Jharkhand High Court

Faiyaz Khan vs The Union Of India Through The ... on 11 April, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                 2025:JHHC:11402




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    B.A. No.3421 of 2024
                              -----

Faiyaz Khan, son of Riyazuddin Khan, aged about 35 years, Resident of Millat Colony, Bariatu Basti, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834009.

                                   ....     .... Petitioner
                           Versus

The Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement.

                                   ......           Opp. Party
                       -------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

-------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Burman, Advocate : Mrs. Aulia Begum, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate : Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Varun Girdhar, Advocate

------

CAV on 21.03.2025 Pronounced on 11/04/2025

Prayer

1. The instant application has been filed under Section

439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

praying for grant of bail in ECIR Case No.01 of 2023 arising

out of ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 dated 21.10.2022

[corresponding to Bariatu P.S. Case No.141 of 2020] for

offences of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of

Money Laundering Act, 2002, pending in the Court of

Special Judge, P.M.L. Act, Ranchi.

Prosecution case/Facts

2. The brief facts of the case is that an ECIR bearing

No. 18/2022 was recorded on the basis of the FIR bearing

2025:JHHC:11402

No. 141 of 2022 [Bariatu P.S.] dated 04.06.2022, lodged at

Bariatu Police Station, Ranchi Jharkhand under Sections

420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against one

Pradeep Bagchi on the basis of complaint of one Sri Dilip

Sharma, Tax Collector, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, for

submission of forged papers i.e., Aadhar Card, Electricity

Bill and Possession letter for obtaining holding number

0210004194000A1 and 0210004031000A5.

3. The investigation revealed that by submitting the

forged documents, a holding number was obtained in name

of Pradeep Bagchi for property at Morabadi Mouza, Ward

No. 21/19 at Ranchi having an area of the plot measuring

455.00 decimals approximately.

4. Investigation further revealed that the above

property belonged to Late B.M. Laxman Rao which was

given to the Army and had been in the possession of the

Defence, in occupation of the Army since independence.

Investigation also reveals that by way of creating a fake

owner (Pradeep Bagchi) of the above said property, it was

sold to a company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd for

which the consideration amount was shown Rs. 7 crores

which was highly under value and out of this amount

payment amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs only were made into

the account of said Pradeep Bagchi and rest of the money

2025:JHHC:11402

was falsely shown to be paid through cheques in the deed

no. 6888 of 2021.

5. It has come during investigation that records

available at the Circle Officer, Bargain, Ranchi along with

the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata have been

altered and records have been modified. The survey of

Circle Office Bargain as well as Registrar of Assurances,

Kolkata transpires that documents have been tampered to

create fictitious owner of the above properties.

6. It has also come during investigation that some

other properties which are non-saleable Government land,

have been acquired by forging the records and creating

fraudulent documents and by tampering the records

available at the concerned land record authorities.

7. The Enforcement Directorate upon completion of

investigation filed the prosecution complaint under Section

45 read with Section 44 of PML Act being ECIR Case no.

01/2023.

8. Pursuant thereto, on 13.04.2023 the house of the

petitioner was searched in connection with investigation in

ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 wherein various deed along with

seals have been found. Thereafter, the petitioner was

arrested in this case on the allegation that he being the

part of the syndicate and is involved in the activities linked

2025:JHHC:11402

to manufacturing and use of fake deeds to facilitate the

fraudulent transfer of property in question.

9. Thereafter, the present petitioner preferred Misc.

Cri. Application No. 504 of 2024 for grant of bail which was

rejected vide order dated 12.02.2024 by learned Additional

Judicial Commissioner-I cum Special Judge, PMLA,

Ranchi, hence, the instant bail application.

Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner

10. Mr. Birendra Burman, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner has taken the following grounds that:-

(i) 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.

(ii) The petitioner neither stands as the accused party in

Bariatu Police Station Case No. 141/2022 nor in

Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) Case

No. 18/2022, which was initiated on 21st October

2022.

(iii) The petitioner's involvement in the present case is

predicated solely upon conjecture and purported

admissions made by a co-accused, obtained while the

co-accused was under custodial supervision. This

implicating factor lacks substantial evidentiary

2025:JHHC:11402

support and raises concerns regarding its reliability

and admissibility.

