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 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 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: (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.

Issues: Whether the Enforcement Directorate may undertake further investigation and issue summons under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 after filing its complaint but before charges are framed, without prior leave of the Special Court.

Analysis: Explanation (ii) to Section 44(1) recognises further investigation and the bringing of additional oral or documentary evidence in respect of an offence of money laundering after a complaint has been filed. The requirement of permission under the proviso to Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 applies to further investigation during trial. Trial commences upon framing of charges; as charges had not been framed, the matter had not entered the trial stage. Further investigation is a continuation of the original investigation, distinct from impermissible reinvestigation, and is supported by the statutory power under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The Enforcement Directorate could conduct further investigation and issue the impugned summons without obtaining prior leave of the Special Court before commencement of trial.

Issues: (i) Whether bail granted to one accused in a money-laundering investigation was liable to be set aside; (ii) Whether the other accused was entitled to bail while the investigation remained incomplete.

Issue (i): Whether bail granted to one accused in a money-laundering investigation was liable to be set aside.

Analysis: The quashing of a predicate FIR on the basis of a compromise did not, by itself, obliterate the existence of proceeds of crime for proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The serious allegations, the substantial scale of the alleged laundering, and the need for further investigation warranted application of the rigour under Section 45.

Conclusion: The grant of bail was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the other accused was entitled to bail while the investigation remained incomplete.

Analysis: The investigation remained incomplete and the nature and seriousness of the allegations did not warrant bail. The rigour under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 applied.

Conclusion: Bail was refused.

Final Conclusion: The statutory threshold governing bail in money-laundering proceedings applied to both accused during the continuing investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: Quashing of a predicate FIR on compromise does not, by itself, extinguish proceeds of crime for adjudicating bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Issues: Whether confirmation of the provisional attachment was sustainable without establishing that the attached bank balance represented proceeds of crime derived from a scheduled offence.

Analysis: Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, attachment requires an identifiable nexus between the property and proceeds of crime connected with a scheduled offence. The material showed that no fintech or service-provider entity operated the appellant's lending application, and the predicate-offence chargesheets neither arraigned the appellant nor attributed the alleged criminal activity to its application. The alleged commission income was not linked to any identified proceeds of crime, and the outstanding component of a contractual loan could not, without further material, be characterised as proceeds of crime. The available bank balance was also not specifically traced to any scheduled offence.

Conclusion: The requisite nexus between the attached property and proceeds of crime was not established; the property could not be treated as proceeds of crime.

Issues: Whether the cash of Rs. 11,26,000 recovered from the appellant had a sufficient nexus with proceeds generated from the alleged illegal liquor transactions and was liable to remain under provisional attachment.

Analysis: The material connected the appellant's CL-2 warehouse with the double-trip liquor-supply arrangement involving repeated use of transport documents and consequent evasion of excise duty. The cash recovered during search was not supported by an independently verifiable bank withdrawal or contemporaneous documentary proof of receipts from traders. The cash book was not treated as sufficient independent corroboration, and the stock-register explanation did not disprove unrecorded transactions. The cumulative material, including the unexplained cash, the alleged transactions benefiting the appellant, and the evidence of excise-duty evasion, established the requisite nexus.

Conclusion: The recovered cash constituted proceeds of crime and its provisional attachment was sustained.

Issues: (i) Whether the Special Court's order directing restoration of attached properties to the insolvency professional on an association's application was legally sustainable; (ii) Whether a monitoring committee should be constituted to verify genuine homebuyers and maintain information concerning attached assets, and whether the insolvency professional could participate in that process; and (iii) Whether immediate liquidation or restoration of the attached assets should be directed.

Issue (i): Whether the Special Court's order directing restoration of attached properties to the insolvency professional on an association's application was legally sustainable.

Analysis: Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 permits restoration only to a claimant having a legitimate interest and a quantifiable loss. Rule 2(b) and Rule 3A of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Restoration of Property) Rules, 2016 require a qualifying claimant, framing of charge before restoration during trial, and an opportunity of hearing to the owner. The association was not itself a homebuyer, had not suffered a quantifiable loss, and could not satisfy the statutory requirements of a claimant.

Analysis: The attached assets belonged to former promoters and other persons or entities, and not to the corporate debtor undergoing insolvency proceedings. An insolvency-regulator circular and the insolvency professional's undertaking could not displace the statutory scheme under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 or confer a role upon the insolvency professional in relation to non-corporate-debtor assets. The undertaking recorded in proceedings concerning an individual homebuyer was not an undertaking in rem for all homebuyers.

Conclusion: The Special Court's restoration order was set aside. The related interim orders founded upon that order were recalled and vacated.

Issue (ii): Whether a monitoring committee should be constituted to verify genuine homebuyers and maintain information concerning attached assets, and whether the insolvency professional could participate in that process.

Analysis: The number of affected purchasers, competing claims over attached assets, and the need for an expeditious and transparent verification process warranted an independent supervisory mechanism. The insolvency and money-laundering regimes concern distinct asset pools. The committee's work cannot interfere with the ongoing corporate insolvency resolution process, and the insolvency professional has no role before it because the attached assets are not assets of the corporate debtor.

Conclusion: A monitoring committee was constituted to verify genuine homebuyers irrespective of whether payment was made to either developer, and to maintain updated particulars, attachment status, pending challenges, and valuations of attached assets. The insolvency professional was excluded from the committee's process.

Issue (iii): Whether immediate liquidation or restoration of the attached assets should be directed.

Analysis: Restoration of attached property during trial remains governed by section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 and Rule 3A of the Prevention of Money-laundering (Restoration of Property) Rules, 2016. Challenges to individual attachments and appellate remedies remained pending; the statutory scheme recognises a deemed embargo on restoration while such remedies are unresolved. Detailed directions on restitution were deferred until a comprehensive record regarding claimants and asset status becomes available.

Conclusion: No immediate liquidation or restoration of the attached properties was directed; further directions were reserved for a subsequent stage.

Final Conclusion: The statutory process for dealing with attached property is preserved, while an independent verification and asset-information mechanism is established to facilitate future consideration of relief for genuine homebuyers without affecting rights in the ongoing insolvency proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Restoration of attached property under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 must conform to the statutory requirements for a qualifying claimant and the conditions prescribed for restoration during trial; an insolvency undertaking cannot substitute those requirements or extend to assets that do not belong to the corporate debtor.

Issues: Whether temporary protection from coercive action should be granted to enable the petitioners to appear and have their statements recorded during the money-laundering investigation.

Analysis: The petitioners undertook to appear and cooperate with the investigation. The respondent stated that coercive steps were not contemplated until their statements were recorded. The direction was confined to facilitating their examination and did not determine the merits of the allegations or confer immunity from further investigation.

Outcome: The petition was disposed of with directions for the petitioners' appearance and recording of statements, without coercive action until completion of such recording.

Issues: (i) Whether the provisional attachment was sustainable where Tramadol exported under no-objection certificates to overseas entities was allegedly diverted to Pakistan without the requisite authorisation, with the appellant's knowledge; (ii) Whether the attached property's value and the extent of attachment were impermissibly determined.

Issue (i): Whether the provisional attachment was sustainable where Tramadol exported under no-objection certificates to overseas entities was allegedly diverted to Pakistan without the requisite authorisation, with the appellant's knowledge.

Analysis: The alleged predicate offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 were scheduled offences for purposes of Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The no-objection certificates authorised exports only to their stated destinations and did not permit diversion to Pakistan. Email communications, purchase orders, shipping records and payment details established that overseas entities functioned as intermediaries and that Pakistan was the intended final destination. The material also showed knowledge of, and participation in, concealing Pakistan as the destination.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment was sustainable because the material established illegal exports to Pakistan and proceeds of crime attributable to money laundering. The finding is against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the attached property's value and the extent of attachment were impermissibly determined.

Analysis: Section 2(1)(zb) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 defines value as the fair market value on the date of acquisition, or, where that date cannot be determined, the date of possession. A present-day valuation report could not displace that statutory measure. The acquisition document recorded a lower consideration than the value adopted for attachment, and the attachment was confined to the quantified proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The challenge based on the current valuation report and alleged excess attachment was rejected. The finding is against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The confirmation of the provisional attachment remains legally effective to the extent of the quantified proceeds of crime.

Issues: Whether the continued operation of Look Out Circulars against petitioners cooperating in a pending money-laundering investigation was justified.

Analysis: A Look Out Circular is a coercive restraint on the right to travel and cannot be continued routinely merely because an investigation remains pending. Its issuance and continuance require material indicating a genuine risk of evasion, non-compliance, abscondence, or obstruction of the investigation. The petitioners had complied with summonses, furnished information, remained available to the investigating agency, and had undertaken foreign travel without hindering the investigation. No travel restriction had been imposed by the trial court, and no material established that either petitioner posed a flight risk.

Conclusion: The continued Look Out Circulars were unwarranted and were quashed, subject to safeguards requiring travel-intimation, provision of contact details, and continued cooperation with the investigation.

Outcome: Special leave petition dismissed; all relevant issues and contentions were left open for trial.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petition was dismissed with liberty to seek regular bail after surrender.