in the predicate offence did not, by itself, justify quashing the summons at that stage. The question whether the respondent should be arrayed as an accused was left to be decided later, and all relevant contentions on that aspect were kept open for consideration if such a stage arose.

Conclusion: The quashing of the summons was held to be unsustainable, and the appellant was permitted to proceed in pursuance of the summons.

Issues: Whether the earlier order required partial modification to clarify the amount deposited and the manner in which the deposited amount would be repatriated.

Analysis: The order records the deposited amount, directs an additional deposit, clarifies that the amount deposited is to be repatriated to the complainants and other depositors after compliance with the requisite formalities, and permits the respondent to seek further directions in case of grievance.

Outcome: The earlier order was partly modified and the miscellaneous application was disposed of in those terms.

Issues: Whether notice should be issued in the writ petition and on the application for interim relief, and whether ad-interim protection should be granted against access to the contents of the mobile phone and other electronic devices and against operation of the summons under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 pending further hearing.

Analysis: Notice was directed in the petition and in the application for interim relief. Pending the returnable date, the Court granted ad-interim protection in terms of the specified prayer clauses, including restraint against access and copying of the contents of the identified devices and stay of the summons to the extent they required the presence of the concerned persons for extraction of data stored in the digital devices.

Outcome: Ad-interim relief granted and notice issued, with the matter directed to be heard along with connected proceedings.

Issues: Handing over of control of provisionally attached properties of the corporate debtor to the successful resolution applicant, and the effect of the order on the pending legal questions under the insolvency and money-laundering statutes.

Outcome: By consensus, the appellant was directed to hand over, and the successful resolution applicant was directed to take over, control of the provisionally attached properties under Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 read with Rule 3A of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Restoration of Property) Rules, 2016. The Court expressly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the interpretation of Section 32A(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 or on the Enforcement Directorate's power to attach the corporate debtor's property, and all appeals were disposed of accordingly.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

• Whether the appellants, who have been in custody for over a year without charges being framed under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), should be granted bail.
• What is the role of the Public Prosecutor in opposing bail applications, particularly when trial delays are attributed to the conduct of the Enforcement Directorate (ED)Rs.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Bail for Appellants under PMLA

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court referred to the precedent set in the case of V. Senthil Balaji versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, which provides guidance on granting bail when trials are delayed.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court noted that the appellants had been in custody for an extended period without charges being framed and accepted their undertakings. The court emphasized that the trial was unlikely to commence soon, necessitating the application of the precedent to grant bail.
• Key evidence and findings: The court acknowledged the substantial volume of evidence (29 witnesses and approximately 4000 pages of documents) and the delay in framing charges as critical factors.
• Application of law to facts: The court applied the legal principles from the precedent to the facts, concluding that the appellants should be enlarged on bail due to the delay in the trial process.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The court considered the undertakings provided by the appellants and the potential for further delays in the trial, weighing these against the need for continued custody.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the appellants should be granted bail, subject to appropriate terms and conditions, including adherence to their undertakings.

Issue 2: Role of Public Prosecutor in Bail Oppositions

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court referred to the established principle that a Public Prosecutor must act fairly and highlight binding precedents to the court.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court clarified that while Public Prosecutors should not oppose bail when delays are due to the ED's conduct, they are not precluded from opposing bail on other grounds.
• Key evidence and findings: The court examined the observations made by the Special Court, which suggested that the Public Prosecutor should not oppose bail if the delay was caused by the ED.
• Application of law to facts: The court clarified that the observations did not restrict Public Prosecutors from opposing bail petitions when the ED is not responsible for trial delays.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The court balanced the need for fair conduct by Public Prosecutors with their duty to oppose bail where justified.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the Public Prosecutor's role remains to act fairly and independently, without undue influence from the ED or its Director.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "It is well settled that a Public Prosecutor has to be fair. If a case is covered by a binding precedent, it is his duty to point out the said aspect to the Court."
• Core principles established: The court reinforced the principle that undue delay in trial proceedings, particularly without charges being framed, can justify granting bail. It also reiterated the independence of Public Prosecutors in deciding whether to oppose bail applications.
• Final determinations on each issue: The appellants were granted bail, and the role of the Public Prosecutor was clarified to ensure fair conduct in line with established legal principles.

Issues: Whether the provisionally attached properties of the corporate debtor could be handed over to the successful resolution applicant by invoking the restoration mechanism under Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 read with Rule 3A of the Prevention of Money Laundering (Restoration of Property) Rules, 2016, while leaving open the question of the interaction between such attachment and Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The direction was passed on the basis of the consensus of the parties and in the peculiar facts of the case. The attachment had been made after approval of the resolution plan by the adjudicating authority, and the Court expressly recorded that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeals, on the interpretation of Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, or on the power of the Enforcement Directorate to attach property of a corporate debtor undergoing insolvency resolution. The order was confined to enabling handover of control of the attached properties to the successful resolution applicant, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the connected proceedings.

Conclusion: The attached properties were directed to be handed over to the successful resolution applicant, and the substantive legal questions were left undecided.

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the ECIR proceedings on the ground of acquittal in the predicate cases, despite one connected case ending in conviction and the appeals against the acquittal and conviction judgments remaining pending.

Analysis: The order notes that the ECIR arose from three FIRs and that the respondent had been acquitted in two connected cases, while being convicted in the third. It records that appeals against the acquittal and conviction judgments were pending before the High Court. On that basis, the Court found that the High Court erred in quashing the ECIR proceedings by treating the acquittals as while ignoring the subsisting conviction in one predicate case. Leave was granted and interim protection was issued by staying the operation and effect of the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal.

Outcome: The impugned order was stayed, leave was granted, and the appellants were permitted to proceed in accordance with law pending the appeal.

Issues: Whether the appellants, having undergone incarceration for about one and a half years and charges having been framed, were entitled to be enlarged on bail pending trial.

Analysis: The appellants had remained in custody for a substantial period and the trial had progressed to the stage of framing of charges. The main accused had already been granted bail on similar reasoning, and the same considerations were applied to the present appellants. The Court directed their production before the Special Court and authorised enlargement on bail on appropriate terms and conditions, including regular attendance and cooperation for early disposal of the case.

Conclusion: The appellants were held entitled to bail pending trial.

Outcome: The petitions were withdrawn with liberty to apply for bail, and the pending applications were disposed of.