2022 (12) TMI 1392 - SCH - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - applicant-petitioner had never co-operated with the investigation and was, in fact, declared absconder - HELD THAT - We are not entering into any of the questions for the reason that we have taken up the matter for consideration for a limited purpose of correcting the obvious errors in the order dated 07.12.2022 and for putting the records straight while, at the same time, maintaining the spirit of the order as passed by us. We again make it clear that we have not made any comments on the merits of the case and, obviously, it would be expected of the Trial Court to consider the matter dispassionately and uninfluenced by any of the observations occurring in the order impugned or in the present order by us. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Correction of errors in the previous order, Bail application, Consideration of bail for the petitioner, Observations on the nature of accusations, Interim protection for the petitioner, Dismissal of petitions, Disposal of pending applications.

Correction of errors in the previous order:
The Supreme Court considered an application in a Special Leave Petition to correct errors in an order dated 07.12.2022. The Court focused on rectifying mistakes in the previous order while maintaining the spirit of the original decision.

Bail application:
The applicant's senior counsel highlighted the circumstances of the case and mentioned that all co-accused had already been granted regular bail. However, the respondent's counsel opposed, stating the applicant had not cooperated with the investigation and was declared an absconder. The Court did not delve into these issues but addressed the matter for the purpose of rectifying errors in the previous order.

Consideration of bail for the petitioner:
The Court examined the High Court's decision declining bail for the petitioner under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Despite other accused receiving bail, the Court upheld the denial of bail for the petitioner due to the nature of the accusations. However, considering the petitioner's age and circumstances, the Court allowed the petitioner to apply for regular bail within four weeks before the Trial Court.

Observations on the nature of accusations:
The Court affirmed that the High Court's denial of bail for the petitioner was justified based on the seriousness of the accusations. The Court emphasized that the grant of bail to other accused individuals would not benefit the petitioner.

Interim protection for the petitioner:
Acknowledging the petitioner's age, the Court granted interim protection for four weeks or until the Trial Court considered the bail plea, whichever was earlier. The Court clarified that its decision did not reflect any opinion on the case's merits, leaving all aspects open for the Trial Court's consideration.

Dismissal of petitions:
While dismissing the petitions, the Court reiterated that it had not made any comments on the case's merits. The Court emphasized that the Trial Court should objectively evaluate the matter without being influenced by any observations in the current or previous orders.

Disposal of pending applications:
The Court concluded by disposing of all pending applications related to the case, emphasizing that the Trial Court should assess the matter impartially and in accordance with the law.