Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a writ petition filed in the Bombay High Court by the first respondent, seeking to quash a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The High Court had reserved judgment on the writ petition on 21 April 2023, but on 26 June 2023, a Bench de-reserved the judgment and directed a fresh hearing along with connected matters. In the same order, the Bench granted interim bail to the first respondent without any prayer for bail being made, citing the need to 'strike a balance' between prosecution and accused rights. The appellants, represented by the Enforcement Directorate, challenged this bail order in the Supreme Court. The core legal issues were whether the High Court Bench had jurisdiction to grant bail after de-reserving the judgment and without a bail application, and whether the bail order was valid under PMLA provisions. The appellants argued that the Bench violated roster discipline, as the case was no longer assigned to it after the roster change, and that bail under PMLA cannot be granted without reasons. The first respondent's counsel was heard but did not specifically argue on bail. The Supreme Court analyzed that the roster notified by the Chief Justice is binding, and a Bench cannot hear a case unless assigned per the roster. It found that on 26 June 2023, after de-reserving the case, the Bench lacked jurisdiction to grant bail, especially since no bail prayer was made and the appellants were not heard on it. The court emphasized that bail in PMLA cases requires reasoned consideration, not merely balancing interests. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the bail order, allowed the first respondent to apply for bail before the roster Bench after surrendering, and partly allowed the appeal, clarifying that it did not decide the merits of bail entitlement.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Interim Bail Under PMLA - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Bail cannot be granted in PMLA cases merely to 'strike a balance' without recording reasons; such orders violate procedural propriety and statutory requirements. Held that the bail order was quashed as it was passed without jurisdiction and lacked reasoned justification. (Paras 7-8) B) Judicial Administration - Roster Discipline - High Court Bench Jurisdiction - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and High Court Rules - A Bench cannot hear a case unless assigned per the roster notified by the Chief Justice; roster compliance is mandatory for judicial propriety. Held that the Bench lacked jurisdiction to grant bail after de-reserving the case, as the roster had changed, and set aside the bail order on grounds of impropriety. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court Bench had jurisdiction to grant bail after de-reserving the judgment and without a prayer for bail, and whether the bail order was proper under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
Final Decision
Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, quashed the bail order, permitted first respondent to apply for bail before roster Bench after surrendering within two weeks, and dismissed intervention application
Law Points
- Judicial propriety
- roster discipline
- bail considerations under PMLA
- interim relief procedures
