Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Money-laundering bail/default bail request: parallel petition barred while identical bail plea pending before Special Court, HC disposes case</h1> In a money-laundering matter, the dominant issue was whether the HC should entertain a bail/default bail petition when an application seeking identical ... Money Laundering - seeking grant of bail/default bail - the application for grant of bail/default bail is already pending consideration before learned Special Court, Gurugram on 07.11.2024 - HELD THAT:- This Court is not inclined to entertain the parallel proceedings for similar relief; rather deems it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to pursue his remedy before learned Special Court. This petition is disposed off with a request to learned Special Court to consider and decide the bail/default bail of petitioner in accordance with law on the date already fixed and/or within 01 week thereafter, if there is no legal impediment. Petition under Section 483 read with Section 187(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 read with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.) sought bail/default bail in proceedings arising from an ECIR under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court noted it was an admitted position that the petitioner's application for bail/default bail was already pending before the Special Court and listed for consideration on a fixed date. On that basis, the Court declined to entertain 'parallel proceedings for similar relief' and held it appropriate to relegate the petitioner to pursue the remedy before the Special Court. The petition was disposed of with a request that the Special Court 'consider and decide the bail/default bail...in accordance with law' on the scheduled date and/or within one week thereafter, subject to absence of 'legal impediment.' The order further clarified it should 'not be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case.'