Jharkhand High Court
Chhavi Ranjan vs Union Of India Through Directorate Of ... on 6 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:22342
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 4992 of 2025
------
Chhavi Ranjan, S/o. Sh. R.D. Pandit, Aged about 43 years,
R/o 2/4 Senior Officers' Colony, P.O. Morabadi, P.S.
Bariatu, Ranchi, Jharkhand
............Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement,
represented by Assistant Director, Ranchi Zonal Office, Plot
No. 1502/B, Airport Road, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda,
Ranchi, Ranchi, Jharkhand
..............Opp. Party
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate
For the Opp. Party-ED : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
: Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
------
C.A.V. on 25/07/2025 Pronounced on 06/08/2025
Prayer:
1. The instant application has been filed under Section
483 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 praying for grant of bail in ECIR Case No.01 of 2023
arising out of ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 dated 21.10.2022 for
offences of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
defined under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002, pending in the court of learned
Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-Special Judge
(PMLA), Ranchi.
Prosecution Case:
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as per the allegation
made in the instant ECIR/complaint reads as under:
2025:JHHC:22342
3. On 04.06.2022, FIR No. 141/2022 was registered
by Bariatu P.S. based on a complaint received from Dilip
Sharma, Tax Collector, Ranchi Municipal Corporation. In
his complaint, the tax collector alleged that one Pradeep
Bagchi had submitted an application for the allotment of a
municipal holding number in respect of a flat in Lotus
Garden Complex, Bariatu by relying on a forged AADHAAR
Card, Possession Letter and Electricity Bill. Accordingly, the
FIR was registered against Pradeep Bagchi under Sections
420, 467 and 471 of the IPC. 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, Ranchi having an area
of the plot measuring 455.00 decimals approx. at Ranchi.
4. On 21.10.2022, the Opposite Party registered
ECIR/RNZO/18/2022, on the basis of scheduled offence
being FIR No. 141/2022 (Bariatu PS). It was alleged therein
that the holding number allotted by the municipal
corporation was used by Pradeep Bagchi "in order to
frivolously show the ownership of property measuring 4.55
acres at Plot No. MS 557, Ward No. 21/19, Morabadi
Mauza". It is further stated that Pradeep Bagchi had
created forged documents to sell the Morabadi property by
way of a sale deed dated 01.10.2021 to M/s. Jagatbandhu
2025:JHHC:22342
Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd., which prima facie showed the
commission of the offence of money-laundering.
5. 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
was falsely shown to be paid through cheques in the deed
no.- 6888 of 2021.
6. 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 tempered to
create fictitious owner of the above properties.
7. The Enforcement Directorate upon completion of
investigation filed the prosecution complaint under Section
2025:JHHC:22342
45 read with Section 44 of PML Act being ECIR Case no.
01/2023.
8. On 13.04.2023, the Opposite Party, in exercise of
powers under Section 17 of PMLA, undertook search
operations at various locations in connection with
ECIR/RNZO/18/2022. This included the official residence
of the Petitioner as well as the house of his parents in
Jamshedpur.
9. On 04.05.2023, the Petitioner was arrested in
ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 on the strength of the allegation that
he had misused his official powers as Deputy
Commissioner, Ranchi in order to assist the wrongful
acquisition of the Morabadi property by M/s. Jagatbandhu
through the claim set up by Pradeep Bagchi.
10. On 05.05.2023, the Petitioner was produced before
the Ld. Special Judge (PMLA), Ranchi and was remanded
into judicial custody in a case being ECIR Case No. 01 of
2023, which had earlier been instituted upon
ECIR/RNZO/18/2022.
11. On the same date, the Opposite Party moved an
application seeking 10 days' custodial interrogation of the
Petitioner, which was listed for hearing on the following
day. The order dated 05.05.2023 whereby the Petitioner
was first remanded to custody recorded that the Opposite
Party had filed "Grounds of Arrest" in Paragraphs 7 to 17 of
2025:JHHC:22342
the remand application, wherein it has been alleged that
the Petitioner's involvement in transactions pertaining not
just to the Morabadi property, but also with respect to
certain other transactions.
12. Thereafter, on 12.06.2023, the Opposite Party filed
a Prosecution Complaint against the Petitioner in ECIR
Case No. 01/2023, alleging the commission of the offence of
money-laundering under Section 3 read with Section 4 of
the PMLA. In the said Prosecution Complaint, it was alleged
against the Petitioner that he exercised certain powers
available to him as Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi that
assisted the acquisition of the Morabadi property by M/s.
Jagatbandhu through the registration of a sale deed in its
favour by a fictitious owner, namely Pradeep Bagchi. This
acquisition, it was alleged, amounted to the acquisition of
"proceeds of crime" worth approximately Rs. 20 crores and
thus to the commission of the offence of money-laundering
under Section 3, PMLA.
13. Pursuant to the filing of the Prosecution Complaint,
the Ld. Special Judge vide Order dated 19.06.2023, took
cognizance of the offence alleged in the said complaint and,
in exercise of powers under Section 309(2) of Cr.P.C.,
remanded the Petitioner into custody pending trial.
2025:JHHC:22342
14. On 08.07.2024, a charge of money-laundering was
framed against the Petitioner based on the allegations
contained in the Prosecution Complaint dated 12.06.2023.
15. The present petitioner preferred Misc. Cri.
Application No. 2004 of 2023 for grant of bail which was
rejected vide order dated 08.08.2023 by learned Additional
Judicial Commissioner-I cum Special Judge, Ranchi.
16. Consequent to aforesaid the petitioner had preferred
a regular bail application before this Court by way of B.A.
No. 9247 of 2023, which came to be dismissed vide Order
dated 22.03.2024.
17. Thereafter a special leave petition being SLP (Crl)
No. 13496/2024 has been preferred before the Hon'ble
Apex Court against the aforesaid order of this Court but the
said special leave petition has also been dismissed prior to
issue of notice vide order dated 27.09.2024.
18. The present petitioner has again preferred an
application for bail being MCA No. 2945 of 2024 before the
Spl. Judge PMLA Cases Ranchi but the same was also
dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2024.
19. Hence the present petition has been preferred for
the grant of bail.
Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner:
20. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner seeking relief for grant of bail has
2025:JHHC:22342
submitted that he will not argue much on merits. The only
thing which needs to be argued on merit is that after
rejection of the earlier prayer for bail by this Hon'ble Court,
the matter went up to the Hon'ble Apex Court and the
Hon'ble Apex Court has also rejected the prayer for bail and
in predicate offence the chargesheet has been submitted in
the month of August, 2024 in which the petitioner has not
been charge-sheeted. This is the new development in the
case after the order of rejection of prayer for bail.
21. Learned counsel has further submitted that the
petitioner is in custody since 04.05.2023 i.e., more than
two years, therefore in view of the custody of the petitioner
he may kindly be allowed on regular bail.
22. It has been contended that since there is 31 charge-
sheeted witness and out of the 31 charge-sheeted only 5
witnesses have been examined till date as such there is no
probability of conclusion of trial in near future, therefore on
the ground of long incarceration of the petitioner and delay
in conclusion the prayer for bail of the petitioner is fit to be
allowed.
