https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457289 Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was applied to emphasise the duty to expedite the trial. The Supreme Court declined to grant bail or interim relief at this stage and instead directed the Enforcement Directorate to cooperate with the trial court for an early conclusion of proceedings. The petitioner was given liberty to apply afresh for bail if no substantial progress was made by 31 May 2023, and any such application is to be considered by the trial judge with due regard to the delay in trial and the period of custody already undergone. en-us Fri, 13 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:18:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457289 Section 44(1)(c) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was applied to emphasise the duty to expedite the trial. The Supreme Court declined to grant bail or interim relief at this stage and instead directed the Enforcement Directorate to cooperate with the trial court for an early conclusion of proceedings. The petitioner was given liberty to apply afresh for bail if no substantial progress was made by 31 May 2023, and any such application is to be considered by the trial judge with due regard to the delay in trial and the period of custody already undergone. Case-Laws Money Laundering Fri, 13 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457289