Bail Orders Upheld: No Re-Arrest for Respondents After Four Years on Bail and Prior Imprisonment; ED Can Seek Future Bail Revocation.

The SC upheld the bail orders for the respondents, finding that re-arrest would not aid the investigation, given their four years on bail and prior three-year imprisonment. The ED retains the right to seek bail cancellation if the respondents obstruct the trial or if new developments arise. Petitions and pending applications were disposed of.

---

---

Issues involved:
The legality of bail orders passed by the High Court for 'Pankaj Trivedi' and 'Nitin Mohindra' under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

Judgment Summary:

The Enforcement Directorate challenged two bail orders issued by the High Court for 'Pankaj Trivedi' and 'Nitin Mohindra'. The Enforcement Directorate argued that the High Court erred in releasing the respondents on bail without considering the seriousness of the offense and the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA. Both parties confirmed that the trial was at the stage of framing charges and the investigation was complete. Since the respondents had been out on bail for four years and had already served about three years in prison for the underlying offenses, the Supreme Court decided that re-arresting them would not benefit the investigating agency. However, the Enforcement Directorate was granted the liberty to seek bail cancellation if the respondents hindered the trial or if new developments required their detention. The petitions were disposed of accordingly, and any pending applications were also resolved.

---