23. In order to buttress, this limb of the argument the
Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024
SCC OnLine SC 1920, Prem Prakash v. Union of India
2025:JHHC:22342
through the Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) 9 SCC
787, V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of
Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626 and
Ramkripal Meena v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024
SCC OnLine SC 2276 .
Argument on behalf of Respondent-ED:
24. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent-ED has taken the following
ground in opposition:
I. Petitioner is directly involved in commission of crime in
facilitating in 'proceeds of crime' by another co-
accused persons i.e., proprietor of Jagatbandhu Tea
Estate Pvt. Ltd., Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Amit Kumar
Agarwal, Pradip Bagchi, Afshar Ali, Mohd. Saddam
Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmed, Taha Khan, Faiyaz Ahmed,
Bhanu Pratap Prasad, M/s Rajesh Auto Merchandise
Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Aurora Studio Pvt. Ltd.
II. It has been submitted by referring to Section 3 of the
PML Act, 2002 wherein the mandates provides that
involvement if indirectly is there, in furtherance in
commission of crime, then also Section 3 of the PML
Act will be applicable. Herein, the petitioner being the
Deputy Commissioner (the then DC, Ranchi) has
facilitated in commission of crime through said
2025:JHHC:22342
Pradeep Bagchi to give benefit to other accused in
disposal of the land in question in his favour in the
name of one firm, M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt.
Ltd., as would be evident from prosecution report, as
available in the ECIR.
III. It has been submitted that the petitioner being the
Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned has
not only mis-utilized his official position but also he
has facilitated in commission of crime by disposal of
the aforesaid land in the meager rate lesser than the
government notified rate and while doing so the
document has been fabricated by one of the co-
accused persons, Pradeep Bagchi.
IV. It has been alleged that the petitioner has also mis-
utilized his official position by directing the Circle
Officer, namely, Manoj Kumar, who even had cancelled
the mutation under its competence under Section 14
of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of
Records) Act, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as Act,
1973] wherein the Deputy Commissioner has got no
original power and he is only the appellate authority
but under his influence the petitioner subsequently
managed to procure favourable report for Pradeep
Bagchi and the property was subsequently acquired in
2025:JHHC:22342
a dishonest manner in the name of M/s Jagatbandhu
Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd.
V. Further, it would be evident from the prosecution
complaint that the present petitioner, in the capacity of
Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, has also directed the
Sub-Registrar, District Land Registry Office, Ranchi to
get the land registered.
VI. It has been submitted that under the notification of
the Government, the Deputy Commissioner is also the
District Registrar but as per the delegation of power
the Deputy Commissioner in the capacity of District
Registrar has got no power to register the land rather
the power is vested with the Sub-Registrar of the
concerned district land registration office but even
then, the petitioner has interfered with the affairs of
Sub-registrar for the purpose of getting the land
registered in favour of accused persons.
VII. The argument therefore has been made by referring to
the provision of Section 3 of the PML Act that if there
is any direct or indirect involvement of the person
concerned, he will also be said to have committed the
offence under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002 and
exactly the case of the petitioner herein.
VIII. The learned counsel has submitted that this Hon'ble
Court while earlier rejecting the prayer for bail of the
2025:JHHC:22342
petitioner has considered all the aforesaid grounds in
detail and even the plea of petitioner has been rejected
by the Hon'ble Apex Court and since no new
ground/fresh ground is available, therefore the present
application is not fit to be allowed.
IX. On the ground of custody, the petitioner is also not
deserving the concession of regular bail, as the
allegations against him very serious in nature and he
is the main accused, who has manipulated the things.
He has submitted that even Section 479 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023,
particularly Sub-Section (2) of the said Section will not
come into aid of the petitioner because the said sub-
section bars the bail, where an investigation, inquiry of
trial in more than one offence or in multiple cases are
pending against a person.
X. So far as the period of custody as agitated by learned
counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it has been
submitted that as per settled proposition of law which
has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the
long incarceration (herein about 27month) or delay in
trial alone cannot be ground to release the petitioner
on bail, rather in case of scheduled offences/special
offences the seriousness of the matter should have
2025:JHHC:22342
been taken in to consideration by the Court concerned
while enlarging the petitioner on bail.
XI. Admittedly in the charge sheets in G.R. Case Nos.
2596/2023 and 2089/2024 petitioner has not been
arraigned as an accused in the scheduled offence, but
the non-inclusion of the petitioner's name in the said
charge sheets in any way absolves him under the
stringent framework of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). It has been submitted
that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held,
including in Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of
Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586, as well as
in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, that the
offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the
PMLA is an independent offence. The Hon'ble Court
has categorically laid down that it is not necessary for
a person to be shown as an accused in the scheduled
offence for him to be prosecuted under the PMLA,
provided there exist proceeds of crime derived from a
scheduled offence and the person has indulged in or
facilitated any process or activity connected with such
proceeds of crime.
25. Learned counsel appearing for the ED submits that
ED has taken all efforts to conclude the trial as early as
2025:JHHC:22342
possible and all the witnesses are ready, however, there are
many accused in the ECIR cases and one and another
accused, everyday are filing one petition and another and
that is the cause of delaying the evidence to be led by the
ED. He submits that the learned trial court has disposed of
all these petitions, which have been preferred by the other
co-accused before the learned trial court and now the ED
has taken his all endeavour to examine the further
witnesses and there is likelihood that witnesses will be
examined and they will try to examine remaining witnesses
expeditiously subject and decision is to be taken also for
pruning of the list of witnesses.
26. Learned counsel for the respondent-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:
27. This Court has heard learned counsel for the
parties, considered the argument advanced on behalf of
parties as also the judgments relied upon by the parties
and other materials available on record.
28. This Court before appreciating the argument
advanced on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to
discuss herein the admitted factual aspects of the instant
case.
2025:JHHC:22342
29. An ECIR bearing No. 18/2022 was recorded on the
basis of the FIR bearing No. 141 of 2022 lodged at Bariyatu
police station, Ranchi Jharkhand under sections 420, 467
and 471 of IPC, against Pradeep Bagchi for submission of
forged papers in order to obtain holding number
0210004194000A1 and 0210004031000A5. Further,
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, Ranchi having an area of the plot measuring 455.00
decimals approx.
30. Investigation further revealed that by way of
creating a fake owner (Pradeep Bagchi) of the above said
property, it was sold to one 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 Rs. 7 crores payment amounting to Rs. 25
lakhs only were made into the account of said Pradeep
Bagchi and rest of the money was falsely shown to be paid
through cheques.
31. 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 to create fictitious
owner of the above properties. The Enforcement Directorate
2025:JHHC:22342
upon completion of investigation filed the prosecution
complaint under section 45 read with 44 of PML Act being
ECIR Case no. 01/2023 against the present petitioner by
showing his alleged involvement in the said offence and
consequently the present petitioner was arrested.
32. Accordingly, the trial court has taken the
cognizance of the aforesaid offence. Thereafter, petitioner
had preferred the Misc. Cri. Application being MCA
2004/2023 for his bail, which was dismissed vide Order
dated 08.08.2023. Subsequently, the Petitioner preferred a
regular bail application before this Court by filing B.A. No.
9247 of 2023, which came to be dismissed vide Order dated
22.03.2024. Consequent thereto, against the aforesaid
order of this Court, a special leave petition being SLP (Crl)
No. 13496/2024 was preferred before the Hon'ble Apex
Court which was dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2024.
33. Thereafter, the present petitioner has renewed his
prayer for bail and had preferred Misc. Cri. Application
being MCA 2945/2024 by taking the ground of sanction
under section 197 Cr.P.C but the said application was
dismissed vide Order dated 12.12.2024 passed by Spl.
Judge PMLA Cases Ranchi.
34. Hence the present application has been preferred
before this Court for bail mainly on the ground of long
incarceration of the petitioner i.e. about 27 month and also
2025:JHHC:22342
on the ground that he has not been charge-sheeted in the
predicate offence.
35. The learned counsel for ED has vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail by taking reference of the ratio as
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pavana
Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) has
submitted that offence of money laundering under Section
3 of the PMLA is an independent offence. It has further
been submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has
categorically laid down that it is not necessary for a person
to be shown as an accused in the scheduled offence for him
to be prosecuted under the PMLA, provided there exist
proceeds of crime derived from a scheduled offence and the
person has indulged in or facilitated any process or activity
connected with such proceeds of crime.
36. So far as the period of custody as agitated by
learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it has been
submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that as
per settled proposition of law the long incarceration (herein
about 27month) or delay in trial alone cannot be ground to
release the petitioner on bail, rather in case of scheduled
offences/special offences the seriousness of the matter
should have been taken in to consideration by the Court
concerned while enlarging the petitioner on bail.
2025:JHHC:22342
37. It needs to refer herein that the learned counsel for
the respondent ED has further contended that since the
prayer for bail has already been adjudicated by this Court
on merit and all the issues which have been raised, has
already been considered by this court while dismissing the
said bail application, further no new ground is available
herein, therefore it is not required to consider the prayer
for bail of the petitioner a fresh. The learned counsel for the
respondent ED has further contended that SLP which has
preferred against the said order has also been dismissed.
38. In the aforesaid context this Court thinks fit that for
proper appreciation of the present application it would be
better to refer relevant paragraphs of the order dated
22.03.2024 passed in B.A. No.9247 of 2023 by which the
bail of the present petitioner had been earlier rejected. The
relevant paragraph of aforesaid order is being quoted as
under:
51.This Court before coming to the facts of the case thinks fit to the
deal with the first issue i.e., the issue of remand as has been raised by
the learned counsel for the petitioner stating the same to be bad in law,
and hence requires to refer herein the interpretation of word "remand'.
52. It is pertinent to refer herein that under the Code of Criminal
Procedure the word "remand" has not been defined. The concept of
remand is in order to achieve the object of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India in view of the provision as contained under
Section 154 Cr.P.C. which deals with "Information in cognizable
cases'. Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. provides that person arrested not to
be detained more than twenty-four hours. It is for the purpose that
there may not be any illegal detention and, as such, it has been
2025:JHHC:22342
provided that no police officer shall detain in custody a person
arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the
circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in
the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under section 167,
exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the
journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's Court.
57. The ground has been taken that remand cannot be said to be proper
since only on the basis of one allegation of facilitating in transfer of
land to one Pradeep Bagchi but subsequently the other piece of lands
have also been added and hence the order of remand is bad in the eyes
of law.
58. The consequential argument has been made that the if the remand
itself is bad then the custody of the petitioner is bad in the eye of law
on the principle that that if the foundation will go the entire structure
will collapse.
59. There is no dispute about the proposition of law that the if
foundation will go the consequence will automatically be nullity in the
eye of law. However, It needs to refer herein the settled position of
law that the judgment is to be applied based upon the factual aspect
governing each and every case as per the ratio laid down by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil
Nadu &Ors reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75. For ready reference the
relevant of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under: "
"47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision
must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and
the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not
what logically follows from it. "The court should not place reliance
on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits
in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is
placed."
60. This Court, after going the proposition of law as referred herein
above has also gone through the judgment relied upon by learned
counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ameena Begum Vs. State of
Telangana & Ors (supra).
61. It is settled position of law that when a person is being detained
under Preventive Detention Act, 1950 the fundamental right as
guaranteed under Indian constitution to freedom is to be suspended
because such type of detention not in a case of pending trial.
2025:JHHC:22342
If the content of Section 19(1) will be taken into consideration then it
would be evident that if the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant
Director or any other officer authorized in this behalf by the Central
Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material
in his possession, reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be
recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of an offence
punishable under this Act, he may arrest such person and shall, as
soon as may be, inform him of the grounds of such arrest.
64. It is, thus, evident that Section 19 of the PML Act, 2002 confers
power upon the competent authority to arrest a person if he has got
reason to believe of commission of offence. The phrase „reason to
believe' is having bearing and this Court is to consider on the basis of
imputation as to whether the arrest is based upon any reason to having
been said to be believed by the Director in order to come to the
conclusion with respect to fact as to whether the remand/arrest is legal
or not.
65. Further Section 19(1) which stipulates about the power for
making arrest if there is reason to believe and the reason for such
belief to be recorded in writing and as soon as may be, inform the said
person, the grounds for such arrest. The aforesaid provision of
communicating the grounds for arrest recording its time frame as to
what time the same is to be communicated has been laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and
Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra). Subsequent to the aforesaid
judgment, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1244 has observed that the reason for such arrest is to be
communicated henceforth to the accused.
66. Subsequently, in the case of Ram Kishor Arora vs. Directorate of
Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1682, the same has been taken
into consideration wherein the petitioner has taken the plea that the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pankaj
Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) has not been followed since
there is no written communication said to be served informing the
reason for arrest prior to such arrest and as such, the prayer for bail
has been sought for. But the Hon'ble Apex Court going to the facts of
the said case wherein the petitioner was arrested in the month of June,
2023 while the judgment of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors.
(supra) has come in the month of October, 2023, hence, relying upon
2025:JHHC:22342
the law laid down by the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court
since the reason was communicated to the petitioner within 24 hours
and hence, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected.
67. It needs to refer herein the definition of "proceeds of crime" as
provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002 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.
68. In the explanation of the aforesaid provision 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. The aforesaid explanation has been
inserted in the statute book by way of Act 23 of 2019.
69. This Court, in order to reach to the conclusion as to whether the
material has been available before the learned Special Judge for
passing the order of remand, has perused the order of remand, based
upon the incriminating material claimed by the ED as per reference to
that effect made in paragraph 7 to 17 of the application for custody. It
has been found by learned Special Judge that huge amount of
proceeds of crime is involved with larger conspiracy to illegally sell
the land by manipulation of official records and later acquiring the
said land on meager price. Accordingly, the petitioner was remanded
in the case.
71. It is, thus, evident that the petitioner while working as Deputy
Commissioner has acted on the application of one Pradeep Bagchi, a
fake owner of the property and verbally directed Mr. Manoj Kumar,
the then Circle Officer, Bargai to forward the verification report of the
ownership of the property. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Circle Officer
submitted a report stating that the name of Pradeep Bagchi did not
appear in the record and Jayant Karnard is the rightful owner of the
property. The petitioner has directed the Circle Officer to visit the
office of Registrar Assurance (Records) Kolkata and verify the
original deeds for ascertaining the owner of the property. It was
surfaced in course of investigation that original registers in the records
2025:JHHC:22342
of Registrar of Assurance, Kolkata is forged/tampered and falsified in
favour of Pradeep Bagchi.
72. It has also come in course of investigation that one Mr. Ghasi Ram
Pingua, the then District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi, had rejected the
request of Pradeep Bagchi for registration of the property in the name
of M/s Jagat Bandhu Tea Ltd., a company owned by accused no. 3,
Amit Kumar Agarwal, as the name of Pradeep Bagchi was not
reflecting in the records of the registrar, as he has knowledge that the
record was illegal. It has also come that the then Circle Officer Mr.
Manoj Kumar was known to the fact that the property as per the
records was in possession of the Army for which he turned down the
mutation of the property earlier registered by Jayant Karnard to 13
persons. The investigation discloses that Mr. Chavvi Ranjan, the then
Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, the petitioner herein, verbally directed
the Circle Officer, to visit the office of Registrar of Assurance,
Kolkata. 73. Mr. Manoj Kumar, the then Circle Officer deputed Circle
Inspector, Mr. Birendra Kumar Sahu and others to visit Kolkata for
the said purpose.
74. Thereafter, they visited Kolkota and from there they have got the
certified copy of deeds through one private Broker. The Circle Officer
received the deed by way of private courier indicating therein that the
owner of the property in the record of right of Assurance of Kolkata is
Prafulla Bagchi. Accordingly, based on the said report the Circle
Officer wherein he was directed by the present petitioner to mention
that as per the transfer of property act, the first right of said property is
of Pradeep Bagchi. It has further been surfaced that another accused
persons, Afzal Ali and Saddam Hussain visited the office of present
petitioner with a very close and confident of accused Prem Prakash
who was acting on the instruction of accused Amit Kumar Agarwal
accused no. 3 and both these persons, namely, Prem Prakash and Amit
Kumar Agarwal has met with the present petitioner and the Circle
Officer, Mr. Manoj Kumar was also there, who had directed the Circle
Officer to get the claim of Pradeep Bagchi verify from the office of
Assurance of Records Kolkata.
75. It is thus evident from the aforesaid imputation that the present
Deputy Commissioner was aware with all the facts regarding the
fabrication of the document from its rightful owner in the name of
Pradeep Bagchi and as such direction was given by him to the Circle
Officer and based upon said forged document, the documents
2025:JHHC:22342
pertaining to the said land was prepared in the name of Pradeep
Bagchi who has subsequently sold out the land in favour of one firm,
M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd, the land situated at Cheshire
Home, which was owned by Amit Kumar Agarwal, the accused no. 3.
80. Herein also exactly the same is the case because it is admitted case
of the petitioner as per the argument advanced that his culpability has
been found with respect to facilitating in getting the land registered in
favour of Pradeep Bagchi, which was subsequently transferred in the
name of firm, M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd, of which the
beneficial owneris Mr. Amit Kumar Agarwal.
81. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order of remand
cannot be said to suffer from error, as the learned Court based upon
the material available before it has passed the order of remand.
82. Coming to the second ground i.e., the arrest of the petitioner
cannot be said to be in consonance with the provision of Section 19(1)
of the PML Act, 2002 since at the time of arrest reference of only one
allegation was placed, but as per counter affidavit the implication of
the petitioner has been shown to be involved in other cases of illegal
transfer of land.
83. The argument has been advanced that it is the legal duty of the
competent authority to communicate the reason of arrest as soon as
possible after the arrest i.e., the requirement of Section 19(1) of the
PML Act, 2002.
86. This Court, in order to appreciate the argument needs to refer
herein the proposition, as has been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India
and Ors. (supra) wherein the Section 19(1) has been interpreted with
its implication.
88. It is evident from the aforesaid discussion made therein that the
authority under the Act, 2002 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 crime and until vesting thereof in the Central
Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process.
2025:JHHC:22342
89. As discussed above the provision of Section 19(1) of the Act,
2002 has subsequently been considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) wherein
also it has been stated that the reason of arrest is to be supplied but has
been pleased to hold that by which time it is to be supplied. In the
aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that
it should be "henceforth".
90. It is thus evident from the imputation of allegation leveled against
the petitioner that it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to take the
ground that there was no reason to believe to the competent authority
for making arrest. Irrespective of the fact that subsequently the other
allegations have been added. The matter would have been different if
at the time of arrest there would not have been imputation and if
subsequent to arrest if any imputation has been found to be there then
only the believe would be taken that at the time of arrest there was no
evidence then how it can be said that there was reason to believe with
the competent authority but that is not the case herein since it is the
admitted fact herein and as per the argument advanced on behalf of
learned counsel for the petitioner also it has been admitted that the
allegation so far it relates to the transfer of land in the name of firm,
M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd at at the time of arrest at least
one imputation was there which led the competent authority to come
to the conclusion of belief by making a reason to arrest and as such it
cannot be said that there is no compliance of provision of Section
19(1) of the PML Act, 2002.
91. Accordingly, argument which has been advanced in this regard
that the provision of Section 19(1) has not been followed is having no
substance.
92. The third ground has been taken by learned counsel for the
petitioner that there is no legal evidence, and as such the very arrest is
illegal.
95. From the aforesaid paragraphs of the prosecution complaint, it
appears that the present petitioner Chhavi Ranjan influenced the
officials of Circle Officer, Baragai, Ranchi and District Sub Registrar,
Ranchi and managed to procure a favourable report for Pradeep
Bagchi at the behest of Prem Prakash and Amit Kumar Agarwal, and
the property was subsequently acquired dishonestly by M/s Jagat
Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.
2025:JHHC:22342
96. It further appears that the petitioner i.e. Chhavi Ranjan alongwith
Amit Kumar Agarwal and Prem Prakash was aware and knew that the
ownership of Pradeep Bagchi was fictitious and the deed was fake yet
the petitioner assisted and knowingly became a party with Amit
Kumar Agarwal to acquire the above property which was proceeds of
crime. The accused Chhavi Ranjan had knowledge that the above said
property is disputed, as one dispute between Defence and Jayant
Karnad was also pending before his disposal i.e. in the court of
District Magistrate, Ranchi which he used to preside over during his
tenure. Yet on receipt of the application of Pradeep Bagchi, who
falsely claimed himself to be the rightful owner of the property, the
accused Chhavi Ranjan knowingly and deliberately gave verbal
directions to the Circle Officer to visit the office of Registrar of
Assurances (Records), Kolkata and verify the records for ascertaining
actual owner of the property.
97. Investigation has revealed that the original registers in the records
of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata were already forged/tampered
with and falsified in favour of Pradeep Bagchi, and direction to visit
Kolkata to verify the records available with Registrar of Assurance
was a well executed plan so that the property could be transferred to
Amit Kumar Agarwal in a legal manner through his company Jagat
Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.
98. It has come on record that in connivance with Prem Prakash and
Amit Kumar Agarwal, Chhavi Ranjan influenced the officials of
Circle Office and District Sub Registrar, Ranchi and managed to
procure a favourable report for Pradeep Bagchi and the property was
subsequently acquired dishonestly by M/s Jagat Bandhu Tea Estate
Pvt. Ltd. and Chhavi Ranjan, then DC of Ranchi assisted these
persons to acquire the above property by misusing his official position
and overlooking the records available in his office/subordinate offices.
Chhavi Ranjan had knowledge that the above said property is disputed
as one dispute between Defence and was also pending before his for
disposal i.e. in the court of District Magistrate, Ranchi which he used
to preside during his tenure.
99. On perusal of record, prima facie it appears that the petitioner
knowingly assisted the M/s Jagat Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., Amit
Kumar Agarwal, Afsar Ali, Mohammad Saddam Hussain and other
accused persons in their activities connected with acquisition,
possession, concealment as well as use of proceeds of crime and
2025:JHHC:22342
projecting and claiming them as untainted property. The accused
person was actually a party with the Amit Kumar Agarwal in
acquiring proceeds of crime wroth Rs. 20,75,84,200/- (government
value) in form of landed property, measuring 4.55 acres (455
decimals) at MS Plot no. 557, MauzaMorabadi whose present
commercial value is around Rs. 41,51,68,390/-.
100. This Court, in view of aforesaid imputation, is of the view that
the argument which has been advanced that there is no legal evidence
against the petitioner is not acceptable, hence, rejected.
101. Fourth argument has been advanced that even accepting that
there is legal evidence then also it cannot be said to be proceeds of
crime, as per the definition of proceeds of crime.
104. In the context of aforesaid contention this Court thinks fit to
discuss the ambit of the Proceeds of crime which 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 such
property.
105. The property has been defined under Section 2 (v) of the Act,
2002 which means any property or assets of every description,
whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or
intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or
interest in, such property or assets, wherever located.
106. Herein, specific allegation against the accused persons is that a
land in question, after making forge documents, worth of Rs. about 20
crores has been transferred in a meager amount in which the petitioner
in the capacity of Deputy Commissioner has acted as a facilitator by
issuing command upon the subordinate officials, both the circle officer
and the sub-registrar, the registration authority.
109. The property has also been defined, which means assets of any
description i.e., corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable,
tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing
title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located,
meaning thereby that the property will also include in terms of liquid
money.
110. The Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002 provides that 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,
2025:JHHC:22342
acquisition or use or projecting as an untainted property or claiming as
an untainted property shall be guilty of money laundering Act.
111. Section 3 of the 2002 Act, defines the offence of money-
laundering. The expression "money-laundering", ordinarily, means the
process or activity of placement, layering and finally integrating the
tainted property in the formal economy of the country. However,
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 not limited to the happening of the final act of
integration of tainted property in the formal economy to constitute an
act of money-laundering.
112. Section 3 has been taken note by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
(supra) wherefrom it is evident the aforesaid provision plainly
indicates that any (every) process or activity connected with the
proceeds of crime results in offence of money-laundering. Projecting
or claiming the proceeds of crime as untainted property, in itself, is an
attempt to indulge in or being involved in money-laundering, just as
knowingly concealing, possessing, acquiring or using of proceeds of
crime, directly or indirectly.
113. Thus, it is evident that the penal offence under Section 3 will be
attracted if a person is directly or indirectly even attempting 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, meaning
thereby that it is not that it is direct involvement rather it is indirectly
also even in taking attempts or by assisting in any process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime.
114. The question of commission of crime as per imputation, as per
the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner
even accepting to be correct the same will not come under the fold of
proceeds of crime and hence Section 3 will not be attracted but this
Court is dealing with the issue of bail and not analyzing the veracity
of the imputation which is only to be done at appropriate stage and at
this stage which requires consideration is parameters of Section 45 (ii)
of the PML Act, 2002 as per which the twin condition is to be
fulfilled.
115. The paramount consideration is that while considering the issue
of bail, the competent Court is to be satisfied that there are reasonable
2025:JHHC:22342
grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence
and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
118. Herein the direct involvement of the petitioner in facilitating the
other accused persons in getting the property transferred in their
favour in a meager amount in comparison to that of government
notification, as per the detail furnished hereinabove.
119. As would be evident from the material collected in course of
enquiry the connivance of the petitioner with the Pradip Bagchi
accused no. 5, Amit Agarwal, accused no. 3 Afsar Ali, accused no. 6.
and other accused persons cannot be lightly brushed out. 120. It would
be evident from the various paragraph of prosecution complaint as
mentioned above that the petitioner although is a government
functionary heading the district in the capacity of Deputy
Commissioner but even then he instead of protecting the State interest
has connived with these persons to facilitate in illegal transfer of land
based upon the forged document which he was already knowing and
that is the reason he had directed the Circle Officer, namely Manoj
Kumar to have an enquiry from the office of Registrar Assurance,
Kolkata.
121. Therefore, the ground which has been taken that even accepting
that there is legal evidence then also it cannot be said to be proceeds
of crime, as per the definition of proceeds of crime, has no substance.
125. It appears from the record, as has been surfaced in course of
investigation, that the Circle officer has informed the Deputy
Commissioner that the mutation of the said case was already rejected
but even then it is alleged that the Circle Officer was coerced to favour
Pradeep Bagchi, under which jurisdiction such direction was given is
best known to the present petitioner.
127. It has also come that the land which has been transferred was
alleged to be owned by Defense Estate Danapur claiming the said land
was owned by defence while later on the claim of ownership of the
land was made by accused Pradeep Bagchi, but very surprisingly the
Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has not conducted enquiry regarding
the grievance of Defense Estate Danapur rather directed the Circle
Officer, Bargai to conduct enquiry on the grievances of co-accused
persons, while said Pradeep Bagchi has made claim subsequent to the
claim of the Defence Estate Officer, Danapur.
129. This Court has gone through the said judgment along with the
factual aspects involved herein. There is no dispute about the law laid
2025:JHHC:22342
down therein that that all the crimes cannot be said to come under the
fold of "proceeds of crime‟. This Court is not disputing the aforesaid
proposition of law but at the same time this Court is required to look
into the basis of involvement of one or the other accused in the
touchstone of PML Act, 2002, which has elaborately been dealt with
by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and
Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) wherein the PML Act has
been dealt with along with the reason and object for enactment of the
said Act.
130. Furthermore, at this stage, this Court is to look into the
fulfillment of twin condition under Section 45 as has been dealt with
herein above and on consideration of such condition this Court has
reached to the conclusion based upon the material that it cannot be
said that there is no reason to believe of involvement of the petitioner
in commission of crime.
131. From the aforesaid judgment which is of United Kingdom, it
appears that there is no reference of pari materia provision to that of
Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002. Hence, the judgment rendered in
Regina Vs. GH is not applicable in the case at hand.
135. After perusal of the record of the instant case it appears that the
holding number was issued to show that the possession of the said
land is in the name of Pradeep Bagchi and based upon which title of
the said land was established with the help of present petitioner by
relying upon the report which is based upon a forged deed planted in
the Registrar Kolkata Assurance Office and petitioner used his official
position to give legal colour to the transaction when he himself was
aware that the title to the said land is in dispute and possession
belongs to Defence and from the various paragraph of prosecution
complaint it is evident that in the said act proceeds of crime is
generated wherein forged deed is relied upon and transaction was
entered into a miniscule rate wherein no actual amount of payment
was done.
136. From record it also appears that the petitioner has involvement in
facilitating brokers and private entities to acquire the properties which
had been in possession of the Defence before independence. The
deliberate act of the petitioner is not only restricted in extending
benefits to the private entities but it also amounts to cheating and
forgery and the petitioner who had a responsibility of ensuring
2025:JHHC:22342
fairness and securing government properties himself misused his
official position and influenced his subordinate officials.
39. It is, thus, evident from the perusal of the aforesaid
paragraphs that this Court while referring the various
settled position of law and the provisions of Act 2002 had
addressed contentions of the parties and found no merit in
the said bail application and accordingly dismissed the
same.
40. It is further apparent from the aforesaid order that
the Court while passing the aforesaid order, had also taken
care of the culpability of the present applicant which was
mentioned in the prosecution complaint/ECIR and based
upon the same, the Court has not found the availability of
the twin condition as stipulated in the Act 2002 and
accordingly dismissed the bail petition.
41. It is further evident from the aforesaid quoted
paragraph of the said order, that order of remand and
order of arrest along with non-availability of element of
predicate offence has been raised and after due
consideration of the same, this Court has dismissed the
said grounds and accordingly prayer for bail of the
petitioner has been rejected by this Court.
42. It is further admitted fact that the petitioner has
moved to the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing SLP (Cr.) No.
13496 of 2024, making the prayer for bail by invoking the
2025:JHHC:22342
jurisdiction conferred under the Constitution of India, but
the same was dismissed as withdrawn. For ready reference,
the relevant part of the order is quoted as under:
1. Delay condoned.
2. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner(s).
We do not find any good ground to interfere with the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court. The special leave petition(s) stands dismissed at
this stage.
3. However, the Special Court is directed to proceed
with the trial as expeditiously as possible.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed."
43. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that on merit
prayer for bail of the present applicant has already been
adjudicated and further there is no cogent fresh ground or
change in circumstance is available herein, hence, at first
instance the contention of learned counsel for ED that
there is no need to entertain the instant application afresh,
is having force but in the instant application the learned
counsel for the petitioner in his arguments has mainly
emphasized on two grounds:
(i) In predicate offence the chargesheet has been
submitted in the month of August, 2024 i.e after
earlier rejection of the prayer for bail by this Court, in
which the petitioner has not been charge-sheeted.
(ii) Petitioner is in custody since 04.05.2023 i.e., more
than two years.
2025:JHHC:22342
44. Thus, in the aforesaid context, this Court is of the
considered view that it is the bounden duty of this Court to
appreciate the aforesaid particular contentions of the
learned counsel for the applicant.
45. Before appreciating to the aforesaid contention, the
learned counsel for the parties, this Court thinks fit to refer
the provision of law as contained under the Act, 2002 with
its object and intent as also the legal proposition as settled
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments.
46. 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.
47. It needs to refer herein the definition of "proceeds of
crime" has been provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act,
2002 wherefrom it is evident 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
2025:JHHC:22342
the country, then the property equivalent in value held
within the country or abroad.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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:22342
instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such
property or assets, wherever located.
51. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x)
which means schedule to the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002. 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.
52. The offence of money laundering has been defined
under Section 3 of the Act, 2002, it is evident from the said
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.
53. 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
indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment
or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as
2025:JHHC:22342
untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in
any manner whatsoever.
54. The various provisions of the Act, 2002 alongwith
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.
55. 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
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.
2025:JHHC:22342
56. It needs to refer herein the purport of Section
45(1)(i)(ii), 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.
57. Sub-section (2) thereof puts limitation on granting
bail specific in subsection (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.
58. 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 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
2025:JHHC:22342
to the fulfilment of conditions under section 19 and subject
to the conditions enshrined under this section.
59. 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) for ready reference, the relevant 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
2025:JHHC:22342
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."
60. 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), 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
2025:JHHC:22342
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.
61. 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.
62. In the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of
India and Ors.(supra) it has also 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
2025:JHHC:22342
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.
63. 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. 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.
2025:JHHC:22342
64. 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
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 accused.
65. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court
recently in the case of Gurwinder Singh vs. State of
Punjab and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109, in the
matter of UAP Act 1967 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
2025:JHHC:22342
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 released' - suggests the intention of the
Legislature to make bail, the exception and jail, the rule.
66. The reason for making reference of this judgment is
that in the Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr,
(2022) 10 SCC 51 , 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.
67. In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal provisions and
settled law this Court is now adverting to the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner.
68. It is evident from order dated 22.03.2024 passed by
this Court in B.A. No. 9247 of 2023 that this Court while
rejecting the aforesaid bail application has taken into
consideration the specific culpability of the petitioner as
alleged in prosecution complaint. From the various
2025:JHHC:22342
paragraphs of the prosecution complaint, it appears that
the present petitioner namely Chhavi Ranjan influenced the
officials of Circle Officer, Baragai, Ranchi and District Sub
Registrar, Ranchi and managed to procure a favourable
report for Pradeep Bagchi at the behest of other accused
persons and the property was subsequently acquired
dishonestly by M/s Jagat Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.
69. It further appears that the petitioner was aware and
knew that the ownership of Pradeep Bagchi was fictitious
and the deed was fake yet the petitioner assisted and
knowingly became a party with accused persons to acquire
the above property which was proceeds of crime. He had
knowledge that the above said property is disputed, as one
dispute between Defence and Jayant Karnad was also
pending before his disposal i.e. in the court of District
Magistrate, Ranchi which he used to preside over during
his tenure. Yet on receipt of the application of Pradeep
Bagchi, who falsely claimed himself to be the rightful owner
of the property, the accused Chhavi Ranjan knowingly and
deliberately gave verbal directions to the Circle Officer to
visit the office of Registrar of Assurances (Records), Kolkata
and verify the records for ascertaining actual owner of the
property.
70. Investigation has revealed that the original registers
in the records of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata were
2025:JHHC:22342
already forged/tampered with and falsified in favour of
Pradeep Bagchi, and direction to visit Kolkata to verify the
records available with Registrar of Assurance was a well-
executed plan so that the property could be transferred in a
legal manner to the accused Amit Kumar Agarwal through
company Jagat Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.
