Sunita Devi @ Sunita Kumari vs Union Of India
2025 Latest Caselaw 4706 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sunita Devi @ Sunita Kumari vs Union Of India on 11 April, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                               2025:JHHC:11250

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                      B.A. No. 2249 of 2024
                                ---------------

1. Sunita Devi @ Sunita Kumari, aged about 47 years, W/o Panna Lal Mahto, Resident of Village-Ganoloya, PO & PS-Murhu, District-Khunti, Jharkhand.

2. Shiv Shankar Mahto @ Shiv Shankar Ganjhu, aged about 40 years, S/o Late Choyta Mahto, Resident of Village-Ganoloya, PO & PS-Murhu, District-Khunti, Jharkhand ........Petitioners Versus Union of India, through Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India, Plot No.1502/B, Airport Road, Hinoo, PO-Hinoo, PS-Doranda, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 834002 ...... Opposite Party

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

For the Petitioners : Mr. Subodh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the OP-ED : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Shankar Kumar, Advocate

C.A.V. on 28.03.2025 Pronounced on 11/04/2025

1. The instant application has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in connection with ECIR Case No.04 of 2021 (CNR No. JHRN01009069-2021), registered for alleged offence under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (herein referred as Act,2002) pending in the Court of learned AJC-XVIII-cum- Special Judge, P.M.L. Act, Ranchi.

Factual Matrix

2. The facts leading to filing of the present case reads as under:

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the complaint case registered by Assistant Director (PMLA), Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, Zonal Office, Ranchi, has been filed with relevant documents under Section 45 r/w Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, for commission of offence under Section 3 of PMLA, 2002 and punishable under Section 4 of PMLA, against accused persons, namely,

(i) Panna Lal Mahto @ Ganjhu, (ii) Sunita Kumari @ Sunita (petitioner no.1 herein), (iii) Gopal Oraon, (iv) Shiv Shankar Mahto @ Ganjhu (petitioner no.2 herein) (v) Birsa Bhagwan Placement Bureau (Registration No. 2011024073 Dated 13.07.2011 registered with the Labour Department at Delhi, NCT) (vi) Birsa Security and placement (Registration No. 2025:JHHC:11250 2012000502 Dated 04.01.2012 registered with the Labour Department at Delhi, NCT), (vii) Laxmi Placement Service (Registration No. 2013012116 Dated 19.04.2013 registered with the Labour Department at Delhi, NCT),

(viii) Birsa Bhagwan Tribal Welfare Society (Registration No. S49689 of 2004 registered under Societies Registration Act (XXI) of 1860), (ix) M/s Secureluck Consultancy Private Limited (PAN No. AAZCS9379Q) and (x) M/s Pahal Security Services Private Limited registered with the Registrar of Companies (R.O.C) vide CIN number 74900DL2010PTC197873, for commission of offence of Money Laundering as defined under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of PMLA Act, 2002 to proceed in accordance with law.

4. The investigation under the prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was initiated by recording ECIR No. RNSZO/12/2020 dated 30.05.2020 against the accused persons on the basis of information received that the Anti-Human Trafficking Unit (AHTU), Dist. - Khunti, Jharkhand had registered several cases related to the offences of Human Trafficking wherein the charge-sheet has also been filed. These cases are FIR No. 15/2014 dt. 02.09.2014, FIR No. 24/2015 dt. 14.08.2015, FIR No. 06/2018 dt. 06.08.2018 and FIR No. 07/2019 dt. 19.07.2019.

5. Further, the FIR bearing No. 07/2019 dt. 19.07.2019 of Anti Human Trafficking Unit (AHTU) Jharkhand Police, Khunti has been taken over by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), Ranchi, Jharkhand and the said FIR was re-registered as R.C. 09/2020/NIA/DLI dt. 04.03.2020 wherein the NIA has filed first supplementary charge-sheet vide no. 09/2021 dated 27.02.2021 for violation of section 120B, 363, 370(2), 370(3), 370(4), 370(5), 370A, 371, 374, 376, 420 and 34 IPC, section 6 and 12 r/w section 25 of Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment Rules and Services of Condition) Act, 1979 and section 79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 against present petitioners, namely, Sunita Devi and Shiv Shankar Ganjhu, and against other co-accused persons, namely, Panna Lal Mahto @ Panna Lal Ganjhu, Gopal Oraon, who were running Human Trafficking racket in connivance with several placement agencies in Delhi.

6. Since Sections 120b,418,420,467,471 of IPC and Section 16 and 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act,1976 registered under the FIR's referred above are schedule offences under the Act 2002, hence to

2025:JHHC:11250 prevent Money Laundering related to proceeds of crime including its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting as untainted property and claiming as untainted property enquiries were initiated under Act 2002 against the accused persons including the present petitioners and it was found that the accused persons have amassed huge property out of the indulgence into aforesaid activities related to illegal Human Trafficking.

7. The Investigating officer. has mentioned details of proceeds of crime attached/seized/frozen from the accused persons from page 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the charge-sheet. The properties (movable/immovable) listed as above are worth Rs. 3,36,65,968.86/- (Rs. Three crores thirty-six lacs sixty- five thousand and nine hundred sixty-eight and eighty-six paise) were provisionally attached by the officers of Directorate of Enforcement after finding specific role of the accused person and present petitioners in the commission of offence of Money Laundering by directly/indirectly attempt to indulged or knowingly assist or knowingly is a party or is involved in concealment/ possession/ acquisition or use in projecting or claiming proceeds of crime as untainted property.

8. The investigating officer has also recorded statements of the victims/witnesses during investigation which are mentioned from page 17 to 21 of the charge sheet. Further statement of accused persons namely Panna Lal Mahto @ Ganjhu, Gopal Oraon and Shiv Shankar Ganjhu were also recorded in course of investigation which are mentioned in para 7.8, 7.9, and 7.10 of the charge-sheet.

