Issues: Whether, after filing of the complaint, the accused can be called for interrogation for recording statements under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The explanation (ii) to Section 44(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 specifically permits such a course to be adopted by the investigating agency. The contrary view taken in the impugned judgment did not account for this express provision.

Conclusion: The accused can be called for interrogation after filing of the complaint for recording statements under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issues: Whether bail granted on medical grounds was sustainable without prior examination by a Medical Board of a public hospital, and whether the matter of regular bail on merits required reconsideration by the High Court.

Analysis: The respondent was enlarged on bail on medical grounds. A subsequent examination by a Medical Board of AIIMS, Raipur, comprising specialists from the relevant streams, found no evidence of the medical condition referred to in the impugned order and recorded that the respondent's condition was stable with no significant medical ailments. In these circumstances, the grant of bail on medical grounds could not be sustained. At the same time, the question whether regular bail should be granted on merits remained open for consideration by the High Court, and the parties' contentions on that aspect were preserved.

Conclusion: The order granting bail on medical grounds was set aside, and the matter was sent back to the High Court for fresh consideration of regular bail on merits.

Issues: Whether condition no. 4(i) of the bail order required modification to permit the respondent to leave the limits of the NCR Region only with the permission of the concerned Special PMLA Court at Patiala House.

Analysis: The prayer for modification of condition no. 4(ii) was not pressed. The only surviving request related to condition no. 4(i), and the Court accepted the request and substituted the condition so that the respondent shall not leave the limits of the NCR Region without the permission of the concerned Special PMLA Court at Patiala House.

Conclusion: The bail condition was modified only to the extent of condition no. 4(i), and the modification application was allowed in part.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, subject to deposit and compliance conditions.

Analysis: The appellant had deposited Rs.80,00,000/- against a tripartite agreement referring to Rs.92,00,000/-, and an additional deposit of Rs.20,00,000/- was agreed to be made within three weeks. The direction was linked to permitting the complainants and other depositors to repatriate the amount after compliance with formalities. The grant of bail was made conditional upon deposit and compliance, and was also to operate on the terms fixed by the trial court, with further compliance under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest, subject to the stipulated deposit and compliance conditions.

Outcome: The special leave petitions were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.

Issues: Whether the appellant, in prolonged custody with no immediate prospect of trial commencing and charge not yet framed, was entitled to be enlarged on bail pending trial.

Analysis: The appellant had remained in custody for about one year and nine months after arrest, charge had not been framed, and the trial was not likely to commence in the near future. Applying the governing principles for grant of bail in such circumstances, the Court found that continued detention was not justified pending trial.

Conclusion: Bail was granted and the appellant was directed to be enlarged on appropriate terms and conditions till the conclusion of the trial.

Outcome: Special leave petition dismissed on the ground of delay; delay in filing was not condoned.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to bail on parity with a co-accused who had already been enlarged on bail.

Analysis: The Court noted the role attributed to the appellant in the counter affidavit and compared it with the role ascribed to the co-accused. In view of the bail already granted to the co-accused, the Court found that the appellant was similarly situated for the purpose of bail relief and was entitled to be enlarged on bail on the same terms and conditions.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to bail on parity with the co-accused, on the same terms and conditions.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the appellant was directed to be released on bail, with the bail formalities to be completed before the Special Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the role attributed to an accused is comparable to that of a co-accused who has already been granted bail, parity can justify enlargement on bail on identical terms and conditions.

Issues: Whether the appellant, being a first-time offender who had undergone detention for more than one-third of the maximum sentence for the scheduled offence, was entitled to release on bail under the first proviso to section 479(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, despite the request to invoke the second proviso.

Analysis: The applicable statutory framework treated the corresponding undertrial-release provision as extending to prosecutions under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The appellant was not shown to have any past conviction and had already undergone detention exceeding one-third of the maximum imprisonment prescribed for the scheduled offence. The maximum sentence for the scheduled offence was three years, and the record did not justify denial of the statutory benefit by invoking the second proviso. The Court therefore applied the first proviso and directed release on bail on appropriate terms.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to bail under the first proviso to section 479(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the request to deny that benefit was rejected.

Final Conclusion: Statutory undertrial-release protection was extended to the appellant, resulting in enlargement on bail on terms to be fixed by the Special Court.

Ratio Decidendi: A first-time offender who has undergone detention beyond one-third of the maximum sentence for the alleged offence is entitled to release under section 479(1), unless the Court records reasons to continue detention under the second proviso.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to bail and whether the impugned order refusing bail should be set aside.

Analysis: Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the period of incarceration, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail. The order also directed the Trial Court to impose conditions requiring full cooperation with the trial, non-interference with witnesses, and restraint on leaving the country without leave of the Trial Court. In view of the commencement of trial and examination of only two out of forty-six witnesses, the Trial Court was requested to expedite the proceedings.

Conclusion: Bail was granted and the impugned order was set aside, in favour of the appellant.

Issues: Whether the impugned orders refusing bail deserved to be set aside and the appellant released on bail.

Analysis: The Court noted that the co-accused had already been granted bail and that the complaint had been filed. In view of these circumstances, the Court found it to interfere with the impugned orders. The Court also clarified that the earlier condition was only for interim bail and that the trial court would remain free to impose appropriate conditions while granting bail.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and bail was granted to the appellant on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Outcome: The matter was directed to be listed after obtaining a fresh medical report from a duly constituted medical board of J.J. Hospital, Mumbai regarding the petitioner's condition.

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in the absence of a subsisting scheduled offence at the time of the complaint and in view of prolonged incarceration.

Analysis: The complaint under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was filed when no scheduled offence was in existence. The original FIR initially invoked several Indian Penal Code offences, but the only potentially relevant conspiracy allegation was later dropped, and the subsequent FIR in Chhattisgarh was registered much later. On the date of the complaint and even on the date of the charge-sheet relied upon, there was no live scheduled offence supporting the PMLA prosecution. The appellants had also undergone substantial custody, and continuation of detention in these peculiar circumstances was found to offend the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a PMLA complaint is pursued without a subsisting scheduled offence and custody has become prolonged, continued incarceration may be held unjustified and bail may be granted on Article 21 grounds.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to bail during pendency of trial on account of prolonged incarceration.

Analysis: The appellant had undergone nearly two years and one month of incarceration. On that basis, bail was granted pending trial, with conditions to be fixed by the trial court. The order also required disclosure of a contact number, surrender of passport, and restriction on travel outside India without prior permission. Liberty was reserved to cancel bail if the appellant deliberately delayed the trial. The observations were expressly confined to the question of bail and were not to be treated as an opinion on the merits.

Conclusion: The appellant was granted bail pending trial, and the appeal was allowed in those terms.