The Supreme Court of India has declined to entertain a plea put forth by realtor Sanjay Chhabria seeking default bail in connection to the Yes Bank money laundering case. The decision came as a setback for Chhabria, whose plea was contested against an order from the Bombay High Court that denied him default bail.

A bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal reiterated the seriousness of the offense in question and noted that the High Court had thoroughly considered all aspects before reaching its decision. Consequently, Chhabria's counsel chose to withdraw the plea, resulting in the dismissal of the matter.

The legal saga stems from Chhabria's arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on June 7, 2022, concerning his alleged involvement in the Yes Bank-DHFL money laundering case. The ED had filed its prosecution complaint, akin to a charge sheet, on August 4, 2022, within the mandatory 60-day period following Chhabria's arrest.

However, Chhabria's petition for default bail was rejected by a single bench of Justice M S Karnik on October 9, 2022. The court's decision rested on the fact that although the ED had submitted its prosecution complaint within the stipulated time frame, it had also sought permission from the special court to continue its investigation further.

The High Court's ruling resonated with the agency's stance, emphasizing the intricate nature of money laundering offenses, which often involve numerous interconnected transactions. Justice Karnik underscored that such cases demand comprehensive and detailed investigations due to the complexity of concealing illicit funds and integrating them into the legitimate financial system.

Money laundering, as elucidated by the court, involves convoluted processes aimed at disguising the illicit origins of funds. In the case at hand, Chhabria was alleged to have played a pivotal role in diverting funds procured illegally by key figures associated with Yes Bank and Dewan Housing Finance Limited (DHFL).

Despite Chhabria's contention that the investigation remained incomplete even after 60 days since his arrest, the High Court affirmed the ED's authority to conduct further probes to gather additional evidence pertinent to the case. The court maintained that there were no restrictions on the agency's ability to pursue further investigations to unearth any evidence against individuals implicated in the offense.