(iv) The is having no involvement or connection with the

entirety of the prosecution proceedings or the

disputed land in question and the petitioner

disclaims any association with the allegations of

forgery of document pertaining to land transactions.

(v) The petitioner states that there exists no prior

complaint or accusation pertaining to the

manipulation or fabrication of documents against

him.

(vi) The petitioner was contracted by co-accused Md.

Afsar Ali to serve as a private driver for a commercial

vehicle and in this capacity, received regular monthly

remuneration. Beyond this contractual arrangement,

the petitioner maintains no involvement or

association with any other co-accused implicated in

the present case.

(vii) The petitioner has no prior criminal record.

Furthermore, the petitioner is of limited financial

means, residing with his elderly mother and sister,

and relying on a meager income, as evidenced by

their possession of a Ration Card.

(viii) As per the prosecution's own admission, the

residence of the petitioner underwent a search.

2025:JHHC:11402

Subsequently, all financial accounts, inclusive of

those belonging to the petitioner and their entire

family, were scrutinized. Despite such exhaustive

examination, no inculpatory evidence was discovered.

Moreover, there exists no accusation of the petitioner

amassing or acquiring a significant or

disproportionate sum from the proceeds, rather, the

only allegation pertains to the recovery of certain

rubber stamps.

(ix) There exists no tangible evidence directly implicating

the petitioner in the creation or preparation of any

specific document. The only purported link to such

activity is an ambiguous confession made by a co-

accused, which lacks evidentiary weight under legal

scrutiny.

(x) The petitioner has not been accused of any scheduled

offence, which is a prerequisite for implicating an

individual under the Prevention of Money Laundering

Act, 2002.

(xi) There exists no accusation against the petitioner that

he has directly or indirectly engaged in, facilitated, or

knowingly participated in any activity associated with

the proceeds of crime, including its concealment,

possession, acquisition, or utilization, and the

assertion of it as untainted property.

2025:JHHC:11402

(xii) The sole allegation against the petitioner pertains to

his purported assistance to other accused individuals

in document preparation, which may not constitute

an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering

Act.

(xiii) There is no assertion that the petitioner attempted to

commit any offence delineated under the Prevention

of Money Laundering Act, particularly as delineated

in Section 3 of the statute.

(xiv) The Bariatu Police Station Case No. 141/22 has been

filed solely against one co-accused, Pradeep Bagchi,

with specific allegations. Similarly, the Enforcement

Case Information Report (ECIR) 18/2022 has also

been instituted solely against Pradeep Bagchi.

(xv) The petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2023.

(xvi) This petitioner having no concern with the entire

transaction. He having no concern with the land in

question. This petitioner has not received a single

penny related with the present case.

(xvii) No proceeds of crime have been recovered from the

possession of this petitioner and even no proceed of

crime has been connected with the petitioner.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the

aforesaid ground, has submitted that the learned court

2025:JHHC:11402

while considering the prayer for bail ought to have taken

into consideration all these aspects of the matter both legal

and factual but having not done so, serious error has been

committed.

12. Further submission has been made in the aforesaid

view of the matter as per the ground agitated that it is a fit

case where the petitioner is to be given the privilege of bail.

Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent/Directorate of Enforcement

13. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel

for the Enforcement Directorate, has vehemently opposed

the prayer for bail by taking the following grounds :-

(i) It has been submitted that it is incorrect on the part

of the petitioner that he is innocent and having no

connection with the commission of crime.

(ii) It has been contended that if the proceeds of crime

are there, the same will be said to be respective of the

proceeds obtained from the scheduled offence, rather,

even in case of proceeds of crime if has been obtained

other than the crime as under the scheduled offence,

then also the ingredients of Section 3 of the P.M.L.

Act, 2002 will be applicable.

(iii) The documents seized from the premises of the

petitioner are mostly related with the property which

was being acquired by fake deed by the syndicate.

2025:JHHC:11402

Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner is a part of the

syndicate and is involved in the activities linked to

manufacturing and use of fake deeds.

