Jharkhand High Court
Sanjeev Kumar Lal vs Directorate Of Enforcement ... on 13 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:23713
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 47 of 2025
------
Sanjeev Kumar Lal, aged 52 years, S/o Late Braj Kishore Lal, at present
Officer's Flat No.D/4, Booty Road, Opposite Rani Hospital, Ranchi, P.S-
Kotwali, PO-Bariatu, District-Ranchi earlier residing at Vill-Karra Road,
Nawa Toli, PO & PS-Khunti, Dis.Khunti.
...............Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement ................Opposite Party
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Md. Imran Kashif, Advocate
Mr. Diwakar Sippy, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Varun Girdhar, Advocate
------
C.A.V. on 01/08/2025 Pronounced on 13/08/2025
Prayer:
1. The instant application has been filed under Sections 483 and 484 of
the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for grant of bail in
connection with ECIR Case No. 2 of 2023 arising out of
ECIR/RNSZO/16/2020 dated 17.09.2020 for the offence under Section 3
of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred
to as PML Act, 2002] punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002, based on FIR bearing No. 13/2019
registered by ACB, Jamshedpur under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act (amended as on 2018) [hereinafter referred to as P.C.
Act, 2018] and F.I.R No.22/2023 registered by Economic Offence Wing,
Delhi pending in the court of learned Special Judge CBI-cum- PML Act,
Ranchi.
2025:JHHC:23713
Factual Matrix of the Case
2. An ECIR bearing No. ECIR/RNSZO/16/2020 was recorded on
17.09.2020 based on the FIR bearing No. 13/2019 dated 13.11.2019,
registered by ACB Jamshedpur, under section 7(a) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, (amended as on 2018). Subsequently, Charge-sheet
dated 11.01.2020 was submitted by ACB against Alok Ranjan and
Suresh Prasad Verma under Section 7 (b) of P.C. Act, 2018 and under
Sections 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, which are scheduled
offences under Part-A, Paragraph 1 of the PML Act, 2002.
3. During the course of investigation upon co-accused Veerendra Kumar
Ram and his close associates, several searches were conducted under
Section 17 PML Act 2002 to investigate the role of the accused persons
and their close associates, wherein it was found that part of the proceeds
of crime is acquired in the form of commission/bribe in lieu of allotment
of tenders by Veerendra Kumar Ram, the then Chief Engineer in Rural
Works Department, Jharkhand. The said bribe money was getting routed
by the Delhi based CA Mukesh Mittal to the bank accounts of family
members of said Veerendra Kumar Ram with the help of bank accounts
of Delhi based Mukesh Mittal's employees/relatives.
4. It is also alleged that Veerendra Kumar Ram used to give cash to CA
Mukesh Mittal who with the help of other entry providers used to take
entries in the bank accounts of his employees and relatives and then such
fund was transferred by Mukesh Mittal into the bank accounts of the co-
2025:JHHC:23713
accused Rajkumari (wife of Veerendra Kumar Ram) and Genda Ram
(father of Veerendra Kumar Ram).
5. Further, it is also alleged that some bank accounts, opened (at Delhi)
on the basis of forged documents, were also being used in such routing
of funds. Therefore, findings related to such routing of funds were shared
with the Delhi Police under Section 66(2) of the PML Act, 2002 by the
I.O. Further, on the basis of the information shared U/s 66(2) of PML
Act, 2002, an FIR No. 22/2023 was registered by Economic Offence
Wing (EOW), Delhi against (i) Veerendra Kumar Ram, (ii) Mukesh
Mittal and (iii) unknown Others under Sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 468,
471, 473, 474, 476, 484, and 120-B of IPC, 1860 and under Sections 7
and 5 of Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017.
6. Consequently, in the light of additional facts emerging out of
investigation, FIR No.22/2023 registered by the EOW, Delhi was
merged with the investigation of ECIR No. RNSZO/16/2020 on
05.04.2023.
7. A prosecution complaint vide ECIR Case No. 02/2023 was filed
before the learned Special Court, (PMLA), Ranchi on 21.04.2023 against
Veerendra Kumar Ram; Alok Ranjan, Rajkumari and Genda Ram and
cognizance of the same was taken by the learned Special Judge, PMLA,
Ranchi on 29.04.2023.
8. Further, a supplementary prosecution complaint vides ECIR Case
Number 02/2023 under Section 44 (ii) r/w section 45 of PML Act, 2002
was filed before the learned Special Court (PMLA), Ranchi on
20.08.2023 against Veerendra Kumar Ram, Alok Ranjan, Rajkumari,
2025:JHHC:23713
Genda Ram, Mukesh Mittal, Tara Chand, Neeraj Mittal, Ram Prakash
Bhatia, Harish Yadav and Hirdya Nand Tiwari and the cognizance of the
same is taken on 22.08.2023.
9. During the further course of investigation searches were conducted on
06-05-2024, 07-05-2024, 08-05-2024, 09-05-2024, 10-05-2024 and
24-05-2024 under section 17 of the PML Act, 2002 in the premises of
Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the petitioner herein), Jahangir Alam, Munna Singh,
Kuldip Kumar Minz, Vikash Kumar, Raj Kumar Toppo, Ajay Tirkey,
Rajiv Kumar Singh, Amit Kumar and Santosh Kumar at various places.
10. As a result of the search, huge cash was recovered and seized
from the residential premises of Jahangir Alam situated at Flat No. 1A,
1st Floor, Block B, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi. Further,
huge cash have been recovered and seized from the residential premises
of Munna Singh situated at Flat No. 1A, Kashmiri Gali, PP Compound,
Ranchi. Munna Singh had stated that he used to collect cash from the
engineers/contractors on the instruction of Sanjeev Lal (the petitioner
herein). Thereafter, searches were also conducted at the residences of
these engineers viz. Rajiv Kumar Singh, Santosh Kumar, Rajkumar
Toppo, Ajay Tirkey and Amit Kumar.
11. Accordingly, on 07-05-2024 Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the petitioner
herein) and co-accued-Jahangir Alam were arrested for the commission
of the offence under sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act, 2002.
12. It has been alleged that the co-accused-Alamgir Alam being the
minister of Department of Rural Works (RWD) and all the departments
under it, he is at the top in the syndicate of commission collection.
2025:JHHC:23713
Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the petitioner herein) used to collect the share of
1.35 % of minister Alamgir Alam on his behalf from Asst.
Engineers/Executive Engineers via Chief Engineers.
13. Accordingly, Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the petitioner herein) has
instructed departmental engineers to hand over the petitioner's
commission to Munna Singh and/or his brother Santosh Kumar alias
Rinku Singh. Further Munna Singh has stated that he has collected a
total of Rs. 53 crores of commission from such engineers/contractors and
handed over Rs.50 crores approx. to Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the present
petitioner) through Jahangir Alam. Thus, the same amount was acquired
by the co-accused-Alamgir Alam through his PS-Sanjeev Kumar Lal, out
of this Rs.53 crores, an amount of Rs.35 crores approx. was seized
during the search proceedings.
14. Further, it has been alleged that the petitioner assisted to
acquire a commission amount of Rs. 3 crores from Veerendra Kumar
Ram through one engineer of the department for giving the same to the
co-accused-Alamgir Alam in September 2022.
15. It is also alleged that the petitioner is found to be directly
indulged and actually involved in possession and concealment of at least
Rs 35 crores of the Proceeds of Crime and he has also been found to be
directly indulged and actually involved in acquisition and concealment
of at least Rs. 56 crores of the Proceeds of Crime.
16. A supplementary prosecution complaint vides ECIR Case
Number 02/2023 under Section 45 of PML Act, 2002 has been filed
before the Learned Special Court (PMLA), Ranchi on 04.07.2024
2025:JHHC:23713
against Veerendra Kumar Ram, Alok Ranjan, Rajkumari, Genda Ram,
Mukesh Mittal, Tara Chand, Neeraj Mittal, Ram Prakash Bhatia, Harish
Yadav, Hirdya Nand Tiwari, Alamgir Alam, Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the
present petitioner) and Jahangir Alam and the cognizance of the same
was taken on 12.07.2024.
17. Thereafter, the present petitioner preferred Misc. Cri.
Application No. 2510 of 2024 for grant of bail but the same was rejected
vide order dated 13.09.2024 by the court of learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-XVIII-cum-Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi. Hence the
present petition has been filed.
Argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner:
18. Md. Imran Kashif, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has argued inter alia on the following grounds:
I. That the petitioner is quite innocent and has falsely been
implicated in this case with oblique motive and mala fide intention
to harass the petitioner.
II.The petitioner has duly cooperated with the investigation agency
and further as and when required he appeared before them despite
that he has been arrested in the present case.
III.The petitioner's name has been surfaced only after the allegations
of Veerendra Kumar Ram on 28.02.2023 under section 50 of PML
Act that the petitioner was allegedly collecting commission on
behalf of co-accused-Alamgir Alam.
IV.It is admitted fact that neither the petitioner was named in the
initial predicate offence [FIR No. 13/2019] nor he was named in
2025:JHHC:23713
the ECIR. Therefore, petitioner's involvement cannot be made out
on the ground of demand of gratification since the Enforcement
Directorate has not provided any reasons connecting the petitioner
to the alleged proceeds of crime.
V. The Enforcement Directorate relies heavily on the statements of
co-accused Veerendra Kumar Ram and Jahangir Alam but the
same need to be tested during the trial as without being scrutinized
in the competent Court, its veracity cannot be confirmed.
VI. There is no evidence to support the allegation that the petitioner
has received money from Munna Singh or his brother as there is
no evidence that the petitioner has received cash from them. The
notebook (TANEZA) seized from Munna Singh's premises in
which it was alleged that transaction of illegal gratification was
mentioned, there is no mention of any amount given to this
petitioner.
VII.The statement of Munna Singh that the petitioner instructed him to
collect money from engineers is baseless and completely
unfounded. Despite statement of Munna Singh in which he
admitted that he has received substantial sums, the petitioner
cannot be made an accused as there is no evidence in support of
the same.
VIII. It is alleged that the co-accused-Alamgir Alam pressurized the
Chief Engineer to collect commission and gave him his share of
1.35% through his PS, Sanjeev Kumar Lal (petitioner herein). But
no case has been instituted of demanding commission from his
2025:JHHC:23713
agent by deputing the agent to collect the money by way of
commission in lieu of allotting the work in favour of one or the
other contractor. It has been submitted that in absence of any
predicate offence no case can be said to be made out or even
initiated under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002.
IX.Furthermore, from the entire complaint as well as the documents
of the complainant, there is no evidence that Rs.10.05 lakhs seized
from the petitioner does constitute proceeds of crime and belongs
to the petitioner's family which can be accounted for through
legitimate means and the Enforcement Directorate has not
provided evidence to prove that this money is related to any
criminal activity.
X. Further, the credibility of the statements made either by co-
accused individuals or by certain witnesses are highly
questionable, particularly in the absence of any corroborative
evidence, such as call records, messages, or other supporting/
linking materials to either the predicate offence or dealing with the
proceed of crime. Without such corroboration, the reliability of
these statements is severely undermined, and they should not be
given undue weight at the time of adjudicating the present bail
application.
XI. The petitioner has no antecedent and no other criminal proceeding
is pending against him. The petitioner has been cooperating with
the ongoing investigation inquiries conducted by the prosecution
and undertakes to continue doing so.
2025:JHHC:23713
XII.The submission has been made that the petitioner has been
implicated in the present case on the basis of statement recorded
under Section 50 of the PML Act of the co-accused, who was
already in custody, hence, the statement recorded under Section 50
of the PML Act of the co-accused, who were already in custody
cannot be used against the present petitioner.
XIII. Learned counsel has relied upon paragraph 253 of the judgment in
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and
Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 in order to buttress his
argument on the issue of statement recorded under Section 50 of
the PML Act.
XIV. Raising the ground of parity, submission has been made that
taking the ground of long incarceration and further there is no
possibility of a trial even commencing in the near future, co-
accused Veerendra Kumar Ram has been granted bail by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 in Cr. Appeal
No. 4615 of 2024. Likewise, accused Harish Yadav was already
granted bail vide order dated 30.08.2024 in Special Leave petition
(Crl.) No. 6174 of 2024 on the ground that prima facie it is very
difficult to attribute any direct role, and thus, the twin tests laid
down under Section 45(1) of the PML Act, 2002 are satisfied and
also that of long incarceration.
XV. In the case at hand, the petitioner is in custody since 07.05.2024
i.e., for more than 13 months and it is not likely that the trial
would conclude in near future since only one witness has been
2025:JHHC:23713
examined, therefore, taking into consideration the law laid down
in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
[2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920; Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb
[(2021) 3 SCC 713]; Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Enforcement
Directorate (supra) and V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State represented
by the Deputy Director & Ors. (2024) 3 SCC 51 the petitioner
may be directed to be released on bail.
XVI.Further, it has been contended that there is no allegation said to be
committed so as to attract the offence under Section 3 of the PML
Act since there is no allegation of laundering of money against the
petitioner.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted as per the ground agitated hereinabove, it is a fit
case where the petitioner is to be given the benefit of privilege of bail.
Argument advanced by learned counsel for the opposite party-
Enforcement Directorate:
20. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned
counsel for the opposite party-Enforcement Directorate has seriously
opposed the said submission/ground both based upon the fact and the
law as referred hereinabove, on the following grounds.