9. It has been alleged that accused/petitioners Sunita Devi @ Sunita Kumari and Shiv Shankar Ganjhu @ Mahto played a critical role in the organized human trafficking and money laundering network led by Panna Lal @ Ganjhu. They were directly involved in recruiting, transporting and exploiting minor girls and women from Jharkhand under the false promise of providing employment in Delhi. Both accused/petitioners operated through fraudulent placement agencies, including M/s Pahal Security Services Pvt. Ltd., Birsa Bhagwan Placement Bureau, and Birsa Security & Placement, which were unlicensed and in violation of the Delhi Private Placement Agency (Regulation) Onder, 2014.

10. The learned trial Court found that there are sufficient materials available against the present petitioners under section 3 punishable under section 4 of PMLA Act, 2002 to make a prima-facie case to proceed against

2025:JHHC:11250 them. Accordingly, cognizance is taken for the offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of PML Act, 2002 against the present petitioners.

11. Accordingly, the petitioners namely Sunita Devi and Shiv Shankar Ganjhu @ Shivshankar Mahto @ Shankar have been remanded in this case (ECIR 04/2021) on 20.05.2022 and 06.04.2022 respectively for the offence under section 3 punishable under section 4 of P.M.L. Act.

12. Thereafter, the petitioners had preferred an application being Misc. Cri. Application No. 3118/2023 for grant of their bail but the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Spl. Judge, PMLA, Ranchi.

13. Hence the present petition has been preferred herein for the grant of regular bail.

Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners:

14. Mr. Subodh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has taken the following grounds:

(i) The present petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case as the petitioner no.1 is wife and the petitioner no.2 is the brother of the main accused, namely, Panna Lal Mahto.

(ii) There is no iota of legal evidence to show their hands in the alleged offence. Both the petitioners are languishing in custody since long for the offence they have never committed

(iii) All the properties amounting to Rs. 3,36,65,968/- of petitioners have been attached by the Directorate of Enforcement vide Provisional Attachment Order No. 06/2021 dated 31.12.2021. All the attached immovable properties were purchased long before the schedule offences i.e., September 2014 and all the properties were purchased by the petitioners from his hard-earned money.

(iv) Only vague allegation has been levelled against the petitioners by the ED regarding proceeds of crime. There is no any specific allegation that how much amount was generated from alleged scheduled offence by victimize few job seekers.

(v) The petitioners have given placement of around 5000 job seekers through his Firms, and they are working happily in their

2025:JHHC:11250 respective places. Very few about 22 persons alleged that they were ill-treated by their owners. It is pertinent to mention here that there is not a single allegation against the petitioners for giving ill treatment to any person. Their role is very specific. They had only provided placement to the job seekers and got fees from the respective owners and one-time expenses from job seekers.

(vi) NIA has alleged that one of the victims, namely, Jambi Tiru is minor, but in the statement, given by Jambi Tiru under section 50 of PMLA, she specifically stated that she got employment in the year 2008 and at that time her age was 12-13 year.

(vii) Further, the allegation against the petitioner no. 1 is that she has not distributed the money and forced them to work as a bounded labour which is far from truth. It is also alleged that the placement agencies running without obtaining any valid license under the Delhi Private Placement Agency (Regulation) Orders, 2014.

(viii) It has also been alleged that the labours (victims) were not registered under the provision of the Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979. It is further alleged that the petitioner no. 1 accomplishes one of the accused Panna Lal Mahto who used to ill-treat the victims and did not allow them to return back to their respective native village and force them to work against their desire and the present petitioners have no role in the said act of the main accused Panna Lal Mahto.

(ix) It is further alleged that the petitioners' bank account, statement of account no. 140201617-006 of HSBC Bank, open in the name of petitioner no. 1 and transaction of Rs. 3,00,028.09 was made on 10.06.2014 in favour of Toplink Motor Pvt. Ltd. for purchasing Toyota Fortuner Car bearing registration no. JH01 BH 5434 which was purchased in the name of Panna Lal Mahto and not the present petitioners.

(x) As per the allegation against the petitioner no. 2, he is the elder brother and accomplish of Panna Lal Mahto and all the serious allegations are against the main accused Panna Lal Mahto and not the present petitioners and since they are close relatives of Panna Lal Mahto, as such, they have been falsely implicated in the present case.

2025:JHHC:11250

(xi) The petitioner no.1 is in judicial custody since 11.04.2022 and remanded in the present case on 20.05.2022 whereas the petitioner no.2 is in judicial custody since 03.02.2021 and remanded in the present case on 06.04.2022.

(xii) So far offence of money laundering U/s 3 of PMLA is concerned, the means rea to level of knowledge is essential for proceeds of crime. In this case. the petitioners have no knowledge of any proceeds of crime.

(xiii) The prosecution has filed charge sheet in the present case. After filing of charge sheet there is no need of custodial interrogation since the investigation in respect of the petitioners is already complete. None of the prosecution witnesses who have been examined till date have not supported the prosecution case.

15. It has further been submitted that learned trial Court while passing the order dated 19.10.2023 has not considered the aforesaid facts, therefore, in the light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, the present petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail.

Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the Opposite Party/ED:

16. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the opposite party-Enforcement Directorate has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail by taking the following grounds:

(i) It has been submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the ED that the petitioner no.1, namely, Sunita Devi @ Sunita Kumari and petitioner no.2, namely, Shiv Shankar Ganjhu @ Mahto played a critical role in the organized human trafficking and money laundering network led by Panna Lal Mahto @ Ganjhu.

(ii) They were directly involved in recruiting, transporting, and exploiting minor girls and women from Jharkhand under the false promise of providing employment in Delhi. Both accused operated through fraudulent placement agencies, including M/s Pahal Security Services Pvt. Ltd., Birsa Bhagwan Placement Bureau, and Birsa Security & Placement, which were unlicensed and in violation of the Delhi Private Placement Agency (Regulation) Order, 2014.

(iii) It has further been submitted that petitioner no.1-Sunita Devi, as Director of M/s Pahal Security Services Pvt. Ltd., was actively

2025:JHHC:11250 involved in the financial management of trafficking proceeds.

Evidence reveals that she used her bank accounts to conceal and circulate illegal earnings, including a transaction of Rs.3,00,028.09 on 10.06.2014 from her HSBC account to purchase a Toyota Fortuner bearing Registration No. JH01 BH 5434, which was later seized as a proceeds-of-crime asset. Additionally, she having fixed deposits worth Rs. 26,14,934/- and was a beneficiary of illicit property purchases, including a 9-decimal plot in Argora, Ranchi, acquired for Rs.23.36 lakh.

(iv) It has further been submitted that the petitioner no.2-Shiv Shankar Ganjhu, brother of Panna Lal Mahto, was an active participant in trafficking operations and directly responsible for transporting victims to Delhi. Witnesses have testified that he personally trafficked minors, including Jambi Tiru, Birtha, Budhni, and Atwari, and handed them over to Panna Lal Mahto's placement agency.

(v) The petitioner no.2-Shiv Shankar Ganjhu admitted in his statement that in 2008, he received Rs.40,000/- from Panna Lal Mahto as commission for trafficking victims. Furthermore, he owned and managed Birsa Bhagwan Placement Bureau and Birsa Security and Placement Services, both of which were operating without a valid license and were engaged in human trafficking and bonded labour exploitation.

(vi) Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 50 of PML Act, 2002, confirming that Sunita Devi and Shiv Shankar Ganjhu forcibly retained the wages of trafficked victims and did not allow them to return home. Victims were sent to work as domestic labourers, but their earnings were collected by the accused instead of being paid directly. The Enforcement Directorate's investigation has revealed bank records, cash transactions, and property acquisitions linked to the proceeds of trafficking, proving their involvement in both human exploitation and financial fraud.

(vii) Sunita Devi and Shiv Shankar Ganjhu (present Petitioners herein) were not only aware of this criminal activity but were also actively participated in the collection and concealment of funds

2025:JHHC:11250 derived from trafficking activities. Bank records establish that Rs.3,00,028.09 was transferred from Sunita Devi's HSBC account on 10.06.2014 to purchase a Toyota Fortuner bearing Registration No.JH01 BH 5434, the said vehicle later seized as proceeds of crime.

(viii) In response to the the petitioners' claim that all attached immovable properties were purchased before the registration of scheduled offenses in September 2014, it has been submitted that this fact is misleading and factually incorrect reason being that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, defines money laundering as a continuing offense, meaning that even if a property was acquired before the scheduled offense was officially registered, it can still qualify as proceeds of crime if it was derived from criminal activities such as human trafficking.

(ix) Further, the claim that petitioners and other co-accused provided jobs to 5000 people and only 22 alleged mistreatment is misleading. Statements from multiple rescued victims confirm systematic exploitation, non-payment of wages, and physical abuse. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) and Anti-Human Trafficking Unit (AHTU) have identified widespread human trafficking, not just isolated cases.

(x) The petitioners have submitted that mens rea is required to establish money laundering, under Section 3 of PMLA which is not against them but it is evident from the documentary as well as oral evidences collected during the investigation that the present petitioners are involved in the illegal trafficking acts with the main accused Panna Lal Mahto.

(xi) Further, the evidence involved in the present case is not only documentary but also involves various witnesses, therefore, the petitioners being an influential individuals who have been running a trafficking racket for years, if they released, could influence victims and witnesses, obstructing the trial process.

(xii) The petitioners have argued that six prosecution witnesses have been examined and none supported the case. However, multiple victim statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA clearly establish forced labour, non-payment of wages, and financial fraud.

2025:JHHC:11250 The prosecution has sufficient evidence to prove the offenses, and the trial is in progress.

(xiii) The Petitioners' claim that they were made accused merely on the basis of presumption and suspicion which is baseless. However, the investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate and National Investigation Agency has established direct involvement of Sunita Devi and others in human trafficking and money laundering.

17. Learned counsel for the opposite party-ED, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that since the nature of allegation committed by the present petitioners are serious, as such, the instant bail application is fit to be rejected.

Analysis

18. This Court, before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to discuss herein some of the provision of law as contained under the Act, 2002 with its object and intent.

19. The Act was enacted to address the urgent need to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof including vesting of it in the Central Government, setting up of agencies and mechanisms for coordinating measures for combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

20. It is evident that the Act, 2002 was enacted in order to answer the urgent requirement to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof for combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

21. The objective of the PMLA is to prevent money laundering which has posed a serious threat not only to the financial systems of the country but also to its integrity and sovereignty. The offence of money laundering is a very serious offence which is committed by an individual with a deliberate desire and the motive to enhance his gains, disregarding the interest of the nation and the society as a whole, and such offence by no stretch of

2025:JHHC:11250 imagination can be regarded as an offence of trivial nature. The stringent provisions have been made in the Act to combat the menace of money laundering.

22. It needs to refer herein the definition of "proceeds of crime" as provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002 which reads as under:

"2(u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property 3[or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country] 4[or abroad]; [Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence;]"

23. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that "proceeds of crime"

means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad.

24. In the explanation it has been referred that for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.

25. It is, thus, evident that the reason for giving explanation under Section 2(1)(u) is by way of clarification to the effect that whether as per the substantive provision of Section 2(1)(u), the property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country but by way of explanation the proceeds of crime has been given broader implication by including property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.

26. The "property" has been defined under Section 2(1)(v) which means any property or assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal,

2025:JHHC:11250 movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located.

27. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x) which means schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The "scheduled offence" has been defined under Section 2(1)(y) which reads as under:

"2(y) "scheduled offence" means-- (i) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or (iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule."

28. It is evident that the "scheduled offence" means the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule or the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule.

29. The offence of money laundering has been defined under Section 3 of

the Act, 2002 which reads as under:

"3. Offence of money-laundering.--Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the [proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming] it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering. [Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,-- (i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering if such person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the following processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime, namely:-- (a) concealment; or (b) possession; or (c) acquisition; or (d) use; or (e) projecting as untainted property; or (f) claiming as untainted property, in any manner whatsoever; (ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.]"

30. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that "offence of money- laundering" means whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.

