Issues: Whether the impugned properties could be retained under attachment as proceeds of crime under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Sections 2(u), 2(1)(y), and 3 require property alleged to be proceeds of crime to have a demonstrable nexus with criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The payments received under the debenture subscription agreements, consultancy arrangements, and dairy-business sale arrangement were independent commercial transactions. Significant payments preceded the relevant bank disbursement, and no material established a link between the later payments and any alleged criminal proceeds. Official banking investments and loans, without material showing illegality or diversion, could not by themselves be treated as proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The amounts and the attached properties were not shown to constitute proceeds of crime; continuation of the attachment was unwarranted.

Issues: (i) Whether summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are valid where the scheduled predicate-offence proceedings are pending and a bank-loan settlement is sought; (ii) Whether persons challenging such summons are entitled to blanket protection against coercive steps.

Issue (i): Whether summons issued under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are valid where the scheduled predicate-offence proceedings are pending and a bank-loan settlement is sought.

Analysis: The underlying CBI allegations constituted scheduled predicate offences under Part A of the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Material indicating transfer and layering of loan proceeds was sufficient to enable an investigation into proceeds of crime and to invoke the statutory power to summon persons for evidence and documents. The pending challenge to an earlier FIR, the status of the predicate investigation, and a pending one-time settlement proposal with the bank did not remove the investigating authority's jurisdiction or bar an independent money-laundering investigation. Repayment or settlement cannot by itself warrant termination of proceedings involving allegations of fraud, forgery and diversion of funds.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the petitioners; the summons is valid and the investigating authority has jurisdiction to issue it.

Issue (ii): Whether persons challenging such summons are entitled to blanket protection against coercive steps.

Analysis: A direction restraining coercive action or arrest, without a proper application for anticipatory bail before the competent court, would effectively grant anticipatory-bail protection through inherent quashing jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the petitioners; blanket protection against coercive steps is not available.

Final Conclusion: The statutory investigation, including the requirement to attend and furnish evidence or documents under the summons, may proceed without blanket protective relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where scheduled predicate offences and material indicating proceeds of crime exist, summons under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot be quashed merely because predicate proceedings are pending or a loan settlement is proposed.

Issues: (i) Whether the material established that the yacht and apartment were proceeds of crime connected with a scheduled offence, so as to satisfy the first condition for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA. (ii) Whether the second condition under Section 45 was satisfied and continued pre-trial custody was justified in light of the likely duration of the trial and Article 21.

Issue (i): Whether the material established that the yacht and apartment were proceeds of crime connected with a scheduled offence, so as to satisfy the first condition for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA.

Analysis: Section 2(1)(u) requires property to be derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The statutory presumption regarding proceeds of crime operates only after foundational facts establishing that nexus. Although money laundering may be a continuing offence and Section 3 extends to subsequent possession, use, concealment or disposal of proceeds of crime, those provisions do not dispense with the requirement that the concerned property first qualify as proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The yacht and apartment were acquired before the period of the alleged scheduled offences. The repayment and refinancing trail may require examination at trial, but did not, on the material available at the bail stage, establish the required temporal and causal nexus between the earlier acquisitions and criminal activity relating to the later loans. The Applicant's subsequent dealings with the assets and their sale proceeds could not independently resolve the character of the assets as proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The first statutory condition under Section 45 was satisfied.

Issue (ii): Whether the second condition under Section 45 was satisfied and continued pre-trial custody was justified in light of the likely duration of the trial and Article 21.

Analysis: The documentary and electronic evidence had substantially been secured; the Applicant no longer held office; no previous conviction was shown; and risks of interference with evidence, witnesses or the assets could be addressed through restrictive conditions. These circumstances supported the finding that the Applicant was not likely to commit an offence while on bail.

Analysis: The prosecution had substantially expanded after the supplementary complaint, involving extensive records, additional accused and continuing investigation, with no realistic prospect of an early trial. Prolonged pre-trial detention in those circumstances would impair the right to speedy trial and personal liberty protected by Article 21; the restrictions under Section 45 could not justify indefinite detention.

Conclusion: The second statutory condition under Section 45 was satisfied, and continued pre-trial detention was not warranted.

Final Conclusion: The statutory bail restrictions did not preclude conditional liberty pending trial, with safeguards adequate to protect the investigation, evidence and trial process.