I. Submission has been made that the petitioner was arrested on
07.05.2024 under Section 19 of PML Act, 2002, after recording
reasons to believe that the Petitioner is guilty of the offence of
money laundering as defined under Section 3 and punishable
under Section 4 of PML Act, 2002.
2025:JHHC:23713
II. It has been contended by referring to Section 3(ii) of the PML
Act, 2002 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
untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any
manner whatsoever.
III. That subsequently, vide order dated 07.05.2024, the Learned Spl.
Judge, PMLA Court, Ranchi remanded the accused to the custody
of Complainant for a period of 6 (six) days and vide order dated
13.05.2024, the custody was further extended for another 5 (five)
days. Subsequently, the custody of the said accused person was
then extended vide order dated 18.05.2024 for the period of
3 (three) days, following which, on 21.05.2024, the accused
person was remanded to judicial custody.
IV. That the petitioner had filed a Misc. Criminal Application
(Bail Petition) No. 2510/2024 before the Ld. Special Judge
(PMLA), which was rejected vide order dated 13.09.2024 in view
of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the
seriousness of the charges levelled against the petitioner.
V. It has been contended that during the course of the
investigation on Veerendra Kumar Ram and his close associates,
several searches were conducted at various places across India and
it was found that part of the Proceeds of crime acquired in the
form of taking commission/bribe in lieu of allotment of tenders by
2025:JHHC:23713
Veerendra Kumar Ram, Chief Engineer in Rural Works
Department, Jharkhand was getting routed by a Delhi based CA
Mukesh Mittal to the bank accounts of family members of
Veerendra Kumar Ram with the help of bank accounts of Mukesh
Mittal's employees/relatives.
VI. The petitioner was PS of the then Minister Alamgir Alam
(Accused No. 11) and Alamgir Alam was minister of
(i) Department of Rural Works the assistant engineers posted at
the Rural Development Special Zone and Rural Works
Department. He further stated that the share of Minister Alamgir
Alam (Accused No. 11) was 1.5% of the allocated tender amount.
Investigation revealed that in one of the instances Rs. 3 crores
were given to Alamgir Alam by engineers of the Rural Works
Department through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the petitioner) in
September 2022.
VII. It was ascertained that the amount of commission on
behalf of Alamgir Alam was collected by the petitioner Sanjeev
Kumar Lal (his PS). Further, it was ascertained that a person,
named, Jahangir Alam (Associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal) collected
such commission on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
VIII. That during analysis of the seized mobile phone of
Veerendra Kumar Ram, contact details of Sanjeev Kumar Lal
were found as 'Sanjeev Lal PA of RDD Minister', and two mobile
nos. (9939121851 and 8789745592) are saved in the said contact's
name. Further, SDR, CAF, and CDR of the aforesaid mobile nos.
2025:JHHC:23713
were sought and it was revealed that the mobile no. 9939121851 is
in the name of Sanjeev Kumar Lal himself. However, another
mobile no. 8789745592 was found to be in the name of Jahangir
Alam S/o Ekramul Haque. Thus, it is evident that Jahangir Alam is
a close associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and Jahangir acts as a
close trusted aide of Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
IX. Further, analysis of the CDR and tower location of both
mobile numbers, was also made and it was found that they live in
very close proximity to the government accommodation and it was
found during the search that they were residing in the same
government residence.
X. Further, it was gathered that there is a flat at Sir Syed
Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi in the name of Jahangir Alam
which was used by Sanjeev Kumar Lal for secreting the proceeds
of crime, and keys to the said flat were also found at the premise
of petitioner. It was also gathered that the wife of Sanjeev Lal @
Sanjeev Kumar Lal is involved in businesses related to
construction and is a director/partner/shareholder in an entity with
one builder Munna Singh. It was found that the proceeds of crime
in the form of cash acquired by the officials/officers of the Rural
Development Department are deposited to a builder on the
instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. Therefore, on the basis of
reasons to believe, search u/s 17 of PML Act, 2002 was conducted
at seven premises on 06.05.2024.
2025:JHHC:23713
XI. Huge cash to the tune of Rs 32.20 crores was recovered
and seized on 06/07.05.2024 from the premises of Jahangir Alam
(Associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, PS of Minister) i.e. Flat No. 1A,
Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi.
XII. Further, a huge cash amount to the tune of Rs. 2.93 Crore
was recovered and seized on 06.05.2024 from the premises of
Munna Singh i.e. Flat No.-1A, Kashmiri Gali, PP Compound,
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
XIII. Further, as a result of the search on 07.05.2024 at the
Residential premises of Rajeev Kumar Singh i.e. E-4, Mecon
Vatika, Kalyanpur Hatiya, Ranchi Jharkhand-834003, a huge cash
amount to the tune of Rs. 2.13 Crore have been recovered and
seized.
XIV. In addition to that, a huge amount of Rs.1,75,500/- has
been recovered and seized from the official chamber of this
petitioner, i.e, Room No.217, 2nd Floor, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa,
Ranchi on 08.05.2024, an amount of Rs.6,38,500/- from the
residential premises of Ajay Tirkey on 07.05.2024, an amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- from the residential premises of Santosh Kumar, an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the residential premises of Vikash
Kumar and an amount of Rs.10,05,000/- from the residential
premises of the petitioner situated at Flat No.D/4, Booty Road,
Opposite Rani Hospital, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
XV. The question of non-institution of FIR of the charge as
contained in complaint against the petitioner, as has been argued
2025:JHHC:23713
on behalf of the petitioner will also have no aid reason being that
the said offences are continuing offence of collecting money by
the minister directly involve in collection of the said money
which is connected with the proceeds of crime by way of
continuing activity as stipulated in Section 3 (ii) of the PML Act,
hence, the petitioner is deeply involved in commission of crime.
XVI. In this way, cash totaling to Rs. 37.55 Crores approx. has
been recovered and seized from the various premises searched u/s
17 of the PML Act, 2002 on 06th, 07th and 08th of May 2024.
XVII. It has been contended that the statement, as has been
recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 is very much
clear of the involvement of the present petitioner in relation to
collection of money involved in the criminal case registered under
Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 and by way
of continued process, the ED has filed supplementary complaint in
which complicity of the present petitioner has been surfaced.
XVIII. Argument has been advanced that the petitioner being a
public servant, has been found to be indulged in such type of
collection of money as has been recovered from the house of the
Jahangir Alam to the tune of Rs. 32,20,78,900/- and further the
aforesaid fact has been corroborated by the statement as recorded
under Section 50 of the different accused persons and the
engineers who were not in custody during the relevant period of
time.
2025:JHHC:23713
XIX. Submission has been made that ground which has been
advanced that neither the statement of other co-accused persons is
to be taken into consideration since it is recorded while they were
in custody but the law is otherwise as has been held by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of
Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46 wherein the statement if recorded
of the co-accused persons in custody under Section 50 of the PML
Act will also have the impact in implicating a person under
Section 3 of the PML Act and exactly the case herein.
XX. It has been submitted that otherwise also it is not the case
where only the statement of the co-accused persons have been
recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act but the statement of the
engineers, who were not in custody on the date of recording of
their statement, have been taken who have specifically stated in
their statements under Section 50 of the PML Act that on the
direction of the concerned minister as was being informed by his
private secretary, Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the petitioner herein), the
money was collected from the contractors by this petitioner or his
agent (co-accused) for the share of the present petitioner and other
co-accused.
XXI. The statement, therefore, has been made that since the
cogent evidence has been collected against both of the co-accused
persons, who have been remanded to the judicial custody, and the
other engineers who were not the accused, hence the petitioner is
2025:JHHC:23713
directly involved in commission of crime of obtaining
money/commission said to be 'proceeds of crime'.
XXII. It has been submitted that twin conditions have been
provided under Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 but herein the
first condition is of bearing which pertains to the satisfaction of
the court of the reasonable ground for believing that he is not
guilty of such offence and there is no likelihood of committing any
offence while on bail. It has been submitted based upon the
grounds i.e., recovery of huge amount from the house of Jahangir
Alam, a close associate of the co-accused-Alamgir Alam and this
petitioner; the recovery of the diary having with code-word therein
for the purpose of transmitting the amount as also the scripted
letter head addressed to the minister have been found from the
house of Jahangir Alam where huge amount of money has been
recovered, hence, it is not a case to have the believe of reasonable
ground that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence.
XXIII. So far as the grounds of parity is concerned, the case of
the present petitioner is quite distinct to that of other co-accused
persons, who have been granted bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court,
not only on the long incarceration but as also on the ground that
there direct involvement of the petitioner, who is none other than a
public servant, therefore, submission has been made that no
consideration is to be given on the issue of parity on the aforesaid
distinguishable fact.
2025:JHHC:23713
XXIV. That several documents and records pertaining to the
petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal were seized from the premises of his
close aide Jahangir Alam including several torn pages of a few
diaries and notes. The Petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal, in his
statements, recorded u/s 50 of PML Act, 2002 has inter alia stated
that these torn pages and notes contain the calculations.
XXV. During the investigation, the Petitioner Sanjeev Kumar
Lal in his statements recorded u/s 50 of PML Act, 2002 stated that
he was collecting the share of Minister Alamgir Alam (Accused
No. 11) from the total commission which was collected against the
tenders of RWD/JSRRDA. He has further stated that records of
calculations (Hisab Kitab) of such commission collection were
being maintained by him in aforesaid torn pages of diaries. When
further confronted with documents which were seized during
search on 06.05.2024 u/s 17 of PML Act, 2002 from Jahangir
Alam's premises at Flat No. 1A, Block No B, Sir Syed Residency,
Kumahartoli, Ranchi vide Panchnama dated 06/07.05.2024, he
stated that he had written the contents of these pages and they
comprise the record of commission collection which were being
maintained by him in aforesaid torn pages of diaries.
XXVI. The petitioner-Sanjeev Kumar Lal further revealed that
he used several code words for keeping the record of
cash/commission. The meaning of some of such code words are:
"M" means Minister, "Sahab" and "H" means Honourable
Minister, which were being used by him, and refer to the Minister
2025:JHHC:23713
Alamgir Alam, for keeping the records of such commission/cash.
Further, the code letter/word "Apna" either in English or Hindi
found on pages Nos. 18, 23, 25 and 29 of seized documents vide
Panchnama dated 06/07.05.2024 (Marked as Annexure - A6) was
used for the share of himself "हिसाब में 25 अपना)" .
XXVII. The digit indicated, in the aforesaid code letter/word
represents the amounts in the multiple of lakhs of rupees. The sum
of such code letter/word excluding repetitiveness is 205
(40+25+100+40). In this way, the share of Sanjeev Kumar Lal in
total commission has been found to be at least Rs. 2.05 Crore (205
One Lakh). Sanjeev Kumar Lal has confirmed in his statement
dated 28.06.2024 recorded during judicial custody that Rs. 2.05
crores are his share.
XXVIII. During the course of the investigation, it was ascertained
that the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal has utilized the Proceeds of
crime in purchasing immovable properties in his name and also in
his wife's name. The co-accused-Jahangir Alam has also utilized
the proceeds of the crime of the petitioner to purchase immovable
properties in his name. Thus, after following due process of law,
four immovable properties worth Rs. 4,42,55,000/-(Including loan
amount of Rs.37.53 lakhs but property to this extent has not been
provisionally attached, hence the properties to the extent of
Rs. 4,05,02,000/-has been attached) was attached vide Provisional
Attachment Order (PAO) No. 06/2023 dated 04.07.2024. The said
PAO has been prayed for confirmation before Ld. Adjudicating
2025:JHHC:23713
Authority vide OC No. 2375/2024, which is duly confirmed by
learned Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 09.12.2024.
XXIX. That further, apart from huge cash as mentioned above,
several documents including letters on official letterheads were
found from the said premise of the co-accused-Jahangir Alam,
which were kept there on the instructions of, and under the
possession of the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal, as PS to Alamgir
Alam RDD minister, which clearly establishes that the petitioner
Sanjeev Kumar Lal was using the said premise of Jahangir Alam
as a safe house for keeping cash, documents/ records and other
belongings related to Minister Alamgir Alam and himself.
XXX. The co-accused-Jahangir Alam was arrested on
07.05.2024 and during his ED custodial interrogation u/s 50 of
PML Act, 2002, he showed complete non-cooperation, by not
divulging the true facts about Rs. 32.20 crore initially, which are
the Proceeds of Crime acquired by Alamgir Alam and Sanjeev
Kumar Lal and other seized records and documents. He further
stated that the cash amount seized from his said premises belongs
to the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal, and he collected the aforesaid
huge cash amount i.e. Rs. 32.20 Crore on the instructions of the
petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further stated that about 4 to 5
months ago Sanjeev Kumar Lal instructed him to stand near
Abhinandan Marriage hall, near Rani Hospital and Deendayal
Nagar, Ranchi with his Aprilia scooter, where Rinku alias Santosh
Kumar (brother of Munna Singh) handed over bags filled with
2025:JHHC:23713
currency/note bundles, and after receiving those bags, he used to
park the said bags beneath bed and almirah at his Flat No. 1A, Sir
Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi safely.
XXXI. The statements of co-accused-Munna Singh were
recorded u/s 50 of PML Act, 2002 wherein he inter alia stated that
the huge cash amount seized from his premises i.e. Rs. 2.93 Crore
is the commission amount which was yet to be handed over to the
person of the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further stated that
Rs. 50 Crore were collected from assistant engineers, and he sent
it to Sanjeev Kumar Lal during the period of 8 to 9 months. When
asked about regarding Rs. 50 Crore already sent to Sanjeev Kumar
Lal but only Rs. 32.20 Crore have been recovered and seized from
the premised of Jahangir Alam he stated that only Sanjeev Kumar
Lal can explain the same. Further, a diary was recovered and
seized from the premises of Munna Singh which contains the
details of commission amount of around Rs. 50 Crore collected
from the Chief and other engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD.
Further, Munna Singh has stated in his statement recorded on
u/s 50 of PML Act, 2002, that he has not received any share from
the commission he used to collect. He did the collection and
handing over of the cash only following the instructions of
Sanjeev Kumar Lal. Munna Singh further stated that he showed
his inability and objected against the collection of cash and he
tried to know the source of funds from Sanjeev Kumar Lal,
however, Sanjeev Kumar Lal never revealed him the actual source
2025:JHHC:23713
of the cash collected. Sanjeev Kumar Lal always told him that
there would be no issue in aforesaid task.
XXXII. That during the course of the investigation, it was
ascertained that Sanjeev Kumar Lal has utilized the Proceeds of
crime in purchasing immovable properties in his name and also in
his wife's name. Further, he also provided funds to co-accused-
Jahangir Alam to purchase immovable property. The statements of
relevant persons were recorded under Section 50 of PML Act,
2002 and recorded in paragraphs No. 10.21 to 10.33 of
Supplementary Prosecution Complaint which shows cash dealing
between the parties in respect of purchase of immovable property.
XXXIII. It is evident that Petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal is the
person who was controlling the whole syndicate of collection of
commission against tenders from top to bottom on behalf of the
then Minister Alamgir Alam. He instructed Santosh Kumar,
brother of Munna Singh to collect commission/cash from Chief
Engineers and other engineers and hand over the same to Jahangir
Alam. He instructed Jahangir Alam to collect cash/commission
from Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh, and store the same
at his (Jahangir Alam's) premises safely. He has taken his share of
around Rs. 2.05 Crore from the commission and
integrated the proceeds of crime into immovable and movable
properties in his name and in the name of his family members and
associates.
2025:JHHC:23713
XXXIV. Thus, the petitioner is the mastermind and has played a
vital role in this syndicate/organized structure of the illegal
collection of proceeds of crime. He is found to be directly
indulged and actually involved and knowingly assisted Alamgir
Alam in the acquisition, possession, and concealment of the
Proceeds of Crime at least to the tune of Rs. 56 crores.
XXXV. That it is submitted that the petitioner was intentionally
involved in concealing the amounts and dealing with proceeds of
crime for which an organized calculation sheet stating share of the
parties was duly being seized. Hence, the ground that there was no
mens rea on the part of petitioner is false and baseless.
XXXVI. It is submitted that the petitioner had never cooperated
during the investigation and during the ED custody. He remained
evasive and non-cooperative during the course of the search and
entire ED custody.
XXXVII. Further, the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal is an
influential person, and if enlarged on bail, he may influence the
witnesses which may hamper the trial and proceedings under PML
Act, 2002. Hence, the accused petitioner is not at all entitled to
any relief whatsoever, and this petition is liable to be dismissed
outrightly.
XXXVIII. It has been submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in "Tarun Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate"; 2023
INSC 1006, held that to apply parity, the individual role of the
accused must be seen and the accused cannot seek bail merely
2025:JHHC:23713
because the co-accused got bail. Hence, the averments of the
petitioner are liable to be rejected.
XXXIX. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner
are not in capacity of a public servant and hence no sanction is
required. The recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
Directorate of Enforcement vs. Bibhu Prasad Acharya, Criminal
Appeal Nos. 4314-4316 of 2024, does not lay down a general law
that in all cases of PML Act involving a public servant there is a
need to obtain sanction. It is equally well settled that Judgments
have to be seen in the facts and circumstances of each case and not
to be treated as Euclid's theorem. In fact, in Bibhu Prasad (supra)
the Hon'ble Court in the facts of that case had noted that:
"15... It is not even the allegation in the complaints
that the two respondents were not empowered to do
the acts they have done."
21. Learned counsel for the respondent-Enforcement Directorate, based
upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is not a fit case where the
prayer for bail is to be allowed taking into consideration his involvement in
directly acquiring the proceeds of crime.
Discussion:
22. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across
the pleading available on record as also the finding recorded by learned
trial court.
23. 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 with its object and intent.
2025:JHHC:23713
24. The Act was enacted to address the urgent need to have a
comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering,
attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof
including vesting of it in the Central Government, setting up of agencies
and mechanisms for coordinating measures for combating money-
laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or
activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
25. It is evident that the PML 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.
26. It is evident from the definition of "proceeds of crime" as provided
under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002 that "proceeds of crime" means any
property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a
result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of
any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the
country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or
abroad.
27. In the explanation part of the aforesaid Section, 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
2025:JHHC:23713
obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled
offence.
28. 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.
29. 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 instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or
assets, wherever located.
30. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x) which means
schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
31. 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.
32. The offence of money laundering has been defined under Section 3 of
the PML Act, 2002 wherein it has been stipulated that whosoever directly
2025:JHHC:23713
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.
33. It is further 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.
34. 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 untainted
property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.
35. The punishment for money laundering has been provided under
Section 4 of the PML Act, 2002.
36. Further, Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 confers power upon the
authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give
evidence.
37. It needs to refer herein that 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., (supra) wherein the
2025:JHHC:23713
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, as would appear from paragraph 128, 129 and 130. For
ready reference, relevant paragraph is being referred as under:
"128. To put it differently, the section as it stood prior to 2019 had itself
incorporated the expression "including", which is indicative of reference
made to the different process or activity connected with the proceeds of
crime. Thus, the principal provision (as also the Explanation) predicates
that if a person is found to be directly or indirectly involved in any process
or activity connected with the proceeds of crime must be held guilty of
offence of money laundering. If the interpretation set forth by the
petitioners was to be accepted, it would follow that it is only upon
projecting or claiming the property in question as untainted property, the
offence would be complete. This would undermine the efficacy of the
legislative intent behind Section 3 of the Act and also will be in disregard
of the view expressed by the FATF in connection with the occurrence of
the word "and" preceding the expression "projecting or claiming"
therein.
129.This Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, enunciated that the
international treaties, covenants and conventions although may not be a
part of municipal law, the same be referred to and followed by the Courts
having regard to the fact that India is a party to the said treaties. This
Court went on to observe that the Constitution of India and other ongoing
statutes have been read consistently with the rules of international law. It
is also observed that the Constitution of India and the enactments made by
Parliament must necessarily be understood in the context of the present-
day scenario and having regard to the international treaties and
convention as our constitution takes note of the institutions of the world
community which had been created.
130.In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, the Court
observed that domestic Courts are under an obligation to give due regard
to the international conventions and norms for construing the domestic
laws, more so, when there is no inconsistency between them and there is a
void in domestic law. This view has been restated in Githa Hariharan, as
also in People's Union for Civil Liberties, and National Legal Services
Authority v. Union of India."
2025:JHHC:23713
38. The implication of Section 50 has also been taken into
consideration. Relevant paragraph, i.e., paragraphs-327 to 332, 338, 339,
342 are quoted as under:
"327. The validity of this provision has been challenged on the ground of
being violative of Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. For, it allows
the authorised officer under the 2002 Act to summon any person and
record his statement during the course of investigation. Further, the
provision mandates that the person should disclose true and correct facts
known to his personal knowledge in connection with the subject matter of
investigation. The person is also obliged to sign the statement so given
with the threat of being punished for the falsity or incorrectness thereof in
terms of Section 63 of the 2002 Act. Before we proceed to analyse the
matter further, it is apposite to reproduce Section 50 of the 2002 Act, as
amended. -----:
330. By this provision, the Director has been empowered to exercise the
same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the 1908 Code while
trying a suit in respect of matters specified in sub-section (1). This is in
reference to Section 13 of the 2002 Act dealing with powers of Director to
impose fine in respect of acts of commission and omission by the banking
companies, financial institutions and intermediaries. From the setting in
which Section 50 has been placed and the expanse of empowering the
Director with same powers as are vested in a civil Court for the purposes
of imposing fine under Section 13, is obviously very specific and not
otherwise.
331. Indeed, sub-section (2) of Section 50 enables the Director, Additional
Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director to issue
summon to any person whose attendance he considers necessary for
giving evidence or to produce any records during the course of any
investigation or proceeding under this Act. We have already highlighted
the width of expression "proceeding" in the earlier part of this judgment
and held that it applies to proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority or
the Special Court, as the case may be. Nevertheless, sub-section (2)
empowers the authorised officials to issue summon to any person. We fail
to understand as to how Article 20(3) would come into play in respect of
process of recording statement pursuant to such summon which is only for
the purpose of collecting information or evidence in respect of proceeding
under this Act. Indeed, the person so summoned, is bound to attend in
2025:JHHC:23713
person or through authorised agent and to state truth upon any subject
concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statement
and produce documents as may be required by virtue of sub-section (3) of
Section 50 of the 2002 Act. The criticism is essentially because of
subsection (4) which provides that every proceeding under sub-sections
(2) and (3) shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning
of Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC. Even so, the fact remains that Article
20(3) or for that matter Section 25 of the Evidence Act, would come into
play only when the person so summoned is an accused of any offence at
the relevant time and is being compelled to be a witness against himself.
This position is well-established.
332.The Constitution Bench of this Court in M.P. Sharma had dealt with a
similar challenge wherein warrants to obtain documents required for
investigation were issued by the Magistrate being violative of Article 20(3)
of the Constitution. This Court opined that the guarantee in Article 20(3)
is against "testimonial compulsion" and is not limited to oral evidence.
Not only that, it gets triggered if the person is compelled to be a witness
against himself, which may not happen merely because of issuance of
summons for giving oral evidence or producing documents. Further, to be
a witness is nothing more than to furnish evidence and such evidence can
be furnished by different modes. The Court went on to observe as follows:
"Broadly stated the guarantee in article 20(3) is against "testimonial
compulsion". It is suggested that this is confined to the oral evidence of a
person standing his trial for an offence when called to the witness-stand.
We can see no reason to confine the content of the constitutional
guarantee to this barely literal import. So to limit it would be to rob the
guarantee of its substantial purpose and to miss the substance for the
sound as stated in certain American decisions. The phrase used in Article
20(3) is "to be a witness". A person can "be a witness" not merely by
giving oral evidence but also by producing documents or making
intelligible gestures as in the case of a dumb witness (See section 119 of
the Evidence Act) or the like. "To be a witness" is nothing more than "to
furnish evidence", and such evidence can be furnished through the lips or
by production of a thing or of a document or in other modes. So far as
production of documents is concerned, no doubt Section 139 of the
Evidence Act says that a person producing a document on summons is not
a witness. But that section is meant to regulate the right of cross
examination. It is not a guide to the connotation of the word "witness",
which must be understood in its natural sense, i.e., as referring to a
2025:JHHC:23713
person who furnishes evidence. Indeed, every positive volitional act which
furnishes evidence is testimony, and testimonial compulsion connotes
coercion which procures the positive volitional evidentiary acts of the
person, as opposed to the negative attitude of silence or submission on his
part. Nor is there any reason to think that the protection in respect of the
evidence so procured is confined to what transpires at the trial in the
court room. The phrase used in article 20(3) is "to be a witness" and not
to "appear as a witness". It follows that the protection afforded to an
accused in so far as it is related to the phrase "to be a witness" is not
merely in respect of testimonial compulsion in the court room but may
well extend to compelled testimony previously obtained from him. It is
available therefore to a person against whom a formal accusation relating
to the commission of an offence has been levelled which in the normal
course may result in prosecution. Whether it is available to other persons
in other situations does not call for decision in this case." (emphasis
supplied)
338. In the context of the 2002 Act, it must be remembered that the
summon is issued by the Authority under Section 50 in connection with the
inquiry regarding proceeds of crime which may have been attached and
pending adjudication before the Adjudicating Authority. In respect of such
action, the designated officials have been empowered to summon any
person for collection of information and evidence to be presented before
the Adjudicating Authority. It is not necessarily for initiating a
prosecution against the noticee as such. The power entrusted to the
designated officials under this Act, though couched as investigation in real
sense, is to undertake inquiry to ascertain relevant facts to facilitate
initiation of or pursuing with an action regarding proceeds of crime, if the
situation so warrants and for being presented before the Adjudicating
Authority. It is a different matter that the information and evidence so
collated during the inquiry made, may disclose commission of offence of
money-laundering and the involvement of the person, who has been
summoned for making disclosures pursuant to the summons issued by the
Authority. At this stage, there would be no formal document indicative of
likelihood of involvement of such person as an accused of offence of
money laundering. If the statement made by him reveals the offence of
money laundering or the existence of proceeds of crime, that becomes
actionable under the Act itself.
339.To put it differently, at the stage of recording of statement for the
purpose of inquiring into the relevant facts in connection with the property
2025:JHHC:23713
being proceeds of crime is, in that sense, not an investigation for
prosecution as such; and in any case, there would be no formal accusation
against the noticee. Such summons can be issued even to witnesses in the
inquiry so conducted by the authorised officials. However, after further
inquiry on the basis of other material and evidence, the involvement of
such person (noticee) is revealed, the authorised officials can certainly
proceed against him for his acts of commission or omission. In such a
situation, at the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim
protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. However, if his/her
statement is recorded after a formal arrest by the ED official, the
consequences of Article 20(3) or Section 25 of the Evidence Act may come
into play to urge that the same being in the nature of confession, shall not
be proved against him. Further, it would not preclude the prosecution
from proceeding against such a person including for consequences under
Section 63 of the 2002 Act on the basis of other tangible material to
indicate the falsity of his claim. That would be a matter of rule of
evidence.
342. It is, thus, clear that the power invested in the officials is one for
conducting inquiry into the matters relevant for ascertaining existence of
proceeds of crime and the involvement of persons in the process or activity
connected therewith so as to initiate appropriate action against such
person including of seizure, attachment and confiscation of the property
eventually vesting in the Central Government."
39. It is evident from the observation so made as above that the
purposes and objects of the 2002 Act for which it has been enacted, is
not limited to punishment for offence of money-laundering, but also to
provide measures for prevention of money-laundering. It is also to
provide for attachment of proceeds of crime, which are likely to be
concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in
frustrating any proceeding relating to confiscation of such proceeds
under the 2002 Act. This Act is also to compel the banking companies,
financial institutions and intermediaries to maintain records of the
2025:JHHC:23713
transactions, to furnish information of such transactions within the
prescribed time in terms of Chapter IV of the 2002 Act.
40. 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.
41. So far as the purport of Section 45(1)(i)(ii) is concerned, the
aforesaid provision starts from the non-obstante clause that
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released
on bail or on his own bond unless -
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given a opportunity to oppose the
application for such release; and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail.
42. Sub-section (2) thereof puts limitation on granting bail specific
in subsection (1) in addition to the limitations under the Code of
2025:JHHC:23713
Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force on
granting of bail.
43. 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 to the fulfilment of conditions under section 19 and subject to the
conditions enshrined under this section.
44. 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-268-270.
For ready reference, the said paragraphs are being referred as under:
"268. Section 45 has been amended vide Act 20 of 2005, Act 13 of 2018 and
Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. The provision as it obtained prior to 23.11.2017
read somewhat differently. The constitutional validity of Sub-section (1) of
Section 45, as it stood then, was considered in Nikesh Tarachand Shah. This
Court declared Section 45(1) of the 2002 Act, as it stood then, insofar as it
imposed two further conditions for release on bail, to be unconstitutional being
violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The two conditions which
have been mentioned as twin conditions are: (i) that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) that he is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail.
269. According to the petitioners, since the twin conditions have been declared
to be void and unconstitutional by this Court, the same stood obliterated. To
buttress this argument, reliance has been placed on the dictum in State of
Manipur.
2025:JHHC:23713
270. The first issue to be answered by us is: whether the twin conditions, in
law, continued to remain on the statute book post decision of this Court in
Nikesh Tarachand Shah and if yes, in view of the amendment effected to
Section 45(1) of the 2002 Act vide Act 13 of 2018, the declaration by this Court
will be of no consequence. This argument need not detain us for long. We say
so because the observation in State of Manipur in paragraph 29 of the
judgment that owing to the declaration by a Court that the statute is
unconstitutional obliterates the statute entirely as though it had never been
passed, is contextual. In this case, the Court was dealing with the efficacy of
the repealing Act. While doing so, the Court had adverted to the repealing Act
and made the stated observation in the context of lack of legislative power. In
the process of reasoning, it did advert to the exposition in
BehramKhurshidPesikaka and Deep Chand including American jurisprudence
expounded in Cooley on Constitutional Limitations and Norton v. Shelby
County."
45.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 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
2025:JHHC:23713
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.
46.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.
47.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 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 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.
48.So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 is
concerned, at paragraph-412 of the judgment rendered in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) it has been
2025:JHHC:23713
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 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.
49.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 PML Act, 2002are
mandatory and need to be complied with, which is further strengthened
by the provisions of Section 65 and also Section 71 of PML Act, 2002.
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 PML Act, 2002 shall have overriding
effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any
other law for the time being in force. PML Act, 2002 has an overriding
effect and the provisions of CrPC would apply only if they are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.
50.Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PML Act, 2002
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
2025:JHHC:23713
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.
51.Now adverting to the fact of the present case, learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the allegation leveled against the present
petitioner cannot be said to attract the ingredient of Section 3 of PML
Act, 2002. While on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
ED has submitted by referring to various paragraphs of prosecution
complaint that the offence is very much available attracting the offence
under provisions of PML Act, 2002.
52.This Court, in order to appreciate the rival submission, is of the view
that various paragraphs of prosecution complaint upon which the reliance
has been placed on behalf of both the parties, needs to be referred herein
so as to come to the conclusion as to whether the parameter as fixed
under Section 45(ii) of the 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.
53.In order to reach to conclusion regarding share of the accused persons
in commission against allotment of tenders and accumulation of
'proceeds of crime', this Court needs to refer the relevant paragraph 7 of
the prosecution complaint, which reads as under:
"7. INVESTIGATION LEADING TO FURTHER SEARCHES UNDER
PMLA:
7.1 During the course of the investigation, Veerendra Kumar Ram was
arrested u/s 19 of PMLA, 2002 on 23.02.2023 for the offence defined under
Section 3 of PMLA. During his custodial interrogation, Veerendra Kumar
2025:JHHC:23713
Ram disclosed that he was taking commission against the allotment of
tenders from the contractors. He further disclosed in his statement that the
commission amount taken from the contractors is 3.2% of the total tender
value and that his share was 0.3% of the total tender value which at some
postings was higher than 0.3%. However, given the total Proceeds of Crime
acquired by him, it is believed that the percentage (%) of commission varied
from 0.3% to 1% of the tender value which is being stated by him under
Section 50 of PMLA, 2002.
7.2 Veerendra Kumar Ram in his statement further stated that the whole
process of collection and distribution of commission was taken care of by the
assistant engineers posted at the Rural Development Special Zone and Rural
Works Department. He further stated that the share of Minister Alamgir
Alam was 1.5% of the allocated tender amount. Investigation revealed that
Rs. 3 crores were given to Alamgir Alam by engineers of the Rural Works
Department through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal in September 2022.
7.3 Further, it was ascertained that the amount of commission on behalf of
Alamgir Alam was getting collected by Sanjeev Kumar Lal (his PS). Further,
it was ascertained that a person named Jahangir Alam collects such
commission on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal who is an associate of
Sanjeev Kumar Lal. During investigation, it was found that Sanjeev Kumar
Lal resides at Booty Road, Ranchi which is a government accommodation.
During analysis of the seized mobile phone of Veerendra Kumar Ram,
contact details of Sanjeev Kumar Lal was found as 'Sanjeev Lal PA of RDD
Minister' and two mobile nos. (9939121851 and 8789745592) are saved in
the said contact's name. Further, SDR, CAF and CDR of the aforesaid
mobile nos, were sought and it was revealed that the mobile no. 9939121851
is in the name of Sanjeev Kumar Lal himself. However, another mobile no.
8789745592 was found to be in the name of Jahangir Alam, S/o- Ekramul
Haque. Thus, it became evident that Jahangir Alam is a close associate of
Sanjeev Kumar Lal and the Jahangir acts as a close trusted aid of Sanjeev
Kumar Lal. Further, analysis of the CDR and tower location of both mobile
nos. was also made and it was found that they live in very close proximity to
the government accommodation and it was found during search that they
were residing in the same government residence. Further, it was gathered
that there is a flat in the name of Jahangir Alam which was used by Sanjeev
Kumar Lal for secreting the proceeds of crime. It was also gathered that the
wife of Sanjeev Lal @ Sanjeev Kumar Lal is involved in businesses related to
construction and is a director/partner/shareholder in an entity with one
builder Munna Singh. It was learnt that the proceeds of crime in the form of
2025:JHHC:23713
cash acquired by the officials/officers of the Rural Development Department
are deposited to a builder on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
Therefore, on the basis of reasons to believe, search u/s 17 of PMLA, 2002
was conducted at seven premises on 06.05.2024.
7.4.As a result of the search, huge cash to the tune of Rs 32.20 crores was
recovered and seized on 06/07.05.2024 from the premises of Jahangir Alam
i.e. Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi.
.....
Further, huge cash amount to the tune of Rs. 2.93 Crore have been recovered
and seized on 06.05.2024 from the premises of Munna Singh i.e. Flat No. 1A
Kashmiri Gali, PP Compound, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
7.5 On the basis of statement recorded of Munna Singh wherein he stated
that he used to collect such cash from the engineers/contractors on the
instruction of Sanjeev Lal, searches were also conducted at the residences of
these engineers viz. Rajiv Kumar, Santosh Kumar, Rajkumar Toppo, Ajay
Tirkey & Amit Kumar on 07.05.2024.
7.6 Further, as a result of the search on 07.05.2024 at the Residential
premises of Rajeev Kumar Singh i.e. E-4, Mecon Vatika, Kalyanpur Hatiya,
Ranchi Jharkhand-834003, a huge cash amount to the tune of Rs. 2.13 Crore
have been recovered and seized.
7.7 Apart from the above, as a result of the search other cash amounts that
were recovered and seized on different dates from the other premises.
........
In this way, Cash totalling to Rs. 37.55 Crores Approx. has been
recovered and seized from the various premises searched u/s 17 of the
PMLA,2002 on 06th, 07th and 08th of May 2024.
7.8 Apart from the above cash amounts several digital devices, incriminating
documents and records were found and seized from the aforesaid premises
during the course of searches on 06.05.2024, 07.05.2024, 08.05.2024,
10.05.2024 & 24.05.2024 under section 17 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002........."
54.This Court has also gone through the averments made in the
prosecution complaint regarding modus operandi of generation of
'proceeds of crime', wherein it has been stated that total 18 searches was
conducted u/s 17 of PMLA in Ranchi, at the premises of Sanjeev Kumar
Lal, Jahangir Alam, some Engineers and other persons on different dates.
2025:JHHC:23713
As a result of search, huge amount of cash to the tune of Rs. 37.55 Crore,
digital devices, records and various incriminating documents were
recovered which gave details with regard to the various individuals
involved in the process of generation and distribution of proceeds of
crime.
55. Further, statement of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD,
JSRRDA and RDSD were recorded u/s 50 of PML Act, 2002 wherein
they have inter alia stated that commission is collected by the
engineers/officials from contractors/companies/firms against tender
allocation in the RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD departments. The
commission of 3% of the total amount mentioned in LOA (Letter of
Acceptance) is fixed for tender allotment, the distribution of which
among the Minister, bureaucrats, engineers and other officials is
distributed as -(a) 1.35%- Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS
Sanjeev Kumar Lal; (b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other
engineers/officials.
56.They also stated that the collection of commission for minister,
Alamgir Alam, has been done by Sanjeev Kumar Lal through his
person/agent and for other persons the commission has been collected by
Chief Engineer, JSRRDA himself and, through his selected persons. For
ready reference, the relevant portion of paragraph 8 is being quoted as
under:
"8. GENERATION OF PROCEEDS OF CRIME
8.1 A total of 18 searches were conducted u/s 17 of PMLA in Ranchi, at the
premises of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, Jahangir Alam, some Engineers and other
persons on different dates. As a result of the search huge amount of cash to
the tune of Rs. 37.55 Crore, digital devices, records and various incriminating
2025:JHHC:23713
documents were recovered which gave details with regard to the various
individuals involved in the process of generation and distribution of proceeds of
crime.
8.2 Sanjeev Kumar Lal during his ED Custody interrogation also stated that
the commission in the range of 3 to 4 % of the total tender amount is collected
in cash by the Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers of the respective
departments. He further stated that he used to collect the share of 1.35 % of
minister Alamgir Alam on his behalf from Asst. Engineers/Executive
Engineers via Chief Engineers. He further stated that first of all, the Asst.
Engineers/Executive Engineers used to inform him regarding handing over the
share of Alamgir Alam and they requested Sanjeev Kumar Lal to send some
person to collect cash i.e. commission.
Thereafter, Sanjeev Kumar Lal used to instruct Munna Singh who was his
close friend, and/or his brother (Santosh Kumar) to collect cash from the said
engineers. Sanjeev Kumar Lal further instructed Jahangir Alam to stand near
Abhinandan Marriage hall, near Rani Hospital and Deendayal Nagar, Ranchi
with his Aprilia scooter bearing Registration No. JH01ES8402, where Rinku
alias Santosh Kumar (brother of Munna Singh) handed over bags filled with
currency/note bundles, and after receiving those bags, he used to park the said
bags beneath bed and almirah at his Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency,
Kumhartoli, Ranchi safely. Thus, it is ascertained that Sanjeev Kumar Lal takes
care of the collection of commission on behalf of Minister Alamgir Alam.
8.3 Statements of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and
RDSD were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 wherein they have inter alia stated
that commission is collected by the engineers/officials from
contractors/companies/firms against tender allocation in the RWD, JSRRDA
and RDSD departments. The commission of 3% of the total amount mentioned
in LOA (Letter of Acceptance) is fixed for tender allotment, the distribution of
which among the Minister, bureaucrats, engineers and other officials is
distributed as under:
(a) 1.35%- Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal)
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials
They also stated that the collection of commission for minister Alamgir Alam
has been done by Sanjeev Kumar Lal through his person/agent and for other
persons the commission has been collected by Chief Engineer, JSRRDA himself
and, through his selected persons.
8.4 Further, From the statements of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and aforesaid Chief
Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD the modus operandi of
2025:JHHC:23713
allocation of Tenders and collection of commission against the tenders has
surfaced which is detailed as under:
(i) The modus operandi regarding collection of commission against allotment
tenders starts with the floating of tenders by RWD, RDSD and JSRRDA for the
construction of roads, bridges and other government buildings in Jharkhand.
Firstly, the Government takes decision to construct road/bridge, the
Detailed Project Report (DPR) is prepared by Executive Engineer. Thereafter,
the technical sanction is approved by the competent Authority i.e. up to 1.00
Crore by Superintendent Engineer and more than 01.00 Crore by Chief
Engineer. After that sanctioned estimate is sent to the Department/Secretary
and processed by the Department for Administrative Approval (AA) duly
approved by the Hon'ble Minister of the department. Once the Administrative
Approval (AA) sanction letter is issued by the Secretary, it is sent to Chief
Engineer for Tender Process.
Further, Apart from huge cash as mentioned above, several documents
including letters on official letterheads were found from the said premise of
Jahangir Alam, which were kept there on the instructions of, and under the
possession of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, as PS to Alamgir Alam RDD minister, which
clearly establishes that Sanjeev Kumar Lal was using the said premise of
Jahangir Alam as a safe house for keeping cash, documents/records and other
belongings related to Minister Alamgir Alam and himself.
........
.......
8.15 Further, Apart from huge cash as mentioned above, several documents
including letters on official letterheads were found from the said premise of
Jahangir Alam, which were kept there on the instructions of, and under the
possession of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, as PS to Alamgir Alam RDD minister, which
clearly establishes that Sanjeev Kumar Lal was using the said premise of
Jahangir Alam as a safe house for keeping cash, documents/records and other
belongings related to Minister Alamgir Alam and himself......
8.16.That, several documents and records pertaining to Sanjeev Kumar Lal
were seized from the said premise of Jahangir Alam including several torn
pages of a few diaries and notes. When these torn pages of diaries were
confronted with Sanjeev Kumar Lal, he in his statements recorded u/s 50 of
PMLA, 2002 has inter alia stated that these torn pages and notes contain the
calculations (Hisab Kitab) of cash/commission collected against the allocation
of tenders of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD........."
2025:JHHC:23713
57.In order to prove the allegation, statements of several persons were
recorded under the provisions of PML Act, 2002 the gist of the
statements is quoted as under:
"10. BRIEF DETAILS OF PERSONS EXAMINED UNDER SECTION 17
AND 50 OF PMLA, 2002.
During the course of the search and investigation, statements of several
persons were recorded under the provisions of PMLA, the gist of the
statements relevant to this investigation is as under:
10.1. Veerendra Kumar Ram: Veerendra Kumar Ram is a chief engineer in
Rural Department Special Zone and also in additional charge of Rural Works
Department. In his statement recorded u/s 50 of PMLA during custodial
interrogation and in judicial custody on different dates wherein he inter alia
accepted that commission was taken in lieu of allotment of tenders and that
the total commission was 3.2% of tender value and that his share of
commission was 0.3% of the total tender amount which varies from 0.3% to
1%. The share of Minister Alamgir Alam is around 1.5% of the allocated
tender amount. He further stated that the whole process of collection and
distribution of commission was taken care of by the assistant engineers posted
at Rural Development Special Zone and Rural Works Department. He further
stated that Rs. 3 crores were given to Alamgir Alam by engineers of Rural
Works Department through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal in September 2022.
During analysis of the seized mobile phone of Veerendra Kumar Ram,
contact details of Sanjeev Lal was found as 'Sanjeev Lal PA of RDD
Minister' and two mobile nos. (9939121851 and 8789745592) are saved in
the-said-contact's name.
10.3. Sanjeev Kumar Lal: He is PS to minister Alamgir Alam. He was
arrested on 07.05.2024 and during his ED custodial interrogation u/s 50 of
PMLA, 2002, he showed complete non-cooperation, by not divulging the true
facts about 53 crores initially, which are the Proceeds of Crime acquired by
Alamgir Alam and himself and other seized records and documents.
When he was shown the evidences, he disclosed that he was collecting
the share of Minister Alamgir Alam (1.35%) from the total commission
which is 3% of total tender amount that was collected against the tenders of
RWD, JSRRDA, RDSD, RDSD and RDSZ. He has instructed the Chief-
Engineers and other engineers to collect the commission and give him the
share of Minister Alamgir Alam. He instructed Santosh Kumar, brother of
Munna Singh to collect commission/cash from Chief Engineers and other
2025:JHHC:23713
engineers and hand over the same to Jahangir Alam. He further instructed
Jahangir Alam to collect cash/commission from Santosh Kumar, brother of
Munna Singh and store the same at his (Jahangir Alam's) premises safely. He
further accepted that the cash amount recovered and seized from the premises
of Munna Singh and Rajeev Kumar Singh during the search is also the
commission amount of Alamgir Alam which was yet to be handed over to
Jahangir Alam. He maintained the calculations (Hisab Kitab) of the collected
commission of Alamgir Alam in torn pages of diaries.
He has also taken his share of around Rs. 2.05 Crore from the commission
and invested the same in immovable and movable properties in his name and
in the name of his family members.
Further, Sanjeev Kumar Lal stated u/s 50 of PMLA that Munna Singh and his
brother were not aware that the money they were collected, was the
commission amount against the tenders. They did the same on his instructions.
10.4. Jahangir Alam: He is a close aide of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He was
arrested on 07.05.2024 and during his ED custodial interrogation u/s 50 of
PMLA, 2002, he showed complete non-cooperation, by not divulging the true
facts about Rs. 32.20 crore initially, which are the Proceeds of Crime
acquired by Alamgir Alam and Sanjeev Kumar Lal and other seized records
and documents.
He further stated that the cash amount seized from his said premises
belongs to Sanjeev Kumar Lal, and he collected the aforesaid huge cash
amount i.e. Rs. 32.20 Crore on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He
further stated that about 4 to 5 months ago Sanjeev Kumar Lal instructed him
to stand near Abhinandan Marriage hall, near Rani Hospital and Deendayal
Nagar, Ranchi with his Aprilia scooter bearing, where Rinku alias Santosh
Kumar (brother of Munna Singh) handed over bags filled with currency/note
bundles, and after receiving those bags, he used to park the said bags beneath
bed and almirah at his Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi
safely. He has also taken cash around Rs. 40.40 Lakhs from Sanjeev Kumar
Lal and invested the same in immovable and movable properties in his name
with the help of his friends. With respect to jewellery seized from his premises,
he in his statement recorded in judicial custody, has accepted that the seized
jewellery belongs to him and the said jewellery items was purchased by him in
cash, however, he has no invoice in support of such purchase.
10.5. Reeta Lal: Statements of Reeta Lal W/o Sanjeev Kumar Lal were
recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein she inter alia stated that she is a housewife
and her source of income is agriculture. She has purchased immovable
properties in Khunti, Bariyatu, Kanke Road and Pundag. She further stated
2025:JHHC:23713
that she is a partner in Tejaswini Buildcon with Munna Singh. She transferred
Rs 10 Lakhs on 22.04.2022 to the bank account of Tejaswini Buildcon as an
investment. She further stated that she has invested Rs. 21-22-Lakhs in the
said firm. She further stated that she has received Rs. 9,00,000/- from
TEJASWINI BUILDCON as a partner against her aforesaid investment made
in Tejaswini Buildcon which has been further used for purchase of aforesaid
property. Further, regarding the source of funds for the purchase of the said
property, she stated that it is either a loan taken from various persons or her
agriculture income, but she failed to produce any documents regarding her
aforesaid loans and agriculture income.
58. From the statement so recorded of the accused persons as also of the
Statement of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and
RDSD and witnesses recorded u/s 50 of PML Act, 2002 it is evident that
they all are consistent in their statement that the commission is 3% of total
LOA is for the allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is
distributed in share of 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam through his PS
Sanjeev Kumar Lal and rest 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other
engineers/officials. Further the Jahangir Alam who alleged as close ally of
the present petitioner has categorically stated that the cash amount seized
from his said premises belongs to Sanjeev Kumar Lal, and he collected
the aforesaid huge cash amount i.e. Rs. 32.20 Crore on the instructions of
Sanjeev Kumar Lal (present petitioner).
59. Role of the present petitioner along with his close allied in the
commission of offence of money laundering, in particular, who have been
arrayed as accused in the second supplementary prosecution, as mentioned
at paragraph 15.1 of the prosecution complaint has been made. For ready
reference, the same is quoted as under:
"15.1 Role of the accused persons in the commission of offence of
money laundering.
2025:JHHC:23713
1.Alamgir Alam [Accused No. 11]-
a) Alamgir Alam is Minister of (i) Department of Rural Works (RWD), (ii)
Department of Panchayati Raj and (iii) Department of Rural Development
(RDD). Jharkhand State Rural Road Development Authority (JSRRDA)
and Rural Development Special Division (RDSD) are the part of the
Department of Rural Works (RWD). RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD constructs
the roads and bridges in the state of Jharkhand, for which tenders are
floated by these departments, against which 3% commission has been
collected. He being the minister of these departments, is all in all and at
the top echelon in the syndicate of commission collection.
b) He has pressurised and compelled the Chief Engineer under his
portfolio to collect commission and give him his share through his PS
Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
c) He has instructed Sanjeev Kumar Lal to collect his 1.35% share in
total commission which is 3% of total tender value(Discussed in detail in
Para 8.2 88.3).
d) Accordingly, Sanjeev Kumar Lal has instructed departmental
engineers to hand over the commission part of Alamgir Alam to Munna
Singh and/or his brother Santosh Kumar alias Rinku Singh. Further
Munna Singh has stated that he has collected a total of Rs. 53 crores of
commission from such engineers/contractors and handed over Rs.50
crores approx. to Sanjeev Lal through Jahangir Alam. Thus, the same
amount of PoC was acquired by Alamgir Alam through Sanjeev Kumar
Lal, out of this Rs.53 crores, an amount of Rs.35 crores approx. was
seized during the search proceedings.
e) Further, it is ascertained from the statement of Veerendra Kumar Ram
and Sanjeev Kumar Lal that Alamgir Alam also acquired a commission
amount of Rs. 3 crores from Veerendra Kumar Ram through one engineer
of the department and same transaction was also assisted by Sanjeev
Kumar Lal in September 2022.
f) Thus, Alamgir Alam is found to be directly indulged and actually
involved in possession and concealment of atleast Rs 35 crores of the
Proceeds of Crime through Sanjeev Kumar Lal and he has also found to
be directly indulged and actually involved in acquisition and concealment
of atleast Rs. 56 crores of the Proceeds of Crime.
2.Sanjeev Kumar Lal (Accused No.-12):
a) He is the PS to Minister Alamgir Alam, and he has misused his official
position for collection of commission on behalf of Minister Alamgir Alam.
2025:JHHC:23713
b) He has pressurised, threatened and instructed the Chief-Engineers and
other engineers to collect commission and give him the share of Minister
Alamgir Alam.
c) He is the person who is controlling whole syndicate of collection of
commission against tenders from top to bottom on behalf of Minister
Alamgir Alam.
d) He instructed Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh to collect
commission/cash from Chief Engineers and other engineers and hand over
the same to Jahangir Alam.
e) He instructed Jahangir Alam to collect cash/commission from Santosh
Kumar, brother of Munna Singh and store the same at his (Jahangir
Alam's) premises safely.
f) He has taken his share of around Rs. 2.05 Crore from the commission
and integrated the proceeds of crime in immovable and movable
properties in his name and in the name of his family members and
associates. He has purchased immovable properties, plot alongwith
building at Bariyatu, which was also renovated by him and plot at
Pundag, Ranchi in the name of his wife using proceeds of crime. He has
also found to be involved in using PoC more than Rs 2.05 crores, for
purchasing immovable properties in the name of himself, his wife and his
close aid Jahangir Alam. Hence, Sanjeev Kumar Lal is directly enjoying
the proceeds of crime by its concealment, possession, utilisation and
acquisition.
g) Sanjeev Kumar Lal is the mastermind and has played vital role in this
syndicate/organized structure of illegal collection of proceeds of crime.
h) He is found to be directly indulged and actually involved and knowingly
assisted Alamgir Alam in acquisition, possession and concealment of the
Proceeds of Crime at least to the tune of Rs. 56 crores.
i) He is also found to be directly indulged and actually involved in the
acquisition and concealment of PoC at least to the tune of Rs. 2.05 crores
and claimed the proceeds of crime as untainted.
j) He has also found to be directly indulged and actually involved in using
Proceeds of crime in at least 4 (four) immovable properties which he
acquired in his own name, in name of his wife and his close aide Jahangir
Alam and same four properties have been attached u/s 5(1) of the PMLA,
2002 and also being prayed for confiscation.
3. Jahangir Alam (Accused No.-13)
(a) Jahangir Alam is close associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, and has
collected commission on behest of Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
2025:JHHC:23713
(b) Following the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, he has collected
cash/commission from Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh.
(c) He has played vital role in collection of cash/commission and
concealment of the proceeds of crime clandestinely at his premises.
(d) He has also taken cash around Rs. 40.40 Lakhs from Sanjeev Kumar
Lal which is commission amount against tenders i.e. Proceeds of Crime
and invested the same in immovable and movable properties in his name.
He has purchased immovable properties, flat at Sir Syed Residency and
plot at Pundag, Ranchi.
(e) Jahangir Alam is the key person who has facilitated the movement and
hiding of cash/commission i.e. Proceeds of Crime.
(f) He is found to be directly indulged, actually involved and knowingly
assisted Sanjeev Kumar Lal in acquisition, possession and concealment of
the Proceeds of Crime at least to the tune of Rs. 50 crores approx. and
jewellery worth Rs 14.50 lakhs approx.
(g) He is found to be directly indulged and actually involved and
knowingly assisted Sanjeev Kumar Lal in utilisation, possession and
concealment of Proceeds of Crime to the tune of Rs. 1,10,25,000/- for
purchasing two immovable properties in his own name and claimed the
proceeds of crime as untainted, which were attached u/s 5(1) of the
PMLA, 2002 and also being prayed for confiscation vide this PC.
(h) Jahangir Alam has also found to be actually involved and knowingly
assisted Sanjeev Kumar Lal in utilising Proceeds of crime in purchasing
one vehicle viz. Tata Harrier having Reg. No. JH01DK-7459 which was
seized u/s 17(1-A) of the Act, same vehicle was also used for
commissioning of an offence under the Act, and also being prayed for
confiscation.
60. Thus, Investigation revealed that Rs. 3 crores were given to Alamgir
Alam by engineers of the Rural Works Department through his PS
Sanjeev Kumar Lal in September 2022. Further, it has come in the
statement of the aforesaid accused that the amount of commission on
behalf of Alamgir Alam was getting collected by Sanjeev Kumar Lal
(Personal Secretary of petitioner Alamgir Alam) and a person named
Jahangir Alam who is an associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal collected such
commission on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
2025:JHHC:23713
61. It has further come on record that analysis of the seized mobile phone
of Veerendra Kumar Ram, contact details of Sanjeev Kumar Lal was
found as 'Sanjeev Lal PA of RDD Minister'. It is evident from the
aforesaid complaint that huge cash to the tune of Rs 32.20 crores was
recovered and seized on 06/07.05.2024 from the premises of Jahangir
Alam i.e. Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi.
62. It has further come on record that a total of 18 searches were
conducted u/s 17 of the PML Act, 2002, in Ranchi, at the premises of
Sanjeev Kumar Lal, Jahangir Alam, some Engineers and other persons on
different dates. As a result of the search huge amount of cash to the tune
of Rs. 37.55 Crore, digital devices, records and various incriminating
documents and records were recovered which gave details with regard to
the various individuals involved in the process of generation and
distribution of proceeds of crime.
63. Sanjeev Kumar Lal (present petitioner) during his ED Custody
interrogation also stated that the commission in the range of 3 to 4 % of
the total tender amount is collected in cash by the Asst.
Engineers/Executive Engineers of the respective departments. He further
stated that he used to collect the share of 1.35 % of minister Alamgir
Alam on his behalf from Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers via Chief
Engineers.
64. It has also come on record that Statements of various Chief
Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD were recorded u/s 50
of PML Act, 2002 wherein they have inter alia stated that commission is
collected by the engineers/officials from contractors/companies/firms
2025:JHHC:23713
against tender allocation in the RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD departments.
The commission of 3% of the total amount mentioned in LOA (Letter of
Acceptance) is fixed for tender allotment, the distribution of which among
the Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal (present
petitioner) was 1.35%.
65. Thus, from the complaint it appears that apart from huge cash as
mentioned above, several documents including letters on official
letterheads were found from the premise of Jahangir Alam, which were
kept there on the instructions of, Sanjeev Kumar Lal, as PS to Alamgir
Alam RDD minister, which indicates that Sanjeev Kumar Lal was using
the said premise of Jahangir Alam as a safe house for keeping cash,
documents/records and other belongings.
66. At this juncture it needs to refer herein that it is settled connotation of
law that at the stage of considering bail, the duty of the Court is not to
weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of
broad probabilities and Court should not venture into the merit of the case
by analyzing that whether conviction is possible or not. Meaning thereby
at this stage the Court has to see the prima facie case only.
67. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon v. Directorate
of Enforcement (supra) while referring the ratio of Ranjitsing
Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC
294 has categorically held that the Court ought to maintain a delicate
balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order
granting bail much before commencement of trial. The duty of the Court
2025:JHHC:23713
at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a
finding on the basis of broad probabilities.
68. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors(supra) has reiterated
the same view and has observed that the Court while dealing with the
application for grant of bail need not to delve deep into the merits of the
case and only a view of the court based on available material on record is
required. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as
under:
303. We are in agreement with the observation made by the Court
in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma [Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing
Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1057]
. The Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail need not
delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the court based on
available material on record is required. The court will not weigh the
evidence to find the guilt of the accused which is, of course, the work of the
trial court. The court is only required to place its view based on probability
on the basis of reasonable material collected during investigation and the
said view will not be taken into consideration by the trial court in recording
its finding of the guilt or acquittal during trial which is based on the
evidence adduced during the trial. As explained by this Court
in Nimmagadda Prasad [Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 :
(2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 575] , the words used in Section 45 of the 2002 Act are
"reasonable grounds for believing" which means the court has to see only if
there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not
required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
69. Further on perusal of the Paragraphs- 8.16, 8.18, 8.19, 8.20 & 8.26 of
the prosecution complaint where the images of the hand written notes etc.
have been mentioned/displayed, which depicts that the accounting of the
collections and distributions of the commission were being maintained in
the diaries or note books seized by the agency from the locations related
2025:JHHC:23713
to the Personal secretary of the present petitioner, where the code name
the petitioner with his specific share in that commission is also mentioned.
Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that prosecuting agency has arrested
the present petitioner not only on basis of the statement of the persons
recorded u/s 50 PML Act, 2002 rather there is other evidence also
available on record.
70. Thus, prima-facie on the basis of the material available in prosecution
complaint the role of the present petitioner in the alleged money
laundering cannot be negated.
71. So far, the issue of non-availability of money trail as raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned it has come on the record
that a huge cash of Rs.32.20 crore was recovered and seized from the
premises of Jahangir Alam an associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal who was
personal Secretary to the Minister, i.e., the petitioner herein. It is also
pertinent to note that several incriminating notes and pages of diaries were
also found during search and seizure which was maintained by Sanjeev
Kumar Lal (present petitioner) recording the share of the minister Alamgir
Alam from the total commission collected from the tenders. It has come in
the investigation that Sanjeev Kumar Lal, the personal Secretary to the
Minister/applicant, has admitted the contents of seized pages and the fact
that he was collecting commission on behalf of the applicant/minister as
recorded in the 'Hisab-Kitab' seized by ED corroborates the factum of
recovery.
72. Thus, this Court is of prima facie view that the contention of the
petitioner that the prosecution has failed to establish the entire money
2025:JHHC:23713
trail, is without any factual basis and moreover section 3 of PML Act,
2002 nowhere requires the entire money trail or where the money
eventually went.
73. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement) (2023) 4 SCC 357 observed
as follows:
"19. The word "money-laundering" is defined in Section 2(1)(p) of the Act to
have the same meaning as assigned to it in Section 3. Section 3 of the Act
makes a person guilty of the offence of money laundering, if he (1) directly
or indirectly attempts to indulge, or (n) knowingly assists or, (im) knowingly
is a party, or (iv) is actually involved in any process or activity. Such
process or activity should be connected to "proceeds of crime " including its
concealment or possession or acquisition or use. In addition, a person
involved in such process or activity connected to proceeds of crime, should
be projecting or claiming it as untainted property. The Explanation under
Section 3 makes it clear that even if the involvement is in one or more of the
following activities or processes, namely: (i) concealment; (ii) possession;
(im) acquisition; (iv) use; (o) projecting it as untainted property, or (vi)
claiming it as untainted property, the offence of money-laundering will be
made out.
20. Thus, Section 3 comprises of two essential limbs, namely: (i)
involvement in any process or activity, and (ii) connection of such process
or activity to the proceeds of crime. The expression "proceeds of crime" is
defined in Section 2(1)(u) to mean 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 or where such property
is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value
held within the country or abroad."
74. In the light of the aforesaid statutory definitions, it can safely be
inferred that it is enough if the prosecution establishes that there was
generation of proceeds of crime and the accused was involved in any
process or activity in connection with the proceeds of crime. Therefore, it
is considered view of this Court that since concealment of the proceeds of
2025:JHHC:23713
crime is itself an offence it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish
the money trail.
75. Further, in view of above, prima facie it appears that there is direct
complicity of the petitioner in collecting money for giving a share of the
said amount to the co-accused-Alamgir Alam which has come in evidence
in the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act and the diary
making reference of the said fact showing the complicity of the present
petitioner in collecting commission in lieu of tender.
76. So far, the contention as raised by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the 'reason to believe' has not been furnished to the
petitioner is concerned, it has been argued that the judgment in the case of
Arvind Kejriwal(supra) was pronounced on 12.07.2024 while the present
petitioner has been taken into custody on 07.05.2024 hence whatever has
been laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arvind Kejriwal
will have no retrospective application.
77. The learned counsel for ED in order to buttress his argument has
relied upon the judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of
Arvind Dham vs. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLIne Del 8490], in
which, the Delhi High Court has taken into consideration the aforesaid
fact and on the principle of retrospectively the judgment passed by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arvind Kejriwal(supra) has not been
followed.
78. It has been contended that the said order passed by the Delhi High
Court has been questioned before the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing
SLP(Cr.) No. 017357 of 2024 and the order passed by the Delhi High
2025:JHHC:23713
Court in Arvind Dham (supra) has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
79. It needs to refer herein that from the record it is evident that during the
arrest of the petitioner the directions of the Hon'ble Court given in the
cases of Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India 2023 SCC Online SC 1244
and Ram Kishore Arora vs Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC
Online SC 1682 have been fully complied as the grounds mentioned
explicitly in a separate memo handed over to the petitioner in writing
before his arrest u/s 19 of PML Act, 2002.
80. Argument has been advanced by referring to provision of Section 22
of the PML Act, 2002 wherein it has been provided of presumption as to
records or property in certain cases, in which it is provided that where any
records or property are or is found in the possession or control of any
person in the course of a survey or a search, [or where any record or
property is produced by any person or has been resumed or seized from
the custody or control of any person or has been frozen under this Act or
under any other law for the time being in force, it shall be presumed that
(i) such records or property belong or belongs to such person;(ii) the
contents of such records are true; and (iii) the signature and every other
part of such records which purport to be in the handwriting of any
particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been
signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that
persons' handwriting, and in the case of a record, stamped, executed or
attested, that it was executed or attested by the person by whom it purports
to have been so stamped, executed or attested.
2025:JHHC:23713
81. From perusal of section 22 of the PML Act, 2002 it is evident that if
any books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewellery, or other
valuable article or thing are found in possession or control of any person
during a search under this Act, then it may be presumed that such items
belong to such person and the contents of the books or documents are true,
and the signature and handwriting in such documents are of the person to
whom they are attributed.
82. Hence, it appears that the petitioner is directly indulged 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, as defined u/s 3 of PML Act,
2002.
83. Further, the role of the petitioner in the laundering of proceeds of
crime generated out of the commission of scheduled offence has been
discussed in detail in the prosecution complaint and supplementary
prosecution complaint as well as the paragraphs abovementioned.
84. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is
not the named accused in the first FIR and as such his culpability in
alleged crime cannot be fully established.
85. In this context it is pertinent to mention here that the provisions of the
PML Act, 2002 is an independent offence and the investigation conducted
by the Enforcement Directorate under the PML Act, 2002 is triggered
after committing, the commission of a scheduled offence, out of which
proceeds have been generated. During the investigation, there is the active
involvement of the petitioner in the layering, transfer and use as well as
2025:JHHC:23713
the petitioner entering into transactions to launder the proceeds of crime
generated out of such scheduled offence.
86. Thus, prima-facie, it appears that the petitioner has involved himself
in accumulating proceeds of crime and the aforesaid plea of the learned
counsel for the petitioner doesn't hold water. Further the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Pavna Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal
No. 2779/2023) held that the who could commit an offence under the
PML Act, 2002 maybe not be named in the scheduled offence.
87. Further the offence of money laundering as contemplated in Section 3
of the PML Act, 2002 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 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. Not even in case of existence of undisclosed income and
irrespective of its volume, the definition of "Proceeds of Crime" under
Section 2(1)(u) will get attracted, unless the property has been derived or
obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence.
The property must qualify the definition of "Proceeds of Crime" under
Section 2(1)(u) of the Act. As observed, in all or whole of the crime
2025:JHHC:23713
property linked to scheduled offence need not be regarded as proceeds of
crime, but all properties qualifying the definition of "Proceeds of Crime"
under Section 2(1)(u) will necessarily be the crime properties.
88. 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.
89. Based upon the definition Clause (u) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of
the PML 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 PML Act, 2002 defines "property" to mean any property or
assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or
immovable, tangible or intangible.
90. 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.
91. 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
2025:JHHC:23713
the finding has been given therein that on plain reading of Section 3 of the
PML 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 PML Act, 2002. Therefore,
it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3
of the PML Act, 2002 is alleged must have been shown as the accused in
the scheduled offence. For ready reference relevant paragraphs are being
quoted as under:
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
2025:JHHC:23713
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 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.
2025:JHHC:23713
Thus understood, inclusion of clause (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..
92. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the respondent
ED has placed heavy reliance on the statements of witnesses and the
documents produced by them under Section 50 of the said Act, to prima
facie show the involvement of petitioner in the alleged offence of money
laundering under Section 3 thereof.
93. The three Judge Bench the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit
Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) held that the statements
of witnesses recorded by Prosecution - ED are admissible in evidence in
view of Section 50. Such statements may make out a formidable case
about the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence of
2025:JHHC:23713
money laundering. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being
quoted as under:
31. Suffice it to observe that the appellant has not succeeded in persuading us
about the inapplicability of the threshold stipulation under Section 45 of the
Act. In the facts of the present case, we are in agreement with the view taken by
the Sessions Court and by the High Court. We have independently examined
the materials relied upon by the prosecution and also noted the inexplicable
silence or reluctance of the appellant in disclosing the source from where such
huge value of demonetised currency and also new currency has been acquired
by him. The prosecution is relying on statements of 26 witnesses/accused
already recorded, out of which 7 were considered by the Delhi High Court.
These statements are admissible in evidence, in view of Section 50 of the 2002
Act. The same makes out a formidable case about the involvement of the
appellant in commission of a serious offence of money laundering. It is,
therefore, not possible for us to record satisfaction that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that the appellant is not guilty of such offence. Further,
the courts below have justly adverted to the antecedents of the appellant for
considering the prayer for bail and concluded that it is not possible to hold that
the appellant is not likely to commit any offence ascribable to the 2002 Act
while on bail. Since the threshold stipulation predicated in Section 45 has not
been overcome, the question of considering the efficacy of other points urged
by the appellant to persuade the Court to favour the appellant with the relief of
regular bail will be of no avail. In other words, the fact that the investigation in
the predicate offence instituted in terms of FIR No. 205/2016 or that the
investigation qua the appellant in the complaint CC No. 700 of 2017 is
completed; and that the proceeds of crime are already in possession of the
investigating agency and provisional attachment order in relation thereto
passed on 13-2-2017 has been confirmed; or that charge-sheet has been filed
in FIR No. 205/2016 against the appellant without his arrest; that the
appellant has been lodged in judicial custody since 2-1-2017 and has not been
interrogated or examined by the Enforcement Directorate thereafter; all these
will be of no consequence.
94. In a recent judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Abhishek
Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement", (2024) 9 SCC 22 has
again made similar observations:
2025:JHHC:23713
"21. ...Section 160 which falls under Ch. XII empowers the police officer
making an investigation under the said chapter to require any person to attend
within the limits of his own or adjoining station who, from the information
given or otherwise appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances
of the case, whereas, the process envisaged by Section 50 PMLA is in the
nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not "investigation" in
strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution; and the authorities referred
to in Section 48 PMLA are not the police officers as held in Vijay Madanlal
[Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] .
22. It has been specifically laid down in the said decision that the statements
recorded by the authorities under Section 50 PMLA are not hit by Article
20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution, rather such statements recorded by the
authority in the course of inquiry are deemed to be the judicial proceedings in
terms of Section 50(4), and are admissible in evidence, whereas the statements
made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under
Ch. XII of the Code could not be used for any purpose, except for the purpose
stated in the proviso to Section 162 of the Code. In view of such glaring
inconsistencies between Section 50 PMLA and Sections 160/161CrPC, the
provisions of Section 50 PMLA would prevail in terms of Section 71 read
with Section 65 thereof."
95. In light of the foregoing judicial pronouncements, it is evident that
statements recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 hold
evidentiary value and are admissible in legal proceedings. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court, while emphasizing the legal sanctity of such statements,
observed that they constitute valid material upon which reliance can be
placed to sustain allegations under the PML Act, 2002.
96. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also reaffirmed
the admissibility of Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 distinguishing them
from statements recorded under the Cr.PC. The Court underscored that
such statements, being recorded during an inquiry rather than an
investigation, are not subject to the restrictions under Article
20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution. Instead, they are deemed to be
2025:JHHC:23713
judicial proceedings under Section 50(4) of the PML Act, 2002 and,
therefore, admissible as evidence in proceedings under the PML Act,
2002. The Hon'ble Apex Court further clarified that the provisions
of Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 having an overriding effect by virtue
of Sections 65 and 71 of the PML Act, 2002 prevail over the procedural
safeguards under the CrPC.
97. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that statements
recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 are admissible in
evidence and can be relied upon to establish culpability in money
laundering cases.
98. In the instant case, it has been found that during the course of
investigation statement so recorded of the accused persons as also of the
statement of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and
RDSD and the witnesses were recorded u/s 50 of PML Act, 2002, who all
are consistent in their statement that the commission is 3% of total LOA,
for the allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is
distributed in share of 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam through his PS
Sanjeev Kumar Lal and rest 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other
engineers/officials.
99. Thus, the petitioner 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.
100. Having examined the admissibility of statements recorded
under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002, this Court shall now proceed to
2025:JHHC:23713
analyze the statutory framework governing the burden of proof under
Section 24 in proceedings related to proceeds of crime.
"24. Burden of proof. --In any proceeding relating to proceeds of crime under
this Act, -- (a) in the case of a person charged with the offence of money-
laundering under section 3, the Authority or Court shall, unless the contrary is
proved, presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-
laundering; and
(b) in the case of any other person the Authority or Court, may presume that
such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering."
101. From the bare perusal of Section 24 of the PML Act, 2002, it is
evident that once a person is charged with the offence of money
laundering under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002, the law presumes that
the proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering unless the
contrary is proven by the accused.
102. In the present case, the investigating agency has relied not only
on the statement of co-accused under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002
but also other evidences which indicate the applicant's active role in the
alleged money laundering activities.
103. By virtue of Section 24 of the PML Act, 2002, the respondent
ED is not required to conclusively establish the applicant's guilt at the pre-
trial stage, rather, the applicant must demonstrate that the proceeds of
crime attributed to him are not linked to money laundering. In the absence
of any rebuttal by the applicant, the presumption under Section 24 of the
PML Act, 2002 stands in favor of the respondent, thereby, justifying his
continued detention.
104. With regard to the above, this Court has referred to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Prakash v. Union of
2025:JHHC:23713
India through Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) 9 SCC 787, wherein,
the following observations were made:
"18.In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of
India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] dealing with Section 24 PMLA, the three-Judge Bench
held as under : (SCC pp. 229-31, paras 237 & 239-40)
"237. Be that as it may, we may now proceed to decipher the purport of Section
24 of the 2002 Act. In the first place, it must be noticed that the legal
presumption in either case is about the involvement of proceeds of crime in
money-laundering. This fact becomes relevant, only if, the prosecution or the
authorities have succeeded in establishing at least three basic or foundational
facts. First, that the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence has been
committed. Second, that the property in question has been derived or obtained,
directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of that criminal activity. Third,
the person concerned is, directly or indirectly, involved in any process or
activity connected with the said property being proceeds of crime. On
establishing the fact that there existed proceeds of crime and the person
concerned was involved in any process or activity connected therewith, itself,
constitutes offence of money-laundering. The nature of process or activity has
now been elaborated in the form of Explanation inserted vide Finance (No. 2)
Act, 2019. On establishing these foundational facts in terms of Section 24 of
the 2002 Act, a legal presumption would arise that such proceeds of crime are
involved in money-laundering. The fact that the person concerned had no
causal connection with such proceeds of crime and he is able to disprove the
fact about his involvement in any process or activity connected therewith, by
producing evidence in that regard, the legal presumption would stand rebutted.
105. Be it noted that the legal presumption under Section 24(a) of
the Act 2002, would apply when the person is charged with the offence of
money-laundering and his direct or indirect involvement in any process or
activity connected with the proceeds of crime, is established. The
existence of proceeds of crime is, therefore, a foundational fact, to be
established by the prosecution, including the involvement of the person in
any process or activity connected therewith. Once these foundational facts
are established by the prosecution, the onus must then shift on the person
2025:JHHC:23713
facing charge of offence of money- laundering to rebut the legal
presumption that the proceeds of crime are not involved in money-
laundering, by producing evidence which is within his personal
knowledge of the accused.
106. In other words, the expression "presume" is not conclusive. It
also does not follow that the legal presumption that the proceeds of crime
are involved in money-laundering is to be invoked by the authority or the
court, without providing an opportunity to the person to rebut the same by
leading evidence within his personal knowledge.
107. Such onus also flows from the purport of Section 106 of the
Evidence Act. Whereby, he must rebut the legal presumption in the
manner he chooses to do and as is permissible in law, including by
replying under Section 313 of the 1973 Code or even by cross-examining
prosecution witnesses. The person would get enough opportunity in the
proceeding before the authority or the court, as the case may be. He may
be able to discharge his burden by showing that he is not involved in any
process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
108. In the case of "Collector of Customs, Madras & Ors. v. D.
Bhoormall", (1974) 2 SCC 544 proceedings were initiated under Section
167(8)(c) of the Customs Act for confiscation of contraband or smuggled
goods and it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that on the
principle underlying Section 106, Evidence Act, the burden to establish
those facts is cast on the person concerned; and, if he fails to establish or
explain those facts, an adverse inference of facts may arise against him.
2025:JHHC:23713
The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid Judgment is being quoted as
under:
"Since it is exceedingly difficult, if not absolutely impossible, for the
prosecution to prove facts which are especially within the knowledge of the
opponent or the accused, it is not obliged to prove them as part of its primary
burden.
... On the principle underlying Section 106, Evidence Act, the burden to
establish those facts is cast on the person concerned; and, if he fails to
establish or explain those facts, an adverse inference of facts may arise against
him, which coupled with the presumptive evidence adduced by the prosecution
or the Department would rebut the initial presumption of innocence in favour
of that person, and in the result, prove him guilty."
109. Thus, in light of the aforesaid principles and the law enunciated
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (Supra),
this Court must determine whether the foundational facts necessary to
invoke the presumption under Section 24 of the PML Act, 2002 have been
established by the respondent/ED.
110. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the
prosecution must satisfy three essential ingredients. First, the commission
of a scheduled offence must be established. Second, the property in
question must be shown to have been derived or obtained, directly or
indirectly, as a result of such criminal activity and third, the accused must
be linked, directly or indirectly, to any process or activity connected with
the proceeds of crime.
111. Thus, from the entire discussion it is evident that the evidence
collected during investigation by the agency broadly speaks that the co-
accused Veerandra Kumar Ram used to collect commission in terms of
allocation of tender and execution of work and the said commission/fixed
share of 1.35% was distributed among his seniors and politicians and the
2025:JHHC:23713
said commission is also collected by the present petitioner Sanjeev Kumar
Lal, P.S. of the then minister Aalamgir Alam through certain persons. It
has also been submitted that during the investigation, it has been
ascertained that the entire collection and distribution of commission was
taken care of by the assistant engineers posted at the Rural Development
Special Division and Rural Works Department.
112. Further during statement made under Section 50 of PML Act,
2002 and in one of the instances Veerendra Kumar Ram disclosed that
crores of the commission were handed over to the petitioner-Sanjeev
Kumar Lal, Personal Secretary of the co-accused-Alamgir Alam, in
September 2022. It has also come that co-accused-Jahangir Alam was
assisting Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the present petitioner) and was hoarding the
said commission on the instruction of the petitioner and he takes care of
the collection of commission, and Jahangir Alam collected the same at the
instruction of the petitioner, who in turn was doing so on behalf of the co-
accused-Alamgir Alam.
113. Now in the light of aforesaid discussion at this juncture this
Court thinks it fit to revisit the scope of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002.
As discussed in preceding paragraphs that Section 45 of the PML Act,
2002 provides twin test. First 'reason to believe' is to be there for the
purpose of reaching to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case and
second condition is that the accused is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail.
114. Sub-section (1)(ii) of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002,
provides that if the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is
2025:JHHC:23713
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, meaning thereby, the parameter which is to be followed by
the concerned court that satisfaction is required to be there for believing
that such accused person is not guilty of such offence and is not likely to
commit offence while on bail.
115. Section 45(2) of the Act 2002 provides to consider the
limitation for grant of bail which is in addition to the limitation under the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, i.e., limitation which is to be
considered while granting the benefit either in exercise of jurisdiction
conferred to this Court under BNSS 2023 is to be taken into consideration.
116. It is, thus, evident by taking into consideration the provision of
Sections 19(1), 45(1) and 45(2) of PML Act, 2002 that the conditions
provided therein are required to be considered while granting the benefit
of regular bail in exercise of power conferred under statute apart from the
twin conditions which has been provided under Section 45(1) of the Act,
2002.
117. Thus, Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 turns the principle of
bail is the rule and jail is the exception on its head. The power of the
Court to grant bail is further conditioned upon the satisfaction of the twin
conditions prescribed under Section 45(1) (i) and (ii) PML Act, 2002.
While undertaking this exercise, the Court is required to take a prima
facie view on the basis of materials collected during investigation. The
expression used in Section 45 of PML Act, 2002 are "reasonable grounds
for believing" which means that the Court has to find, from a prima facie
2025:JHHC:23713
view of the materials collected during investigation that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed the
offence and that there is no likelihood of him committing an offence
while on bail. Recently, in Tarun Kumar v Assistant Directorate of
Enforcement, (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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 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."
118. This Court, based upon the imputation as has been discovered
in course of investigation, is of the view that what has been argued on
behalf of the petitioner that proceeds cannot be said to be proceeds of
crime is not fit to be acceptable because as would appear from the
preceding paragraphs, money which has been alleged to be obtained by
the co-accused-Alamgir Alam has been routed through his Private
Secretary, Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the present petitioner).
119. If there is a prima facie material to show that the amount has
been received by misusing the position of the co-accused the then cabinet
minister and that by itself will be construed as proceeds of crime and it is
not necessary for the respondent to further establish that such proceeds of
2025:JHHC:23713
crime was projected as untainted money subsequently. This is in view of
the amendment that was made to Section 3 of PML Act, 2002 through
Act 23 of 2019. This position was also made clear by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Directorate of Enforcement.V. Padmanabhan Kishore
reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1490. For ready reference, the relevant
paragraph of the judgment is quoted as under:
"12. The definition of "proceeds of crime" in the PML Act, inter
alia, means any property derived or obtained by any person as a
result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The
offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13 are scheduled
offences, as is evident from Para 8 of Part-A of the Schedule to the
PML Act. Any property thus derived as a result of criminal activity
relating to offence mentioned in said Para 8 of Part-A of the
Schedule would certainly be "proceeds of crime".
14. The said Section 3 states, inter alia, that whoever
knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved
in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime
including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use shall be
guilty of offence of money-laundering (emphasis added by us)."
120. Further, at the stage of recording statements during enquiry, it
cannot be construed as an investigation for prosecution. The process
envisaged under Section 50 of PML Act, 2002 is in the nature of an
inquiry against the proceeds of crime and it is not an investigation and
the authorities who are recording the statements are not police officers
and therefore, these statements can be relied upon as admissible piece of
evidence before the Court. The summons proceedings and recording of
statements under PML Act, 2002 are given the status of judicial
proceedings under Section 50(4) of PML Act, 2002. When such is the
sweep of Section 50 of PML Act, 2002, the statements that have been
2025:JHHC:23713
recorded by the respondent and which have been relied upon in the
complaint must be taken to be an important material implicating the
petitioner. The co-accused or the suspected persons in the predicate
offence cannot automatically be brought within the same status in the
PML Act, 2002 proceedings and it is always left open to the authorities to
deal with them as witnesses.
121. The statements that were recorded from the witnesses during
the investigation have been dealt with in prosecution complaint and many
of the statements clearly implicate the petitioner. Therefore, the
statements that have been recorded from the witnesses and which has
been relied upon, is also a strong material that prima facie establishes the
offence of money laundering against the present petitioner.
122. 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 PML
Act, 2002, is totally misplaced in the light of accusation as mentioned in
prosecution complaint.
123. Further, contention has been raised that a prosecution complaint
against the petitioner has already been filed and, thus, investigation is
complete and therefore, no purpose would be served in keeping the
petitioner in judicial custody.
124. In the aforesaid context, it is settled position of law that the
mere fact that investigation is complete does not necessarily confer a
right on the accused/petitioner to be released on bail.
2025:JHHC:23713
125. In the context of aforesaid contention, it would be relevant to
note here that in the instant case mere completion of the investigation
does not cause material change in circumstances.
126. Further, it is settled proposition of law that the filing of charge-
sheet is not a circumstance that tilts the scales in favour of the accused
for grant of bail and needless to say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in
any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution.
127. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer the decision of
Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of "Virupakshappa Gouda
& Anr. vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.", (2017) 5 SCC 406, wherein, at
paragraph-12, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed which reads as
under:
"12. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find
that he has been swayed by the factum that when a charge-sheet is filed it
amounts to change of circumstance. Needless to say, filing of the charge-
sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution.
On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet establishes that after due
investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed
the charge-sheet for trial of the accused persons."
128. Thus, this Court, after taking note of the settled legal
proposition, is of view that the aforesaid contention is not tenable in the
eye of law.
129. It requires to refer herein that 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'
2025:JHHC:23713
- 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 40
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.
130. The reason for making reference of this judgment is that in the
"Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation 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.
131. 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
2025:JHHC:23713
incarceration (herein about 15 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.
132. At this juncture, the learned counsel for ED has submitted at
Bar that all endeavour will be taken to expedite the trial 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.
133. 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.
134. 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
2025:JHHC:23713
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 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."
135. 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.
136. Admittedly, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since
07.05.2024 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 PML Act, 2002.
137. Similarly, in "Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of
Enforcement", 2024 SCC OnLine SC 317, 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.
138. Thus, given the grave nature of the allegations, the
sophisticated modus operandi employed to project tainted property as
2025:JHHC:23713
untainted, and the strict statutory framework governing bail under the
PML Act, 2002, 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.
On the issue of Parity:
139. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the ground of
parity with respect to co-accused person, namely, Veerendra Kumar Ram
who has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order
dated 18.11.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 4615 of 2024. Likewise,
accused Harish Yadav was already granted bail vide order dated
30.08.2024 in Special Leave petition (Crl.) No. 6174 of 2024. Further,
accused Tara Chand has also been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court vide order dated 25.11.2024 in Cr. Appeal No. 4760 of 2024.
Furthermore, other accused persons, namely, Rajkumari, Genda Ram,
Mukesh Mittal, Neeraj Mittal, Ram Prakash Baitha and Harish Yadav
have also been granted regular bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
140. Now coming to the ground of parity as raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the law is well settled that the principle of
parity is to be applied if the case on fact is exactly similar then only the
principle of parity in the matter of passing order is to be passed but if
there is difference in between the facts then the principle of parity is not
to be applied.
2025:JHHC:23713
141. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot
exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality
of circumstances before granting bail and by only simple saying that
another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to determine
whether a case for grant of bail on the basis of parity has been
established. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs.
Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana & Anr.", (2021) 6 SCC 230, wherein, it
has been held as under:
"25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court
granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and
innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity
of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P.
[Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 :] , this Court has held that
while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its
powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of
circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed : (SCC p. 515, para
17)
"17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that
the second respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of
the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the
second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It
can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and,
therefore, the impugned order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC
OnLine All 16031] clearly exposes the non-application of mind. That apart, as
a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second respondent has
been charge-sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The High
Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the
path of extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount to travesty
of justice, and accordingly we set it aside.
26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in which
the High Court has applied the principle of parity. By its two orders both
dated 21-12-2020 [Pravinbhai Hirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC
OnLine Guj 2986] , [Khetabhai Parbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat,
2025:JHHC:23713
2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-
10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh
Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22-10-2020
[Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj
2985] on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was "assigned
similar role of armed with stick (sic)". Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli
(A-16) on the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the
ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were
armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has evidently
misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while
granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that
another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is
not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of
parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached
to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of
utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a
simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under
the law."
142. The Hon'ble Apex Court in "Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant
Director Directorate of Enforcement" (supra) wherein at paragraph-18,
it has been held that parity is not the law and while applying the
principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached
to the accused whose application is under consideration.
143. This Court, in order to verify the issue of principle of parity,
has gone through the order by which, co-accused have been enlarged on
the bail and found that there is allegation upon the said co-accused
persons that they have worked as a pawn in their individual capacity in
the alleged commission of crime and further the Hon'ble Apex Court
prima-facie has not found their direct involvement in the alleged offence
but herein the petitioner who was personal secretary of the then minister
Aalamgir Aalam has taken the tainted money fixed as percentage or as
'cut' in lieu of the award of contract in the department concerned.
2025:JHHC:23713
144. It is evident from record that the petitioner being the PS to the
then Minister of (i) Department of Rural Works (RWD), (ii) Department
of Panchayati Raj and (iii) Department of Rural Development (RDD).
Jharkhand State Rural Road Development Authority (JSRRDA) and
Rural Development Special Division (RDSD) are part of the Department
of Rural Works (RWD). It has been alleged that the petitioner being the
PS of the then Minister of these departments, was all in all and at the top
echelon in the syndicate of commission collection. The co-accused-
Alamgir Alam compelled the Chief Engineer to collect commission and
give him his share through his Personal Secretary-Sanjeev Kumar Lal
(the petitioner herein).
145. It has been alleged against the petitioner in the counter affidavit
that the petitioner has misused his official position and acquired
proceeds of crime by collecting bribes as a commission/bribe from the
contractors in lieu of allotments of tenders on the influence of the co-
accused-Alamgir Alam, the then Minister of the concerned departments.
Further the present petitioner being public functionary and being a
government servant and holding the post of public responsibility, is
having more accountability being the custodian of the public faith and
money, 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.
146. Further, there is substantial documentary evidence that reveals
the role of the petitioner in detail as already discussed in Supplementary
Prosecution Complaints as above.
2025:JHHC:23713
147. Applying the principle of parity, this Court is of the view as per
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in "Tarun
Kumar" (Supra) that the benefit of parity is to be given if the
facts/involvement of the petitioner is identical to the persons with whom
parity is being claimed but that is not the case herein.
148. This Court, on the basis of the discussion with respect to the
involvement of the petitioner, vis-à-vis, the other co-accused person, is
of the view that the case of the petitioner is quite distinguishable to that
of the case of the co-accused persons, therefore, is of the considered
view that it is not a fit case for applying the principle of parity.
149. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Apex Court in
"P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation" reported in
(2020) 13 SCC 337 has come up with triple test under Section 439 of
Cr.PC, while dealing with cases involving economic offences. The
principles that were summarized in this judgment is extracted hereunder:
"21.The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the
well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of
each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while
considering an application for bail:
(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case
of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the
prosecution;
(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or
apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses;
(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the
time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;
(iv) character, behaviour and standing of the accused and the
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;
(v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other
considerations."
2025:JHHC:23713
150. This Court, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, factual aspect
as also the legal position, is of the prima-facie view that there is no
'reason to believe' by this Court that the petitioner is not involved in
managing the money said to be proceeds of crime.
151. This Court while considering the prayer for regular bail has
taken into consideration that though this Court is not sitting in appeal on
the order passed by learned trial court but only for the purpose of
considering the view which has been taken by learned court while
rejecting the prayer for bail, this Court is also in agreement with the said
view based upon the material surfaced in course of investigation, as
referred hereinabove.
152. This Court is conscious of this fact that while deciding the issue
of granting bail in grave economic offences it is the utmost duty of the
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.
153. Further, it is required to refer herein that the Money Laundering
is an economic offence and economic offences comes under the of grave
offences hence needs to be visited with a different approach in the matter
of bail as held by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of "Y. S Jagan
Mohan Reddy v/s Central Bureau of Investigation", reported in (2013)
7 SCC 439. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid
judgments are being quoted as under:
"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a
different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-
rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed
2025:JHHC:23713
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."
154. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "Nimmagadda
Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation", reported in (2013) 7 SCC
466 has reiterated the same view in paragraphs-23 to 25 which reads as
under:
"23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an
alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the
country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have
serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State
of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [(1987) 2 SCC 364 : 1987 SCC (Cri)
364] this Court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing
additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under: (SCC p. 371, para 5)
"5. ... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin
the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed
in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is
committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on
personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard
for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of
forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer
justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters
which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the
damage done to the national economy and national interest."
24. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of
accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the
punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of
securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of
the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and
other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the
purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words "reasonable
grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court
dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a
genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to
produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at
2025:JHHC:23713
this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a
different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep-
rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be
viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of
the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial
health of the country."
155. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs Santosh Karnani 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:-
"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."
156. It requires to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena
of judgments has held that the economic offences constitute a class apart
and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The
economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge
loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave
offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby
posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
157. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed that with the
advancement of technology and Artificial Intelligence, the economic
2025:JHHC:23713
offences like money laundering have become a real threat to the
functioning of the financial system of the country and have become a
great challenge for the investigating agencies to detect and comprehend
the intricate nature of transactions, as also the role of the persons
involved therein. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Tarun Kumar vs.
Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement" (supra). The relevant
paragraphs of the aforesaid Judgment are being quoted as under:
"22. Lastly, it may be noted that as held in catena of decisions, the economic
offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different
approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted
conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed
seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the
country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of
the country. Undoubtedly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the
development of the country as a whole. To cite a few judgments in this regard
are Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Nimmagadda
Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of
Enforcement (supra), State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai. This
court taking a serious note with regard to the economic offences had observed
as back as in 1987 in case of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal as
under:--
"5... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin
the economy of the State are not brought to books. A murder may be
committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic
offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye
on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A
disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the
cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to
administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from
the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful
of the damage done to the National Economy and National Interest..."
23. With the advancement of technology and Artificial Intelligence, the
economic offences like money laundering have become a real threat to the
2025:JHHC:23713
functioning of the financial system of the country and have become a great
challenge for the investigating agencies to detect and comprehend the
intricate nature of transactions, as also the role of the persons involved
therein. Lot of minute exercise is expected to be undertaken by the
Investigating Agency to see that no innocent person is wrongly booked and that
no culprit escapes from the clutches of the law. When the detention of the
accused is continued by the Court, the courts are also expected to conclude the
trials within a reasonable time, further ensuring the right of speedy trial
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
24. With the afore-stated observations, the appeal is dismissed."
158. This Court, considering the aforesaid material available against
the petitioner in such a grave nature of offence and applying the principle
of grant of bail wherein the principle of having prima facie case is to be
followed, is of the view that it is not a fit case of grant of bail.
159. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has miserably
failed to satisfy this Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that he is not guilty of the alleged offences. On the contrary, there is
sufficient material collected by the respondent-ED to show that he is
prima facie guilty of the alleged offences.
160. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to facts and
circumstances, as have been analyzed hereinabove, since the petitioner
has failed to make out a special case to exercise the power to grant bail
and considering the facts and parameters, necessary to be considered for
adjudication of bail, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail.
161. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a case where
the prayer for bail is to be granted, as such the instant application stands
dismissed.
2025:JHHC:23713
162. It is made clear that any observations made herein are prima-
facie for consideration of matter of bail only and the view expressed
herein shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
163. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter
uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court and shall decide the
case strictly in accordance with law.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Sudhir
Dated: 13/08/2025
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
AFR