31. It is further evident that the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a

2025:JHHC:11250 person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.

32. The punishment for money laundering has been provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2002.

33. Section 50 of the Act, 2002 confers power upon the authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence.

34. The various provisions of the Act, 2002 along with interpretation of the definition of "proceeds of crime" has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 wherein the Bench comprising of Three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have decided the issue by taking into consideration the object and intent of the Act, 2002.

35. So far as the purport of Section 45(1)(i)(ii) is concerned, the aforesaid provision starts from the non-obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless -

(I) the Public Prosecutor has been given a opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (II) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

36. Sub-section (2) thereof puts limitation on granting bail specific in sub- section (1) in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.

37. The explanation is also there as under sub-section (2) thereof which is for the purpose of removal of doubts. A clarification has been inserted that the expression "Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable" shall mean and shall be deemed to have always meant that all offences under this Act shall be cognizable offences and non-bailable offences notwithstanding anything

2025:JHHC:11250 to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and accordingly, the officers authorised under this Act are empowered to arrest an accused without warrant, subject to the fulfilment of conditions under section 19 and subject to the conditions enshrined under this section.

38. The fact about the implication of Section 45 has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) at paragraphs-387 & 412. For ready reference, the said paragraphs are being referred as under:

""387.............The provision post the 2018 Amendment, is in the nature of no bail in relation to the offence of money laundering unless the twin conditions are fulfilled. The twin conditions are that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of offence of money laundering and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Considering the purposes and objects of the legislation in the form of the 2002 Act and the background in which it had been enacted owing to the commitment made to the international bodies and on their recommendations, it is plainly clear that it is a special legislation to deal with the subject of money laundering activities having transnational impact on the financial systems including sovereignty and integrity of the countries. This is not an ordinary offence. To deal with such serious offence, stringent measures are provided in the 2002 Act for prevention of money laundering and combating menace of money laundering, including for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and to prosecute persons involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. In view of the gravity of the fallout of money laundering activities having transnational impact, a special procedural law for prevention and regulation, including to prosecute the person involved, has been enacted, grouping the offenders involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime as a separate class from ordinary criminals. The offence of money laundering has been regarded as an aggravated form of crime "world over". It is, therefore, a separate class of offence requiring effective and stringent measures to combat the menace of money laundering.

412. As a result, we have no hesitation in observing that in whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the constitutional court, the underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 of the 2002 Act must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of money laundering."

39. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486 by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Larger Bench of

2025:JHHC:11250 the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay MadanlalChoudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra), has laid down that since the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory, they need to be complied with. The Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It has further been observed that as per the statutory presumption permitted under Section 24 of the Act, the Court or the Authority is entitled to presume unless the contrary is proved, that in any proceedings relating to proceeds of crime under the Act, in the case of a person charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3, such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. Such conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PML Act will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 Cr. P.C. in view of the overriding effect given to the PML Act over the other law for the time being in force, under Section 71 of the PML Act. For ready reference, paragraph-17 of the said judgment is quoted as under:

"17. As well settled by now, the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory. They need to be complied with. The Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is needless to say that as per the statutory presumption permitted under Section 24 of the Act, the Court or the Authority is entitled to presume unless the contrary is proved, that in any proceedings relating to proceeds of 17 A.B.A. No. 10671 of 2023 crime under the Act, in the case of a person charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3, such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. Such conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PML Act will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 Cr. P.C. in view of the overriding effect given to the PML Act over the other law for the time being in force, under Section 71 of the PML Act."

40. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment has further laid down that the twin conditions as to fulfil the requirement of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 before granting the benefit of bail is to be adhered to which has been also dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra).

41. In the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) as under paragraph 284, it has been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute a person for offence of money-laundering only if it has reason

2025:JHHC:11250 to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in possession of "proceeds of crime". Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken to forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process.

42. So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 is concerned, as has been referred hereinabove, at paragraph-412 of the judgment rendered in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) it has been held therein by making observation that whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section 438 or 439 of the 1973 Code or for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of money-laundering.

43. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, (2015) 16 SCC 1 has been pleased to hold at paragraph -30 that the conditions specified under Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with, which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and also Section 71 of PMLA.

44. Section 65 requires that the provisions of Cr.P.C shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and Section 71 provides that the provisions of PMLA shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. PMLA has an overriding effect and the provisions of CrPC would apply only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.

45. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PMLA will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 CrPC. that coupled with the provisions of Section 24

2025:JHHC:11250 provides that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the appellant.

46. Now adverting into fact of the instant case and the allegation levelled against the present petitioner which according to learned counsel for the petitioners is being said that the same cannot be said to attract the ingredient of Section 3 of PMLA, 2002. While on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the ED has submitted by referring to various paragraphs of prosecution complaint that the offence is very much available attracting the offence under provisions of PML Act.

47. This Court, in order to appreciate the rival submission, is of the view that various paragraphs of prosecution complaint upon which the reliance has been placed on behalf of both the parties, needs to be referred herein so as to come to the conclusion as to whether the parameter as fixed under Section 45 of the PML Act 2002 is being fulfilled in order to reach to the conclusion that it is a fit case where regular bail is to be granted or not. Relevant paragraphs of prosecution complaint are referred herein:

10. Brief summary of evidence to prove that accused and properties are Involved in money laundering 10.1 Panna Lal Mahto in connivance with his accomplices and by committing the scheduled offence had trafficked about 5000 persons, through their well-organized placement agency racket in Delhi, as he has himself admitted in his statement. They supplied trafficked women and girls as domestic servants, but they were instead ploughed into either cheap labour or subjected to extreme conditions of Bonded/Forced labour. These placement agencies did not pay the employed person property, although they collected the payment from the employers on their behalf. Panna Lal Mahto acquired proceeds of crime in his name & his wife Sunita Kumai and projected and claimed the same as untainted properties while possessing the same.

Such proceeds of crime are in conformity with the definition of proceeds of crime provided under section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, and the same are involved in money laundering.

10.2 During the course of investigation, Panna Lal Mahto @Ganjhu was taken on remand for the period of 05 days w.e.f. 10.12.2021 to 14.12.2021 in the Directorate of Enforcement custody and his statement was recorded under section 50(3) of PMLA 2002, when he revealed that he had earned Rs. 4.5 crore to Rs. 5 Crore, as his commission, from supplying domestic helps ranged from Rs 10,000 to Rs 40,000 per head and two-month's wages, every year taken, whom they facilitated work as domestic helps in the respective households, which was almost 5000.

2025:JHHC:11250

10.3 Gopal Oraon in his statement stated that payment of domestic work as was collected by placement agency, either by him, Panna Lal Mahto or Sunita Kumari and disbursement to a smaller extent was made to thein by Panna Lal Mahto. After working for years, when the girls wanted to return to their home, the part payment was made promising that when they would again come to Delhi, the remaining payment will be made. But actual wages or promised wages was never been paid and Panna Lal Mahto used to grab their remuneration. In addition, Panna Lal Mahto also used to take commission from the owners, where the girls were employed. In this process he has acquired more than 05 crore rupees from engagement of 5000-6000 boys and girls in domestic work.

10.4 During the course of investigation, statement of Smt Birtha @ Sumitra Purti, Ms. Jambi Tiru and Smt Rupam Saroj Kumari, all resident of District Khunti, Jharkhand, who were trafficked have been recorded. In their statement, they narrated their ordeal that when they were minors, they were trafficked in the pretext for providing theu employment by Panna Lal Mahto placement agency and taken to Delhi. Panna Lal Mahto and his accomplices, facilitated them to indulge in household work through their placement agencies and collected their monthly payment from the house owners, but no payment has been made to them for their services.

10.5 Banking transactions as gathered during investigation reveal that the money generated from offences i.e. Section 120 B, 418, 420, 467,471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 16 & 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 (schedule offence) are 'proceeds of crime and the same was deposited in the above mentioned account opened in the name of Panna Lal Mahto, Sunita Kumari, Gopal Oreon, Shiv Shankar Ganjhu and the account of placement agencies. They were possessing and projecting these amounts as legitimate property by investing it in various pieces of land, movable assets i.e. vehicle and also keeping these proceeds of crime' in bank accounts to project the same as untainted. Panna Lal Mahto was also operating the accounts opened in the name of Birsa Bhagwan Tribal Welfare Society as individual beneficiary Commission of such an act and omission constitute the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of PMLA

11. Specific role of the accused in the commission of offence of money laundering by directly/indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assist or knowingly is a party or is involved in concealment/possession/acquisition or use in projecting or claiming Proceeds of Crime as untainted property in terms of section 3 of PMLA:-

1.Name of the Accused Panna Lal Mahto Ganjhu age 38 years S/o Late Choyata Mahto R/o Ganaloya, P.S. Murhu, Dist Khunti Jharkhand-835216 Role in the case Shri Panna Lal Mahto @ Ganjhu and his accomplices used, to traffick the poor and innocent persons (including minors) from different districts of Jharkhand on the pretext of providing them jobs in Delhi and used to further traffick them to different places as

2025:JHHC:11250

domestic worker and for other purposes, but they were never paid their actual wages. Further, in his statement Panna Lal Mahto has revealed that he had earned about Rs. 4.5 crore to Rs. 5 Crore, as commission from the owners for engagement of about5000 persons and two-month salary as also taken from these persons. who were facilitated to get work through his placement agency. Panna lal Mahto and his accomplices used to collect the payment of domestic workers on their behalf from the respective household, even then, they were not given their actual wages or promised wages, which is proceeds of crime.

The placement Agencies operated /managed by Panna Lal Mahto and his accomplices were running without obtaining license under the Delhi Private Placement Agencies (Regulation) order, 2014.Neither the labourers (victims) were registered under the provisions of "The inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979. Panna Lal Mahto and his accomplices used to ill-treat the victims and did not allow them to return back to their respective native villages and forced them to work against their desire.

Further, Gopai Oraon in his statement revealed that girls were not allowed to go to their native villages as per their wish. After working for years, when the girls wanted to return to their home, the part payment was made promising that when they would again come to Delhi, the remaining payment will be made. But actual wages or promised wages were never been paid, although payment of domestic workers, on their behalf, was collected by the Placement Agency. Gopal Oraon has also stated that Panna Lal Mahto did not pay the actual wages to the boys and girls and grabbed their remuneration. In addition, he used to take commission from the owners, where the girls were working. In this process he has gained more than 05 crore rupees from facilitating 5000 -6000 boys and girls in domestic work or other purposes.

He projected the ill-gotten amount received LD the bank account opened in his name, accounts maintained in the name placement agencies and Birsa Bhagwan Tribal welfare Society as untainted. He utilised the proceeds of crime to make purported genuine business transactions despite knowing that the source of funds is ill-gotten. Thus, Panna Lai Mahto Accused) is involved in the activities related to the acquisition and possession of proceeds of crime including its concealment and use and also in projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted property with the assistance of other persons. As such, the accused person Shri Panna Lal Mahto has committed the offence of Money Laundering as defined under section 3 of PMLA and is therefore liable to be punished under section 4 of PMLA, 2002.

2. Sunita Kumari Sunita Devi age 46years Wife of Panna Lal Mahto Ganjhu R/o Ganaloya, P.S. Murhu Dist Khunti Jharkhand- 835216 She conspired with other co accused and was running a human trafficking network in the guise of placement agencies in Delhi which supplied trafficked women and girls as domestic servants. They were ploughed into either cheap labour or subjected to extreme conditions of Bonded/Farced labour. These placement agencies did not pay the

2025:JHHC:11250

actual wages to the employed person, although they collected the payment from the employers on their behalf.

The placement Agencies were running without obtaining license under the Delhi Private Placement Agencies (Regulation) order, 2014. Neither the labourers (victims) were registered under the provisions of The Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979". Smt Sunita Kumari is an accomplice of Parina Lal Mahto, who used to ill-treat the victims and did not allow them to return back to their respective native villages and forced them to work against their desire.

During investigation, Smt Sunita Kumari was summoned, but she did not respond to the summons. She is a proclaimed offender and evading her arrest in NIA's Case RC-09/2020/NIA/DLI dated 04.03.2020 (Spl NIA 01/2020 Ranchi) She projected the ill-gotten amount received in her bank account as untainted and utilised the proceeds of crime to acquire immovable & movable properties in her name and projected and claimed the same as untainted properties despite knowing that the source of funds is ill-gotten. It is evident from bank account statements of account no.140- 201617-006 of HSBC Bank, opened in the name of Sunita Kumari that transaction of Rs 3,00,028.09 was made on 10.06.2014 in favour of Toplink Motors Pvt Ltd in lieu purchase of Toyota Fortuner car bearing no. JH-01, BH-5434 purchased in the name of Panna Lal Mahto. Smt Sunita Kumari (Accused) is involved in the activities related to the acquisition and possession of proceeds of crime including its concealment and use and also in projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted property with the assistance of other persons. Thus, the accused person Smt Sunita Kumari has committed the offence of Money Laundering as defined under section 3 of PMLA and is therefore, liable to be punished under section 4 of PMLA,2002.

Shiv Shankar Mahto @ Ganjhu age 39 years S/o Late Choyats. Mahto R/o Ganaloya, P.S. Murhu, Dist- Khunti Jharkhand- 835216 Shiv Shankar Ganjhu was the elder brother and an accomplice of Panna Lal Mahto. He had criminally conspired in running the human trafficking network in the guise of several placement agencies in Delhi. He used to send people, including minor girls from ruler area of Jharkhand to Delhi for providing them employment in the Placement Agencies. He is the owner of Birsa Bhagwan Placement Bureau and Birsa Security & Placement Service. Both placement Agencies were running without obtaining license under the Delhi Private Placement Agencies (Regulation) order, 2014. Neither the labourers (victims) were registered under the provisions of "The Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979". In his statement he has revealed that Jambi Tiru, Birtha @ Sumitra Purti, Budhani and Atwari, were taken to Delhi by him and after reaching them at Panna Lal Agency, he returned back. He has also

2025:JHHC:11250

revealed that in the year 2008 he had received Rs 40,000/- from Panna Lal Mahto for the expenses incurred as conveyance for sending the girls.

Thus, the accused person Shri Shiv Shankar Ganjhu has indulged in the offence of Money Laundering as defined under section 3 of PMLA and is therefore, liable to be punished under section 4 of PMLA, 2002.

48. It is evident that cognizance of the alleged offence has already been taken against the accused persons including the present petitioners on 16.02.2022 for the offence under section 3 punishable under section 4 of PML Act, 2002. In this case charge has been explained to the accused persons on 19.07.2022 and the trial going on. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for ED that the efforts are being taken for expedite the trial.

49. Herein it is alleged that the petitioners, in connivance with their accomplices and by committing the scheduled offence had trafficked about 5000 persons, through their well-organized placement agency racket in Delhi, as they have admitted in their statement before the investigating agency. They used to supply trafficked women and girls as domestic servants and did not pay the employed persons properly, although they collected the payment from the employers on their behalf.

50. The prime accused Panna Lal Mahto acquired proceeds of crime in his name and his wife Sunita Kumai (petitioner no.1) and projected and claimed the same as untainted properties while possessing the same. The co- accused Panna Lal Mahto has revealed in his statement that he had earned Rs. 4.5 crore to Rs. 5 Crore, as commission, from supplying almost 5000 domestic helps, ranged from Rs 10,000/- to Rs 40,000/- per head and two- month's wages, every year taken, whom they facilitated work as domestic helps in the respective households.

51. It is alleged that both the petitioners were operating placement agencies in different names and have played active role in the offence as they were assisting the co-accused panna Lal and the proceeds of crime have been utilized for purchase of land and vehicle etc in their names.

52. It needs to refer herein that subsequent investigations by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) (RC-09/2020/NIA/DLI dated 04.03.2020) produced substantial evidence, including victim statements, financial records, and material evidence of money laundering. Multiple victims, who

2025:JHHC:11250 rescued during the investigation, have confirmed that they were trafficked through the placement agencies owned and managed by the accused, denied wages, and forced into bonded labour under false promises of employment. The charge sheet being No. 09/2021 dated 27.02.2021 has been filed by the NIA includes details of witness testimonies and financial transactions proving direct involvement of the petitioners/accused persons in human trafficking, illegal placement of workers.

53. Further the prayer for bail of the present petitioners in connection with the NIA case being Special NIA Case No. 1 of 2020 arising out of Khunti (AHTU) P. S. Case No. 7 of 2019 has already been rejected by the co- ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 29.04.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1848 of 2023.

54. It has come on record that Sunita Devi and Shiv Shankar Ganjhu (present petitioners herein) were not only aware of this criminal activity but were also actively participated in the collection and concealment of funds derived from trafficking activities. Bank records establish that Rs.3,00,028.09 was transferred from Sunita Devi's HSBC account on 10.06.2014 to purchase a Toyota Fortuner bearing Registration No. JH01 BH 5434, the said vehicle later seized as proceeds of crime.

55. Investigation has revealed that Sunita Devi and Shiv Shankar Ganjhu were involved in human trafficking for a prolonged period, even before 2014, using unlicensed placement agencies to exploit minor girls and young women from Jharkhand. Their illegal activities continued even after the registration of multiple FIRs, including FIR being Nos. 15/2014, 24/2015, 06/2018, and 07/2019, proving that their criminal operations were long- standing and systematic. It has come on record that the financial transactions and acquisition of properties, including a 9-decimal land in Argora, Ranchi (purchased in 2012 for Rs.23.36 lakh), were funded by proceeds from these illegal operations.