71. Thus, the petitioner in the capacity of DC of Ranchi
assisted other accused persons to acquire the above
property by misusing his official position and overlooking
the records available in his office/subordinate offices.
72. This Court vide order dated 22.03.2024 has found
that the petitioner knowingly assisted the M/s Jagat
Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., Amit Kumar Agarwal, Afsar
Ali, Mohammad Saddam Hussain and other accused
persons in their activities connected with acquisition,
possession, concealment as well as use of proceeds of crime
and projecting and claiming them as untainted property.
The accused person was actually a party with the Amit
Kumar Agarwal in acquiring proceeds of crime wroth Rs.
20,75,84,200/- (government value) in form of landed
property, measuring 4.55 acres (455 decimals) at MS Plot
no. 557, Mauza Morabadi whose present commercial value
is around Rs. 41,51,68,390/-.
73. It is evident from the order dated 22.03.2024
passed in B.A. No. 9247 of 2023 that this Court has also
2025:JHHC:22342
considered the issue of parity therein and categorically held
that the present petitioner being public functionary and
holding the post of public responsibility, is having more
accountability being the custodian of the public money and
public land, therefore, the fact of the case of the petitioner
is different to that of the fact of the other accused against
whom parity has been claimed.
74. Since the imputation against the present petitioner
has already been dealt with by this Court vide order dated
22.03.2024, therefore it is not required herein to reiterate
the same factual aspects and further this Court is dealing
with the issue of bail and not analyzing the veracity of the
imputation which is only to be done at appropriate stage
and at this stage which requires consideration is
parameters of Section 45 (ii) of the PML Act, 2002 as per
which the twin condition is to be fulfilled .
75. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended
that the present petitioner in predicate offence the
chargesheet has been submitted in the month of August,
2024 in which the petitioner has not been charge-sheeted.
76. In the aforesaid context it requires to refer herein
that Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement,
(supra) as well as in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors (supra), it has been observed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court that the offence of money laundering
2025:JHHC:22342
under Section 3 of the PMLA is an independent offence. The
Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically laid down that it is
not necessary for a person to be shown as an accused in
the scheduled offence for him to be prosecuted under the
PMLA, provided there exist proceeds of crime derived from a
scheduled offence and the person has indulged in or
facilitated any process or activity connected with such
proceeds of crime.
77. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pavana
Dibbur vs. The Directorate of Enforcement (supra) has
considered the effect of the appellant not being shown as
an accused in the predicate offence by taking into
consideration Section 3 of the Act, 2002.
78. Based upon the definition Clause (u) of sub-section
(1) of Section 2 of the Act 2002 which defines "proceeds of
crime", the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe
that clause (v) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of PMLA
defines "property" to mean any property or assets of every
description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or
immovable, tangible or intangible.
79. 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
2025:JHHC:22342
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.
80. It has further been observed by referring the
decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and
Ors.(supra) that the condition precedent for the existence of
proceeds of crime is the existence of a scheduled offence. At
paragraph-15 the finding has been given therein that on
plain reading of Section 3 of the Act, 2002, an offence
under Section 3 can be committed after a scheduled offence
is committed. By giving an example, it has been clarified
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. For ready
reference relevant paragraphs are being quoted as under:
2025:JHHC:22342
15. The condition precedent for the existence of proceeds of
crime is the existence of a scheduled offence. On this aspect, it is
necessary to refer to the decision of this Court in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023)
12 SCC 1] . In para 109 of the said decision [Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] , this Court held
thus : (SCC p. 166)
"109. Tersely put, it is only such property which is derived or
obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity
relating to a scheduled offence that can be regarded as proceeds of
crime. The authorities under the 2002 Act cannot resort to action
against any person for money laundering on an assumption that
the property recovered by them must be proceeds of crime and that
a scheduled offence has been committed, unless the same is
registered with the jurisdictional police or pending inquiry by way
of complaint before the competent forum. For, the expression
"derived or obtained" is indicative of criminal activity relating to a
scheduled offence already accomplished. Similarly, in the event
the person named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled
offence is finally absolved by a court of competent jurisdiction
owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of
the criminal case (scheduled offence) against him/her, there can
be no action for money laundering against such a person or person
claiming through him in relation to the property linked to the stated
scheduled offence. This interpretation alone can be countenanced
on the basis of the provisions of the 2002 Act, in particular
Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3. Taking any other view would
be rewriting of these provisions and disregarding the express
language of definition clause "proceeds of crime", as it obtains as
of now."
(emphasis in original and supplied)
16. In paras 134 and 135, this Court held thus : (Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary case [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India,
(2023) 12 SCC 1] , SCC p. 182)
"134. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is
amply clear that the offence of money laundering is an
2025:JHHC:22342
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 process or activity can be in any form -- be
it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of
crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it
to be so. Thus, involvement in any one of such process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime would constitute offence of
money laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do with
the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence -- except the
proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a result of that crime.
135.Needless to mention that such process or activity can be
indulged in only after the property is derived or obtained as a
result of criminal activity (a scheduled offence). It would be an
offence of money-laundering to indulge in or to assist or being
party to the process or activity connected with the proceeds of
crime; and such process or activity in a given fact situation may
be a continuing offence, irrespective of the date and time of
commission of the scheduled offence. In other words, the criminal
activity may have been committed before the same had been
notified as scheduled offence for the purpose of the 2002 Act, but if
a person has indulged in or continues to indulge directly or
indirectly in dealing with proceeds of crime, derived or obtained
from such criminal activity even after it has been notified as
scheduled offence, may be liable to be prosecuted for offence of
money laundering under the 2002 Act -- for continuing to possess
or conceal the proceeds of crime (fully or in part) or retaining
possession thereof or uses it in trenches until fully exhausted. The
offence of money-laundering is not dependent on or linked to the
date on which the scheduled offence, or if we may say so, the
predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date is the
date on which the person indulges in the process or activity
connected with such proceeds of crime. These ingredients are
intrinsic in the original provision (Section 3, as amended until
2013 and were in force till 31-7-2019); and the same has been
merely explained and clarified by way of Explanation vide
Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. Thus understood, inclusion of clause
2025:JHHC:22342
(ii) in Explanation inserted in 2019 is of no consequence as it
does not alter or enlarge the scope of Section 3 at all."
(emphasis supplied)
17. Coming back to Section 3 PMLA, on its plain reading, an
offence under Section 3 can be committed after a scheduled
offence is committed. For example, let us take the case of 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 PMLA. To give a concrete example, the offences under
Sections 384 to 389IPC relating to "extortion" are scheduled
offences included in Para 1 of the Schedule to PMLA. An accused
may commit a crime of extortion covered by Sections 384 to
389IPC and extort money. Subsequently, a person unconnected
with the offence of extortion may assist the said accused in the
concealment of the proceeds of extortion. In such a case, the
person who assists the accused in the scheduled offence for
concealing the proceeds of the crime of extortion can be guilty of
the offence of money-laundering. Therefore, it is not necessary
that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 PMLA is
alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled
offence. What is held in para 135 of the decision of this Court in
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1]
supports the above conclusion. The conditions precedent for
attracting the offence under Section 3 PMLA are that there must
be a scheduled offence and that there must be proceeds of crime
in relation to the scheduled offence as defined in clause (u) of
sub-section (1) of Section 3 PMLA.
