2024 (6) TMI 397 - SC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - maintainability of complaint u/s Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - improper grant of bail by Bench not assigned the case - HELD THAT - The moment the Bench directed that the case was released and it should be heard afresh, the propriety required that the Bench should not have passed any order on merits, as the roster of the writ petition was with another Bench on that day. What is shocking is that after releasing the case, when admittedly there was no prayer made by the first respondent for grant of bail on 26.06.2023, the Bench granted bail for releasing the first respondent. Even during the pendency of writ petition, bail was not granted to the first respondent though a prayer for interim relief of grant of bail was made in the petition. Even if such a prayer would have been made on 26.06.2023, the Bench could not have heard the prayer for bail. Only the roster Bench could have heard the same. On that day, the advocate for the first respondent admittedly did apply for bail. Therefore, the appellants were not heard on the prayer for bail. Moreover, bail was granted in an offence under the PMLA without recording any reasons. Bail cannot be granted in such a case only to strike a balance . Roster notified by the Chief Justice is not an empty formality. All Judges are bound by the same. On 26.06.2023, after releasing the case which was heard two months back, the Bench has proceeded to grant bail without anyone praying for grant of bail. No Bench can hear a case, unless as per the prevailing roster, the particular case is assigned to the Bench or that the case is specially assigned to the Bench by the Chief Justice. Therefore, that part of the impugned order by which bail was granted is set aside - the first respondent is permitted to move the roster Bench by filing an application for interim relief/grant of bail. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues: Bail granted to the first respondent in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 without proper procedure and reasons.

The Supreme Court heard a case where the first respondent, a writ petitioner, sought to quash a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The High Court had not granted any interim relief in the matter. The Bench directed the case to be heard afresh along with other connected matters, releasing the first respondent on interim bail with specific conditions. However, the Bench's decision to grant bail was deemed improper as there was no bail plea made on that day, and the roster of the case was with another Bench. The Court emphasized that the roster notification by the Chief Justice must be followed, and no Bench can hear a case unless assigned as per the prevailing roster or specially by the Chief Justice. Thus, the bail granted to the first respondent was quashed and set aside.

The Court highlighted the impropriety in granting bail to the first respondent without a formal bail plea and in an offense under the PMLA without recording reasons. The judgment emphasized the importance of following the roster system and the Chief Justice's notifications. The Bench's decision to grant bail was considered a breach of proper procedure, leading to the quashing of the bail order. The Court directed the first respondent to surrender and file a bail application before the roster Bench, which would then decide on the matter with necessary priority, considering the case's fresh hearing.

The Court clarified that the order did not address the merits of the first respondent's entitlement to bail but focused on the procedural irregularity in granting bail without a formal plea and outside the assigned roster. The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the bail order and instructing the first respondent to surrender and file a proper bail application before the roster Bench. The judgment emphasized the significance of adhering to the roster system and proper procedural protocols in court proceedings to maintain fairness and justice.