56. Further, it is apparent from the record that the attachment of assets worth Rs.3.36 crore under Provisional Attachment Order No. 06/2021 dated 31.12.2021 was conducted which confirmed that the accused had amassed wealth through the alleged activities over several years. Funds from trafficked victims, who were denied their wages, were transacted into various bank accounts and later used to acquire immovable properties, fixed

2025:JHHC:11250

deposits, and vehicles, including a Toyota Fortuner purchased in 2014 using Sunita Devi's HSBC bank account.

57. It has come in the investigation that the petitioner no.1-Sunita Devi is a direct beneficiary of the trafficking network as she was a Director of M/s Pahal Security Services Pvt. Ltd., which operated without a license under Delhi Private Placement Agency (Regulation) Order, 2014. Further Victim testimonies indicates that she restricted trafficked individuals from returning home and assisted in collecting illegal earnings.

58. Further Sunita Devi's (petitioner no.1) HSBC Bank account transaction of Rs. 3,00,028.09 on 10.06.2014 to Toplink Motor Pvt. Ltd. for purchasing a Toyota Fortuner (JH01 BH 5434) indicates her involvement in money laundering. Her financial transactions primafacie indicates acquisition, possession, and concealment of proceeds of crime.

59. It has revealed during investigation that Shiv Shankar Mahto (Petitioner No.2/co-accused) owned and operated Birsa Bhagwan Placement Bureau and Birsa Security and Placement Services, which trafficked minors from Jharkhand to Delhi. The placement agencies were unregistered, violating the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979, and Hon'ble Supreme Court's guidelines.

60. During the investigation, it was revealed that Panna Lal Mahto and his associates in the garb of placement agencies had lured several youths, mostly minor girls, of the rural areas of Jharkhand and trafficked them to Delhi and other metropolitan cities, without the consent of their family members, in the pretext of providing them job and money.

61. During investigation it has come that Panna Lal Mahto, his wife Sunita (present petitioner No. 1), brother Shiv Shankar Mahto (present petitioner No. 2) used to facilitate them work as domestic help in the household after taking a commission from owners ranging between from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs 50,000/- for the agreement of one year and two months' salary was also taken from the persons who were facilitated work through the placement agencies.

62. The present petitioner No. 2-Shiv Shankar Mahto has admitted in his statement that he personally trafficked victims like Jambi Tiru, Birtha, Budhni, and Atwari and handed them over to Panna Lal Mahto's agency in

2025:JHHC:11250

Delhi. He also received Rs.40,000/- from Panna Lal Mahto in 2008 as commission for trafficking girls, proving his active involvement in the illegal network.

63. Thus, from aforesaid imputation and discussion prima-facie it appears that the involvement of present petitioners in alleged crime cannot be lightly brushed out.

64. It needs to refer herein that as per Section 3, there are six processes or activities identified therein. They are, (i) concealment; (ii) possession; (iii) acquisition; (iv) use; (v) projecting as untainted property; and (vi) claiming as untainted property. Even if a person does not retain the money generated as proceeds of crime but "uses" it, he will be guilty of the offence of money- laundering, since "use" is one of the six activities mentioned in Section 3. In the instant case the proceeds obtained from the alleged offences are laundered through diverse methods, and this is done in a piecemeal manner with the intention of presenting the tainted property as untainted.

65. Keeping in mind these essential elements that make up the molecular structure of Section 3, this Court adverts in to facts of the instant case as discussed in preceding paragraph is of view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no offence under Act of 2002 is made out against these petitioners has no substance.

66. Further, the burden of proof is on the petitioners until the contrary is proved, the same is observed in various judicial pronouncements and upheld in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (2022) SCC Online 929. In Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46, the Supreme Court observed that the provisions of section 24 of the PMLA provide that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the appellant.

67. Further the offence of money laundering as contemplated in Section 3 of the PMLA has been elaborately dealt with by the three Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), in which it has been observed that Section 3 has a wider reach. The offence as defined captures every process and activity in dealing with the proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly, and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted

2025:JHHC:11250

property in the formal economy to constitute an act of money laundering. Of course, the authority of the Authorised Officer under the Act to prosecute any person for the offence of money laundering gets triggered only if there exist proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the Act and further it is involved in any process or activity.

68. Not even in case of existence of undisclosed income and irrespective of its volume, the definition of "Proceeds of Crime" under Section 2(1)(u) will get attracted, unless the property has been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The property must qualify the definition of "Proceeds of Crime" under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act. As observed, in all or whole of the crime property linked to scheduled offence need not be regarded as proceeds of crime, but all properties qualifying the definition of "Proceeds of Crime" under Section 2(1)(u) will necessarily be the crime properties.

69. Further it is settled proposition of law that if a person who is unconnected with the scheduled offence, knowingly assists the concealment of the proceeds of crime or knowingly assists the use of proceeds of crime, in that case, he can be held guilty of committing an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. Therefore, it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence.

70. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the respondent ED has placed heavy reliance on the statements of witnesses recorded and the documents produced by them under Section 50 of the said Act, to prima facie show the involvement of petitioner in the alleged offence of money laundering under Section 3 thereof.

71. The three Judge Bench the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46 has held that the statements of witnesses recorded by Prosecution - ED are admissible in evidence in view of Section 50. Such statements may make out a formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence of money laundering.

72. In the instant case, it has been found that during the course of investigation from the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 50

2025:JHHC:11250

that the petitioners had indulged, knowingly as the party and are actually involved in all the activities connected with the offence of money laundering.

73. Further, it is evident from the judicial pronouncement as discussed above that in order to constitute any property as proceeds of crime, it must be derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The explanation clarifies that the proceeds of crime include property, not only derived or obtained from scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. Clause (u) also clarifies that even the value of any such property will also be the proceeds of crime and in the instant case from perusal of paragraph of the prosecution complaint it is evident that the petitioner is not only involved rather his involvement is direct in procuring the proceeds of crime by way of connivance with the other accused persons.

74. At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to mention here that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Act is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. The offence of money laundering is not dependent or linked to the date on which the scheduled offence or predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date is the date on which the person indulges in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Thus, the involvement of the person in any of the criminal activities like concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so, would constitute the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Act.