(iv) During course of search, 10 number of duplicate

stamps/seals of Land Registration Department were

recovered from the possession of this petitioner.

Several fake and forged property documents bearing

the same impression as the seal have also been seized.

Some of the stamps and seals were deliberately been

distorted and rubbed in order to give it an impression

of very old stamp, being used for several years which

suggest that the petitioner has also actively

participated in the aforesaid crime.

(v) The petitioner has also admitted his involvement in

visit to Registrar of Assurances to bring the certified

copies of such deeds for his accomplices namely Afsar

Ali and others.

(vi) The present petitioner namely Faiyaz Khan

knowingly assisted his other accomplices in their

illegal activities of making fake deeds and acquiring

properties on the basis of the fake deeds which were

in fact proceeds of crime as defined under section 2 (1)

(u) of PMLA, 2002.

(vii) Further, the petitioner also indulged in arranging

buyers for a piece of land admeasuring 4.83 acres

2025:JHHC:11402

situated at Cheshire Home Road which was acquired

by fake deed and was thus proceeds of crime.

(viii) The petitioner knowingly assisted Afsar Ali in

arranging fake deeds which he brought from Kolkata

from the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata.

(ix) During searches, 10 number of duplicate

stamps/seals of Land Registration Department were

recovered from his possession which were kept

concealed at his residence. During the course of

searches, property deeds number 4381/4369 (Plot No.

557, Morabadi property in possession of defence) and

408/348 were also recovered from his premises which

proves that he was knowingly indulged in illegal

activity relating to the generation of proceeds of crime

and was also a party with his accomplices namely

Afshar Ali, Pradip Bagchi and other accused persons

in their activities linked to generation and acquisition

of proceeds of crime and projecting them as untainted

property.

(x) Thus, the petitioner was knowingly a party and

actually involved with the other accomplices in activity

connected with the proceeds of crime i.e. its

acquisition, use and projecting and claiming the

proceeds of crime as untainted property. Thus, the

petitioner is guilty of the offence of money laundering

2025:JHHC:11402

as defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002, punishable

under section 4 of PMLA, 2002.

(xi) Learned counsel for the Opposite Party has

submitted by referring to the judgment rendered in

the case of Pavana Dibbur vs. Directorate of

Enforcement [Criminal Appeal No. 2779/20223],

wherein it has been held that it is not necessary that

the accused for the offence of money laundering to be

made accused of schedule offences and it is also

pertinent to mention that the offence of money

laundering is an independent offence. Hence, the

argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner on this

issue is baseless and liable to be dismissed.

(xii) The instant prosecution complaint is backed by

documentary evidences and incriminating seizure

which are further corroborated from other accused or

witnesses during their statements under Section 50 of

PMLA, 2002.

(xiii) The petitioner's claims are merely an attempt to

conceal his involvement in illegal activities related to

assisting his accomplices in fraudulently acquiring

properties.

(xiv) The petitioner is involved and dealing with

properties of such nature acquired through forged

documents, and is knowingly indulged in assisting his

2025:JHHC:11402

accomplices in the fraudulent acquisition of other

landed properties. The same is corroborated by the

seizure of several fake property documents and

fabricated rubber stamps from his premises during a

search dated 13.04.2023.

(xv) Further, from the statements of his accomplices

namely Md. Saddam Hussain and Pradip Bagchi, it is

crystal clear that the petitioner has knowingly

indulged in such illegal activities of landed properties

for long.

(xvi) Further, from the statement of the petitioner himself

as well as from the statements of his accomplices

recorded under section 50 of PMLA, 2002, it is

established that the petitioner is directly and

knowingly a party with his accomplices namely Afshar

Ali, Md. Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan and others and

is actually involved in processes and activities

connected with the proceeds of crime.

14. Learned counsel for the Opp. Party-ED, based upon

the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is not a fit

case for grant of regular bail in favour of the petitioner.

Analysis

15. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the documents available on record.

2025:JHHC:11402

16. 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 PML Act, 2002 (Act 2002) with its object and

intent as also the legal proposition as settled by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in various judgments.

17. The Act 2002 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.

18. 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.

19. 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

2025:JHHC:11402

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 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.

20. 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;]"

21. It is evident from the aforesaid provision by which

the "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

2025:JHHC:11402

held outside the country, then the property equivalent in

value held within the country or abroad.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. Further, the "property" has been defined under

Section 2(1)(v) which means any property or assets of every

description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or

immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and

2025:JHHC:11402

instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property

or assets, wherever located.

25. 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."

26. 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 if the total

value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or

more; or the offences specified under Part C of the

Schedule.

27. 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.

2025:JHHC:11402

[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.]"

28. 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.

29. It is further evident that the process or activity

connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity

and continues till such time a person is directly or

2025:JHHC:11402

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. The punishment for money laundering has been

provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2002.

31. Section 50 of the Act, 2002 confers power upon the

authorities regarding summons, production of documents

and to give evidence.

32. 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., reported in (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.

33. The predicate offence has been considered in the

aforesaid judgment wherein by taking into consideration

the explanation as inserted by way of Act 23 of 2019 under

the definition of the "proceeds of crime" as contained under

Section 2(1)(u), whereby and whereunder, it has been

clarified for the purpose of removal of doubts that, the

"proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or

obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property

2025:JHHC:11402

which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a

result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled

offence, meaning thereby, the words "any property which

may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result

of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence"

will come under the fold of the proceeds of crime.

34. 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 an 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.

35. 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.

36. 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

2025:JHHC:11402

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 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

37. 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 and 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

2025:JHHC:11402

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."

38. 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 the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and

Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra), it has been 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

2025:JHHC:11402

for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence

and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

39. 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 reads 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 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

2025:JHHC:11402

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 dealt

with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal

Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra)

wherein it has been observed that the accused is not guilty

of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while

on bail.

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 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

forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of

2025:JHHC:11402

crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government,

such process initiated would be a standalone process.

42. 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,

reported in (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.

43. Section 65 requires that the provisions of CrPC

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.

44. 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 provides that

unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court

2025:JHHC:11402

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 petitioner.

45. It needs to refer herein that while dealing with bail

applications under UAP Act 1967, the Hon'ble Apex Court

recently in the case of Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of

Punjab and Anr., reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 109,

has observed that the conventional idea in bail

jurisprudence vis-à-vis ordinary penal offences that the

discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted

phrase - 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' - unless

circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place

while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act and the

'exercise' of the general power to grant bail under the UAP

Act is severely restrictive in scope. For ready reference,

relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred as

under:

"28. The conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis- à-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase - 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' - unless circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act. The 'exercise' of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. The form of the words used in proviso to Section 43D (5)- 'shall not be released' in contrast with the form of the words as found in Section 437(1) CrPC - 'may be

2025:JHHC:11402

released' - suggests the intention of the Legislature to make bail, the exception and jail, the rule."

46. The reason for making reference of this judgment is

that in the Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr., the

UAPA has also been brought under the purview of category

'c' wherein while laying observing that in the UAPA Act, it

comes under the category 'c' which also includes money

laundering offence wherein the bail has been directed to be

granted if the investigation is complete but the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and

Anr. (supra) has taken the view by making note that the

penal offences as enshrined under the provision of UAPA

are also under category 'c' making reference that jail is the

rule and bail is the exception.

47. Now coming to the grounds as has been raised on

behalf 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. Further ground

has been taken that the allegation against the petitioner

pertains to his purported assistance to other accused

individuals in document preparation.

48. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das,

learned counsel appearing for the respondent-E.D. has

submitted that there is ample material surfaced in course

of inquiry, based upon which, the prosecution report was

2025:JHHC:11402

submitted and hence, it cannot be said that there is no

legal evidence.

