Sanjit Kumar @ Sanjeet Kumar vs Directorate Of Enforcement Through ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3405 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Sanjit Kumar @ Sanjeet Kumar vs Directorate Of Enforcement Through ... on 21 March, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND                            AT RANCHI

                             B.A. No. 7501 of 2024
                                     ---------

Sanjit Kumar @ Sanjeet Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Bhamar Pal, Resident of Village Ramnagar, P.O. and P.S. - Narkhi, District-Firozabad, State-Uttar Pradesh.

... ... Petitioner Versus

Directorate of Enforcement through Assistant Director, (Complainant) Ranchi Zonal Office, Ranchi.

... ... Opposite Party

----------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

----------

    For the Petitioner      : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
    For the Opp. Party      : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
                              Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
                                   -----------
                 th
   C.A.V. on 07 February, 2025                 Pronounced on 21/03/2025

Prayer:

1. The instant application has been filed under Section 483 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for grant of bail in connection with ECIR Case No.06 of 2023, arising out of ECIR/RNZO/25/2023 registered under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (herein referred as Act 2002).

Factual Matrix of the Case:

2. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the instant ECIR/complaint reads as under:

The petitioner was involved in preparation of fake deeds, falsification of government records and tampering with revenue registers to acquire and dispose of landed properties as a member of syndicate which comprises of Md. Saddam Hussain, Afshar Ali, Bhanu Pratap Prasad and others. The said accused person also involved in preparation of fake deeds for acquiring properties admeasuring 4.83 acres at Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi. As per the present circle rates of the urban residential properties, the value of the land admeasuring 483 decimals stands at Rs.22.69 crores @ Rs.4,68,291/- per decimal. The petitioner along with Tapas Ghosh who

was directly a party with the accused persons namely, Afshar Ali, Md. Saddam Hussain, Priya Ranjan Sahay and others have assisted them in their activities related acquisition, possession and use to of proceeds of crime and projected the said illegally acquired lands as untainted properties.

During further investigation, the role of the three persons namely, Md. Irshad, Sanjit Kumar (petitioner) and Tapas Ghosh emerged in the forgery in relation to the above stated properties. Tapas Ghosh worked as a deed searcher at the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata and petitioner Sanjit Kumar worked as a Sweeper/Watchman at Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata on contractual basis. The accused Tapas Ghosh and Sanjeet Kumar were involved in supplying blank pages and original volumes from the Registrar Assurances, Kolkata. They were in direct contact with accused Irshad Akhtar and provided original registers for making fake deed. An amount of Rs.21,43,000/ has been identified to be credited in the bank account of Tapas Ghosh by way of Bank Transfers or cash deposits in lieu of providing assistance to the accused persons of the stated Syndicate.

Further proceeds of crime have also been identified in the bank account of petitioner, Sanjeet Kumar, an amount of Rs. 60,000/- has been identified in his bank account which have been deposited by the accused persons of the land grabbing Syndicate and also some amounts were transferred in Bank account of Irshad who used to prepare fake deed of landed property.

The present petitioner had been arrested and accordingly the petitioner had preferred the Misc. Cri. Application No.1858 of 2024 for grant of his bail but the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-Spl. Judge, PML Act, Ranchi.

Hence the present petition has been preferred for the grant of bail.

Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner:

3. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken the following grounds:

i. The petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case as he has committed no offence as alleged in the prosecution complaint.

ii. The ground has been taken that admittedly the petitioner was a contractual employee working as Sweeper at Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata but he was not the custodian of key or any paper of the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata.

iii. As per the allegation made in the complaint, the co-accused person Irshad Akhtar had arranged the blank pages with the assistance of petitioner and co-accused person, Tapas Ghosh who was working at the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata and after the fake deed was written on the blank page, the same was planted in the records of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata by the accused persons.

The ground has been taken that the petitioner being sweeper in the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata was not the custodian of records, as such, it is impossible for the petitioner to plant the fake deed in the said office with the assistance of co-accused persons.

iv. It has also been alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had received an amount of Rs.60,000/- in lieu of providing assistance to co-accused persons, Tapas Ghosh, Irshad Akhtar and others.

The ground has been taken in this regard that the cash deposit of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.50,000/- has been reflected in the bank account of the petitioner but that does not substantiate the allegation as has been alleged in the complaint that the same is in lieu of providing assistance to the accused persons.

v. The ground has also been taken that the scheduled offence in the present case are Sections 420, 467, 476 of IPC of the predicate case being Sadar P.S. case No. 272 of 2023 and the petitioner is not an accused of the predicate offence and in absence of any accusation for the predicate offence, the petitioner cannot be held guilty under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

vi. The ground has also been taken that the prime allegation in the scheduled offence is with respect to forging of documents and there is no allegation against the petitioner that he has forged any document, hence, no offence under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC is made out against the petitioner. Moreso, it has nowhere been alleged that the petitioner had fraudulently induced any person to deliver any property so as to attract the offence of cheating against the petitioner.

vii. The ground has also been taken that the involvement of the petitioner as per the prosecuting agency is primarily through the angle of conspiracy, though, Section 120-B of IPC is not incorporated in the predicate offence which led to institution of Sadar P.S. Case no. 272 of 2023.

viii. The ground of parity has also been taken with respect to co-accused person, namely, Sri Hemant Soren who was made accused in the original prosecution complaint, who has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.06.2024 passed in B.A. No. 4892 of 2024.

ix. It has been contended that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 09.05.2024 and since then he is languishing in judicial custody.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, based upon the aforesaid ground, 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.

5. Further submission has been made in the aforesaid view of the matter as per the ground agitated, it is a fit case where the petitioner is to be given the privilege of bail.

Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent-ED:

6. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the opposite party-Enforcement Directorate has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail by taking the following grounds:

(i) The ground has been taken that it is incorrect on the part of the appellant to take the ground that the petitioner was having no access to the original records lying at the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata rather he was having access and has assisted his accomplices namely, Tapas Ghosh, Irshad Akhtar and others by bringing original volumes for the syndicate from the said office.

Further, the petitioner used to receive cash from his accomplices in lieu of his assistance which is also corroborated from his statements recorded under Section 50 of P.M.L. Act, 2002.

(ii) The ground has also been taken that the petitioner was unable to give satisfactory explanation regarding the cash deposited in his bank account as also the petitioner and his accomplices have admitted in their statements regarding their indulgence in the forgery committed in respect of the fraudulent acquisition of said 4.83 acres of property.

(iii) The ground has also been taken that it is incorrect on behalf of the petitioner to take the ground that the petitioner is not an accused of the predicate offence and in absence of any accusation for the predicate offence, the petitioner cannot be held guilty under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 rather the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pavana Dibbur vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal No. 2779 of 2023) has held that it is not necessary that the accused for the offence of money laundering to be made accused of schedule offence as also the offence of money laundering is an independent offence.

(iv) So far as the ground of parity is concerned which has been taken on behalf of the petitioner that the co-accused person, namely, Hemant Soren who was made accused in the original prosecution complaint, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.06.2024 passed in B.A. No. 4892 of 2024, the ground is being taken that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarun Kumar vs. Enforcement of Directorate, 2023 INSC 1006 has held that to apply parity, individual role of the accused must be seen and accused

cannot seek bail merely because co-accused person has been granted bail.

(v) The ground has also been taken that in course of investigation, the statement of various persons was recorded which corroborates the role of the petitioner in providing assistance to the accused persons in arranging blank pages from the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata for writing fake deeds.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite party-ED, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that since the nature of allegation committed by the present petitioner is serious, as such, the instant bail application is fit to be rejected.

Analysis

8. 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 Act, 2002 with its object and intent.

9. 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. The issues were debated threadbare in the United Nation Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Basle Statement of Principles enunciated in 1989, the FATF established at the summit of seven major industrial nations held in Paris from 14th to 16thJuly, 1989, the Political Declaration and Noble Programme of Action adopted by United Nations General Assembly vide its Resolution No. S-17/2 of 23.2.1990, the United Nations in the Special Session on countering World Drug Problem Together concluded on the 8th to the 10thJune, 1998, urging the State parties to enact a comprehensive legislation. This is evident from the introduction and Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Bill which became the 2002 Act. The same reads thus:

"INTRODUCTION

Money-laundering poses a serious threat not only to the financial systems of countries, but also to their integrity and sovereignty. To obviate such threats international community has taken some initiatives. It has been felt that to prevent money-laundering and connected activities a comprehensive legislation is urgently needed. To achieve this objective the Prevention of Money-laundering Bill, 1998 was introduced in the Parliament. The Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, which presented its report on 4th March, 1999 to the Lok Sabha. The Central Government broadly accepted the recommendation of the Standing Committee and incorporated them in the said Bill along with some other desired changes.

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

It is being realised, world over, that money-laundering poses a serious threat not only to the financial systems of countries, but also to their integrity and sovereignty. Some of the initiatives taken by the international community to obviate such threat are outlined below:--

(a) the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, to which India is a party, calls for prevention of laundering of proceeds of drug crimes and other connected activities and confiscation of proceeds derived from such offence.

(b) the Basle Statement of Principles, enunciated in 1989, outlined basic policies and procedures that banks should follow in order to assist the law enforcement agencies in tackling the problem of money-laundering.

(c) the Financial Action Task Force established at the summit of seven major industrial nations, held in Paris from 14th to 16th July, 1989, to examine the problem of money-laundering has made forty recommendations, which provide the foundation material forcomprehensive legislation to combat the problem of money-

laundering. The recommendations were classified under various heads. Some of the important heads are--

(i) declaration of laundering of monies carried through serious crimes a criminal offence;

(ii) to work out modalities of disclosure by financial institutions regarding reportable transactions;

(iii) confiscation of the proceeds of crime;

(iv) declaring money-laundering to be an extraditable offence; and

(v) promoting international co-operation in investigation of money- laundering.

