Outcome: Special Leave Petition disposed of without adjudicating the merits, with the High Court requested to decide the main writ petition within three months and to consider the question of release while doing so; all contentions were left open.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to bail pending trial in view of parity with co-accused, the length of incarceration, and the non-commencement of trial.

Analysis: The appellant had remained in custody for more than 21/2 years in the present case, the trial had not commenced, and there were 85 witnesses. The Court held that continued incarceration in the face of prolonged delay, where the appellant could not be solely blamed for the non-commencement of trial, weighed in favour of bail. Parity with co-accused was also taken into account.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to bail at this stage.

Outcome: Application for exemption from filing official translation allowed; notice issued and matter listed for hearing on 4th October, 2024; matter to be heard along with SLP (Crl.) Nos.9478-9479/2024 and connected cases.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petitions challenging the orders granting bail were dismissed, with liberty to seek cancellation of bail before the appropriate court in the event of misuse of liberty.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to release from jail pending trial in view of the length of incarceration and the fact that the trial had not effectively commenced.

Analysis: The appeal was considered against the background of prolonged custody and the absence of progress in the trial. The release was directed on terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court, with additional compliance required with the conditions analogous to section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The order also required the appellant to provide a contact number, surrender his passport, and refrain from leaving India without permission, while preserving the prosecution's right to seek recall if any condition was breached.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to release on conditions, and the impugned judgment was set aside.

Issues: Whether the appellants, shown as accused in successive complaints under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, were entitled to bail in the absence of prima facie pleadings connecting the referred First Information Reports to the alleged proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The complaints referred to multiple First Information Reports, but the pleaded material did not prima facie show a linkage between those scheduled offences and any proceeds of crime, whether in money or illegally mined minerals. Mere allegations of large-scale illegal mining were held insufficient without factual assertions showing that the stated offences directly or indirectly generated proceeds of crime. It was also noted that the first offence mentioned in the complaints was not itself a predicate offence, except for Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and there were no pleadings showing involvement in any other offence of money-laundering or tampering with evidence. On that basis, the Court found reasonable grounds to believe that the appellants were not guilty of the offence.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: For bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the complaint must contain prima facie factual material showing a nexus between the scheduled offence and the alleged proceeds of crime, and bare allegations are insufficient to establish guilt of money-laundering.

Issues: Whether the petitioners should continue on bail during the pendency of the trial.

Analysis: The petitioners had earlier been granted interim bail after prima facie consideration of the facts and circumstances. On further hearing of the factual and legal issues, the Court found it appropriate that the petitioners continue on bail during the trial proceedings.

Conclusion: The petitioners were held entitled to continue on bail and the interim bail orders were made absolute.

Issues: (i) Whether Special Leave Petitions challenging orders of attachment under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 remain maintainable where the accused have been discharged and the order of attachment is asserted to be no longer operative; (ii) Whether criminal revision petitions filed by the Directorate of Enforcement seeking to set aside orders of discharge require interim relief from this Court and whether pending Special Leave Petitions should be retained.

Issue (i): Whether SLPs challenging attachment orders remain maintainable when the attachment is contended to have ceased to operate due to discharge of the accused.

Analysis: The petitioners asserted that the order of attachment had ceased to operate following the Special Court's order of discharge of the accused; the High Court had held the writ petitions were not maintainable. The Supreme Court examined the practical effect of the asserted discharge on the utility of the SLPs and noted that if the discharge is subsequently set aside in pending proceedings, the petitioners may seek revival or otherwise challenge the attachment substantively.

Conclusion: The Special Leave Petitions challenging the order of attachment were disposed of as no longer serving a purpose in view of the petitioners' contention that the attachment is not operative; petitioners are permitted to seek revival or substantive challenge if the discharge is set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the revision petitions filed by the Directorate of Enforcement seeking to challenge orders of discharge require interim relief and whether related SLPs should be kept pending.

Analysis: The Court noted that revision petitions were pending before the High Court, that no interim relief had been operating for several years, and that the revision petitions had been kept for hearing. Given the current procedural posture and that the High Court proceedings are ongoing, the Court found no purpose in keeping these SLPs pending.

Conclusion: The Special Leave Petitions relating to the revision matters were disposed of; all rights and contentions in the pending revision petitions are left open.

Final Conclusion: The Court disposed of the special leave petitions presently before it without finally adjudicating the substantive disputes on the merits; petitioners are allowed to apply for revival or to pursue substantive challenges if the orders of discharge are set aside in the pending proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an interim or enforcement order under challenge has ceased to operate due to subsequent proceedings, appellate or special leave petitions may be disposed of as infructuous, with liberty to revive or seek substantive adjudication if the underlying orders are restored.

Issues: Whether paragraph 15 of the earlier order required clarification so that it would not be construed as having held that a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable at the instance of the Directorate of Enforcement.

Analysis: The request for review was confined to removing any unintended impression that the earlier order had authoritatively decided the maintainability of a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at the instance of the Directorate of Enforcement. The Court clarified that the earlier observations were not intended to decide that question and that the issue of maintainability must be determined by the competent court in accordance with law. It was also made clear that no opinion had been expressed on that question and that the aggrieved party would remain free to pursue the appropriate remedy available in law.

Conclusion: The clarification sought was granted. The earlier order was modified to exclude any construction that it had held such a complaint maintainable, leaving the question open for decision by the competent court.

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to be released on bail pending trial in the prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The appellant was more than 75 years of age and had already undergone actual incarceration for four years and nine months. In these circumstances, the Court accepted the appeal and directed release on bail during the pendency of trial, subject to terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court. The appellant was required to surrender his passport and not leave India without the trial court's permission, with liberty to the trial court to cancel bail on non-compliance. The order also clarified that the observations were confined to the disposal of the appeal and did not express any opinion on the merits.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the appellant during the pendency of trial, and the impugned judgment was set aside.

Issues: Whether the interim order was liable to be made absolute and the appeal allowed in view of the earlier decision of the Court, and whether the Special Court could direct furnishing of bonds for appearance.

Analysis: The matter was treated as covered by an earlier decision of the Court, and the interim order was continued on the same terms and conditions. The Court also clarified that the Special Court may require the appellant to furnish bonds for appearance in accordance with the relevant criminal procedure provision.

Conclusion: The interim order was made absolute and the appeal was allowed. The direction regarding appearance bonds was left open to be passed by the Special Court in accordance with law.