2024 (7) TMI 190 - SCH - Money Laundering

Challenge to order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application - HELD THAT - Having regard to the fact that the period of 6-8 months fixed by this Court by Order dated 30.10.2023 having not come to an end, it would suffice to dispose of these petitions with liberty to the petitioner to revive his prayer afresh after filing of the final complaint/Charge-sheet as assured by learned Solicitor General. Needless to state that in the event of such an application being filed, the same would be considered on its own merits. These petitions stand disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to High Court order on bail applications.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 21.05.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application Nos. 1557 and 1559 of 2024. The petitioner had previously approached the Court for similar relief, resulting in dismissal with specific observations. The Court allowed the petitioner to file a fresh bail application in case of changed circumstances or if the trial was delayed. The present petitions were filed based on these observations. The arguments presented by both sides were heard, with the Solicitor General opposing the admission of the petitions. However, the Court did not delve into the arguments extensively due to a previous order granting the petitioner liberty to file a fresh bail application if the trial was not concluded within a specified period. The Solicitor General assured that the investigation would be completed, and the trial would proceed as per the timeline provided. Given this assurance and the ongoing timeframe for trial conclusion, the Court disposed of the petitions with liberty for the petitioner to renew the bail application after the filing of the final complaint/charge sheet. The Court emphasized that any subsequent application would be considered on its own merits. All contentions of both parties were kept open, and the petitions were disposed of with pending applications recorded.

This judgment primarily revolves around the petitioner challenging a High Court order on bail applications. The Court's decision was influenced by previous observations granting the petitioner the liberty to file a fresh bail application under specific circumstances. The Solicitor General's assurance regarding the investigation's conclusion and trial progression played a crucial role in the Court's disposition of the petitions. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to timelines and ensuring that subsequent applications are considered independently on their merits.