Supreme Court grants bail to Sanjay Agarwal in criminal cases and PMLA 2002. Surrender to trial court with determined bail terms.

The Supreme Court granted bail to Sanjay Agarwal in cases related to various criminal offenses and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. He was directed to surrender before the trial court with bail terms to be determined by the trial court. The judgment clarified that the observations made do not constitute findings on the case's merits, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues involved: Bail in cases u/s 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 511, 477-A IPC, and u/s 13(2) PC Act, 1988; Misuse of funds under NRHM Scheme; Case u/s PML Act, 2002; Surrender and bail terms.

Bail in Criminal Cases: The appellant, Sanjay Agarwal, is on bail in cases related to FIR No. RC/DST/2012/A/0001 u/s 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 511, 477-A IPC and u/s 13(2) PC Act, 1988. He has deposited Rs. 13 lacs as per court directions, allegedly the amount in question.

Misuse of Funds: The case involves the misuse of funds allocated under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) Scheme, including irregularities in the supply of medicines and equipment. Sanjay Agarwal, accused of misusing government funds through his company, M/s Charishma Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., faces charges for fraudulent activities.

Case u/s PML Act: A case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was registered against Sanjay Agarwal, leading to a provisional attachment order concerning a property in Lucknow. Subsequently, a complaint was filed against him and 13 others under Section 45 of the PML Act before the Special Judge in Lucknow.

Surrender and Bail Terms: The Supreme Court directed Sanjay Agarwal to surrender before the trial court and granted him bail in the pending case titled "The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement vs. Sanjay Agarwal and Ors." The bail terms and conditions were left to be determined by the trial court, with a warning of bail cancellation if he delays the proceedings. The judgment was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with a clarification that the observations made do not constitute findings on the case's merits. Any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

---