81. Admittedly in the charge sheets in G.R. Case Nos.
2596/2023 and 2089/2024 petitioner has not been
arraigned as an accused in the scheduled offence, but the
non-inclusion of the petitioner's name in the said charge
sheets in any way absolves him under the stringent
2025:JHHC:22342
framework of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002 (PMLA) reason being that he in capacity of D.C.
Ranchi has knowingly connived with the other accused and
had assisted them in procuring of forged document related
to property in question which ultimately lead to generation
of proceeds of crime.
82. So far as the issue of period of custody as agitated
by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is
settled proposition of law which has been settled by the
Hon'ble Apex Court that the long incarceration (herein
about 27 month) or delay in trial alone cannot be ground to
release the petitioner on bail, rather in case of scheduled
offences/special offences the seriousness of the matter and
the societal impact should be taken in to consideration by
the Court concerned while enlarging the petitioner on bail.
83. At this juncture, the learned counsel for ED has
submitted at Bar that all endeavour will be taken to
expedite the trial. It has further been submitted that there
are many accused in the ECIR cases and one and another
accused, everyday are filing one petition and another and
that is the cause of delaying the evidence to be led by the
ED. He further submits that the learned trial court has
disposed of all these petitions, which have been preferred
by the other co-accused before the learned trial court and
now the ED has taken his all endeavour to examine the
2025:JHHC:22342
further witnesses and there is likelihood that witnesses will
be examined and they will try to examine remaining
witnesses expeditiously subject and decision is to be taken
also for pruning of the list of witnesses.
84. This Court is conscious with the fact that personal
liberty is utmost requirement to maintain the individuality
of the person concerned but at the same time it is equally
settled that the balance between personal liberty and
societal impact of the alleged offence should be taken care
of by the Court concerned.
85. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with
the offences under UAP Act 1967, in the case of Gurwinder
Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) and taking in to
consideration the ratio of judgment of Union of India vs.
K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 has observed that mere
delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in
the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail,
for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted
as under:
46. As already discussed, the material available on record
indicates the involvement of the appellant in furtherance
of terrorist activities backed by members of banned
terrorist organisation involving exchange of large
quantum of money through different channels which
needs to be deciphered and therefore in such a scenario if
the appellant is released on bail there is every likelihood
that he will influence the key witnesses of the case which
2025:JHHC:22342
might hamper the process of justice. Therefore, mere
delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one
involved in the instant case cannot be used as a
ground to grant bail. Hence, the aforesaid argument
on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted."
86. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled position
of law it is evident that mere delay in trial pertaining to
grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be
used as a ground to grant bail.
87. Accordingly, the contention of learned counsel for
the petitioner that present bail application is being
preferred on account of alleged changes in factual and legal
circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier bail
application is misconceived.
88. This Court is conscious of this fact that while
deciding the issue of grant 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
because corruption poses a serious threat to our society
should be dealt with by iron hand.
89. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central
Bureau of Investigation Vs Santosh Krnani and Another,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 427 has observed that corruption
poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with
iron hands. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid
judgment is being referred as under: -
2025:JHHC:22342
"31. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence
should have been kept in mind by the High Court.
Corruption poses a serious threat to our society and
must be dealt with iron hands. It not only leads to
abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also tramples
good governance. The common man stands deprived of
the benefits percolating under social welfare schemes
and is the worst hit. It is aptly said, "Corruption is a
tree whose branches are of an unmeasurable length;
they spread everywhere; and the dew that drops from
thence, Hath infected some chairs and stools of
authority." Hence, the need to be extra conscious."
90. Herein, as also considered by this Court in the
earlier bail application that there is ample material on
record, including official files, directions issued by the
petitioner in his capacity as Deputy Commissioner,
statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA and
corroborative documents, clearly demonstrating the
petitioner's active facilitation in the acquisition and layering
of proceeds of crime by M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estates Pvt.
Ltd. and other co-accused persons.
91. Further, the filing of final form in the predicate
offence by the police merely concludes the investigation
under the IPC provisions which does not dilute the robust
prima facie case made out under the PMLA against the
petitioner.
92. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India, (supra) and
2025:JHHC:22342
consistently thereafter, has affirmed that proceedings
under the PMLA are distinct and the fate of the scheduled
offence does not control or restrict prosecution under the
Act. Hence, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the
supplementary chargesheet is of no assistance and cannot
justify grant of bail in the present case.
93. Admittedly, the petitioner has been in judicial
custody since 04.05.2023 but delay, under the aforesaid
circumstances, does not entitle the petitioner to bail. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarun Kumar v. Directorate of
Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486, has
authoritatively held that while the period of custody may be
a relevant factor, it cannot by itself override the gravity of
the offence, the seriousness of allegations or the statutory
twin conditions under Section 45 of the Act 2002.
94. Similarly, in Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate
of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 306, the Hon'ble
Apex Court refused bail despite protracted proceedings,
noting that the complexity inherent in economic offences
often necessitates lengthy trials. It is also pertinent that
delays frequently arise from procedural applications and
litigations pursued by accused themselves. Thus, given the
grave nature of the allegations, the sophisticated modus
operandi employed to project tainted property as untainted,
2025:JHHC:22342
and the strict statutory framework governing bail under the
PMLA, no ground exists for the petitioner to claim the
benefit of bail either on merits or on account of delay. The
gravity of the offence, misuse of a high public office, and
the serious allegations of facilitating the laundering of
proceeds of crime continue to justify the petitioner's
custody under the strict rigours of Section 45 of the Act
2002.
95. Thus, it is evident from the discussion as made
herein above that since the earlier bail application of this
petitioner has been rejected on merit, and herein the main
question for consideration is if there is any change of
circumstance (factual or legal) which requires
reconsideration of the bail application of the petitioner and
this Court, based upon the discussion made hereinabove,
is of the considered view that there is no relevant change of
circumstance (factual or legal) is available herein, therefore,
this Court is of the view that it is not a case where the
prayer for bail of the petitioner is to be granted.
96. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to facts
and circumstances, as have been analyzed hereinabove,
this Court is of the view that the applicant has failed to
make out a case for exercise of power to grant bail and
considering the facts and parameters, necessary to be
2025:JHHC:22342
considered for adjudication of bail, without commenting on
the merits of the case, this Court does not find any
exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction
to grant bail. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
bail application is liable to be rejected.
97. Accordingly, based upon the aforesaid discussion,
the instant application stands dismissed.
98. It is made clear that the observations/findings, as
recorded hereinabove, is only for the purpose of issue of
consideration of bail. The same will not prejudice the issue
on merit in course of trial.
99. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also
stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Birendra/-A.F.R.
