Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.24 seconds)
Parmanand Sinha @ Parmanand Singh vs The Union Of India Through Assistant ... on 25 February, 2026
cites
Section 45 in The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Manish Sisodia vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 3 July, 2023
26. Thus, applying the principles and guidelines laid
down in the cases of V. Senthil Balaji (supra), Manish Sisodia
(supra) and the recent case of Arvind Dham (supra), this
Court is of the considered opinion that no fruitful purpose would
be served by keeping the petitioners in prolonged custody after
the investigation has come to a close and there is no likelihood
of trial to be concluded in near future within a reasonable time,
as the same would amount to infringement of fundamental right
of the petitioners.
Section 4 in The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
Prem Prakash vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 August, 1984
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the
case of Prem Prakash v. Union of India reported in (2024) 9
SCC 787 that Section 45 of the PMLA by imposing twin
conditions does not re-write these principles to mean that
deprivation is the norm and liberty is the exception. Paragraphs-
11 and 12 of the said judgment are being quoted hereunder:
Section 3 in The Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 [Entire Act]
The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
K.K. Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 December, 2022
23. Furthermore, with regard to the plea taken by the
E.D. of non-cooperation by the petitioners, it needs to be
clarified that merely giving evasive replies or not giving the
reply as desired by the E.D., would not amount to non-
cooperation, as cooperating with investigation does not extend
to violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination,
as has been held in a very recent case of Vinay Kumar Gupta
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 20215 of
2025, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated
16.02.2026 while granting anticipatory bail to the appellant in a
case under the N.D.P.S. Act. The relevant extract of the order is
being quoted hereunder: