The Supreme Court recently declined to interfere with the Madras High Court's order granting bail to former DMK functionary Jaffer Sadiq and brother Mohamed Saleem in a money laundering case, while making it clear that it had “reservations” about the High Court's decision.

The prosecution has alleged that Sadiq was involved in money laundering arising out of three predicate offences for illegal export of narcotics.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Augustine George Masih, however, said that since the High Court order had been passed more than a year ago, it was not inclined to interfere with it. The Court also directed that the High Court's decision would not be treated as a precedent.

The Court stated in the order, “On a prima facie view, we have our own reservation to the impugned order passed. However, the order having been passed more than a year back, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. We hold that the decision shall not be treated as a precedent. The Special Leave Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.”

The Court dismissed petitions filed by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, challenging the April 21, 2025 order of the Madras High Court granting bail to Sadiq and Saleem in the Enforcement Directorate's money laundering case.

The Madras High Court had granted bail to Sadiq and Saleem after finding that their continued incarceration pending trial would violate their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Sadiq was arrested by the ED on June 26, 2024 and was remanded to judicial custody on July 15, 2024. Saleem surrendered on August 12, 2024 and was remanded to judicial custody on August 13, 2024.

The ED's case arose from predicate offences registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi, and the Customs Departments at Mumbai and Chennai under Sections 9A, 25A, 29, 22(c), 23(c), 24, 30 and 25 read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The first predicate offence was registered by Chennai Customs in 2015, concerned the alleged export of 50 kg of pseudoephedrine. The second was registered by the Mumbai Customs in 2019, concerned an attempt to export 38.867 kg of ketamine through M/s Cube Impex. The third was registered by the NCB, New Delhi in 2024, concerned alleged trafficking of 50.070 kg of pseudoephedrine.

The ED has alleged that both men dealt with proceeds of crime by concealing, possessing, acquiring or using them and projecting or claiming them as untainted property. It had alleged that substantial cash was deposited in their bank accounts, and their income tax returns did not correspond with the cash credits.

The ED also relied on Sadiq's statement recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, on May 8, 2024, in which he allegedly admitted that investments made in cash had been acquired from narcotics trade in various forms.

The Madras High Court noted that Sadiq had been granted bail in the 2024 NCB case and anticipatory bail in the 2019 Mumbai Customs case. He had not been arrested in the 2015 Chennai Customs case. Saleem had been granted bail in the 2019 case after the Court found that he had satisfied the twin conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

The High Court also noted that the movable and immovable properties of both accused, which according to the ED had been acquired from proceeds of crime, had been attached.

The ED filed its complaint before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai on October 18, 2024. The prosecution has cited 19 witnesses and relied on 190 documents. There are 20 accused in the case, and summons had not been served on some of them when the High Court granted bail.

Thus, the High Court held that the trial was not likely to be completed in the near future. The High Court found that all properties allegedly acquired from proceeds of crime had been attached, the investigation had been completed, and the complaint had been filed.

The High Court also rejected the ED's contention that further investigation concerning foreign jurisdictions justified continued detention. It noted that the alleged offences dated back to 2015 and that both petitioners had remained at large until their arrests in 2024, except for a brief period after their arrest in the predicate cases.

The Court observed that if the accused were found to be influencing witnesses, the prosecution could seek cancellation of bail. It also noted that there was no complaint as on that date of any tampering with evidence or attempt to influence witnesses.

The High Court concluded that further incarceration pending trial would violate the petitioners' Article 21 rights and granted them bail on a bond of Rs.5 lakh each with two sureties for the same amount.

Appearance -

For Petitioners – Mr. Anil Kaushik, A.S.G. Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv. Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Ms. Nikita Sethi, Adv. Ms. Astha Singh, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Shankar Dixit, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Dr. Arun Kumar Yadav, Adv. Ms. Deeptika Gahlot, Adv.

For Respondents – Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kalicharan K M, Adv. Mr. Kalidharun K M, Adv. Mr. Vishal Sinha, Adv. Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Mr. Jude Rohit, Adv. Ms. Shalini Kaul, AOR Mr. Abudukumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kalidharun K.M, Adv. Mr. Vairawan A.S, AOR Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kalicharan KM, Adv.

Case no. – Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 18736-18737/2025

Case Title – The Assistant Director v. Jaffer Sadiq Etc.

Click Here To Read/Download