Jharkhand High Court

Imtiaz Ahmad vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 13 August, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                              2025:JHHC:23725




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    B.A. No.3721 of 2025
                              -----

Imtiaz Ahmad, aged about 48 years, son of Abul Barkat Mallick, resident of Manitola, Mashooque Manzil, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand. .... .... Petitioner Versus Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India represented through its Assistant Director.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

-------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, 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 B.N.S.S., 2023 praying for

grant of bail in ECIR Case No.01 of 2023 arising out of

ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 dated 21.10.2022 registered for the

alleged offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4

of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, now

pending in the Court of learned A.J.C.-I-cum-Special

Judge, P.M.L.A. at Ranchi.

Prosecution case/Facts

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

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

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

2025:JHHC:23725

Bariatu Police Station, Ranchi Jharkhand under Sections

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

Pradeep Bagchi on the basis of complaint of Tax Collector,

Ranchi Municipal Corporation, for submission of forged

papers i.e., Aadhar Card, Electricity Bill and Possession

letter for obtaining holding number 0210004194000A1 and

0210004031000A5.

3. The investigation revealed that by submitting the

forged documents, a holding number was obtained in name

of Pradeep Bagchi for property at Morabadi Mouza, Ward

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

455.00 decimals approximately.

4. Investigation further revealed that the above

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

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

Defence, in occupation of the Army since independence.

Investigation also reveals that by way of creating a fake

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

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

which the consideration amount was shown Rs. 7 crores

which was highly under value and out of this amount

payment amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs only were made into

the account of said Pradeep Bagchi and rest of the money

was falsely shown to be paid through cheques in the deed

no. 6888 of 2021.

2025:JHHC:23725

5. It has come during investigation that records

available at the Circle Officer, Bargain, Ranchi along with

the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata have been

altered and records have been modified. The survey of

Circle Office Bargain as well as Registrar of Assurances,

Kolkata transpires that documents have been tampered to

create fictitious owner of the above properties.

6. It has also come during investigation that some

other properties which are non-saleable Government land,

have been acquired by forging the records and creating

fraudulent documents and by tampering the records

available at the concerned land record authorities.

7. The Enforcement Directorate upon completion of

investigation registered ECIR Case no. 01/2023 in

E.C.I.R/RNZO/18/2022 dated 21.10.22.

8. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested in this case

on the allegation that he, being the party with the other

accused persons in the acquisition of the proceeds of crime

by way of fraudulent acquisition and sale of land in

question.

9. Thereafter, the present petitioner preferred Misc.

Cri. Application No. 3157 of 2023 for grant of bail which

was rejected vide order dated 02.11.2023 by learned

Additional Judicial Commissioner-I cum Special Judge,

PMLA, Ranchi, hence, the instant bail application.

2025:JHHC:23725

Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner

10. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner has taken the following grounds that: -

(i) Even if the entire ECIR will be taken into

consideration, no offence will be said to be

committed so as to attract the ingredients of

Sections 3 & 4 of the P.M.L. Act, 2002.

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

Bariatu Police Station Case No. 141/2022 nor in

Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) Case

No. 18/2022.

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

predicated solely upon conjecture and purported

admissions made by co-accused. This implicating

factor lacks substantial evidentiary support and

raises concerns regarding its reliability and

admissibility.

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

entirety of the prosecution proceedings or the

disputed land in question.

(v) From the bare perusal of the Prosecution Complaint

and the statement recorded under section 50 of the

PMLA, it is evident that the petitioner has acted only

under the instruction of the accused no.6-Afsar Ali.

2025:JHHC:23725

(vi) The petitioner has no prior criminal record. the

petitioner has neither committed any fraud/cheating

or forged any documents, thus, no offences under the

aforementioned sections have been committed by the

petitioner.

(vii) The role of the petitioner was confined/defined only

for the instructions given by the accused no.6 Afsar

Ali.

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

commit any offence delineated under the Prevention

of Money Laundering Act, particularly as delineated

in Section 3 of the statute.

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

filed solely against one co-accused, Pradeep Bagchi,

with specific allegations. Similarly, the Enforcement

Case Information Report (ECIR) 18/2022 has also

been instituted solely against Pradeep Bagchi.

(x) The petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2023.

(xi) This petitioner having no concern with the entire

transaction. He is having no concern with the land in

question. This petitioner has not received a single

penny related with the present case.

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

possession of this petitioner and even no proceed of

crime has been connected with the petitioner.

2025:JHHC:23725

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the

aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the learned court

while considering the prayer for bail ought to have taken

into consideration all these aspects of the matter both legal

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

committed.

12. Further submission has been made in the aforesaid

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

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

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

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

the Enforcement Directorate, has vehemently opposed the

prayer for bail by taking the following grounds: -

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

of the petitioner that he is innocent and having no

connection with the commission of crime.

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

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

proceeds obtained from the scheduled offence, rather,

even in case of proceeds of crime if it has been

obtained other than the crime as under the scheduled

offence, then also the ingredients of Section 3 of the

P.M.L. Act, 2002 will be applicable.

2025:JHHC:23725

(iii) It has been contended that Imtiyaz Ahmad, the

present petitioner, in his statement u/s 50 of the

PMLA recorded at para-8.5 of the prosecution

complaint, has stated that on the direction of Afsar

Ali, he obtained a Power of Attorney of a land

admeasuring 60 khatas at Bariatu, Ranchi in his

name and in the name of Bharat Prasad from one

Rajesh Rai.

(iv) The obtained Power of Attorney of one land of nearly

96 decimals at Mauza-Kanke, Ranchi and sold this

land to several persons. The Power of Attorney was

taken on the direction of Afsar Ali. He has also

accepted that he has obtained the Power of Attorney of

a plot of land at Khata no. 4, Plot no. 1967 and Khata

no. 25, Plot no. 1989 from Lakhan Singh on the

direction of Afsar Ali.

(v) The present petitioner knowingly assisted his other

accomplices in their illegal activities of making fake

deeds and acquiring properties on the basis of the

fake deeds which were in fact proceeds of crime as

defined under section 2 (1) (u) of PMLA, 2002.

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

actually involved with the other accomplices in activity

connected with the proceeds of crime i.e. its

acquisition, use and projecting and claiming the

2025:JHHC:23725

proceeds of crime as untainted property. Thus, the

petitioner is guilty of the offence of money laundering

as defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002, punishable

under section 4 of PMLA, 2002.

(vii) The instant prosecution complaint is backed by

documentary evidences and incriminating seizure

which are further corroborated from other accused or

witnesses during their statements under Section 50 of

PMLA, 2002.

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

conceal his involvement in illegal activities related to

assisting his accomplices in fraudulently acquiring

properties.

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

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

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

Analysis

15. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the documents available on record.

16. This Court before appreciating the argument

advanced on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to

discuss herein some of the provision of law as contained

under the PML Act, 2002 (Act 2002) with its object and

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

Apex Court in various judgments.

2025:JHHC:23725

17. The Act 2002 was enacted to address the urgent

need to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for

preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of

crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof including

vesting of it in the Central Government, setting up of

agencies and mechanisms for coordinating measures for

combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the

persons indulging in the process or activity connected with

the proceeds of crime.

18. It is evident that the Act 2002 was enacted in order

to answer the urgent requirement to have a comprehensive

legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering,

attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and

confiscation thereof for combating money-laundering and

also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or

activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

19. The objective of the PMLA is to prevent money

laundering which has posed a serious threat not only to the

financial systems of the country but also to its integrity and

sovereignty. The offence of money laundering is a very

serious offence which is committed by an individual with a

deliberate desire and the motive to enhance his gains,

disregarding the interest of the nation and the society as a

whole, and such offence by no stretch of imagination can

be regarded as an offence of trivial nature. The stringent

2025:JHHC:23725

provisions have been made in the Act to combat the

menace of money laundering.

20. It needs to refer herein the definition of "proceeds of

crime" as provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002

which reads as under:-

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

21. It is evident from the aforesaid provision by which

the "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or

obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of

criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value

of any such property or where such property is taken or

held outside the country, then the property equivalent in

value held within the country or abroad.

22. In the explanation, it has been referred that for the

removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of

crime" include property not only derived or obtained from

the scheduled offence but also any property which may

2025:JHHC:23725

directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of

any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.

23. It is, thus, evident that the reason for giving

explanation under Section 2(1)(u) is by way of clarification

to the effect that whether as per the substantive provision

of Section 2(1)(u), the property derived or obtained, directly

or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity

relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such

property or where such property is taken or held outside

the country then the property equivalent in value held

within the country but by way of explanation the proceeds

of crime has been given broader implication by including

property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled

offence but also any property which may directly or

indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal

activity relatable to the scheduled offence.

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

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

description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or

immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and

instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property

or assets, wherever located.

25. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x)

which means schedule to the Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, 2002.

2025:JHHC:23725

26. It is evident that the "scheduled offence" means the

offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or the

offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total

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

more; or the offences specified under Part C of the

Schedule.

27. The offence of money laundering has been defined

under Section 3 of the Act, 2002 which reads as under: -

"3. Offence of money-laundering.--Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the [proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming] it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.

[Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,--

(i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-

laundering if such person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the following processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime, namely:--

(a) concealment; or

(b) possession; or

(c) acquisition; or

(d) use; or

(e) projecting as untainted property; or

(f) claiming as untainted property, in any manner whatsoever;

(ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the

2025:JHHC:23725

proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.]"

28. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that

"offence of money-laundering" means whosoever directly or

indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or

knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process

or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including

its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and

projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be

guilty of offence of money-laundering.

29. It is further evident that the process or activity

connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity

and continues till such time a person is directly or

indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment

or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as

untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in

any manner whatsoever.

30. The punishment for money laundering has been

provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2002.

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

authorities regarding summons, production of documents

and to give evidence.

32. The various provisions of the Act, 2002 along with

interpretation of the definition of "proceeds of crime" has

2025:JHHC:23725

been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India

and Ors., reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 wherein

the Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court have decided the issue by taking

into consideration the object and intent of the Act, 2002.

33. The predicate offence has been considered in the

aforesaid judgment wherein by taking into consideration

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

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

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

clarified for the purpose of removal of doubts that, the

"proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or

obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property

which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a

result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled

offence, meaning thereby, the words "any property which

may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result

of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence"

will come under the fold of the proceeds of crime.

34. So far as the purport of Section 45(1)(i)& (ii) is

concerned, the aforesaid provision starts from the non-

obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no person accused

2025:JHHC:23725

of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on

his own bond unless-

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to

oppose the application for such release; and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the

court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for

believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is

not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

35. Sub-section (2) thereof puts limitation on granting

bail specific in sub-section (1) in addition to the limitations

under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other

law for the time being in force on granting of bail.

36. The explanation is also there as under sub-section

(2) thereof which is for the purpose of removal of doubts, a

clarification has been inserted that the expression "Offences

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

2025:JHHC:23725

37. The fact about the implication of Section 45 has

been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay

Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and

Ors.(supra) at paragraphs-285, 286 and 316. For ready

reference, the said paragraphs are being referred as under:-

"285.............The provision post the 2018 Amendment, is in the nature of no bail in relation to the offence of money laundering unless the twin conditions are fulfilled. The twin conditions are that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of offence of money laundering and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

286. Considering the purposes and objects of the legislation in the form of the 2002 Act and the background in which it had been enacted owing to the commitment made to the international bodies and on their recommendations, it is plainly clear that it is a special legislation to deal with the subject of money laundering activities having transnational impact on the financial systems including sovereignty and integrity of the countries. This is not an ordinary offence. To deal with such serious offence, stringent measures are provided in the 2002 Act for prevention of money laundering and combating menace of money laundering, including for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and to prosecute persons involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. In view of the gravity of the fallout of money laundering activities having transnational impact, a special procedural law for prevention and regulation, including to prosecute the person involved, has been enacted, grouping the offenders involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime as a separate class from ordinary criminals. The offence of money laundering has been regarded as an aggravated form of crime "world over". It is, therefore, a separate class of offence requiring effective and stringent measures to combat the menace of money laundering.

2025:JHHC:23725

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

38. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of

Enforcement, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486 by taking into

consideration the law laid down by the Larger Bench of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and

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

down that since the conditions specified under Section 45

are mandatory, they need to be complied with. The Court is

required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds

for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence

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

39. It has further been observed that as per the

statutory presumption permitted under Section 24 of the

Act, the Court or the Authority is entitled to presume

unless the contrary is proved, that in any proceedings

relating to proceeds of crime under the Act, in the case of a

person charged with the offence of money laundering under

Section 3, such proceeds of crime are involved in money

2025:JHHC:23725

laundering. Such conditions enumerated in Section 45 of

PML Act will have to be complied with even in respect of an

application for bail made under Section 439 Cr. P.C. in view

of the overriding effect given to the PML Act over the other

law for the time being in force, under Section 71 of the PML

Act. For ready reference, paragraph-17 of the said

judgment reads as under:-

"17. As well settled by now, the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory. They need to be complied with. The Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is needless to say that as per the statutory presumption permitted under Section 24 of the Act, the Court or the Authority is entitled to presume unless the contrary is proved, that in any proceedings relating to proceeds of crime under the Act, in the case of a person charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3, such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. Such conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PML Act will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 Cr. P.C. in view of the overriding effect given to the PML Act over the other law for the time being in force, under Section 71 of the PML Act."

40. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment has

further laid down that the twin conditions as to fulfil the

requirement of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 before granting

the benefit of bail is to be adhered to which has been dealt

with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal

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

2025:JHHC:23725

wherein it has been observed that the accused is not guilty

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

on bail.

41. In the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of

India and Ors. (supra) as under paragraph-284, it has

been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to

prosecute a person for offence of money-laundering only if

it has reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in

writing that the person is in possession of "proceeds of

crime". Only if that belief is further supported by tangible

and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the

person concerned in any process or activity connected with

the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken

forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of

crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government,

such process initiated would be a standalone process.

42. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam

Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of

Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through

Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region,

reported in (2015) 16 SCC 1 has been pleased to hold at

paragraph -30 that the conditions specified under Section

45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with,

2025:JHHC:23725

which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section

65 and also Section 71 of PMLA.

43. Section 65 requires that the provisions of CrPC

shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the

provisions of this Act and Section 71 provides that the

provisions of PMLA shall have overriding effect

notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained

in any other law for the time being in force. PMLA has an

overriding effect and the provisions of CrPC would apply

only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this

Act.

44. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45

of PMLA will have to be complied with even in respect of an

application for bail made under Section 439 CrPC. That

coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides that

unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court

shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in

money-laundering and the burden to prove that the

proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the petitioner.

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

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

recently in the case of Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of

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

has observed that the conventional idea in bail

jurisprudence vis-à-vis ordinary penal offences that the

2025:JHHC:23725

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

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

circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place

while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act and the

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

Act is severely restrictive in scope. For ready reference,

relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred as

under:

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

46. The reason for making reference of this judgment is

that in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and

Anr., the UAPA has also been brought under the purview of

category 'c' wherein while 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

2025:JHHC:23725

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

penal offences as enshrined under the provision of UAPA

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

rule and bail is the exception.

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

behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if

the entire ECIR will be taken into consideration, no offence

will be said to be committed so as to attract the ingredients

of Sections 3 & 4 of the P.M.L. Act, 2002. Further ground

has been taken that the allegation against the petitioner

pertains to his purported assistance to other accused

individuals. Further the prolong custody of petitioner since

14.04.2023 and delay in conclusion of the trial has also

been raised.

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

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

submitted that there is ample material surfaced in course

of inquiry, based upon which, the prosecution report was

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

legal evidence. It has further been contended that it is

settled proposition of law which has been settled by the

Hon'ble Apex Court that the long incarceration (herein

about 27 month) or delay in trial alone cannot be ground to

release the petitioner on bail, rather in case of scheduled

offences/special offences the seriousness of the matter and

2025:JHHC:23725

the societal impact should be taken into consideration by

the Court concerned while enlarging the petitioner on bail.

49. This Court, in order to appreciate the rival

submission, is of the view that various paragraphs of

prosecution complaint upon which the reliance has been

placed on behalf of both the parties, needs to be referred

herein so as to come to the conclusion as to whether the

parameter as fixed under Section 451(i) & (ii) of the PML

Act 2002 is being fulfilled in order to reach to the

conclusion that it is a fit case where regular bail is to be

granted or not. The relevant paragraphs of prosecution

complaint, which are being referred as under: -

Brief detail of persons examined u/s 50(2) & (3) of PMLA 8.5 Imtiaz Ahmed (Accused No.8)-

In his statement dated 13.04.2023 recorded under section 50 of PMLA, 2002, (RUD No. 65) the accused person Imtiaz Ahmed has stated that in the year 2020, on the directions of Afshar Ali, he obtained a power of attorney of a land admeasuring 60 kathas at Bariyatu, Ranchi in his name and in the name of Bharat Prasad from one Rajesh Rai. He further stated that the amount of Rs. 15 lacs which he received from Pradip Bagchi was on the directions of Afshar Ali (the said amount of Rs. 15 lacs was out of Rs. 25 lacs given by Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. to Pradip Bagchi as commission).

Several documents have been seized from his premises during searches including one diary containing details of cash. In his statement dated 19.04.2023 (RUD No.

66), he stated that payments to the persons namely Sunny (Talha Khan), Faiyaz Khan, Saddam Hussain,

2025:JHHC:23725

Afsu Khan and others appearing in the diary have been made by him. During his statement dated 19.04.2023, it is found that he obtained power of attorney of one land of nearly 96 decimals at Mauja Kanke, Ranchi and sold this land to several persons. The power of attorney was taken on the directions of Afshar Ali. He has also accepted that he has obtained the power of attorney of a plot of land at Khata no. 4, Plot no. 1967, and Khata no. 25, Plot no. 1989 from Lakhan Singh on the directions of Afshar Ali. He has also accepted that on the directions of Afshar Ali, land was acquired in frivolous manner which was situated at Plot no. 1965 admeasuring 1.79 acres and plot no. 1966 admeasuring 1.93 acres in which the power of attorney was given to Bharat Prasad on directions of Afshar Ali. Similarly, he has stated that on directions of Afshar Ali, he obtained a power of attorney for a land admeasuring 13.98 acres situated at Plot no. 1942, Khata no. 197.

During searches on 13.04.2023, the property documents were recovered from his residence (RUD No.

22). It is evident that the accused person was dealt with several landed properties in a fake and frivolous manner with his associate Afshar All and his accomplices namely Bharat Prasad, Lakhan Singh, Rajesh Rai and others. These properties have been sold to different persons in which the cash amount has been distributed between Afshar Ali, Md. Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan @ Sunny, and other associates which prove that these persons are a part of the racket which are habitually involved in forging documents and falsifying records for acquiring proceeds of crime and later using them and projecting them as untainted property.

Specific Roles of the Accused/Co-Accused/person abetting in the commission of offence of money laundering by directly/ indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assist or knowingly is a party

2025:JHHC:23725

or is involved in concealment/ possession/acquisition or use in projecting or claiming proceeds of crime as tainted property in terms of section 3 of PMLA Imtiaz Ahmed (accused no.8) The accused Imtiaz Ahmed was actually a party with the other accused persons in the acquisition of the proceeds of crime by way of fraudulent acquisition and sale of land and claiming the said proceeds of crime as untainted property. The accused of person knowingly indulged in acquisition of proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 15 lacs in his bank account from Pradip Bagchi of which was the sale proceed of the defence land situated at M.S Plot No 557 at Mouza Morabadi Ranchi worth Rs 20,75,84,200. The accused was also a party in the forgery committed in preparation of fake deed and later disposing the said land measuring 3.81 acres at Bariyatu, Ranchi. The accused Imtiaz Ahmed in connivance with Afshar Ali accused no. also obtained the power of attorney of another land admeasuring 60 kathas situated in Bariyatu, Ranchi in his name and in the name of Bharat Prasad from one Rajesh Rai. Later, by exercising the power of attorney, he sold this property at a consideration amount of Rs. 1.8 crores. The accused person is a habitual offender has dealt with several landed properties in a fake and frivolous manner with his associate Afshar Ali and with his other accused persons.

Thus, the accused person was knowingly a party and actually involved with the other accused persons and was indulged in activity connected with the proceeds of crime i.e. its acquisition, use and projected and claiming the proceeds of crime as untainted property. Thus, the accused person has committed the offence of money laundering under section 3 of PMLA, 2002 and is liable to be punished under section 4 of PMLA, 2002.

50. It has come on record that during searches on

13.04.2023, the property documents were recovered from

2025:JHHC:23725

his residence (RUD No. 22). It is evident therefrom that the

accused person has dealt with several landed properties in

a fake and frivolous manner with his associate Afshar Ali

and his accomplices namely Bharat Prasad, Lakhan Singh,

Rajesh Rai and others. These properties have been sold to

different persons in which the cash amount has been

distributed between Afshar Ali, Md. Saddam Hussain,

Talha Khan @ Sunny, and other associates which prove

that these persons are a part of the racket which are

habitually involved in forging documents and falsifying

records for acquiring proceeds of crime and later using

them and projecting them as untainted property.

51. Further, it appears from record that several

documents have been seized from his premises during

searches including one diary containing details of cash.

52. Further, the Investigation revealed that the accused

persons, namely Afshar Ali @ Afsu Khan, Mohammad

Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan @ Sunny, Faiyaz Khan,

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

actively been involved in sequestering several pieces of land

situated in Ranchi and its vicinity by manipulating and

forging the original records available at the Circle Offices in

connivance with certain government officials/record

keepers, including Bhanu Pratap Prasad, Revenue Sub-

Inspector, Baragai, Ranchi. The Circle Office,

2025:JHHC:23725

deeds/documents/records recovered and seized during the

course of searches conducted on April 13, 2023,

corroborate the fact that the accused persons have been

running a racket involved in the illegal acquisition of lands

by converting non-saleable land into saleable lands for

monetary benefits. They have acquired proceeds of crime

through the aforementioned criminal activities and thus

committed the offence of money laundering. The properties

are used to commit offences under this Act and scheduled

offences and derive proceeds, further projecting their

activities and acquired properties as 'untainted property'.

53. It is evident from the prosecution complaint that

accused/petitioner was actually a party with the other

accused persons in the acquisition of the proceeds of crime

by way of fraudulent acquisition and sale of land and

claiming the said proceeds of crime as untainted property.

The petitioner knowingly indulged in acquisition of

proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 15 lacs in his bank

account from the account of Pradeep Bagchi which was the

sale proceeds of the defence land situated at MS Plot no.

557 at Mauza Morabadi, Ranchi worth Rs. 20,75,84,200/-

and the commercial value of amount Rs. 41,51, 68,390/-.

The petitioner was also a party in the forgery committed in

preparation of fake deed and later disposing the said land

measuring 3.81 acres at Bariatu, Ranchi. The

2025:JHHC:23725

accused/petitioner Imtiyaz Ahmad in connivance with co-

accused Afsar Ali obtaining the Power of Attorney of

another land admeasuring 60 Khatas situated in Bariatu,

Ranchi in his name and name of Bharat Prasad from one

Rajesh Rai. Later by exercising the Power of Attorney, he

sold this property at a consideration amount of Rs. 1.8

crores. The accused/petitioner is a habitual offender has

dealt with several landed properties in a fake and frivolous

manner with his associate Afsar Ali and with his other

accused persons.

54. Further, the statement of Sadam Hussain

mentioned in paragraph-8.4 of the prosecution complaint

reveals that that his firm Green Traders is in receipt of

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

land in which forgery was committed. It also reveals that

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

Afshar Ali were directly involved in the sale of land

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

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

Afshar Ali are accomplices of each other.

55. Further, the petitioner in his statement dated

13.04.2023 recorded under section 50 of PMLA, 2002,

(RUD No. 65) has stated that in the year 2020, on the

directions of Afshar Ali, he obtained a power of attorney of a

land admeasuring 60 kathas at Bariyatu, Ranchi in his

2025:JHHC:23725

name and in the name of Bharat Prasad from one Rajesh

Rai. He further stated that the amount of Rs. 15 lacs which

he received from Pradip Bagchi was on the directions of

Afshar Ali (the said amount of Rs. 15 lacs were out of Rs.

25 lacs given by Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. to Pradip

Bagchi as commission).

56. The statement of Pradeep Bagchi, as mentioned in

paragraph 8.8 of the prosecution complaint, reveals the

involvement of Afshar Ali, Imtiaz Ahmed (the present

petitioner), Md. Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan @ Sunny and

Faiyaz Khan in manipulating sale deeds of landed

properties. The statement also reveals that Afshar Ali,

Imtiaz Ahmed (Petitioner), Faiyaz Khan Talha Khan Sunny

are experts in altering old property deeds. These persons

have forged stamps/seals which they use in making fake

sale deeds. They have good contacts with Land Registry

offices and one of the said officers is Bhanu Pratap Prasad

who works in Circle Office, Baragai, Ranchi. Bhanu Pratap

Prasad assists Afshar Ali and others in acquiring properties

illegally.

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

of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon vs.

Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46 has held

that the statements of witnesses recorded by Prosecution-

ED are admissible in evidence, in view of Section 50. Such

2025:JHHC:23725

statements may make out a formidable case about the

involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence

of money laundering.

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

the course of investigation from the statements of witnesses

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

had directly indulged, knowingly is as the party and is

actually involved in all the activities connected with the

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

possession, concealment, and projecting or claiming as

untainted property.

59. Thus, it has come on record that the

accused/petitioner knowingly assisted the other accused

persons in their illegal activities of making fake deeds and

acquiring properties on the basis of the fake deeds. The

accused persons assisted other accused persons in their

activities connected with proceeds of crime.

60. Thus, from aforesaid imputation and discussion

prima-facie it appears that the involvement of present

petitioner in alleged crime cannot be denied.

61. Now coming to the contentions as raised by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein, he has taken

the ground that the petitioner is not accused in the

predicate offence, hence, cannot be made liable for money

laundering offence. But the contention of the learned

2025:JHHC:23725

counsel appears to be misplaced reason being that it is

settled proposition of law that the offence of money

Laundering is independent of the scheduled offence,

particularly in matters related to the proceeds of crime.

62. It is evident that as per Section 3, there are six

processes or activities identified therein. They are, (i)

concealment; (ii) possession; (iii) acquisition; (iv) use; (v)

projecting as untainted property; and (vi) claiming as

untainted property. Even if a person does not retain the

money generated as proceeds of crime but "uses" it, he will

be guilty of the offence of money-laundering, since "use" is

one of the six activities mentioned in Section 3. In the

instant case the proceeds obtained from alleged activities

are laundered through diverse methods, one of which

involves making cash deposits in respective bank accounts.

This is done in a piecemeal manner with the intention of

presenting the tainted property as untainted.

63. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has consistently held, including in Pavana Dibbur v.

Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586,

as well as in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union

of India & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, that the

offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA is

an independent offence. The Hon'ble Apex Court has

categorically laid down that it is not necessary for a person

2025:JHHC:23725

to be shown as an accused in the scheduled offence for him

to be prosecuted under the PMLA, provided there exist

proceeds of crime derived from a scheduled offence and the

person has indulged in or facilitated any process or activity

connected with such proceeds of crime.

64. In the aforesaid case i.e. Pawana Dibbur (supra) it

has further been observed by referring the decision

rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal

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

that the condition precedent for the existence of proceeds of

crime is the existence of a scheduled offence. At paragraph-

15 the finding has been given therein that on plain reading

of Section 3 of the Act, 2002, an offence under Section 3

can be committed after a scheduled offence is committed.

By giving an example, it has been clarified that if a person

who is unconnected with the scheduled offence, knowingly

assists the concealment of the proceeds of crime or

knowingly assists the use of proceeds of crime, in that case,

he can be held guilty of committing an offence under

Section 3 of the PMLA. Therefore, it is not necessary that a

person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the

PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused in

the scheduled offence.

65. Keeping in mind these essential elements that make

up the molecular structure of Section 3, this Court adverts

2025:JHHC:23725

in to facts of the instant case as discussed in preceding

paragraph is of view that the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner has no substance.

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

until the contrary is proved, the same is observed in

various judicial pronouncements and upheld in the case of

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra). Further in Rohit

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

46, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that the

provisions of section 24 of the PMLA provide that unless

the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court shall

presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money

laundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of

crime are not involved, lies on the appellant.

67. Further, the offence of money laundering as

contemplated in Section 3 of the PMLA has been elaborately

dealt with by the three Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal

Choudhary (supra), in which it has been observed that

Section 3 has a wider reach. The offence as defined

captures every process and activity in dealing with the

proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly, and is not limited

to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted

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

2025:JHHC:23725

for the offence of money laundering gets triggered only if

there exist proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section

2(1)(u) of the Act and further it is involved in any process or

activity.

68. Further, it is settled proposition of law that if a

person who is unconnected with the scheduled offence,

knowingly assists the concealment of the proceeds of crime

or knowingly assists the use of proceeds of crime, in that

case, he can be held guilty of committing an offence under

Section 3 of the PMLA. Therefore, it is not necessary that a

person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the

PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused in

the scheduled offence.

69. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended

that the ED has already filed chargesheet against the

petitioner and, thus, investigation insofar as the petitioner

is concerned, is complete and therefore, no purpose would

be served in keeping the petitioner in judicial custody.

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

Party-ED has submitted that the mere fact that

investigation is complete does not necessarily confer a right

on the accused/petitioner to be released on bail.

71. In the context of aforesaid contention of learned

counsel for the petitioner, it would be relevant to note here

2025:JHHC:23725

that in the instant case mere filing of the charge-sheet does

not cause material change in circumstances.

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

filing of chargesheet is not a circumstance that tilts the

scales in favour of the accused for grant of bail and

needless to say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any

manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution.

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

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

Virupakshappa Gouda Vs. State of Karnataka, (2017)

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

Court has observed as under:

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

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

legal proposition, is of view that the contention of the

learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in the eye

of law.

2025:JHHC:23725

75. Thus, from the aforesaid deduction, the involvement

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

appears to be true.

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

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

hereinabove, at paragraph412 of the judgment rendered in

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India

and Ors. (supra), it has been held therein by making

observation that whatever form the relief is couched

including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section

438 of the 1973 Code or 439 for that matter, by invoking

the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the underlying

principles and rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 must come

into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to

uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special

legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for

combating the menace of money-laundering.

77. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45

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

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

That coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides

that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the

Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in

money laundering and the burden to prove that the

proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the appellant.

2025:JHHC:23725

78. Further, it is evident from the judicial

pronouncement as discussed above that in order to

constitute any property as proceeds of crime, it must be

derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a

result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence.

The explanation clarifies that the proceeds of crime include

property, not only derived or obtained from scheduled

offence but also any property which may directly or

indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal

activity relatable to the scheduled offence. Clause 2(1)(u)

also clarifies that even the value of any such property will

also be the proceeds of crime and in the instant case from

perusal of paragraph of the prosecution complaint it is

evident that the petitioner is not only involved rather his

involvement is direct in procuring the proceeds of crime by

way of connivance with the other accused persons.

79. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made

hereinabove the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that even if the entire ECIR will be taken into

consideration, no offence will be said to be committed so as

to attract the ingredients of Sections 3 & 4 of the P.M.L.

Act, 2002, is totally misplaced in the light of accusation as

mention in prosecution complaint.

80. So far as the issue of period of custody as agitated

by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is

2025:JHHC:23725

settled proposition of law which has been settled by the

Hon'ble Apex Court that the long incarceration (herein

about 28 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.

81. At this juncture, the learned counsel for ED has

submitted at Bar that all endeavour will be taken to

expedite the trial. It has further been submitted that there

are many accused in the ECIR cases and one and another

accused, everyday are filing one petition and another and

that is the cause of delaying the evidence to be led by the

ED. He further submits that the learned trial court has

disposed of all these petitions, which have been preferred

by the other co-accused before the learned trial court and

now the ED has taken his all endeavour to examine the

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.

82. 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

2025:JHHC:23725

societal impact of the alleged offence should be taken care

of by the Court concerned.

83. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with

the offences under UAP Act 1967, in the case of Gurwinder

Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) and taking in to

consideration the ratio of judgment of Union of India vs.

K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 has observed that mere

delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in

the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail,

for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted

as under:

"46. As already discussed, the material available on record indicates the involvement of the appellant in furtherance of terrorist activities backed by members of banned terrorist organisation involving exchange of large quantum of money through different channels which needs to be deciphered and therefore in such a scenario if the appellant is released on bail there is every likelihood that he will influence the key witnesses of the case which 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."

84. 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.

2025:JHHC:23725

85. Admittedly, the petitioner has been in judicial

custody since 14.04.2023 but delay, under the aforesaid

circumstances, does not entitle the petitioner to bail. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarun Kumar v. Directorate of

Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486, has

authoritatively held that while the period of custody may be

a relevant factor, it cannot by itself override the gravity of

the offence, the seriousness of allegations or the statutory

twin conditions under Section 45 of the Act 2002.

86. Similarly, in Satyendar Kumar Jain v.

Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 306,

the Hon'ble Apex Court refused bail despite protracted

proceedings, noting that the complexity inherent in

economic offences often necessitates lengthy trials.

87. It is also pertinent that delays frequently arise from

procedural applications and litigations pursued by accused

themselves. Thus, given the grave nature of the allegations,

the sophisticated modus operandi employed to project

tainted property as untainted, and the strict statutory

framework governing bail under the PMLA, no ground

exists for the petitioner to claim the benefit of bail either on

merits or on account of delay. The gravity of the offence,

misuse of a high public office, and the serious allegations of

facilitating the laundering of proceeds of crime continue to

2025:JHHC:23725

justify the petitioner's custody under the strict rigours of

Section 45 of the Act 2002.

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

Laundering is an economic offence and economic offences

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

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

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

ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid

judgment is being quoted as under:

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

89. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of

Nimgadda Prasad Vs. C.B.I., reported in (2013) 7 SCC

466 has reiterated the same view in paragraph-23 to 25,

which reads as under:

"23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [(1987) 2 SCC 364 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 364] this Court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under: (SCC p. 371, para 5) "5. ... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed

2025:JHHC:23725

in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest."

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

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

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

hereinabove that so far as the case of the present petitioner

is concerned, the twin condition as provided under Section

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

the privilege of bail to the present petitioner.

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

and circumstances, as have been analyzed hereinabove, the

applicant/petitioner failed to make out a case for exercise

2025:JHHC:23725

of power to grant bail and considering the facts and

parameters, this Court therefore does not find any

exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction