TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>SLP dismissed; no anticipatory bail in money laundering case as Section 45(1) PMLA conditions not met.</h1> <h3>Aneesh Babu Versus Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement.</h3> SC dismissed the special leave petition challenging HC's refusal to grant pre-arrest bail to the accused in a money laundering case arising from a ... Seeking grant of pre-arrest bail - Money Laundering - scheduled offence - proceeds of crime - conditions of Section 45(1) of the PMLA fulfilled or not - it was held by High Court that 'As rightly argued by the learned ASGI, if pre-arrest bail is granted, there is every possibility of the applicant influencing the witnesses and interfering with the investigation.' HELD THAT:- It is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court; hence, the special leave petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, declined to interfere with the judgment and order of the High Court. By holding that it was 'not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court,' the Court effectively affirmed the High Court's decision without entering into a detailed reappraisal of facts or law on record. The special leave petition was accordingly dismissed, thereby leaving the High Court's decision undisturbed and attaining finality between the parties, subject to any other remedies in law. The Court further directed that all pending application(s), if any, stood disposed of as a consequence of the dismissal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
