Pradeep Ram vs Union Of India Through Directorate Of ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4858 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Pradeep Ram vs Union Of India Through Directorate Of ... on 27 August, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                          [2025:JHHC:25550]




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                          B.A. No. 3967 of 2025
                                 ---------

Pradeep Ram, aged about 44 years, son of Deoki Ram, resident of Village-Binglat, P.O. & P.S.-Tandwa, District-Chatra.

... ... Petitioner Versus Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement.

... ... Opp. Party

---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

----------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate

----------

th 07/Dated: 27 August, 2025

1. The present application has been filed under Section 483 and 484 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 r/w Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for release of the present petitioner on bail in connection with ECIR Case No. 01 of 2021 arising out of ECIR/RNSZO/02/2016 dated 15.09.2016.

Factual Matrix:

2. The prosecution story in brief needs to be referred herein, which is as under:

The investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was initiated by recording an ECIR case bearing No. ECIR/RNSZO/02/2016 dated 15.09.2016 against the accused persons on the basis of information received from Tandwa P.S. Case No. 02/2016 dated 11.01.2016 which was registered by one Sri Ramdhari Singh, Sub Inspector, Simaria P.S. for the offences under sections 414, 120B/420, 384, 386 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code, sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of Arms Act and section 17(1)(2) of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act and after lodging the said F.I.R. police raided the house of Binod Ganjhu, Pradeep Ram and others on the charge of extraction of money from the contractors and transporters and coal merchants and in course of the raid cash of Rs 1,49,33,000/- sized

[2025:JHHC:25550]

from the house of Binod Ganjhu and Pradeep Ganjhu which was allegedly part of levy and filed charge sheet on 10.03.2016. Thereafter ED has registered ECIR No. RSZO/02/2016 on 15/09/2016 on the basis of above-mentioned FIR. Subsequently the said F.I.R taken over by NIA and re-registered as Special NIA Case No.- RC- 06/2018/NIA/DLI dated 16.02.2018. Thereafter, NIA has filed charge sheet on 21.12.2018 and supplementary charge sheet on 10.01.2020 alleging that accused persons were doing transportation business and demanded levy money through corresponding bills. It is further alleged that accused persons provided money to TPC, Local Police, Police In-charge, Forest department, Media, C.C.L. officers, owner whose land fell within road transportation, accidental case, Labourer, Loader, Volunteers, villagers who did not get job in the CCL.

After investigation under PMLA the prosecution filed a complaint bearing No 01/2021 on 26.02.2021 under section 44 r/w 45 of PMLA alleging that the accused persons named in the complaint had committed the offence of money laundering.

3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with the aforesaid ECIR case and thereafter, the petitioner, in connection with the ECIR Case No. 01 of 2021, preferred B.A. No. 3029 of 2024 for grant of bail which had been rejected, on merit, by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2025.

4. The petitioner, against the aforesaid order dated 17.01.2025 preferred special leave to appeal being S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1458 of 2025 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the order passed by this Court keeping the fact into consideration that the High Court has issued a direction to expedite the trial. The observation has been made therein that in the event of the said direction not being complied with, liberty is given to the petitioner to renew the application in which case the impugned order will not stand in the way.

[2025:JHHC:25550]

6. The petitioner, thereafter, again renewed his prayer for grant of bail by filing Misc. Criminal Application No. 640 of 2025 which had been dismissed and thereafter, the present bail application has been preferred.

Submission on behalf of the petitioner:

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in incarceration since 24.03.2021, as such, by taking the ground of long incarceration, the present application has been filed renewing the prayer for bail on the premise that the trial although has been initiated but it is yet to be concluded.

8. The ground has also been taken that the other co-accused persons, namely, Vinod Kumar Ganjhu @ Binod Kumar Ganjhu @ Binod Kumar and Bindeshwar Ganjhu @ Bindu Ganjhu have been released on bail vide order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 03.11.2023 in SLP (Crl.) No. 11686 of 2023 and 29.04.2024 in SLP (Crl.) No. 1152 of 2024 respectively.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the aforesaid premise, has filed the present application for release of the petitioner on bail.

Submission on behalf of the opposite party:

10. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the opposite party-ED has filed supplementary counter affidavit and has submitted that the trial is in progress and altogether 05 witnesses are to be examined as per the statement made at paragraph-4 thereof that the period of 06 months from the date of filing of the affidavit is likely to be taken for examination of the witnesses.