75. In the instant case several victim statements have been recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, which confirm forced labour, financial exploitation, and physical abuse. Their testimonies are direct evidence, making the case against the present petitioners stronger. These victim statements carry significant weight in proving the charges of money laundering and human trafficking, because they are firsthand accounts of what transpired.

2025:JHHC:11250

76. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire ECIR will be taken into consideration, no offence will be said to be committed so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 3 & 4 of the P.M.L. Act, 2002, is totally misplaced in the light of accusation as mentioned in prosecution complaint.

77. Further contention has been raised that a prosecution complaint against the petitioners has already been filed and, thus, investigation is complete and therefore, no purpose would be served in keeping the petitioners in judicial custody.

78. In the aforesaid context it is settled position of law that the mere fact that investigation is complete does not necessarily confer a right on the accused/petitioner to be released on bail.

79. In the context of aforesaid contention, it would be relevant to note here that in the instant case mere filing of the charge-sheet does not cause material change in circumstances.

80. Further, it is settled proposition of law that the filing of charge-sheet is not a circumstance that tilts the scales in favour of the accused for grant of bail and needless to say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution.

81. At this juncture it would be apposite to refer the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 5 SCC 406 wherein at paragraph-12 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed which reads as under:

"12. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the factum that when a charge-sheet is filed it amounts to change of circumstance. Needless to say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge-sheet for trial of the accused persons."

82. Thus, this Court, after taking note of the settled legal proposition, is of view that the aforesaid contention is not tenable in the eye of law.

83. Now in the light of aforesaid discussion at this juncture this Court thinks it fit to revisit the scope of section 45 of the PML Act, 2002. As discussed in preceding paragraphs that Section 45 of the PMLA Act, 2002 provides twin test. First 'reason to believe' is to be there for the purpose of

2025:JHHC:11250

reaching to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case and second condition is that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

84. It is, thus, evident by taking into consideration the provision of Sections 19(1), 45(1) and 45(2) of PML Act that the conditions provided therein are required to be considered while granting the benefit of regular bail in exercise of power conferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., apart from the twin conditions which has been provided under Section 45(1) of the Act, 2002.

85. The power of the Court to grant bail is further conditioned upon the satisfaction of the twin conditions prescribed under Section 45(1) (i) and (ii) PMLA. While undertaking this exercise, the Court is required to take a prima facie view on the basis of materials collected during investigation. The expression used in Section 45 of PMLA are "reasonable grounds for believing" which means that the Court has to find, from a prima facie view of the materials collected during investigation that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed the offence and that there is no likelihood of him committing an offence while on bail.

86. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the process envisaged under Section 50 of PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and it is not an investigation and the authorities who are recording the statements are not police officers and therefore, these statements can be relied upon as admissible piece of evidence before the Court. The summons proceedings and recording of statements under PMLA are given the status of judicial proceedings under Section 50(4) of PMLA. When such is the sweep of Section 50 of PMLA, the statements that have been recorded and which has been relied upon in the complaint must be taken to be an important material implicating the petitioner. The statements that were recorded during the investigation has been dealt with in prosecution complaint and many of the statements clearly implicate the petitioner. Therefore, the statements that have been recorded and which has been relied upon, is also a strong material that prima facie establishes the offence of money laundering against the present petitioners.

2025:JHHC:11250

87. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau Investigation reported in 2020 13 SCC 337 has come up with triple test under Section 439 of Cr.PC, while dealing with cases involving economic offences. The principles that were summarized in this judgment is extracted hereunder:

"21. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character, behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations."

88. This Court, based upon the imputation as has been discovered in course of investigation, is of the view that what has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that proceeds cannot be said to be proceeds of crime is not tenable.

89. This Court on the basis of aforesaid discussions, factual aspects as also the legal position is of the view that there is no reason to believe by this Court that the petitioners are not involved in managing the money said to be proceeds of crime.

90. This Court while considering the prayer for regular bail has taken into consideration that though the Court is not sitting in appeal on the order passed by learned trial Court since this Court is exercising the power of Section 439 Cr.P.C but only for the purpose of considering the view which has been taken by learned trial Court while rejecting the prayer for bail, this Court is also in agreement with the said view based upon the material surfaced in course of investigation, as referred hereinabove.

91. Further, it is required to refer herein that the Money Laundering is an economic offence and economic offences comes under the of grave offences hence needs to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail as held by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Y. S Jagan Mohan Reddy v/s C. B. I., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgments are being quoted as under:

"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be

2025:JHHC:11250 visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country."

92. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Nimgadda Prasad Vs. C.B.I., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466 has reiterated the same view in paragraphs-23 to 25 which reads as under:

"23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [(1987) 2 SCC 364 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 364] this Court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under: (SCC p. 371, para 5) "5. ... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest."

24. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country."

93. This Court is conscious of this fact that while deciding the issue of granting bail in grave economic offences it is utmost duty of this Court that the nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have been kept in mind.

94. It needs to refer herein that the bail application of the co-accused, namely, Panna Lal Mahto has already been rejected by this Court vide order

2025:JHHC:11250 dated 06.12.2024 passed in B.A. No. 9384 of 2022 particularly taking in to consideration of his culpability in the alleged offence.

95. This Court, in view of the aforesaid material available against the petitioners, is of the view, that in such a grave nature of offence, which is available on the face of the material, applying the principle of grant of bail wherein the principle of having prima facie case is to be followed, it is not a fit case for grant of bail.

96. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners have miserably failed to satisfy this Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are not guilty of the alleged offences. On the contrary, there is sufficient material collected by the respondent-ED to show that they are prima facie guilty of the alleged offences.

97. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to facts and circumstances, as have been analysed hereinabove, since the petitioners have failed to make out a special case to exercise the power to grant bail and considering the facts and parameters, necessary to be considered for adjudication of bail, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail.

98. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a case where the prayer for bail of the petitioners is to be granted, as such, the instant application stands dismissed.

99. It is made clear that the views expressed in this order are prima-facie for consideration of matter of bail only.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Sudhir Dated: 11/04/2025 Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi AFR