High Court Revisits Jurisdiction in PMLA Release Petition, Seeks Supreme Court Clarification

The High Court considered the competency to decide the petition under Article 226 seeking release in a PMLA case, following objections raised by the respondents and Supreme Court orders. The petitioner agreed to seek necessary clarification or direction from the Supreme Court. The court adjourned the matter for further proceedings, setting a deadline for filing any rejoinder to the written submissions before the next date.

---

---

Issues:
Petition under Article 226 seeking direction to release in PMLA Case, maintainability of the petition, dismissal of earlier petition, bail application dismissal, permission to withdraw petitions, non-bailable arrest warrants quashed.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 seeking release in a PMLA case pending before the Special Court. The respondents raised objections on the maintainability of the petition, citing the dismissal of an earlier petition on similar grounds by the High Court. The petitioner referred to a Supreme Court decision to argue the maintainability of the petition during the pendency of the case. The earlier petition challenged the vires of the PMLA, lack of jurisdiction for arrest, and illegal arrest. The High Court clarified that the earlier judgment would not hinder deciding bail applications or other petitions by the petitioner.

The petitioner's subsequent bail application was dismissed by the High Court, and the Supreme Court granted liberty to file an appropriate application after six months. The petitioner also filed an SLP against the earlier judgment, which was permitted to be withdrawn. Another writ petition before the Supreme Court seeking interim release was also withdrawn, with permission to file other writ petitions. The petitioner's counsel informed the court about the quashing of non-bailable arrest warrants against the main accused in the case, allowing them to join the investigation under court protection.

Due to objections raised by the respondents and Supreme Court orders, the High Court considered the competency to decide the present petition under Article 226. The petitioner agreed to seek necessary clarification or direction from the Supreme Court. The matter was adjourned for further proceedings, with a deadline set for filing any rejoinder to the written submissions before the next date.

---