49. 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 451(i)(ii) 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. The relevant paragraphs of prosecution complaint,

which are being referred as under:-

Brief detail of persons examined u/s 50(2) & (3) of PMLA 8.6 Faiyaz Khan (Accused No.10)-

In his statement dated 13.04.2013 (RUD No. 72) recorded under section 50 of PMLA, 2002 has stated that he knows Afshar Ali since childhood and he drives car for her. He further stated that presently Afshar Ali has been dealing with a piece of land of 4.83 acres at Cheshire Home Road with one Samay, Küshwaha, Imtiaz and others He is also working with Afshar Ali arranging buyers of land. Further. on the directions of Afshar All, he as visited several times to Kolkata with Imtiaz Ahmed for bringing deeds of properties. Further, he has stated that. Imtiaz and Pradip Bagchi work with Afshar Ali Alsu Khan He further stated that the seals/stamps which were recovered from his possession at his residence belonged to Afshar Ali During course of investigation, 10 number of duplicate stamps/seals of Land registration Department are recovered from the possession of Faiyaz Khan. Several

2025:JHHC:11402

fake and forged property documents bear the same Impression as the seal which have been seized from the premises of Faiyaz Khan which were kept by Afshar Ali It is thus proved that Faiyaz Khan is also a party with Afshar All in his illegal and criminal activities of making te deeds and later selling the lands to several buyers by showing them as legal properties The statement of Faiyaz Khan recorded on 21.04.2023 (RUD No. 73) reveals that he has been maintaining an Axis bank account bearing πα. 920010047770735 in which several large value transactions with Md. Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan, Greensoil Enterprises have been made. He has stated that this account was opened on the directions of Afshar All and the transactions with the above-stated persons were done on the insistence of the accused Afshar Ali. During the course of search on 13.04.2023 (RUD No. 23), property deeds number 4381/4369 (Plot No. 557, Morabadi property in possession of defence) and 408/348 was recovered from his premises. He stated that these documents were kept the directions of Afshar Ali. Specific Roles of the Accused/Co-Accused/person abetting 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 tainted property in terms of section 3 of PMLA Faiyaz Khan (accused no.10) The accused Faiyaz Khan knowingly assisted the other accused persons in their illegal activities of making fake deeds and of acquiring properties on the basis of the fake deeds which was infact proceeds of crime as defined under section 2 (1) (u) of PMLA, 2002. The accused person assisted other accused persons in their activities connected with proceed of crime. The accused knowingly use account 9200100477707.. to acquire

2025:JHHC:11402

and in placement of Proceed of crime with other accused persons. The accused person also indulged in arranging buyers for a piece of land admeasuring 4.83 acres situated at Cheshire Hom Road which was acquired by fake deed and was thus proceeds of crime. Further, the accused person also knowingly assisted Afshar Ali in arranging fake deeds which he brought from Kolkata from the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata. During searches, 10 number of duplicate stamps/seals of Land Registration Department were recovered from his possession which were concealed accused no. 6 for being used by other accused persons. Dung course of searches, property deeds number 4381/4369 (Plot No. 557, Morabadi property in possession of defence) and 408/348 was also recovered from his premises which prove that he was knowingly indulged in illegal activity relating to generation of proceeds of crime and was also a party with the accused persons namely Afshar, Pradip Bagchi and other accused persons in their activities linked to generation and acquisition of proceeds of crime and projecting them as untainted property.

50. It has come on record that the searches were

conducted on 13.04.2023 and 10 numbers of

manufactured stamps/seals were seized from the premises

of Faiyaz Khan (petitioner). Investigation also revealed that

several fake deeds recovered from the possession of the

accused Afshar Ali @ Afsu Khan bears the same impression

of the seals seized from the possession of this petitioner.

51. Further, the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata,

formed a four man committee and conducted an inquiry

and submitted their initial report related to the three sale

deeds including the land in question and confirmed the

2025:JHHC:11402

manipulation and tampering had been identified in the said

sale deeds and accordingly an FIR no. 137 of 2023 dated

10.05.2023 under section 120B, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of

IPC was registered at Hare Street P.S, Kolkata on the basis

of the complaint of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata for the

above temperance.

52. Further, the Investigation revealed that the accused

persons, namely Afshar Ali @ Afsu Khan, Mohammad

Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan @ Sunny, Faiyaz Khan

(present petitioner), Pradip Bagchi, and Imtiaz Ahmed, have

actively been involved in sequestering several pieces of land

situated in Ranchi and its vicinity by manipulating and

forging the original records available at the Circle Offices in

connivance with certain government officials/record

keepers, including Bhanu Pratap Prasad, Revenue Sub-

Inspector, Baragai, Ranchi. The Circle Office,

deeds/documents/records recovered and seized during the

course of searches conducted on April 13, 2023,

corroborate the fact that the accused persons have been

running a racket involved in the illegal acquisition of lands

by converting non-saleable land into saleable lands for

monetary benefits. They have acquired proceeds of crime

through the aforementioned criminal activities and thus

committed the offence of money laundering. The properties

are used to commit offences under this Act and scheduled

2025:JHHC:11402

offences and derive proceeds, further projecting their

activities and acquired properties as 'untainted property'.

53. It is evident from the prosecution complaint that the

accused Faiyaz Khan knowingly assisted the other accused

persons in their illegal activities of making fake deeds and

of acquiring properties on the basis of the fake deeds which

was in fact proceeds of crime as defined under section 2 (1)

(u) of PMLA, 2002. The accused person assisted other

accused persons in their activities connected with proceeds

of crime. The accused knowingly used his Axis bank

account 920010047770735 to acquire and in placement of

Proceed of crime with other accused persons. The accused

person also indulged in arranging buyers for a piece of land

admeasuring 4.83 acres situated at Cheshire Home Road

which was acquired by fake deed and was thus proceeds of

crime. Further, the accused person also knowingly assisted

Afshar Ali in arranging fake deeds which he brought from

Kolkata from the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata.

During searches, 10 number of duplicate stamps/seals of

Land Registration Department were recovered from his

possession for being used by other accused persons.

During course of searches, property deeds number

4381/4369 (Plot No. 557, Morabadi property in possession

of defence) and 408/348 was also recovered from his

premises which prove that he was knowingly indulged in

2025:JHHC:11402

illegal activity relating to generation of proceeds of crime

and was also a party with the accused persons namely

Afshar All, Pradip Bagchi and other accused persons in

their activities linked to generation and acquisition of

proceeds of crime and projecting them as untainted

property.

54. Further, the statement of Sadam Hussain

mentioned in paragraph-8.4 of the prosecution complaint

reveals that that his firm Green Traders is in receipt of

huge amount of money which are the result of the sale of

land in which forgery was committed. It also reveals that

Imtiaz Ahmed, Arvind Sahu, Faiyaz Khan (Petitioner) and

Afshar Ali were directly involved in the sale of land

measuring 3.81 acres by fake deed. Thus, it reveals that

Imtiaz Ahmed, Arvind Sahu, Faiyaz Khan (Petitioner) and

Afshar Ali are accomplices of each other.

55. Further, the petitioner in his statement mentioned

in para-8.6 of the prosecution complaint also revealed that

he has been maintaining an Axis bank account bearing Nо.

920010047770735 in which several high value transactions

with his accomplices Md. Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan,

Greensoil Enterprises have been made. This account was

opened on the directions of Afshar Ali and the transactions

with the above-stated persons were done on the insistence.

During the course of the search on 13.04.2023, property

2025:JHHC:11402

deeds number 4381/4369 (Plot No. 557, Morabadi property

in possession of defence) and 408/348 was recovered from

his premises.

56. The statement of Pradeep Bagchi, as mentioned in

paragraph 8.8 of the prosecution complaint, reveals the

involvement of Afshar Ali, Imtiaz Ahmed, Md. Saddam

Hussain, Talha Khan @ Sunny and Faiyaz Khan (the

present petitioner) in manipulating sale deeds of landed

properties. The statement also reveals that Afshar Ali,

Imtiaz Ahmed, Faiyaz Khan (Petitioner), Talha Khan Sunny

are experts in altering old property deeds. Faiyaz Khan

(Petitioner) is the driver of Afshar Ali and works for him in

creating fake documents. These persons have forged

stamps/seals which they use in making fake sale deeds.

They have good contacts with Land Registry offices and one

of the said officers is Bhanu Pratap Prasad who works in

Circle Office, Baragai, Ranchi. Bhanu Pratap Prasad assists

Afshar Ali and others in acquiring properties illegally.

57. It needs to refer herein that the three Judges Bench

of 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

2025:JHHC:11402

involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence

of money laundering.

