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

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.

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.

Outcome: The earlier orders were modified and clarified: the PMLA proceedings shall continue, but judgment therein shall be pronounced simultaneously with the judgment in the predicate-offence case.

Issues: Whether parole should be granted to enable the appellant to attend to his wife suffering from stage IV cancer and facilitate her treatment.

Analysis: The wife's stage IV cancer was undisputed. The availability of other family members to provide care was insufficient to refuse parole in light of the seriousness of her ailment.

Conclusion: Parole for five days was warranted on humanitarian grounds.

Issues: Whether appellant No. 1 was entitled to bail in proceedings for alleged money laundering.

Analysis: Appellant No. 1 had remained in custody for more than one and a half years. In view of the charge levelled against him, continued incarceration was no longer required.

Conclusion: Appellant No. 1 was entitled to bail, subject to terms and conditions fixed by the concerned Trial Court.

Issues: Whether interference with the High Court's interim order was warranted while the substantive writ petitions remained pending.

Analysis: The High Court's interim arrangement was found to be balanced and to adequately protect the interests of the parties. Merits were not addressed because they remained for determination in the pending writ proceedings.

Outcome: The Special Leave Petitions were disposed of without interference with the impugned interim order.

Outcome: Time to conclude the trial was extended by two months and the miscellaneous application was disposed of.

Issues: (i) Whether the Trial Court or the High Court must finally decide the fate of a closure report filed by the investigating agency; (ii) Whether a concluded proceeding resulting in conviction, acquittal or complete discharge impedes investigation or trial.

Issue (i): Whether the Trial Court or the High Court must finally decide the fate of a closure report filed by the investigating agency.

Analysis: The closure report had been filed before the Special Judge and remained pending for consideration. The competent court to determine the report was therefore the Trial Court.

Conclusion: The Trial Court alone must take the final decision on the closure report in accordance with law.

Issue (ii): Whether a concluded proceeding resulting in conviction, acquittal or complete discharge impedes investigation or trial.

Analysis: A final order of the Special Court, including conviction, acquittal or complete discharge, does not amount to impeding investigation or trial. Statutory remedies remain available to the parties.

Conclusion: A final order of the Special Court does not impede investigation or trial.

Final Conclusion: The Trial Court was directed to decide the pending closure report within two months, while the clarification application concerning concluded Special Court proceedings was disposed of without interference with the earlier directions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court before which an investigating agency files its closure report has jurisdiction to take the final decision on that report.