TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Grant, Emphasizes Statutory Restrictions</h1> <h3>THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT Versus N. UMASHANKAR & ORS. ETC.</h3> THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT Versus N. UMASHANKAR & ORS. ETC. - TMI Issues involved:Grant of bail under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, non-consideration of relevant aspects by High Court, cooperation of respondents during investigation, setting aside of impugned judgment, reiteration of parties before High Court for reconsideration.Analysis:The Supreme Court addressed the appeal challenging the High Court's judgment granting bail to the respondents in connection with an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The High Court's failure to consider the statutory bar for bail in such cases was noted by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the impugned judgment was set aside, but the protection granted to the respondents was extended for two weeks from the date of the Supreme Court's order.The Supreme Court directed the parties to return before the High Court for a fresh consideration of the criminal O.P. Numbers, emphasizing that the High Court should decide the matter on its own merits and in accordance with the law. The issue of respondents' cooperation during the investigation was highlighted, with the Supreme Court instructing the High Court to address this aspect after hearing both sides. All contentions available to both parties were left open for consideration by the High Court.Furthermore, the Supreme Court scheduled a hearing date for the parties to appear before the High Court for the reconsideration of the bail application. The High Court was directed to proceed with the final order on the original petitions and, if necessary, address the continuation of interim protection after hearing both parties. The appeals were disposed of in the outlined terms, with any pending applications also being disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 