(d) the Political Declaration and Global Programme of Action adopted by United Nations General Assembly by its Resolution No. S-17/2 of 23rd February, 1990, inter alia, calls upon the member States to develop mechanism to prevent financial institutions from being used for laundering of drug related money and enactment of legislation to prevent such laundering. (e) the United Nations in the Special Session on countering World Drug Problem Together concluded on the 8th to the

10th June, 1998 has made another declaration regarding the need to combat money-laundering. India is a signatory to this declaration."

10. It is, thus, 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.

11. It needs to refer herein the definition of "proceeds of crime" as provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002 which reads as under:

"2(u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property 3[or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country] 4[or abroad]; [Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence;]"

12.It is evident from the aforesaid provision 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.

13.In the explanation it has been referred that for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. The aforesaid explanation has been inserted in the statute book by way of Act 23 of 2019.

14.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.

15.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.

16.The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x) which means schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The "scheduled offence" has been defined under Section 2(1)(y) which reads as under:

"2(y) "scheduled offence" means-- (i) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or (iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule."

17. 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.

18. 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 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.]"

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. The punishment for money laundering has been provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2002. 30. Section 50 of the Act, 2002 confers power upon the authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence. For ready reference, Section 50 of the Act, 2002 is quoted as under:

"50. Powers of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence, etc.--(1) The Director shall, for the purposes of section 13, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:-- (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a [reporting entity] and examining him on oath; (c) compelling the production of records; (d) receiving evidence on affidavits; (e) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses and documents; and (f) any other matter which may be prescribed. (2) The Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary whether to give evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation or proceeding under this Act. (3) All the persons so summoned shall be bound to attend in person or through authorised agents, as such officer may direct, and shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements, and produce such documents as may be required. (4) Every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (5) Subject to any rules made in this behalf by the Central Government, any officer referred to in sub-section (2) may impound and retain in his custody for such period, as he thinks fit, any records produced before him in any proceedings under this Act:

Provided that an Assistant Director or a Deputy Director shall not-- (a) impound any records without recording his reasons for so doing; or (b) retain in his custody any such records for a period exceeding three months, without obtaining the previous approval of the [Joint Director]."

22. The various provisions of the Act, 2002 along with interpretation of the definition of "proceeds of crime" has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (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.

23. The interpretation of the condition which is to be fulfilled while arresting the person involved in the predicate offence has been made as would appear from paragraph 265. For ready reference, relevant paragraphs are being referred as under:

"265. 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 moneylaundering. 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. 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. 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."

24. The implication of Section 50 has also been taken into consideration. Relevant paragraph, i.e., paragraphs-422, 424, 425, 431, 434 read as under:

"422. 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. -----:

424. 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.

425. 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 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. 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 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)

431. 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. 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 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.

434. 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."

25.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 transactions, to furnish information of such transactions within the prescribed time in terms of Chapter IV of the 2002 Act.

26.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.

27.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 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.

28. 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.

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.

29. 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-372-374. For ready reference, the said paragraphs are being referred as under:

"372. 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.

373. 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.

374. 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."

30. 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 MadanlalChoudhary 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 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 is quoted 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 17 A.B.A. No. 10671 of 2023 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."

31. 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.

32. 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 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. So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 is concerned, as has been referred hereinabove, at paragraph-412 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 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.

33. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, (2015) 16 SCC 1 has been pleased to hold at paragraph -30 that the conditions specified under Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with, which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and also Section 71 of PMLA. Section 65 requires that the provisions of Cr.P.C shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and Section 71 provides that the provisions of PMLA shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. PMLA has an overriding effect and the provisions of CrPC would apply only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.

34. 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 appellant. For ready reference, paragraph-30 of the said judgment reads as under:

"30. The conditions specified under Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with, which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and also Section 71 of PMLA. Section 65 requires that the provisions of 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. 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 appellant."

35. Now adverting into fact of the instant case and the allegation levelled against the present petitioner which according to learned counsel for the petitioner is being said that the same cannot be said to attract the ingredient of Section 3 of PMLA, 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.

36. 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.

37. Relevant paragraphs of supplementary prosecution complaint are referred herein:

Background of the information shared under section 66(2) of the PMLA. 2002 to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand 9.2 In one of the investigation under ECIR/RNZO/18/2022, conducted by the Directorate of Enforcement, searches were conducted at several premises including the premises of accused person namely Bhanu Pratap Prasad, Md. Saddam Hussain, Afshar Ali and others on 13.04.2023. The search was conducted in a matter of fraudulent acquisition of a defence possessed land by a group of persons on the basis of fake deed. During searches, several incriminating documents and original government records were recovered and seized from the premises of Bhanu Pratap Prasad, which were found falsified and tampered in order to acquire as well as assist other personas to acquire landed properties in illegal manner. Bhanu Pratap Prasad and six other members of the above stated syndicate including Afshar Ali and Md Saddam Hussain were arrested on 14.04.2023 under section 19 of PMLA for being involved in the above forgeries which have resulted in the generation of proceeds of crime.

9.3Bhanu Pratap Prasad being a government servant (Revenue Sub-

Inspector, Baragain) was part of a syndicate that was habitually involved in illegal activities pertaining to forgeries and tampering with government records aimed at acquiring landed properties. As such, the information with respect to Bhanu Pratap Prasad and the documents seized from his possession was shared with the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand under section 66(2) of the PMLA, 2002 On the basis of said information, the FIR was lodged by the Sadar PS. The information shared under section 66(2) of PMLA, 2002 is an integral part of the

FIR 272/2023. On the basis of the FIR no: 272/2023 the ECIR:RNZO/25/2023 was recorded for further investigation under PMLA, 2002.

Investigation under PMLA, 2002 in ECIR:RNZO/25/2023-

9.5 During investigation, the accused person Bhanu Pratap Prasad was taken into remand in ECIR RNZO/18/2022 and the seized documents and his digital devices were scrutinized. The scrutiny of the mobile phone of Bhanu Pratap Prasad further led to the identification of one 8.80 acres property situated at Shanti Nagar, Behind DAV School, Bariatu, Ranchi, acquired and possessed by Hemant Soren Another property ad measuring (4.83) acres which were acquired by the above stated syndicate of Bharu Pratap Prasad, Afshar Ali and others was also identified.

9.9 As stated above, during investigation, another 4.83 acres property, situated at Cheshire Home Road, Mauja Gart, Ranchi was also identified to be acquired by the accused persons inducing Afshar All, Md Saddam Hussain and others in connivance with Bhanu Pratap Prasad. Fake deeds, diaries having hand written cash details were also seized from possession of Md.Saddam Hussain, Imtiyaz Ahmed (an accomplice of Afshar Ali and Saddam Hussain). These entries contained huge cash payments including compensatory payment to Bhanu Pratap Prasad in relation of the above stated 4.83-acre property.

9.17 During further investigation into the role of other associates of Bhanu Pratap Prasad, it has surfaced that a fake deed no. 3985/1940 has been prepared by the accused persons Md. Saddam Hussain, Afshar Ali and others, the copy of which was also seized from the possession of Md. Saddam Hussain during searches dated 13.04.2023 (in ECIR/RNZO/18/2022). The scrutiny of the said fake deed no. 3985 of year 1940 between Balka Pahan s/o Rati Pahan (Seller) and Asgar Hussain S/o Nabu Hussain (purchaser) reveals that the deed has been executed for the Bhuinhari property falling under Khewat No. 10 (the same Khewat of which, 8.86 acres property has been in use and possession of the accused person Hemant Soren) under Mauja Baragain at Thana no 184.----

9.19 During course of investigation, the said Md. Saddam Hussain was taken in remand on 19.04.2024 to 20.04. 2024 and his statement was recorded. In his statement dated 13.04 2024, he was shown deed no. 3985 of the year 1940. Book 1, Volume 80, Page no. 297 to 298, executed for property under Mauja Baragain at Thana no. 184, Ranchi, Khata no 234, Khewat no. 10/11 of various plots including plot no. 989, area 0.84 acres and plot no 996, area 0.32 acres part of total area 6.34 acres, to which he admitted that deed No 3985/1940 is a fake deed, which was made by Afshar Ali and the same was placed in the records of the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata. The said fake deed was recovered from his residence, as he was working with Afshar Ali for disposing of the land. The involvement of Md. Saddam Hussain in the said fake deed no. 3985 is corroborated from the seizure of the said

deed 3985 of the year 1940 from his possession during searches conducted on 13.04.2023 by EC IR/RNZO/18/2022)

9.20 Subsequently, the said Afshar Ali was also taken into the custody of the Directorate of Enforcement on 16.104 2024. During his custody, he stated that deed no. 3985 of the year 1940, registered at the Registrar of Assurances Kolkata, related to property under Mauja Baragain at Thana no. 184, Ranchi, Khata no 234. Khewat no 10/11, totalling to 6.34 acres, was a fake deed. He further stated that two other fake deeds were written while making this fake deed 3985 of the year 1940. The pages from the original volumes of the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata were provided by the Shekhar Prasad Mahto, Shekhar Kushwaha, Md. Saddam Husain then handed over these pages to the accused person namely Md Irshad, r/o Hazaribagh for writing the three deeds including deed No 3985/1940. He stated to have given Rs 60.000/ to Md Irshad for writing the deeds. The statement of Md. Irshad was recorded u/s 50 of P'MLA, 2002 on 24.04 2024 in which he admitted to have written the above stated deed and further acknowledged his hand writing in which the said deed was written.

9:35 Investigation reveals that the syndicate used to identify vacant land parcels in Ranchi, where no activity was done. In addition to this the accused persons namely Afshar Ali, Priya Ranjan Sahay and others largely targeted tribal lands whose sale purchase were restricted under CNT Act. Then they used to make antedated fake deeds either to change the nature of the property (making them general lands) or to create fictitious owners. Later with the assistance of officials of circle offices, the original records were falsified so that the land could be acquired by them. In addition, the above 8.86 acres of property as discussed above, the accused persons namely Md. Saddam Hussain, Afshar Ali. Priya Ranjan Sahay and others are involved with Bhanu Pratap Prasad in forgery with respect to property admeasuring 4.83 acres situated at Mauja Gari, Khata no. 53, at Plot No. 31 32,33,35, 36, 38, 72 and 73, Baragain Anchal, Ranchi. The Land was identified by Priya Ranjan Sahay, Md. Saddam Hussain, Shekhar Kushwaha and Bipin Singh. For this property, two take deeds, deed no. 2376 of the year 1940 and other 3954 of the year 1974 were prepared by Saddam Hussain, Md. Afshar Ali end others. Deed no 2376 of 1940 was written by Makbul Ansari and the deed no. 3954 of 1974 was written by Md. Alauddin, by the involvement of the accused Md. Irshad, who used to work with Makbul Ansari and Md Alauddin. The said Makbul Ansari and Md. Alauddin are now deceased. This fact has been admitted by the accused person Md. Irsad in his statement dated 24.04.2024 recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002.

9.38 Investigation reveals that the blank page for writing the said deed was arranged by accused person Irshad Akhtar. The said accused person Irshad Akhtar arranged the blank pages with the assistance of the accused persons namely Tapas Ghosh, a deed searcher and Sanjeet Kumar, a contractual staff, both working at the office of the Registrar of Assurance, Kolkata. After the fake deed was written on blank page, the same war again planted in the records of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata by the accused persons namely Irshad Akhtar, Sanjit Kumar

and Tapas Ghosh. In addition to preparation of fake deed no 3954/1974, the accused persons namely Bipin Singh, Bhanu Pratap Prasad, Afshar Al, Md. Irshad and others in connivance with each other entered the property admeasuring 4.83 acres in the name of Samrendra Chandra Ghoshal in page no. 139 of register II. volume I. The accused persons namely Bipin Singh, Bhanu Pratap Prasad, Md. Irshad and others have admitted this fact during their statement. The accused person Md. Irshad did the entry in his own handwriting on page 139 of the register II. volume 1 The work of entering the name of Sammendra Chandra Ghoshal was done at the residence of the accused person. Md. Saddam Hussain and for this work. Re 5 lakhs was paid to Bhanu Pratap Prasad through the accused person Bipin Singh. In his statement dated 24.04 3024 recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002, the accused person Md. Irshad admitted to have written a correction slip related to the property situated at Cheshire Home Road, Khata no 53, covering an area of 4.83 acres in the name of Samrendra Chandra Ghoshal in connivance with Saddam Hussain. The said correction slip was recovered from the residence of Mid Saddam Hussain during search dated 13.04.2023 in ECIR-RNZO/18/2022 which has been discussed above. The accused person Md. Irshad also acknowledged his handwriting on the said correction slip. In addition to the above stated correction slip, on 13.04.2023, pages of register II related to Khata no 53 in the name of Samrendra Chandra Ghoshal were also recovered. The accused person Md. Irshad also admitted to have made the said entries in Register II. The bank account scrutiny of the accused persons namely Sanjit Kumar Tapas Ghosh, Md. Irshad, and Irshad Akhtar reveals interconnected transactions amongst the said persons. In addition to this frequent cash deposits made into their bank accounts during the period of commission of offence has also been identified. These cash deposits and bank account transactions corroborate the link between the accused persons and also establish the receipt of proceeds of crime in cash, out of which, some portion has been deposited by them in their bank accounts. -

9.41 The accused person Afshar Ali also admitted that another deed no 2376/1940 was prepared by him in relation to a part of land admeasuring 2.83 acres out of the 4.83 acres of the above stated land. The blank page for this deed was obtained with the assistance of the accused person Irshad Akhtar, Sanjit Kumar and Tapas Ghosh.

9.42 Investigation reveals that when the fake deed no. 3954 of 1974 was prepared by Afshar Ali and others in relation to property ad measuring 4.83 acres, they missed to enter Plot no. 32 out of the several plots of 4.83 acres. It is revealed that in the month of May, 2022, Afshar Ali and Md Saddam Hussain went to Kolkata to enter the said plot no. 32 in the fake deed which was affixed in original volume kept at Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata. Both of them stayed at the Hotel Peerless Inin, Kolkata. During their stay the accused person Irshad Akhtar, r/o Bariatu, Ranchi brought an original volume from the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata. After making fake entries, Irshad Akhtar took the volume back to the Registrar of Assurances in Kolkata for depositing the same. Afshar Ali made fake entries on page 299 of the deed while their stay at Hotel Peerless Inn. In addition to entering Plot no 32, they

erased some portion of previously written deed using blade, and re- wrote the sentences "two registered deeds of sale dated 15.7.1939 and 24.7.1940 executed by".-----

During the course of investigation, the Call Detail Records (CDRs) for mobile number 85xxxxxx78 belonging to Afshar Ali and mobile numbers 94xxxxxx55 and 93xxxxxx35 belonging to Md. Saddam Hussain was obtained and scrutinised. The scrutiny of CDR of the said numbers reveals that on 13.05.2022 to 14.05.2022, Afshar Ali and Md. Saddam Hussain were in Kolkata. ------

At the said Hotel Peerless Inn, the original volume 169, (in which the fake deed no. 3954 of 1974 in the name of Samrendra Chandra Ghosal was earlier affixed) was brought for corrections by the accused person Irshad Akhtar The accused persons namely Md. Saddam Hussain and Afshar Ali were present inside the hotel room. On the said day, at Hotel Peerless Inn, the original volume was provided by the accused persons Tapas Ghosh and Sanjit Kumar to Irshad Akhtar who brought it to Hotel Peerless and the said correction was made. During correction, a photograph of Afshar Ali was captured by Md. Saddam Hussain which was recovered from his mobile phone.

9.47 Further, the scrutiny of the bank accounts bearing no. 400010110005147 and 879576110 in the name of Sanjeet Kumar maintained in Bank of India and Indian Bank reveal a cash deposit of Rs. 60000 in lieu of providing assistance to Tapas Ghosh, Irshad Akhtar and others.

9.48 The scrutiny of the Axis Bank Account No. 918010066076941 maintained in the name of Md. Irshad reveals frequent transactions with accused persons namely Md. Saddam Hussain, Afshar Ali and others amounting to Rs. 12,25,000 mostly in a period of one year.--

10. Gist of the statements recorded during course of investigation under PMLA 2002

7. Sanjit Kumar (accused no. 12)

His statement dated 08.05 2024 recorded under section 50 of PMLA, 2002 reveals that he worked as a contractual staff at Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata since 2017 His statement further reveals that he has associations with accused person Irshad Akhtar in providing blank pages in lieu of money. His statement also reveals that he has bank account transactions with accused persons and their associates during the period 2019 to 2022.

Process and activity connected with proceeds of crime and role of the accused persons in offence of money laundering -

8. Sanjit kumar

The accused person worked as a contractual staff at Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata and stayed there at night. The said accused Sanjit Kumar had access to the original records lying at the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata. He assisted his co-accused persons namely Tapas Ghosh, Irshad Akhtar, and others by bringing original volumes for the

syndicate from Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata as he had direct access to those volumes. He assisted the accused persons namely Afshar Ali Md Saddam Hussain and others falsified and tampered the original registers at Pearless Hotel. He was directly a party with the above stated co-accused persons in writing fake deed no. 3954 of 1974 belonging to 4.83 acres of property. On several occasions, he gave blank pages of original volumes to the accused persons in lieu of money He assisted the accused persons in bounding and pasting the fake deeds in original registers after they were returned. The accused person saved to receive cash from the accused persons in lieu of his assistance, a portion of which was also used to be deposited in his bank accounts.

Thus, the sand Sanjit Kumar is a party with accused persons namely Irshad Akhtar and others in their activities linked to acquiring landed properties fraudulently ie on the basis of fake deeds which are proceeds of crime. The said Summer has knowingly acquired proceeds crime in lieu of providing assistance to the posed persons namely Irshad Akhtar and others in their process and activities connected to preparation of fake deeds/instruments to acquire proceeds of crime (in form of landed properties) and using and claiming the said fake deeds instruments as untainted property.

Thus, the said Sanjit Kumar has committed acts which constitute the offence of Money Laundering as defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002

38. It is evident from the prosecution complaint that the instant case ECIR RNZO/25/2023 has been recorded on the basis of the FIR no 272/2023 lodged under sections 465/467/468/469/471/466/420/379/474 of IPC by Sadar PS, Ranchi on the complaint of Manoj Kumar, ex-Circle Officer, Baragain, Ranchi. The complaint of Manoj Kumar was the result of action taken on the information shared by the Directorate of Enforcement under section 66(2) of the PMLA, 2002 to the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand against Bhanu Pratap Prasad and other persons of his syndicate.

39. It has come during investigation that the petitioner along with other accused persons was involved in preparation of fake deed as admitted by co-accused Afsar Ali mentioned at para 9.20 of the prosecution complaint. Further as per para 9.35 & 9.38 of the prosecution complaint where CDR has been reproduced the petitioner was acquainted with other co-accused and also as per paras 9.45, 9.46 & 9.48 of the prosecution complaint, substantial amount was transferred in the account of this petitioner.

40. Further it has revealed during investigation that the petitioner was in touch with other co-accused and also as per para 9.47 of the prosecution complaint statement of co-accused Irshad Akhtar he had received money

from the account of this petitioner and the handsome amount was transferred in the account of this petitioner in lieu of providing assistance to co-accused Md. Irshad.

41. Further at paragraph 9.38 of the ECIR, it has come that the blank page for writing the said deed was arranged by accused person Irshad Akhtar. The said accused person Irshad Akhtar arranged the blank pages with the assistance of the accused persons namely Tapas Ghosh, a deed searcher and Sanjeet Kumar (petitioner herein) both working at the office of the Registrar of Assurance, Kolkata and after the fake deed was written on blank page, the same was again planted in the records of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata by the accused persons namely Irshad Akhtar, Sanjit Kumar and Tapas Ghosh.

42.It has further revealed that in addition to preparation of fake deed no. 3954/1974, the accused persons namely Bipin Singh, Bhanu Pratap Prasad, Afshar Al, Md. Irshad and others in connivance with each other entered the property admeasuring 4.83 acres in the name of Samrendra Chandra Ghoshal in page no. 139 of register II volume I. The accused persons namely Bipin Singh, Bhanu Pratap Prasad, Md. Irshad and others have admitted this fact during their statement.

43.Further, the bank account scrutiny of the accused persons namely Sanjit Kumar Tapas Ghosh, Md. Irshad, and Irshad Akhtar reveals interconnected transactions amongst the said persons. In addition to this frequent cash deposits made into their bank accounts during the period of commission of offence has also been identified. These cash deposits and bank account transactions corroborate the link between the accused persons and also establish the receipt of proceeds of crime in cash, out of which, some portion has been deposited by them in their bank accounts.

44. Thus, from aforesaid imputation and discussion prima-facie it appears that the involvement of present petitioner in alleged crime cannot be lightly brushed out.

45. Now coming to the contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner wherein he has taken the ground that the petitioner is not

accused in the predicate offence, hence cannot be made liable for money laundering offence. But the contention of the learned counsel appears to be misplaced reason being that it is settled proposition of law that the offence of money Laundering is independent of the scheduled offence, particularly in matters related to the proceeds of crime.

46. At this juncture, it will be purposeful to discuss the core of Section 3 of PML Act, 2002. Section 3 of the Act 2002, addresses itself to three things

(i) person; (ii) process or activity; and (iii) product. Insofar as persons covered by Section 3 are concerned, they are, (i) those who directly or indirectly attempt to indulge; or (ii) those who knowingly assists; or (iii) those who are knowingly a party; or (iv) those who are actually involved. Insofar as process is concerned, the Section identifies six different activities, namely (i) concealment; (ii) possession; (iii) acquisition; (iv) use; (v) projecting; or (vi) claiming as untainted property, any one of which is sufficient to constitute the offence. Insofar as product is concerned, Section 3 identifies "proceeds of crime" or the property representing the proceeds of crime as the product of the process or activity.

47. It is evident that as per Section 3, there are six processes or activities identified therein, i.e., (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 illegal mining activities are laundered through diverse methods, one of which Involves making incremental cash deposits in their bank accounts. This is done in a piecemeal manner with the intention of presenting the tainted property as untainted.

48. Keeping in mind these essential elements that make up the molecular structure of Section 3, this Court, adverting into 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.

49. 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 Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (2022) SCC Online 929. In Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46, the Supreme Court 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.

50. 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 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.

51. 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 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.

52. 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.

53. 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.

54. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the respondent ED has placed heavy reliance on the statements of witnesses recorded 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.

55. The three Judge Bench the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46 has held that the statements of witnesses recorded by Prosecution - ED are admissible in evidence in view of Section 50. Such statements may make out a formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence of money laundering

56. In the instant case, it has been found that during the course of investigation from the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 50 that the petitioner had indulged, knowingly as the party and is actually involved in all the activities connected with the offence of money laundering.

57. As discussed above, the "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 and 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.

58. Further, it is evident from the judicial pronouncement as discussed above that in order to constitute any property as proceeds of crime, it must be derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The explanation clarifies that the proceeds of crime include property, not only derived or obtained from scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. Clause (u) also clarifies that even the value of any such property will also be the proceeds of crime and in the instant case from perusal of paragraph of the prosecution complaint it is evident that the petitioner is not only involved rather his involvement is direct in procuring the proceeds of crime by way of connivance with the other accused persons.

59. At the cost of repetition, it is pertinent to mention here that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Act 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 offence of money laundering is not dependent or linked to the date on which the scheduled offence or predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date is the date on which the person indulges in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Thus, the involvement of the person in any of the criminal activities like concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so, would constitute the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Act. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarun kumar vs. Assistant Director, directorate of Enforcement (supra).

60. 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 mentioned in prosecution complaint.

61. 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.

62. 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.

63. In the context of aforesaid contention, it would be relevant to note here that in the instant case mere filing of the charge-sheet does not cause material change in circumstances.

