Outcome: No case for grant of pre-arrest bail was made out and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Issues: Whether medical circumstances warranted grant of bail pending consideration of the regular bail petition by the High Court.

Analysis: The medical board reported that the petitioner was clinically stable, while advising continued medical management and angiography for further evaluation. The regular bail petition was already listed before the High Court, and an undertaking was recorded that appropriate treatment, including angiography if required, would be ensured.

Outcome: The special leave petition seeking bail on medical grounds was dismissed, without any opinion on the merits of the pending bail petition.

Outcome: Special Leave Petition disposed of with liberty to seek regular bail before the trial court after framing of charges.

Issues: Whether bail should be granted where the appellant had remained in custody for about one year and two months and recording of pre-charge evidence had not commenced.

Analysis: Despite the earlier direction for completion of pre-charge evidence, its recording had not begun. No wilful attempt by the respondent to conclude that evidence was found, although substantial efforts towards its completion were required from the respondent. The continued custody period warranted intervention.

Conclusion: Bail was granted to the appellant, and the order refusing bail was set aside.

Outcome: Applications for condonation of delay rejected; special leave petitions dismissed as time-barred.

Issues: Whether the petitioners should be granted regular bail in a money-laundering case despite the nature of the allegations.

Analysis: The alleged transactions were from 2013-2014. The petitioners had already undergone substantial incarceration in connected predicate-offence cases and had remained in custody in the present case for over sixteen months. Although a prosecution complaint had been filed, charges had not been framed and an early completion of trial was unlikely.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Issues: Whether cancellation of regular bail was warranted where the bail order bypassed the statutory requirements and evidentiary presumptions applicable to an alleged money-laundering offence.

Analysis: Cancellation of bail may rest either on post-release supervening misconduct or, independently, on inherent perversity or foundational illegality in the order granting bail. Although no post-release misconduct was established, that requirement does not apply where the original bail order ignores vital material or mandatory statutory restrictions.

Analysis: The material comprising cash ledgers, digital transaction records and transaction slips recovered during search was relevant documentary evidence at the bail stage. The presumption concerning proceeds of crime could not be displaced by requiring direct oral implication by depositors. The accused's status as an external broker did not exclude liability where the statutory language covers persons directly or indirectly involved in processes connected with proceeds of crime. The money-laundering allegation remained independently assessable notwithstanding delay or closure of a predicate FIR, and the period of custody could not override the mandatory twin conditions for bail.

Conclusion: The bail order was inherently perverse and contrary to the mandatory requirements governing bail under the anti-money-laundering statute; cancellation of bail was therefore justified without proof of supervening misconduct.

Issues: Whether cognizance of a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, taken after the commencement of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 without affording the proposed accused an opportunity of hearing, is sustainable.

Analysis: Complaints under Section 44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are governed by the cognizance provisions of the criminal procedure law, as those provisions are not inconsistent with that Act. For complaints governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the proviso to Section 223(1) prohibits cognizance without first giving the accused an opportunity of hearing. The admitted absence of such hearing is an illegality that vitiates the cognizance proceedings and is not a curable irregularity requiring proof of prejudice.

Conclusion: The cognizance order was unsustainable and was set aside; the matter was restored to the Special Court for a fresh cognizance decision after affording the petitioners an opportunity of hearing.

Issues: Whether money-laundering proceedings against the petitioners could continue when the entity from which they were alleged to have received tainted funds had been finally discharged on the finding that the transaction did not involve proceeds of crime.

Analysis: The allegations against the petitioners arose solely from their transactions with the said entity. That entity stood discharged in both the scheduled-offence and PMLA proceedings, under unchallenged orders which found that the money forming the subject of the transaction was not proceeds of crime. Under Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3, property must have been derived or obtained from criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence before an offence of money laundering can arise. In the absence of proceeds of crime linked to the transaction, the foundational ingredient for the alleged offence was absent.

Conclusion: The PMLA proceedings and the orders issuing process and refusing discharge were quashed qua the petitioners, in favour of the petitioners.

Issues: Whether the applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail in a money-laundering case despite their declaration as fugitive economic offenders, alleged evasion of process, and the restrictions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The investigating agency had knowledge that the applicants resided in Australia but repeatedly issued summons at their Indian address without pursuing service abroad through the prescribed process. Such steps did not amount to substantial compliance with service requirements and could not support a presumption of due service or deliberate evasion. The earlier concession for keeping look-out circulars and non-bailable warrants in abeyance to enable their return also weakened the allegation that they were avoiding the process of law.

Analysis: The restrictions under Section 45 do not impose an absolute bar to bail. On the available material, reasonable grounds existed to believe that the statutory conditions were satisfied. The filing of the prosecution complaint and the absence of prior arrest also meant that any further custodial requirement had to be pursued before the Special Court. Further investigation alone did not justify denial of protection, since investigative needs could be met through conditions and deemed custody where required for discovery.

Conclusion: The applicants were entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to conditions securing their cooperation with investigation and attendance before the trial court.

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was maintainable through the authorised representative of the political party; (ii) whether the availability of remedies before the Adjudicating Authority and appellate fora under the anti-money-laundering framework barred the writ petition; and (iii) whether interim protection against the ECIR proceedings and freezing order was warranted.

Analysis: The authorisation issued by a member of the National Working Committee was valid because that Committee was the party's highest executive authority. The challenge to the initiation of the ECIR and the alleged arbitrariness of the freezing action could be considered in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding alternate statutory remedies, particularly as the merits required pleadings. The freezing order recorded analysis of substantial fund transfers to several entities; the legality of those transfers could not be adjudicated at the interim stage. The petitioners also had other unfrozen accounts containing substantial funds, and no prima facie case or balance of convenience supported interim protection.

Outcome: Interim relief was refused, and the matter was directed to proceed on affidavits.

Issues: Whether the confirmation of the provisional attachment order was sustainable when the Adjudicating Authority did not give reasoned findings on the appellant's material objections.

Analysis: Section 8(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 requires adjudication of the issues raised in opposition to attachment. Although the impugned order was detailed and reproduced the parties' pleadings, it did not address the material objections concerning the absence of a money trail, the alleged connection between the attached property and the proceeds of crime, and the claimed non-involvement of the appellant's deceased husband in the predicate conduct. The absence of reasons on these objections rendered the adjudication non-speaking.

Conclusion: The confirmation order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication after dealing with every issue raised by the appellant.

Outcome: Delay condoned; the Special Leave Petitions seeking bail were dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.

Issues: (i) Whether attached assets forming part of an approved resolution plan could be restored to the Successful Resolution Applicants under the second proviso to Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; (ii) Whether the Corporate Debtor was entitled to protection under Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Issue (i): Whether attached assets forming part of an approved resolution plan could be restored to the Successful Resolution Applicants under the second proviso to Section 8(8) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The parties agreed that Section 8(8) is intended to restore attached property to bona fide claimants having a legitimate interest. The Successful Resolution Applicants had assumed the position of the Corporate Debtor following successful completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process. A consensual restitution arrangement was therefore accepted under the second proviso to Section 8(8).

Conclusion: The attached bank balances and residential units covered by the resolution plan were directed to be restored and released to the Successful Resolution Applicants. The enforcement authority was held to have no right or lien over those assets or other assets forming part of the approved resolution plan.

Issue (ii): Whether the Corporate Debtor was entitled to protection under Section 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The statutory protection was applied to the Corporate Debtor following resolution, while preserving proceedings against erstwhile directors, persons in control, conspirators and abettors. The protection remained conditional upon the Successful Resolution Applicants having no connection with the erstwhile management and not being beneficiaries of proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: The Corporate Debtor was directed to be deleted from the prosecution complaint, subject to the statutory conditions under Section 32A; proceedings against the erstwhile management and other liable persons were to continue.

Final Conclusion: The consent-based restitution protected the assets transferred under the implemented resolution plan while preserving investigation and enforcement proceedings against the erstwhile management. Questions of law were expressly kept open and the order was not to operate as a precedent.

Issues: (i) Whether the confirmation of provisional attachment was sustainable despite the challenges to the predicate allegations, the alleged absence of a money trail, and the claimed invalidity of the reasons to believe; (ii) Whether the adjudication was vitiated by non-supply of relied-upon documents and absence of a scheduled offence; (iii) Whether funds predating the alleged criminal activity could be attached as value of proceeds of crime; (iv) Whether the accounts of the entities operated by the second appellant and the joint accounts operated by the third appellant were liable to attachment; (v) Whether pension, gratuity and provident-fund amounts could remain under attachment.

Issue (i): Whether the confirmation of provisional attachment was sustainable despite the challenges to the predicate allegations, the alleged absence of a money trail, and the claimed invalidity of the reasons to believe.

Analysis: The material showed that the first appellant was charge-sheeted, his discharge application had been rejected and charges had been framed in the predicate case. The decision concerning appointments under the 2016 recruitment process did not concern the distinct allegations relating to manipulation of TET-2014. Witness statements, digital material, cash deposits, multiple accounts, and routing of funds into investments supported the finding that the attached assets represented proceeds of crime. The appellants did not satisfactorily disclose the source of the cash deposits despite the statutory burden under Sections 8(1) and 24 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Conclusion: The confirmation of attachment was sustainable against the appellants, except to the limited extent separately directed.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudication was vitiated by non-supply of relied-upon documents and absence of a scheduled offence.

Analysis: The relied-upon documents had been supplied and a detailed response to the notice was filed, demonstrating an effective opportunity to contest the proceedings. Cognizance had been taken and charges framed in relation to the predicate offences.

Conclusion: The challenge based on violation of natural justice and absence of a scheduled offence was rejected against the appellants.

Issue (iii): Whether funds predating the alleged criminal activity could be attached as value of proceeds of crime.

Analysis: Where directly derived proceeds are unavailable or have been laundered, the statutory expression includes property of equivalent value. Since the alleged proceeds substantially exceeded the value of the attached properties and the appellants did not establish the source of substantial cash deposits, attachment of properties acquired before the alleged crime was permissible to secure the value of proceeds of crime.

Conclusion: Attachment of pre-existing funds as property of equivalent value was upheld against the appellants.

Issue (iv): Whether the accounts of the entities operated by the second appellant and the joint accounts operated by the third appellant were liable to attachment.

Analysis: The evidence supported the finding that the consultancy and online-class entities were used to collect and project illicit funds as business receipts, without effective services being rendered. The third appellant's joint accounts were used to park cash and create fixed deposits and investments; the source of the deposits was not explained.

Conclusion: Attachment of the entity accounts and joint accounts was sustained against the appellants.

Issue (v): Whether pension, gratuity and provident-fund amounts could remain under attachment.

Analysis: The attachment included accounts containing retirement-related benefits. Although other balances remained attachable in view of the proceeds of crime found, pension, gratuity and provident-fund components were directed to be segregated and released.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to release of the pension, gratuity and provident-fund amounts; attachment of salary, legislative honorarium and other amounts remained operative.

Final Conclusion: The attachment framework and findings concerning proceeds of crime were maintained, with confined relief protecting the identified retirement-benefit amounts.

Ratio Decidendi: Where alleged proceeds of crime are untraceable and the person fails to explain cash deposits and assets, property of equivalent value may be attached, including property acquired before the scheduled offence.