58. In the instant case, it has been found that during

the course of investigation from the statements of witnesses

recorded under Section 50 of the P.M.L.A that the petitioner

had directly indulged, knowingly is as the party and is

actually involved in all the activities connected with the

offence of money laundering, i.e., use or acquisition,

possession, concealment, and projecting or claiming as

untainted property.

59. Thus, it has come on record that the

accused/petitioner Faiyaz Khan knowingly assisted the

other accused persons in their illegal activities of making

fake deeds and acquiring properties on the basis of the fake

deeds. The accused persons assisted other accused persons

in their activities connected with proceeds of crime. The

accused knowingly used his Axis Bank account

920010047770735 to acquire and in placement of proceeds

of crime with other accused persons. The accused person

also indulged in arranging buyers for a piece of land

admeasuring 4.83 acres situated at Cheshire Home Road

which was acquired by fake deed and was thus proceeds of

crime.

2025:JHHC:11402

60. Thus, from aforesaid imputation and discussion

prima-facie it appears that the involvement of present

petitioner in alleged crime cannot be denied.

61. Now coming to the contentions as raised by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein, he has taken

the ground that the petitioner is not accused in the

predicate offence, hence, cannot be made liable for money

laundering offence. But the contention of the learned

counsel appears to be misplaced reason being that it is

settled proposition of law that the offence of money

Laundering is independent of the scheduled offence,

particularly in matters related to the proceeds of crime.

62. It is evident 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 alleged activities

are laundered through diverse methods, one of which

involves making cash deposits in respective bank accounts.

This is done in a piecemeal manner with the intention of

presenting the tainted property as untainted.

2025:JHHC:11402

63. 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 has no substance.

64. Further, the burden of proof is on the Petitioner

until the contrary is proved, the same is observed in

various judicial pronouncements and upheld in the case of

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra). Further in Rohit

Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC

46, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also 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.

65. 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

property in the formal economy to constitute an act of

2025:JHHC:11402

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.

66. 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.

67. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended

that the ED has already filed chargesheet against the

petitioner and, thus, investigation insofar as the petitioner

is concerned, is complete and therefore, no purpose would

be served in keeping the petitioner in judicial custody.

68. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for Opp.

Party-ED has submitted that the mere fact that

investigation is complete does not necessarily confer a right

on the accused/petitioner to be released on bail.

2025:JHHC:11402

69. In the context of aforesaid contention of learned

counsel for the petitioner, 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.

70. Further, it is settled proposition of law that the

filing of chargesheet 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.

71. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the

decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of

Virupakshappa Gouda Vs. State of Karnataka, (2017)

5 SCC 406, wherein, at paragraph-12, the Hon'ble Apex

Court has observed 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."

72. Thus, this Court, after taking note of the settled

legal proposition, is of view that the contention of the

learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in the eye

of law.

2025:JHHC:11402

73. Thus, from the aforesaid deduction, the involvement

of the present petitioner in the alleged crime, prima-facie

appears to be true.

74. So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45

of the Act, 2002 is concerned, as has been referred

hereinabove, at paragraph412 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 of the 1973 Code or 439 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.

75. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45

of P.M.L.A. will have to be complied with even in respect of

an application for bail made under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

That coupled with the provisions of Section 24 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.

2025:JHHC:11402

76. 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.

77. 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

mention in prosecution complaint.

78. Further, it requires to refer herein that the Money

Laundering is an economic offence and economic offences

2025:JHHC:11402

come under the grave offences, as has been held by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y. S Jagan Mohan

Reddy Vs. C. B. I., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439. For

ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid

judgment is being quoted as under:

"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deeprooted 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."

79. 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 paragraph-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

2025:JHHC:11402

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 deeprooted 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."

80. It is, thus, evident from the discussion made

hereinabove that so far as the case of the present petitioner

is concerned, the twin condition as provided under Section

45(1) of the Act, 2002 is not being fulfilled so as to grant

the privilege of bail to the present petitioner.

2025:JHHC:11402

81. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to the facts

and circumstances, as have been analyzed hereinabove, the

applicant/petitioner failed to make out a case for exercise

of power to grant bail and considering the facts and

parameters, this Court therefore does not find any

exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction