Jharkhand High Court
Bhanu Pratap Prasad vs The Directorate Of Enforcement on 26 November, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
[2025:JHHC:35668]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.7872 of 2025
-----
Bhanu Pratap Prasad, aged about 57 years, son of Late Ram
Lal Prasad, resident of Jhoolan Singh Chowk, Simdega,
P.O. & P.S.-Simdega, Dist.-Simdega
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The Directorate of Enforcement
... ... Opposite. Party
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
Mrs. Shabina Parween, Advocate
For Opp. Party-E.D. : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
: Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Varun Girdhar, Advocate
Mr. Manmohit Bhalla, Advocate
------
C.A.V. on 12.11.2025 Pronounced on 26/11/2025
Prayer
1. The instant application has been filed under Sections
483 and 484 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 praying for grant of bail
in connection with ECIR Case No.01 of 2023 arising out of
ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 dated 21.10.2022 registered for the
alleged offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002, now pending in the Court of
learned A.J.C.-I-cum-Special Judge, P.M.L.A. at Ranchi.
Prosecution case/Facts
2. The brief facts of the case is that an ECIR bearing No.
18/2022 was recorded on the basis of the FIR bearing No.
141 of 2022 dated 04.06.2022, lodged at Bariatu Police
[2025:JHHC:35668]
Station, Ranchi Jharkhand under Sections 420, 467 and
471 of the Indian Penal Code against Pradip Bagchi on the
basis of complaint of one Sri Dilip Sharma, Tax Collector,
Ranchi Municipal Corporation, for submission of forged
papers i.e., Aadhar Card, Electricity Bill and Possession
letter for obtaining holding number 0210004194000A1 and
0210004031000A5.
3. The investigation revealed that by submitting the
forged documents, a holding number was obtained in name
of Pradip Bagchi for property at Morabadi Mouza, Ward No.
21/19 at Ranchi having an area of the plot measuring
455.00 decimals approximately.
4. Investigation further revealed that the above property
belonged to Late B.M. Laxman Rao which was given to the
Army and had been in the possession and occupation of the
Army since independence. Investigation also reveals that by
way of creating a fake owner (Pradip Bagchi) of the above said
property, it was sold to a company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea
Estate Pvt. Ltd for which the consideration amount was
shown Rs. 7 crores which was highly under value and out of
this amount payment amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs only were
made into the account of said Pradip Bagchi and rest of the
money was falsely shown to be paid through cheques in the
deed no. 6888 of 2021.
[2025:JHHC:35668]
5. It has come during investigation that records
available at the Circle Officer, Bargain, Ranchi along with the
office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata have been altered
and records have been modified. The survey of Circle Office
Bargain as well as Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata
transpires that documents have been tampered to create
fictitious owner of the above properties.
6. It has also come during investigation that some other
properties which are non-saleable Government land, have
been acquired by forging the records and creating fraudulent
documents and by tampering the records available at the
concerned land record authorities.
7. It has been alleged that the petitioner, Bhanu Pratap
Prasad, who held the post of Revenue Sub-Inspector at the
Circle Office, Bargain, was a key and active member of this
organized racket.
8. The Enforcement Directorate upon completion of
investigation registered ECIR Case no. 01/2023 in
E.C.I.R/RNZO/18/2022 dated 21.10.22.
9. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested in this case, and he
preferred Misc. Cri. Application No. 1032 of 2025 for grant of
bail before the Spl. Judge PML Cases Ranchi which was
rejected vide order dated 11.06.2025 hence, the instant bail
application.
[2025:JHHC:35668]
Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner
10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
taken the following grounds that: -
(i) Even if the entire ECIR will be taken into
consideration, no offence will be said to be committed
so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 3 & 4 of
the P.M.L. Act, 2002.
(ii) The petitioner's involvement in the present case is
predicated solely upon conjecture and purported
admissions made by co-accused. This implicating
factor lacks substantial evidentiary support and raises
concerns regarding its reliability and admissibility.
(iii) He is having no involvement or connection with the
entirety of the prosecution proceedings or the disputed
land in question.
(iv) The petitioner has no prior criminal record. the
petitioner has neither committed any fraud/cheating
or forged any documents, thus, no offences under the
aforementioned sections have been committed by the
petitioner.
(v) There is no assertion that the petitioner attempted to
commit any offence delineated under the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, particularly as delineated in
Section 3 of the statute.
(vi) It is stated that in the year 1990 the petitioner joined
[2025:JHHC:35668]
his service as a Rajaswa Karamchari in the District of
Gumla and time-to-time he has been transferred from
one Circle Office to another Circle office in the
different-different district and lastly in the month of
February 2019 petitioner joined as a Revenue Sub-
Inspector in Circle Office, Bargain, Ranchi and only
because he was posted in the Bargain Circle office he
has been made accused in the instant case, however
he has committed no offence as alleged in the instant
case.
(vii) It is stated that a search was conducted on 13.04.2023
at the residential premises of the petitioner at Jhoolan
Singh Chowk, Simdega and another search was
conducted at rental residential places situated at Road
No.7, Hill View Road, Bariatu, Ranchi.
(viii) It has further been contended that During search of
the residential premises of the petitioner at Jhoolan
Singh Chowk, Simdega an amount to the tune of
Rs.3,97,800/- and one gold chain worth of
Rs.77,000/- as per bill dated 03.04.2023, two mobile
sets with Sim No.8084164626 and Sim
No.8789563290, 6 Pass Books and 4 cheque books
were seized and apart from that no any other
incriminating documents and articles were seized.
(ix) It is stated that during search of rental residential
[2025:JHHC:35668]
places situated at Road No.7, Hill View Road, Bariatu,
Ranchi some registers in total number 17, some loose
papers, stuffed in 11 trunks and one H.P. Laptop has
been seized, however no any incriminating documents
has been recovered from the rental house and the
documents which was seized from the petitioner's
house had been kept due to security reason not for any
other malicious act.
(x) It is stated that the articles and documents seized
during search at rental premises of the petitioner at
Ranchi are not incriminating in nature. The
petitioner's laptop which was seized during search on
13.04.2023 does not contain any incriminating data.
(xi) It is stated that the petitioner has not acquired any
movable or immoveable property from the proceeds of
crime under Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002
which is evident from the documents and the
circumstances of the instant case.
(xii) It is stated that the petitioner has committed no
offence and no proceeds of crime as defined under
PMLA has either been generated by him or has been
received by him at any point of time. The entire case
of the prosecution is based on presumption and
assumption without any evidence and hence it can
safely be said that the petitioner is an innocent. A
[2025:JHHC:35668]
close examination of the working and financial
background of the petitioner will clearly demonstrate
that the story manufactured by the prosecution
pertaining to "proceeds of crime" is false, legally
unsustainable and cannot be relied upon.
(xiii) Petitioner has been remanded in the instant case on
14.04.2023 and since then he is languishing in jail
custody i.e., for about 2 years 07 months.
(xiv) The petitioner has been made victim of circumstances
and has falsely been implicated in the instant case
without any cogent and reliable evidences as against
him.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the
aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the learned court
while considering the prayer for bail ought to have taken into
consideration all these aspects of the matter both legal and
factual but having not done so, serious error has been
committed.
12. Further submission has been made in the aforesaid
view of the matter as per the ground agitated that it is a fit
case where the petitioner is to be given the privilege of bail.
Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
respondent/Directorate of Enforcement
13. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for
the Enforcement Directorate, has vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail by taking the following grounds: -
[2025:JHHC:35668]
(i) It has been submitted that it is incorrect on the part
of the petitioner that he is innocent and having no
connection with the commission of crime.
(ii) It has been contended that if the proceeds of crime
are there, the same will be said to be respective of the
proceeds obtained from the scheduled offence, rather,
even in case of proceeds of crime if it has been obtained
other than the crime as under the scheduled offence,
then also the ingredients of Section 3 of the P.M.L. Act,
2002 will be applicable.
(iii) It has been contended that the present petitioner,
has misused his position and worked together with the
members of the land mafia His illegal actions include
hiding official land records at his private residence
changing land entries to benefit others.
(iv) The explanations given by the petitioner about the
seized materials are false. 17 original land registers
were kept at this private residence for security reasons
is not acceptable.
(v) Thus, the petitioner was knowingly a party and actually
involved with the other accomplices in activity
connected with the proceeds of crime i.e. its
acquisition, use and projecting and claiming the
proceeds of crime as untainted property. Thus, the
petitioner is guilty of the offence of money laundering
[2025:JHHC:35668]
as defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002, punishable
under section 4 of PMLA, 2002.
(vi) The instant prosecution complaint is backed by
documentary evidences and incriminating seizure
which are further corroborated from other accused or
witnesses during their statements under Section 50 of
PMLA, 2002.
(vii) The petitioner's claims are merely an attempt to
conceal his involvement in illegal activities related to
assisting his accomplices in fraudulently acquiring
properties.
(viii) In his own voluntary statement dated 16.04.2023,
the petitioner admitted to his role in a larger system of
corruption, stating that a fixed bribe of 2 to 2.5 lakhs
was collected every month and sent to the high officials.
This is corroborated by evidence of cash payments
found in a diary seized from co-accused Imtiaz Ahmed.
(ix) The petitioner admitted in his statement dated
23.04.2023 to falsifying entries in Register-II to create
a fake title for a relative of the main accused, Pradip
Bagchi. This was not an isolated act; he also traveled to
Kolkata to obtain certified copies of forged deeds for
another 3.81-acre fraudulent land transaction, proving
his active and continuous role in the conspiracy.
[2025:JHHC:35668]
(x) The petitioner's past conduct demonstrates a high
propensity to obstruct justice. The act of illegally
removing and concealing 17 volumes of official
government registers is a direct attempt to tamper with
primary evidence. Such conduct establishes that if
released on bail, the petitioner is highly likely to
influence witnesses, destroy evidence, and misuse his
liberty to derail the judicial process.
(xi) The offence committed by the petitioner is not an
ordinary crime, but a grave economic offence that falls
in the category of cases which is a class apart and
further in matters involving serious economic offences,
the period of incarceration cannot be the sole
consideration for grant of bail, and that a stricter
approach is warranted in view of the impact on society
and public trust, Therefore, the petitioner's plea
regarding his period in custody does not merit
consideration for the grant of bail. The learned Special
Judge, after duly considering the material on record
and the gravity of the offense, rightly found a prima
facie case and was not inclined to enlarge the accused
petitioner on bail. The petitioner has presented no new
facts to overcome these well-reasoned findings.
(xii) The petitioner has attempted to mislead this Hon'ble
Court by providing false justifications for the highly
[2025:JHHC:35668]
incriminating materials seized from his private
residence on 13.04.2023 and the explanation that 17
original government registers were kept at his private
residence for security reasons following a theft at the
Circle Office is a baseless and untenable excuse as a
Revenue Sub-Inspector and public servant, the illegal
removal of sensitive public records from designated
official custody and their concealment at a private
location is, in itself, an egregious act of misconduct and
a direct attempt to tamper with evidence.
(xiii) The claim that the petitioner is being targeted only
because of his official posting at the Bargain Circle
Office is false and misleading. The investigation has
clearly shown that he misused his position and worked
together with members of the land mafia and he has
been named not just because of his job title, but
because he used his position to commit serious
financial crimes.
(xiv) The petitioner has failed to offer any genuine or
legally acceptable explanation for the seized cash, gold,
and banking documents. In view of the strong evidence
of his role in a criminal conspiracy and the statutory
presumption under the PMLA, these items must be
treated as prima facie proceeds of crime.
[2025:JHHC:35668]
(xv) The plea that the petitioner is a "victim of
circumstances" is clearly an attempt to avoid
responsibility. The material on record shows that he
was an active and willing participant who knowingly
misused his official position for personal gain. He was
not a passive bystander, but a key facilitator in the
entire criminal conspiracy.
(xvi) The statement that the case is based only on Section
50 statements is not fit to be acceptable as the
petitioner's involvement is proved by many independent
sources of evidence, such as Seizure of 17 original land
registers from his private residence; Call detail records
(CDRs) showing regular contact with co-accused and
Forensic reports confirming forgery and tampering of
official records.
(xvii) The petitioner's first regular bail application (M.C.A.
no. 2941/2023) was duly considered and dismissed on
its merits by the learned Special Judge, PMLA Cases,
Ranchi, vide order dated 04.10.2023 and the current
petition is a reiteration of grounds already adjudicated
upon and rejected in the impugned order dated
11.06.2025.
14. Learned counsel for the Opp. Party-ED, based upon
the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is not a fit case
for grant of regular bail in favour of the petitioner.
[2025:JHHC:35668]
Analysis
15. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the documents available on record.
16. This Court before appreciating the argument
advanced on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to
discuss herein some of the provision of law as contained
under the PML Act, 2002 (Act 2002) with its object and intent
as also the legal proposition as settled by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in various judgments.
17. The Act 2002 was enacted to address the urgent need
to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing
money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime,
adjudication and confiscation thereof including vesting of it
in the Central Government, setting up of agencies and
mechanisms for coordinating measures for combating
money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons
indulging in the process or activity connected with the
proceeds of crime.
18. It is evident that the Act 2002 was enacted in order
to answer the urgent requirement to have a comprehensive
legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering,
attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and
confiscation thereof for combating money-laundering and
also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or
activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
[2025:JHHC:35668]
19. The objective of the PMLA is to prevent money
laundering which has posed a serious threat not only to the
financial systems of the country but also to its integrity and
sovereignty. The offence of money laundering is a very
serious offence which is committed by an individual with a
deliberate desire and the motive to enhance his gains,
disregarding the interest of the nation and the society as a
whole, and such offence by no stretch of imagination can be
regarded as an offence of trivial nature. The stringent
provisions have been made in the Act to combat the menace
of money laundering.
20. It needs to refer herein the definition of "proceeds of
crime" as provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002
which reads as under:-
"2(u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived
or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a
result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled
offence or the value of any such property [or where
such property is taken or held outside the country,
then the property equivalent in value held within the
country] [or abroad]; [Explanation.--For the removal of
doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime"
include property not only derived or obtained from the
scheduled offence but also any property which may
directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result
of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled
offence;]"
21. It is evident from the aforesaid provision by which the
"proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained,
directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal
[2025:JHHC:35668]
activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any
such property or where such property is taken or held
outside the country, then the property equivalent in value
held within the country or abroad.
22. In the explanation, it has been referred that for the
removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of
crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the
scheduled offence but also any property which may directly
or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal
activity relatable to the scheduled offence.
23. It is, thus, evident that the reason for giving
explanation under Section 2(1)(u) is by way of clarification to
the effect that whether as per the substantive provision of
Section 2(1)(u), the property derived or obtained, directly or
indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity
relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such
property or where such property is taken or held outside the
country then the property equivalent in value held within the
country but by way of explanation the proceeds of crime has
been given broader implication by including property not
only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also
any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or
obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the
scheduled offence.
[2025:JHHC:35668]
24. Further, the "property" has been defined under
Section 2(1)(v) which means any property or assets of every
description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or
immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and
instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property
or assets, wherever located.
25. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x)
which means schedule to the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002.
26. It is evident that the "scheduled offence" means the
offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or the
offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total
value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more;
or the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule.
27. The offence of money laundering has been defined
under Section 3 of the Act, 2002 which reads as under: -
"3. Offence of money-laundering.--Whosoever
directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly
assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved
in any process or activity connected with the [proceeds
of crime including its concealment, possession,
acquisition or use and projecting or claiming] it as
untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-
laundering.
[Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby
clarified that,--
(i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-
laundering if such person is found to have directly or
indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted
or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or
[2025:JHHC:35668]
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.]"
28. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that "offence
of money-laundering" means whosoever directly or indirectly
attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a
party or is actually involved in any process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime including its
concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting
or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence
of money-laundering.
29. It is further evident that the process or activity
connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and
continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly
enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or
possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted
property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner
whatsoever.
[2025:JHHC:35668]
30. The punishment for money laundering has been
provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2002.
31. Section 50 of the Act, 2002 confers power upon the
authorities regarding summons, production of documents
and to give evidence.
32. The various provisions of the Act, 2002 along with
interpretation of the definition of "proceeds of crime" has
been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India
and Ors., reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 wherein
the Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court have decided the issue by taking into
consideration the object and intent of the Act, 2002.
33. The predicate offence has been considered in the
aforesaid judgment wherein by taking into consideration the
explanation as inserted by way of Act 23 of 2019 under the
definition of the "proceeds of crime" as contained under
Section 2(1)(u), whereby and whereunder, it has been
clarified for the purpose of removal of doubts that, the
"proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or
obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property
which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a
result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled
offence, meaning thereby, the words "any property which
may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result
[2025:JHHC:35668]
of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence"
will come under the fold of the proceeds of crime.
34. So far as the purport of Section 45(1)(i)& (ii) is
concerned, the aforesaid provision starts from the non-
obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no person accused of
an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his
own bond unless-
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to
oppose the application for such release; and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the
court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is
not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
35. Sub-section (2) thereof puts limitation on granting
bail specific in sub-section (1) in addition to the limitations
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law
for the time being in force on granting of bail.
36. The explanation is also there as under sub-section
(2) thereof which is for the purpose of removal of doubts, a
clarification has been inserted that the expression "Offences
to be cognizable and non-bailable" shall mean and shall be
deemed to have always meant that all offences under this Act
shall be cognizable offences and non-bailable offences
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the
[2025:JHHC:35668]
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
37. The fact about the implication of Section 45 has been
interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra)
at paragraphs-285, 286 and 316. For ready reference, the
said paragraphs are being referred as under:-
"285.............The provision post the 2018 Amendment, is in
the nature of no bail in relation to the offence of money
laundering unless the twin conditions are fulfilled. The twin
conditions are that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the accused is not guilty of offence of money laundering
and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
286. Considering the purposes and objects of the legislation in
the form of the 2002 Act and the background in which it had
been enacted owing to the commitment made to the
international bodies and on their recommendations, it is
plainly clear that it is a special legislation to deal with the
subject of money laundering activities having transnational
impact on the financial systems including sovereignty and
integrity of the countries. This is not an ordinary offence. To
deal with such serious offence, stringent measures are
provided in the 2002 Act for prevention of money laundering
and combating menace of money laundering, including for
attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and to
prosecute persons involved in the process or activity connected
with the proceeds of crime. In view of the gravity of the fallout
of money laundering activities having transnational impact, a
special procedural law for prevention and regulation, including
to prosecute the person involved, has been enacted, grouping
[2025:JHHC:35668]
the offenders involved in the process or activity connected with
the proceeds of crime as a separate class from ordinary
criminals. The offence of money laundering has been regarded
as an aggravated form of crime "world over". It is, therefore, a
separate class of offence requiring effective and stringent
measures to combat the menace of money laundering.
316. As a result, we have no hesitation in observing that in
whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of
proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or for
that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the constitutional
court, the underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 of the
2002 Act must come into play and without exception ought to
be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is
a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory
measures for combating the menace of money laundering."
38. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of
Enforcement, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486 by taking into
consideration the law laid down by the Larger Bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and
Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra), it has been laid
down that since the conditions specified under Section 45
are mandatory, they need to be complied with. The Court is
required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and
he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
39. It has further been observed that as per the statutory
presumption permitted under Section 24 of the Act, the
Court or the Authority is entitled to presume unless the
contrary is proved, that in any proceedings relating to
[2025:JHHC:35668]
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 reads as
under:-
"17. As well settled by now, the conditions specified
under Section 45 are mandatory. They need to be
complied with. The Court is required to be satisfied
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that
the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is needless
to say that as per the statutory presumption permitted
under Section 24 of the Act, the Court or the Authority
is entitled to presume unless the contrary is proved,
that in any proceedings relating to proceeds of crime
under the Act, in the case of a person charged with the
offence of money laundering under Section 3, such
proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering.
Such conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PML Act
will have to be complied with even in respect of an
application for bail made under Section 439 Cr. P.C.
in view of the overriding effect given to the PML Act
over the other law for the time being in force, under
Section 71 of the PML Act."
40. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment has
further laid down that the twin conditions as to fulfil the
requirement of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 before granting
[2025:JHHC:35668]
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.
41. In the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India
and Ors. (supra) as under paragraph-284, it has been held
that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute a
person for offence of money-laundering only if it has reason
to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that
the person is in possession of "proceeds of crime". Only if
that belief is further supported by tangible and credible
evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned
in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of
crime, action under the Act can be taken forward for
attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until
vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process
initiated would be a standalone process.
42. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam
Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of
Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through
Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region,
reported in (2015) 16 SCC 1 has been pleased to hold at
[2025:JHHC:35668]
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.
43. Section 65 requires that the provisions of CrPC shall
apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions
of this Act and Section 71 provides that the provisions of
PMLA shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the
time being in force. PMLA has an overriding effect and the
provisions of CrPC would apply only if they are not
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.
44. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45
of PMLA will have to be complied with even in respect of an
application for bail made under Section 439 CrPC. That
coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides that
unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court
shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money-
laundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of
crime are not involved, lies on the petitioner.
45. It needs to refer herein that while dealing with bail
applications under UAP Act 1967, the Hon'ble Apex Court
recently in the case of Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and Anr., reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 109,
has observed that the conventional idea in bail
[2025:JHHC:35668]
jurisprudence vis-à-vis ordinary penal offences that the
discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted
phrase - 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' - unless
circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place
while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act and the
'exercise' of the general power to grant bail under the UAP
Act is severely restrictive in scope. For ready reference,
relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred as
under:
"28. The conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis-à-
vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of
Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase -
'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' - unless
circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any
place while dealing with bail applications under UAP
Act. The 'exercise' of the general power to grant bail
under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. The
form of the words used in proviso to Section 43D (5)-
'shall not be released' in contrast with the form of the
words as found in Section 437(1) CrPC - 'may be
released' - suggests the intention of the Legislature to
make bail, the exception and jail, the rule."
46. The reason for making reference of this judgment is
that in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr.,
(2022) 10 SCC 51, the UAPA has also been brought under
the purview of category 'c' which also includes offence under
PML Act 2002, the Hon'ble Supreme Court the bail has been
directed to be granted if the investigation is complete but the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurwinder Singh vs. State of
Punjab and Anr. (supra) has taken the view by making note
[2025:JHHC:35668]
that the penal offences as enshrined under the provision of
UAPA are also under category 'c' making reference that jail
is the rule and bail is the exception.
47. Now adverting to the fact of the instant case it is
evident that the Directorate of Enforcement initiated an
investigation under the PMLA, 2002, by recording
ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 on 21.10.2022. This was based on
FIR No. 141/2022, registered on 04.06.2022 by the Bariatu
Police Station, Ranchi, under Sections 420, 467, and 471 of
the IPC. The predicate offense involved using forged
documents to fraudulently obtain municipal holding
numbers for a prime 4.55-acre parcel of land (M.S. Plot No.
557) in Morabadi, Ranchi, which has been in the continuous
possession of the Indian Army since before independence.
48. The investigation has uncovered a deep-rooted
criminal conspiracy by a land-grabbing syndicate. The
syndicate's modus operandi involved manufacturing a fake,
back-dated sale deed from 1932(Deed No. 4369) to create a
false ownership claim for the Army-occupied land in the
name of Prafulla Bagchi, father of accused Pradip Bagchi.
This forged deed was then planted into the original registers
at the office of the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata. The
forgery was confirmed by a committee appointed by the
Registrar of Assurances, resulting in a separate FIR (No. 137
of 2023) in Kolkata.
[2025:JHHC:35668]
49. Using this fraudulent foundation, the accused Pradip
Bagchi executed a sale deed (No. 6888 of 2021) on
01.10.2021, transferring the property to M/s Jagatbandhu
Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., a company beneficially owned by co-
accused Amit Kumar Agarwal. Although the sale deed
reflected a consideration of ₹7 crores (against a government
value of over 20 crores), investigation established that only
25 lakhs were actually paid.
50. It has been alleged in the prosecution complaint that
the petitioner, Bhanu Pratap Prasad, who held the post of
Revenue Sub-Inspector at the Circle Office, Bargain, was a
key and active member of this organized racket. It has been
further alleged that the investigation and the petitioner's own
statement dated 23.04.2023 confirm his direct role in
falsifying original land records and petitioner connived with
other syndicate members to make fraudulent entries in
Register-II for Khata no. 53, Mauja Gari, to create a
fabricated ownership claim for another 4.83 acres in the
name of Samrendra Chandra Ghoshal, a relative of Pradip
Bagchi.
51. A search at the petitioner's private residence on
13.04.2023 led to the seizure of 17 original government land
registers and voluminous official papers. It has been alleged
that his illegal possession of these sensitive original registers
outside the government office is a highly incriminating act,
[2025:JHHC:35668]
pointing directly to his central role in their concealment and
manipulation, and constitutes an act of tampering with
primary evidence.
52. Accordingly, the petitioner has been arrested and
remanded in the instant case on 14.04.2023 and since then
he is languishing in jail custody i.e., for about 2 years 07
months.
53. Admittedly, petitioner's first regular bail application
(M.C.A. no. 2941/2023) was dismissed on its merits by the
learned Special Judge, PMLA Cases, Ranchi, vide order
dated 04.10.2023 and thereafter, the present petitioner
preferred Misc. Cri. Application No. 1032 of 2025 for grant of
bail before the Spl. Judge PML Cases Ranchi which was
rejected vide order dated 11.06.2025 hence, the instant bail
application.
54. Now coming to the grounds as has been raised on
behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if
the entire ECIR will be taken into consideration, no offence
will be said to be committed so as to attract the ingredients
of Sections 3 & 4 of the P.M.L. Act, 2002. Further ground
has been taken that the allegation against the petitioner
pertains to his purported assistance to other accused
individuals. Further the prolong custody of petitioner and
delay in conclusion of the trial has also been raised.
[2025:JHHC:35668]
55. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-E.D. has
submitted that there is ample material surfaced in course of
inquiry, based upon which, the prosecution report was
submitted and hence, it cannot be said that there is no legal
evidence. It has further been contended that it is settled
proposition of law which has been settled by the Hon'ble
Apex Court that the long incarceration or delay in trial alone
cannot be ground to release the petitioner on bail, rather in
case of scheduled offences/special offences the seriousness
of the matter and the societal impact should be taken into
consideration by the Court concerned while enlarging the
petitioner on bail.
56. This Court, in order to appreciate the rival
submission, is of the view that various paragraphs of
prosecution complaint upon which the reliance has been
placed on behalf of both the parties, needs to be referred
herein so as to come to the conclusion as to whether the
parameter as fixed under Section 45 of the PML Act 2002 is
being fulfilled in order to reach to the conclusion that it is a
fit case where regular bail is to be granted or not. The
relevant paragraphs of prosecution complaint, which are
being referred as under: -
Brief detail of persons examined u/s 50(2) & (3) of
PMLA
[2025:JHHC:35668]
8.12 Bhanu Pratap Prasad (Accused No.11)- Revenue
Circle Inspector Bargai)
In his statement dated 16.04.2023, (RUD No. 62) the
accused Bhanu Pratap Prasad disclosed that there is a
fixed rate of bribe in circle offices and further stated that
every month an amount of Rs 2 to 2.5 lakhs was
collected and sent for the then DC, Ranchi, Mr. Chhavi
Ranjan.
During his statement dated 23.04.2023 (RUD No. 64)
reveals that he has connived with persons namely Bipin
Singh and others in falsifying the original records of
register II. He has stated that Bipin Singh who claimed
himself to be the confidant of the ex-D.C Chhavi Ranjan
and had proximities with other officials of Circle Offices
used to visit Circle Offices regularly and had also
managed to do several works at Circle Offices dropping
names of ex-D.C, Chhavi Ranjan, once came to him with
one person and took volume II of index II register. On
page no. 139 of Khata no. 53, Plot no. 31, having area 8
decimals, Plot no. 32 having area 2.13 acres, Plot no. 33
having area 25 decimals, plot no. 35 having area 3
decimals, plot no. 36, having area 27 decimals, plot no.
38 having area 1.48 acres, plot no. 72 having area 24
decimals, plot no. 73 having area 35 decimals, the
entries were forged and the records were falsified in
name of Samrendra Chandra Ghoshal. The entries were
falsified in page no. 132 of Gari Mauja- 194 entered in
book II.
Investigation reveals that Samrendra Chandra Ghoshal
is the father of Nilanjan Ghoshal who is son-in-law of
Pradip Bagchi. Thus, a link between the group
comprising of Pradip Bagchi, Afshar Ali, and other
persons is established with Bhanu Pratap Prasad and it
is established that he is also a member of the above
organized racket which is habitually involved in forging
original records of the lands and later disposing of them
for acquiring the proceeds of crime.
His statement dated 23.04.2023 also reveals that in the
year 2021, he had visited the Registrar of Assurances,
[2025:JHHC:35668]
Kolkata on the directions of Chhavi Ranjan, the ex-D.C,
Ranchi for obtaining certified deeds of property
measuring 3.81 acres at Bariyatu, Ranchi which were
forged in name of Sarraswati Devi, mother of Lakhan
Singh.