11. It has been submitted that there might be some delay due to the closure of the court for vacations and ensuing festivals from 27.09.2025 to 06.10.2025 and from 19.10.2025 to 30.10.2025.

12. Learned counsel for the opposite party-ED has submitted that the nature of allegation against the present petitioner is serious. Further submission has been made that although the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to grant liberty to the petitioner to renew the

[2025:JHHC:25550]

application in case of delay in the trial but only 05 witnesses are to be examined and as such, it cannot be said in such a serious nature of case that the trial is not at progress.

13. So far as the ground of parity is concerned, submission has been made that it is not evident from the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the status of trial therein and as such, taking into consideration the fact that the trial is in progress and only 05 witnesses are to be examined, the principle of parity will not be applicable.

Analysis:

14. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through material/evidence showing culpability said to be committed by the petitioner as also through the earlier order passed by this Court with respect to the prayer for bail.

15. This Court has also gone through the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to the other co-accused persons appended as Annexure-5 to the paperbook.

16. This is the second application filed by renewing the prayer for bail.

17. The ground has been taken of long incarceration and slow progress in the trial.

18. This Court, before considering the aforesaid grounds, thought it proper that to refer the details of property identified during investigation involved in money laundering and details of cash seized from the house as also the involvement of the present petitioner as per the accusation made in the ECIR. For ready reference, the accusation so made is being referred as under:

"Details of Immovable Properties held in the name of Binod Kumar Ganjhu (A-1), Pradeep Ram and their Proprietorship, as identified during investigation which are involved in Money Laundering:-

Sl. Sale Deed Description of the properties In the Sale Deed No. No. name of Value in Rs.

1 9254/8848 Deed no.9254/8848 dated Pradeep 6,68,000/-

                dated       12.11.2015, area-8 decimal,



                                                            [2025:JHHC:25550]




      12.11.2015 Mauz-Khapriyawan,                 Ram
                 Hazaribagh
 2    3532/3428    Deed no.3532/3428 daed Pradeep             8,41,000/-
      dated        07.6.2016, area-3.6 decimal, Ram
      07.6.2016    Mauza-Khirgaon,      Thana-
                   Sadar,     Thana     no.145,
                   Hazaribagh
 3    2332/2273 Deed no.2332/2273 dated Pradeep               1,00,000/-
      dated      13.04.2016. area-12 decimal, Ram
      13.04.2016 mauza-Keredari,     Anchal-
                 Keredari, Hazaribagh
                                                       Total 16,09,000/-

Details of cash seized from the house of Binod Kumar Ganjhu (A-1) and Pradeep Ram by Tandwa Police:-

Sl.   Name        of Details of cash seized                  Amount        in
No.   individual                                             Rs.
      from     which
      cash recovered
1     Shri   Binod Cash seized by Tandwa Police from 91,75,890/-

Kumar Ganjhu the residence of Shri Binod Kumar (A-1) Ganjhu (A-1) vide seizure memo dated 11.01.2016 2 Shree Pradeep Cash seized by Tandwa Police 57,57,710/-

      Ram           from the residence of Shri Pradeep
                    Ram (A-2) vide seizure memo
                    dated 11.01.2016
                                                     Total 1,49,33,600/-

Role of Mr. Pradeep Ram (A-2): Investigation carried out so far has revealed that Pradeep Ram (A-2) was member of the Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC) working in Magadh Amarpali area which is an unlawful association/Terrorist Gang. He is a member of Shanti Sah Sanchalan Samiti of Magadh Amrpali Coal Mining Area. He was closely associated with top leaders of TPC members and used to extort levy from coal transporters/contractors. He acquired proceeds of crime and laundered in the name of self and his proprietorship M/s Pradeep Traders (A-5). He used to extort levy from local contractors and handed over to the same to TPC members. He got proceeds of crime from illegitimate sources through extortion from the contractors/transporters and knowingly beneficiary of the same by way of acquiring movable properties out of which till date Rs.1,34,94,617/- in the form of bank accounts, vehicles and immovable properties has already been attached under PMLA and the same has also been confirmed by Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 04.03.2020 after finding its

[2025:JHHC:25550]

involvement in money laundering. He has also been chargesheeted by NIA for extortion of levy from coal traders.

Role of M/s Pradeep Traders (A-5):- Investigation carried out so far has revealed that M/s Pradeep Tranders (A-5) was the proprietorship of Mr. Pradeep Ram (A-2), who was member of the Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC) working in Magadh Amarpali area, unlawful association/Terrorist Gang. Mr. Pradeep Ram (A-2) used to extort levy from local contractors and handed over to the same to TPC members routing through the account of M/s Pradeep Traders (A-5)."

19. It is evident from the aforesaid paragraph that during investigation, it has been found that Pradeep Ram (A-2) was member of the Tritiya Prastuti Committee (TPC) working in Magadh Amarpali area which is an unlawful association/Terrorist Gang. He is a member of Shanti Sah Sanchalan Samiti of Magadh Amrpali Coal Mining Area. He was closely associated with top leaders of TPC members and used to extort levy from coal transporters/contractors. He acquired proceeds of crime and laundered in the name of self and his proprietorship M/s Pradeep Traders (A-5). It has also come that he used to extort levy from local contractors and handed over the same to TPC members. He got proceeds of crime from illegitimate sources through extortion from the contractors/transporters and knowingly beneficiary of the same by way of acquiring movable properties out of which, Rs.1,34,94,617/- in the form of bank accounts, vehicles and immovable properties has already been attached under PMLA and the same has also been confirmed by Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 04.03.2020 after finding its involvement in money laundering. It has also come that he has been charge-sheeted by NIA for extortion of levy from coal traders.

20. Now, in the backdrop of the accusation as referred hereinabove, this Court is adverting to the merit of the case.

21. The grounds, as has been raised herein for grant of bail, has already been taken into consideration by this Court at the time of consideration of prayer for regular bail which was rejected vide order dated 17.01.2025 passed in B.A. No. 3029 of 2024 and against the said order, the petitioner filed special leave to appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court being S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1458 of 2025 and the

[2025:JHHC:25550]

Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the reasoning recorded by this Court while rejecting the prayer for regular bail on the basis of nature of crime committed by the petitioner, however, liberty has been given to renew the prayer for bail in case of the trial being not expedited.

22. The petitioner, thereafter, preferred Misc. Criminal Application No.640 of 2025 before the learned trial court which had also been dismissed vide order dated 16.04.2025.

23. It is evident from the affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party-ED that only 05 witnesses are to be examined and time frame has also been given to conclude the trial, i.e., within a period of 06 months, however, the same is likely to be extended due to the ensuing vacation and holidays for the festivals.

24. This Court, therefore, is of the view considering the nature of case wherein only 05 witnesses are to be examined and the time frame has been given by the ED, then the requirement of this Court would be to maintain balance between the applicability of principle of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the enforcement of rule of law.

25. So far as the question of parity as has been agitated on behalf of the petitioner is concerned, the law is settled that the principle of parity is to be applied even in the matter of consideration of prayer for bail. Herein, the two co-accused perrons, namely, Vinod Kumar Ganjhu @ Binod Kumar Ganjhu @ Binod Kumar and Bindeshwar Ganjhu @ Bindu Ganjhu have been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the prayer for regular bail of the present petitioner has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03.02.2025, however, liberty has been granted to renew the application.

26. The question of parity is to be adjudged by this Court on the basis of the circumstances which is to be considered by the Court of law.

27. This Court has also found therefrom that the ground of parity will not be applicable herein since both the SLP (Crl.) No. 11686 of 2023 and SLP (Crl.) No. 1152 of 2024 have been passed prior to passing of the

[2025:JHHC:25550]

order in the case of present petitioner [SLP (Crl.) No. 1458 of 2025]. The said orders even though were available for taking the ground of parity at the time of consideration of bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the present petitioner but even then, the prayer for bail of the present petitioner has been rejected.

28. So far as the question of long incarceration is concerned, this Court has already observed herein that balance is to be maintained in between the right conferred under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the nature of crime said to be committed by the accused.

29. It is settled proposition of law which has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the long incarceration 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 into consideration by the Court concerned while enlarging the petitioner on bail.

30. 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.

31. 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, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109 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

[2025:JHHC:25550]

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."

32. It needs to refer herein, as per the affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party-ED, that time frame has been given to conclude the trial, i.e., within a period of 06 months, however, with the relaxation due to ensuing holidays and due to festivals.

33. This Court has taken into consideration that the bail application of the present petitioner has already been rejected on merit by this Court having been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by declining to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

So far as the issue of long incarceration is concerned, the trial, as per the Enforcement Directorate, is to be concluded very soon since only 05 witnesses are to be examined.

34. This Court, in view of the aforesaid fact, is of the view that the prayer for bail of the present petitioner is not fit to be allowed.

35. Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed.

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

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Birendra / Saurabh/-

N.A.F.R.