64. 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.

65. At this juncture it would be apposite to refer the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka, (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."

66. 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.

67. 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 PMLA 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.

68. Sub-section (1)(ii) of Section 45 of the Act, 2002, provides that if 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, 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 of offence while on bail.

69. Section 45(2) provides to consider the limitation for grant of bail which is in addition 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 Section 438 or 439 of Cr.P.C. is to be taken into consideration.

70. It is, thus, evident by taking into consideration the provision of Sections 19(1), 45(1) and 45(2) of PML Act that the conditions provided therein are required to be considered while granting the benefit of regular bail in exercise of power conferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., apart from the twin conditions which has been provided under Section 45(1) of the Act, 2002.

71. 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 but as would appear from the preceding paragraphs, money has been transferred in the account of the present petitioner by the co-accused.

72. 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) PMLA. 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 PMLA are "reasonable grounds for believing" which means that the Court has to find, from a prima facie 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, 2023 SCC Online SC 1486, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"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."

73. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the process envisaged under Section 50 of PMLA 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 PMLA are given the status of judicial proceedings under Section 50(4) of PMLA. When such is the sweep of Section 50 of PMLA, the statements that have been recorded and which has been relied upon in the complaint must be taken to be an important material implicating the petitioner. The statements that were recorded during the investigation has been dealt with in prosecution complaint and many of the statements clearly implicate the petitioner. Therefore, the statements that have been recorded and which has been relied upon, is also a strong material that prima facie establishes the offence of money laundering against the present petitioner.

74. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau 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."

75.This Court on the basis of aforesaid discussions, factual aspects as also the legal position is of the view that there is no reason to believe by this Court that the petitioner is not involved in the said offence said to be proceeds of crime.

76.This Court while considering the prayer for regular bail has taken into consideration that though the Court is not sitting in appeal on the order passed by learned court since this Court is exercising the power of Section 439 Cr.P.C 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. On the issue of Parity:

77.The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the ground of parity with respect to co-accused person, namely, Sri Hemant Soren who was made accused in the original prosecution complaint, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.06.2024 passed in B.A. No. 4892 of 2024.

78.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 of the 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.

79.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 the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. Reference in this regard

may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (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, 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."

80. 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.

81. It has further been held in the paragraph 19 of the said judgment that the principle of parity is to be applied in the matter of bail but equally it has been laid down therein that there cannot be any negative equality, meaning thereby, that if a co-accused person has been granted bail without consideration of the factual aspect or on the ground said to be not proper, then, merely because the co-accused person has been directed to be released on bail, the same will not attract the principle of parity on the principle that Article 14 envisages positive equality and not negative equality. For ready reference, relevant paragraph, i.e., paragraph-19, of the aforesaid judgment reads as under:

"19. It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the benefit on the basis of such wrong decision."

82. Now this court is adverting into facts of instant case to decide the issue of parity in the backdrop of aforesaid settled legal ratio and further taking into consideration the aforesaid settled position of law, thinks fit to refer herein distinguishable facts in the case of present petitioner to that the case of co-accused and petitioner of B.A no.4892 of 2024.

83. This Court in order to verify the application of principle of parity has gone through the order passed in B.A no.4892 of 2024 by which co-accused has been enlarged on the bail and found that there is allegation upon the said petitioner about using the State machinery for his own benefit and to frustrate the investigation but herein against the present applicant/petitioner it has come in the investigation that he was involved in preparation of fake deeds, falsification of government records and tampering with revenue registers to acquire and dispose of landed properties as a member of syndicate and further proceeds of crime have

also been identified in the bank account of present petitioner namely Sanjit Kumar, an amount of Rs. 60,000/- has been identified in his bank account which have been deposited by the accused persons of the land grabbing Syndicate and also some amounts were transferred in Bank account of Irshad who used to prepare fake deed of landed property.

84. Thus, the allegation against the present petitioner is entirely different and as per the prosecution complaint it is evident that the present petitioner has been found in preparation of fake deeds, falsification of government records and tampering with revenue registers to acquire and dispose of landed properties as a member of syndicate.

85. 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.

86. This Court, on the basis of the discussion of 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/petitioner of B.A no.4892 of 2024, therefore it is considered view of this Court that it is not a fit case for application of the issue of parity herein.

87. 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 C. B. I., 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 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."

88. 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 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 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."

89.This Court is conscious of this fact that while deciding the issue of grant bail in grave economic offences it is utmost duty of this Court that the nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have been kept in mind.

90.This Court, in view of the aforesaid material available against the petitioner, is of the view, that in such a grave nature of offence, which is available on the face of the material, applying the principle of grant of bail wherein the principle of having prima facie case is to be followed, the nature of allegation since is grave and as such, it is not a fit case of grant of bail.

91.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.

92.For the foregoing reasons, having regard to facts and circumstances, as have been analysed 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.

93. 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.

94. 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.) Saurabh/-

A.F.R.