Supreme Court Denies Bail Under Money Laundering Act, Allows Petitioner to Apply for Regular Bail

The Supreme Court corrected errors in a previous order and denied bail for a petitioner under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act despite other accused receiving bail. However, considering the petitioner's age and circumstances, the Court allowed the petitioner to apply for regular bail within four weeks. Interim protection was granted for four weeks or until the Trial Court considered the bail plea. The Court emphasized that its decisions did not reflect any opinion on the case's merits and dismissed the petitions, leaving all aspects open for the Trial Court's evaluation. All pending applications related to the case were disposed of.

---

---

Issues: Correction of errors in the previous order, Bail application, Consideration of bail for the petitioner, Observations on the nature of accusations, Interim protection for the petitioner, Dismissal of petitions, Disposal of pending applications.

Correction of errors in the previous order:
The Supreme Court considered an application in a Special Leave Petition to correct errors in an order dated 07.12.2022. The Court focused on rectifying mistakes in the previous order while maintaining the spirit of the original decision.

Bail application:
The applicant's senior counsel highlighted the circumstances of the case and mentioned that all co-accused had already been granted regular bail. However, the respondent's counsel opposed, stating the applicant had not cooperated with the investigation and was declared an absconder. The Court did not delve into these issues but addressed the matter for the purpose of rectifying errors in the previous order.

Consideration of bail for the petitioner:
The Court examined the High Court's decision declining bail for the petitioner under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Despite other accused receiving bail, the Court upheld the denial of bail for the petitioner due to the nature of the accusations. However, considering the petitioner's age and circumstances, the Court allowed the petitioner to apply for regular bail within four weeks before the Trial Court.

Observations on the nature of accusations:
The Court affirmed that the High Court's denial of bail for the petitioner was justified based on the seriousness of the accusations. The Court emphasized that the grant of bail to other accused individuals would not benefit the petitioner.

Interim protection for the petitioner:
Acknowledging the petitioner's age, the Court granted interim protection for four weeks or until the Trial Court considered the bail plea, whichever was earlier. The Court clarified that its decision did not reflect any opinion on the case's merits, leaving all aspects open for the Trial Court's consideration.

Dismissal of petitions:
While dismissing the petitions, the Court reiterated that it had not made any comments on the case's merits. The Court emphasized that the Trial Court should objectively evaluate the matter without being influenced by any observations in the current or previous orders.

Disposal of pending applications:
The Court concluded by disposing of all pending applications related to the case, emphasizing that the Trial Court should assess the matter impartially and in accordance with the law.

---