A Vacation Bench of the Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to urgently hear on Friday (June 9) an appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against a 15-day conditional bail granted to Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) MP Magunta Srinivasulu’s son Magunta Raghava Reddy, who is facing money-laundering charges linked to the Delhi liquor policy case.
The Delhi High Court had allowed interim bail to Reddy on Wednesday (June 7).
Mentioning the case before the Bench led by Justice Aniruddha Bose, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, for the central agency, sought an urgent stay of the High Court order.
However, the Vacation Bench, also comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal, decided to hear the other side before taking a call on the ED’s plea to stay the bail order.
The ED said it would serve the copy of its petition to Reddy’s lawyers during the course of the day.
Mr. Raju said the stringent pre-conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act were clearly ignored by the High Court in the case.
The conditions under Section 45 state that the court has to first give an opportunity to the public prosecutor to be heard on the question of bail of an accused. In case the prosecutor opposes the bail plea, the court can grant bail only if it is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit a similar offence when he is on bail.
“The entire provision of Section 45 was given a go-by,” Mr. Raju said.
“But we cannot stay the High Court order unless we hear the other side… we will list it tomorrow,” Justice Bose said.
Mr. Raju said a Delhi court had on May 8 dismissed Reddy’s plea for interim bail on the ground of his wife’s ill health. Special Judge M.K. Nagpal had dismissed the bail application then, saying it could not be ignored that the accused was being prosecuted for the offence of money laundering, which was a serious economic offence.
“But now bail has been granted because his mother-in-law slipped in the bathroom and is under observation in the hospital… I want a stay of the High Court order,” the law officer submitted.
