Supreme Court grants bail in money laundering and customs case with gold jewelry diversion.

The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant accused of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Customs Act, 1962, involving the diversion of gold jewelry. Despite being in custody, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail due to pending investigations and trial readiness. Specific conditions were imposed. The Court also upheld the bail granted to the appellant's son, noting the lack of specific allegations against him beyond assisting his father. The Court dismissed the challenge to the son's bail, emphasizing that its observations should not impact the case's merits.

---

---

Issues:
1. Bail granted to the appellant in connection with offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Grant of bail to the son of the appellant who was allegedly involved in the diversion of gold jewellery.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant who was accused of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant was involved in diverting 54 Kgs of primary gold imported through a canalizing Agency for converting it into gold jewellery for export, but it was allegedly diverted in the domestic market instead. The Enforcement Directorate initiated proceedings against the appellant for these offences. Despite being in custody since 28.11.2021, with the investigation still pending and the trial not ready to commence, the Court found it appropriate to grant bail. The Court directed the appellant to appear before the concerned Court for bail subject to specific conditions, including providing details of passports, marking presence at the Enforcement Directorate's office weekly, and not interfering with the investigation.

2. The Supreme Court also addressed the bail granted to the son of the appellant, who was allegedly involved in the diversion of gold jewellery. The High Court had granted bail to the son earlier, and the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with this decision. The Court noted that beyond the general assertion that the son was assisting his father, no specific allegations were made against the son. Therefore, the Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition challenging the bail granted to the son. The Court clarified that its observations in these petitions should not impact the merits of the case or be considered as reflecting on the submissions made by the parties.

---