Ratio Decidendi: For the Section 45 bail assessment, refinancing of earlier borrowings, without material establishing that an asset was derived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, does not establish the asset as proceeds of crime.

Issues: Whether the applicant satisfied the statutory conditions for grant of anticipatory bail in a money-laundering investigation.

Analysis: The twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 apply to anticipatory bail. Money laundering is a standalone offence concerning processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime; the investigating agency is not confined to the quantification in predicate-offence chargesheets, and a person need not be named or charge-sheeted in the scheduled offence if material indicates involvement with proceeds of crime. The material, including financial transactions, digital records and an employee statement, prima facie indicated the applicant's involvement in the affairs of the relevant entities and the alleged diversion of funds. The applicant's explanation regarding the material was a matter for trial. His repeated failure to appear personally pursuant to summons, despite undertakings to cooperate, was unjustified and also weighed against protection. The ongoing investigation required effective custodial interrogation.

Conclusion: The applicant failed to satisfy either of the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and was not entitled to anticipatory bail.

Issues: Whether the Enforcement Directorate could continue retaining seized documents and digital devices and freezing the locker after expiry of the statutory 180-day period without permission of the Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis: Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 authorises search, seizure and freezing, subject to an application for retention or continuation of freezing before the Adjudicating Authority. Under Section 20(1) and Section 20(3), seized or frozen property may be retained or kept frozen for 180 days, after which it must be returned unless the Adjudicating Authority permits its continued retention or freezing. The 180-day period had expired, and no order permitting retention of the seized articles or continuation of the locker freeze had been obtained.

Conclusion: The Enforcement Directorate lost statutory authority to retain the seized articles or continue freezing the locker; the documents and digital devices must be returned and the locker released to the petitioner.

Issues: Whether the seized vehicles, cash, jewellery, fixed deposits and deposited title deeds were liable to be released after provisional attachment of other properties securing the stated proceeds of crime.

Analysis: Under the search-and-seizure and provisional-attachment framework of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002, the ED acknowledged that the seized assets and fixed deposits were no longer required for the investigation. Properties of the group had meanwhile been provisionally attached to secure the stated amount, and the land parcels covered by the deposited title deeds were distinct from the attached properties.

Conclusion: The seized assets and fixed deposits listed in the relevant tables, along with the deposited title deeds, were directed to be released forthwith to the petitioners or their authorised representatives, without adjudicating the merits of the provisional attachment or pending proceedings.

Issues: (i) Whether a five-day delay in forwarding the arrest order and supporting material to the Adjudicating Authority under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 vitiated the arrest; (ii) Whether prolonged incarceration and the unlikely early completion of trial warranted bail notwithstanding the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether a five-day delay in forwarding the arrest order and supporting material to the Adjudicating Authority under Section 19(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 vitiated the arrest.

Analysis: Section 19(2) requires the arrest order and material to be forwarded immediately, but prescribes no fixed time limit. Immediate forwarding requires expeditious and substantially contemporaneous compliance, allowing time necessarily required to compile and transmit voluminous records and complete administrative requirements.

Conclusion: The five-day delay did not vitiate the arrest or the consequent custody; against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether prolonged incarceration and the unlikely early completion of trial warranted bail notwithstanding the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The twin conditions for bail under Section 45 cannot override the constitutional safeguard of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Completion of the investigation concerning the appellant, custody exceeding twenty months for an offence punishable up to seven years, and a trial involving extensive documentary evidence and numerous witnesses showed that its conclusion was not imminent. Continued custody in those circumstances would turn the process into punishment.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to release on bail despite Section 45; in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional protection against prolonged pre-trial detention prevailed where the investigation concerning the accused was complete and the trial could not be concluded within a reasonable time.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory restrictions on bail cannot displace Article 21 where continued pre-trial incarceration is prolonged and completion of trial is not reasonably foreseeable.

Issues: Whether redevelopment of a co-operative housing society may proceed in respect of an ED-attached flat while maintaining the attachment and the enforcement interests in the replacement flat and redevelopment benefits.

Analysis: The existing attachment had been confirmed under Section 8(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2000. The safeguards undertaken for redevelopment preserved the attached flat's status through a specifically identified replacement flat, continued attachment and possession in favour of the Enforcement Directorate, disclosure of the attachment in redevelopment documents, prohibition on transfer or encumbrance, and direct deposit of all redevelopment accruals into an account designated by the Enforcement Directorate. These measures adequately protected the enforcement interest. A bank guarantee was not warranted, as it would impose financial pressure on the society when the developer and redevelopment terms had not yet been finalised. The development documents are required to be vetted by the Enforcement Directorate insofar as they concern the attached flat, and the concerned Special Court is to be apprised of the arrangement.

Conclusion: Redevelopment was permitted, and issuance of a no-objection certificate was directed, subject to strict compliance with the safeguards preserving the attachment, replacement flat, and all associated accruals for the Enforcement Directorate.

Issues: Whether the attached properties could be sold and the provisional attachment substituted by an escrow arrangement securing the quantified proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The quantified balance of proceeds of crime was Rs. 189.92 crore after accounting for Rs. 55 crore realised from earlier sales. The assets related to investment schemes involving several entities, and continuation of attachment affected interests beyond those attributable to the quantified amount. An arrangement securing the amount while permitting sale of the properties was accepted as protecting investors' interests and preserving the amount for the pending trial. An additional amount of 50% of the quantified proceeds, namely Rs. 95 crore, was fixed to make the arrangement equitable.

Conclusion: The appellant may sell the attached properties through a joint escrow account, with sale proceeds retained until Rs. 284.92 crore is secured. Attachment shall be lifted proportionately upon sale and entirely upon receipt of the full amount, which shall be placed in fixed deposit pending the trial.

Issues: Whether funds in foreign bank accounts already subjected to provisional attachment and confirmation could be transferred to another foreign bank pending adjudication of the challenge to those orders.

Analysis: The accounts were covered by the provisional attachment order and its confirmation. The material did not disclose the nature and details of the overseas business operations requiring use of the funds. Permitting the requested transfer before determination of the challenge would dilute the effect of the existing attachment; the validity of the attachment and confirmation remains unadjudicated in the writ proceedings.

Outcome: The requested overseas transfer was declined. A request may be made to the enforcement authorities for transfer in the manner proposed by them, with the funds remaining subject to attachment.

Issues: Whether the attached property constituted direct or indirect proceeds of crime, or the value thereof, and was consequently liable for confirmation of attachment.

Analysis: Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 encompasses property derived or obtained directly or indirectly from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, including its value. Registration of scheduled offences does not by itself establish that every asset is proceeds of crime; however, the cumulative money trail, rather than isolated transactions, may establish the requisite prima facie nexus. The bank-account analysis and statements recorded under Section 50 showed that project escrow funds were utilised towards acquisition of the property. The existence of independent business income, accounting disclosure of the investment, and the fact that only part of the consideration originated from the project account did not sever that nexus. The material furnished sufficient reason to believe under Section 5(1) and justified confirmation under Section 8.

Conclusion: The attached property constituted proceeds of crime or its value and was liable to be attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issues: Whether the money-laundering trial may continue while pronouncement of judgment is deferred until the trial in the scheduled offence is concluded.

Analysis: Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 concerns proceeds of crime derived from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Although prosecution for money laundering may proceed independently, the result of the scheduled-offence trial directly bears upon the determination of proceeds of crime and money-laundering culpability. Pronouncing a money-laundering judgment before the predicate case is finally decided could produce inconsistent and paradoxical outcomes. The petitioner was not party to the prior proceedings imposing a timeline for the money-laundering trial and had no earlier opportunity to raise this objection.

Conclusion: The PMLA trial may proceed, but its judgment shall not be pronounced until judgment is pronounced in the scheduled-offence case; this is in favour of the petitioner.

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was eligible for the first-proviso relaxation under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether bail was permissible under the twin conditions in Section 45(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was eligible for the first-proviso relaxation under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The first proviso applies where a person is accused, alone or jointly with co-accused, of laundering less than one crore rupees. The relevant measure is the amount alleged to have been laundered jointly where the accusation is of a concerted operation, and not merely the credits or assets individually received by the accused. The accusation alleged joint siphoning by the petitioner, family members and associates exceeding one crore rupees.

Conclusion: The first-proviso relaxation was unavailable to the petitioner. This issue was against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether bail was permissible under the twin conditions in Section 45(1)(ii) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The twin conditions require reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. At the bail stage, the inquiry proceeds on probabilities and requires prima facie foundational facts showing the scheduled offence, derivation of the property from it, and the accused's knowing involvement in a process connected with the proceeds of crime. The material did not prima facie establish that the properties or funds attributed to the petitioner were derived from the scheduled offence or that he knowingly dealt with such proceeds. The documentary material had already been gathered, the petitioner had cooperated before arrest, and no prior misuse of liberty or instance of interference was shown.

Conclusion: There were reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner was not guilty of money-laundering and was not likely to commit an offence while on bail. This issue was in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: Although the first-proviso threshold was not met, the statutory twin conditions did not prevent the petitioner's release on bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Where joint laundering is alleged, the first-proviso threshold under Section 45(1) is assessed by the jointly alleged amount; however, bail under Section 45(1)(ii) is warranted where the prosecution fails to prima facie establish the foundational facts linking the accused to proceeds of crime and the record shows no likelihood of further offending.

Issues: (i) Whether the attached immovable property was proceeds of crime liable to attachment despite its acquisition in 2020; (ii) Whether the statements recorded under Section 50(2) and Section 50(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be relied upon despite allegations of coercion.

Issue (i): Whether the attached immovable property was proceeds of crime liable to attachment despite its acquisition in 2020.

Analysis: Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 covers property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The established crime period was from 2010-11 to 2022-23, and the property was purchased in 2020, within that period. The appellant failed to produce documentary support for the asserted lawful businesses or to explain the source of funds, while the account material disclosed substantial unexplained credits and cash deposits. The claim regarding gold seized by the police did not concern the immovable property under attachment.

Conclusion: The immovable property was direct proceeds of crime and was validly attached, against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the statements recorded under Section 50(2) and Section 50(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could be relied upon despite allegations of coercion.

Analysis: The constitutional validity and evidentiary use of statements under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 stood affirmed by the applicable legal position. The statements were recorded pursuant to summons, were in the makers' handwriting, and were corroborated by the investigation material and unexplained financial transactions. The allegation of duress did not furnish a basis to discard them.

Conclusion: The Section 50 statements were reliable and could be relied upon, against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The confirmation of provisional attachment of the immovable property remains legally sustainable.

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to direct the authorised authority to invoke the committal mechanism under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether the authorised authority was required, in the circumstances, to apply for committal of the scheduled-offence case to the Special Court trying the money-laundering complaint.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court had territorial jurisdiction to direct the authorised authority to invoke the committal mechanism under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: Under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, territorial jurisdiction arises where a part of the cause of action has a sufficient territorial nexus with the Court. The relief sought was not a transfer of the scheduled-offence proceeding pending outside the State, but a direction to an authority amenable to writ jurisdiction to take the statutory step of filing a committal application. The attachment of property and bank account within the State, the petitioner's residence, and custody within the State established the requisite territorial nexus.

Conclusion: The territorial-jurisdiction objection fails; the issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the authorised authority was required, in the circumstances, to apply for committal of the scheduled-offence case to the Special Court trying the money-laundering complaint.

Analysis: Sections 43 and 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 confer primacy on the Special Court trying the money-laundering offence. Where cognizance of the scheduled offence and money-laundering complaint has been taken by different courts, Section 44(1)(c) provides for statutory committal upon an application by the authorised authority; the proceedings remain separate trials and not a joint trial. Although the authority has discretion regarding invocation of the provision, its discretion must be exercised consistently with the statutory scheme and cannot be exercised arbitrarily to defeat it. Having previously invoked the provision and identified the scheduled offence as connected with the money-laundering case, the authority disclosed no cogent change in facts or law to justify abandoning the committal mechanism.

Conclusion: The authorised authority must file the appropriate application for committal under Section 44(1)(c); the issue is decided in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The statutory committal process is required to be initiated, while the competent court independently determines the committal application in accordance with law and the merits of the underlying prosecutions remain undecided.

Ratio Decidendi: The authorised authority's discretion under Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 must be exercised consistently with the statutory committal mechanism and cannot be used arbitrarily to render that mechanism ineffective.

Issues: Whether the alleged personal land transactions of the company's directors could prima facie be attributed to the company for proceedings concerning money-laundering.

Analysis: The order noted that liability of a company requires material connecting the company itself with the alleged activity under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002. Personal acts of directors are not automatically attributable to the company merely by reason of their office. Further consideration was found necessary on whether the requisite evidentiary connection existed on the stated facts.

Outcome: Notice was issued and the impugned order and consequential proceedings were stayed, insofar as they concern the petitioner, until the next hearing. No final adjudication has taken place.

Outcome: The special leave petition was disposed of as premature, with liberty to seek adjournment before the Adjudicating Authority.

Issues: Whether an ex parte ad-interim injunction should restrain further circulation of allegedly false and defamatory online reports concerning the plaintiff and require their removal and de-indexing pending the suit.

Analysis: Ex parte relief is exceptional and requires a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. The pleaded material indicated that the plaintiff had not been summoned or served with any process or complaint, while the impugned reports portrayed him as an accused and referred to attachment of his shares. The material was prima facie found to be unfair reporting capable of creating sensationalism, shaping public perception and causing continuing reputational harm. The recent and continuing publications did not establish acquiescence. The balance between reputation and dignity under Article 21 and freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) required reporting to remain accurate and non-sensational, subject to the limitations recognised by Article 19(2).

Outcome: Ex parte ad-interim restraints, takedown, de-indexing and preservation directions were issued in respect of the identified content and substantially similar subsequently identified content, pending the suit.

Issues: (i) Whether the predicate allegations disclosed scheduled offences under the PMLA; (ii) Whether the attached properties could be retained as value equivalent to proceeds of crime notwithstanding claimed licit sources or pre-dating acquisition; (iii) Whether the confirmation order was non-speaking; (iv) Whether use of guideline or current market value invalidated the attachment; and (v) Whether valid reasons to believe existed for attachment and adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether the predicate allegations disclosed scheduled offences under the PMLA.

Analysis: The charge sheet included offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. These offences fall within the relevant parts of the Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The fact that alleged mining-law violations were not themselves scheduled offences did not displace the scheduled offences disclosed in the predicate proceedings.

Conclusion: The predicate allegations disclosed scheduled offences and furnished a valid basis for proceedings under the PMLA.

Issue (ii): Whether the attached properties could be retained as value equivalent to proceeds of crime notwithstanding claimed licit sources or pre-dating acquisition.

Analysis: Section 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 placed the burden on the appellants to establish licit sources. The claimed granite-quarrying income, agricultural income, interest, cash holdings and real-estate income remained unsupported by reliable documentary material and were not substantiated by the income-tax returns produced. Independently, the attachment was of property representing the value equivalent of proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u). For such equivalent-value attachment, the independent source and the date of acquisition of the substitute properties were immaterial.

Conclusion: The attached properties were liable to attachment as value equivalent to proceeds of crime.

Issue (iii): Whether the confirmation order was non-speaking.

Analysis: The confirmation order addressed the rival material concerning the predicate offences, quarrying licences, claimed sources of income, absence of reliable evidence for the acquisitions, recorded reasons to believe, and the applicable standard for attachment. It contained findings responsive to the material objections raised.

Conclusion: The confirmation order was a speaking order and was not vitiated for want of application of mind.

Issue (iv): Whether use of guideline or current market value invalidated the attachment.

Analysis: Section 2(1)(zb) defines value with reference to the fair market value on the date of acquisition, or the date of possession where acquisition date cannot be determined. Guideline value or current market value was therefore not the proper statutory measure. However, the alleged proceeds of crime were quantified from the value of illegally extracted granite rather than from the valuation of the attached properties. The valuation error did not affect the legal basis for attachment, particularly where the attached assets represented only a fraction of the alleged proceeds.

Conclusion: The use of guideline or current values was erroneous but did not invalidate the attachment.

Issue (v): Whether valid reasons to believe existed for attachment and adjudication.

Analysis: The recorded reasons linked the scheduled offences and alleged proceeds of crime to the listed assets, and identified the risk of their transfer, disposal or encumbrance frustrating confiscation proceedings. The reported sale of certain attached properties reinforced the apprehension of alienation. Section 5(1) required material supporting a prima facie belief, not conclusive proof. A separate communication or recording of reasons was not required under Section 8(1) before the adjudicatory process was commenced.

Conclusion: The reasons to believe under Section 5(1) were legally sufficient, and no separate requirement under Section 8(1) was breached.

Final Conclusion: The statutory prerequisites for attachment of assets as value equivalent to alleged proceeds of crime were satisfied, and the confirmed attachment remains legally sustainable notwithstanding the valuation error.

Ratio Decidendi: Property equivalent in value to proceeds of crime may be attached under the PMLA irrespective of its independent source of acquisition or whether it was acquired before the predicate offence.