Investigation reveals that Lakhan Singh is one of the
accomplices of the above accused persons on whose
name several fake deeds have been prepared from
Kolkata by Afshar Ali and others and have been sold to
several persons. Investigation has also revealed that plot
no. 891 & 893 which was about 1.32 acre out of the
aforesaid 3.81 acres of land whose fake deeds were
prepared by Afshar All and other accused were
unblocked by the accused Chhavi Ranjan while
misusing the post of ex-D.C and Registrar of Ranchi for
which a bribe of Rs. 1 crore for the accused Chhavi
Ranjan was given by Afshar Ali and Md. Saddam
Hussain and collected by Prem Prakash. The said
amount of Rs 1 crores meant for Chhavi Ranjan was
adjusted from the sum of Rs 1.5 crores, receivable from
Prem Prakash against the property situated at Cheshire
Home Road, Ranchi.
During searches dated 13.04.2023 (RUD No. 24),
seventeen original registers (index II/ पंजी II) were
recovered from his possession at his residential
premises. Investigation revealed that in volume I,
Register II, several pages were intentionally left blank,
however, while verifying corresponding records online,
entries of certain entities were identified which was
certainly one of the attempts to acquire and sell out
certain parcels of land by entering fresh entries on those
blank pages in the volume I of Register II. In his
statement dated 23.04.2023 (RUD No. 64), he was
confronted with those documents and the reasons for
such online entries and corresponding blank pages in
the original registers, but he could not provide
satisfactory answers and tried to conceal the illegality
committed by him.
[2025:JHHC:35668]
57. It has come on record that during searches on
13.04.2023, seventeen original registers (index II/ पंजी II)
were recovered from his possession at his residential
premises (RUD No. 24).
58. It is evident from his statement dated 16.04.2023
that Bhanu Pratap Prasad disclosed that there is a fixed rate
of bribe in circle offices and further stated that every month
an amount of Rs 2 to 2.5 lakhs was collected and sent for
the then DC, Ranchi, Mr. Chhavi Ranjan.
59. Further, during his statement dated 23.04.2023
(RUD No. 64) reveals that he has connived with persons
namely Bipin Singh and others in falsifying the original
records of register II. He has stated that Bipin Singh who
claimed himself to be the confidant of the ex-D.C Chhavi
Ranjan and had proximities with other officials of Circle
Offices used to visit Circle Offices regularly and had also
managed to do several works at Circle Offices dropping
names of ex-D.C, Chhavi Ranjan, once came to him with one
person and took volume II of index II register. On page no.
139 of Khata no. 53, Plot no. 31, having area 8 decimals, Plot
no. 32 having area 2.13 acres, Plot no. 33 having area 25
decimals, plot no. 35 having area 3 decimals, plot no. 36,
having area 27 decimals, plot no. 38 having area 1.48 acres,
plot no. 72 having area 24 decimals, plot no. 73 having area
[2025:JHHC:35668]
35 decimals, the entries were forged and the records were
falsified in name of Samrendra Chandra Ghoshal.
60. Further, his statement dated 23.04.2023 also reveals
that in the year 2021, he had visited the Registrar of
Assurances, Kolkata on the directions of Chhavi Ranjan, the
ex-D.C, Ranchi for obtaining certified deeds of property
measuring 3.81 acres at Bariyatu, Ranchi which were forged
in name of Sarraswati Devi, mother of Lakhan Singh.
61. Further, the investigation reveals that Lakhan Singh
is one of the accomplices of the above accused persons on
whose name several fake deeds have been prepared from
Kolkata by Afshar Ali and others and have been sold to
several persons. Investigation has also revealed that plot no.
891 & 893 which was about 1.32 acre out of the aforesaid
3.81 acres of land whose fake deeds were prepared by Afshar
All and other accused were unblocked by the accused Chhavi
Ranjan while misusing the post of ex-D.C and Registrar of
Ranchi for which a bribe of Rs. 1 crore for the accused
Chhavi Ranjan was given by Afshar Ali and Md. Saddam
Hussain and collected by Prem Prakash. The said amount of
Rs 1 crores meant for Chhavi Ranjan was adjusted from the
sum of Rs 1.5 crores, receivable from Prem Prakash against
the property situated at Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi.
62. From perusal of the prosecution complaint, it is
evident that Role of the present petitioner in the alleged
[2025:JHHC:35668]
crime of money laundering has also been mentioned, for
ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as
under:
11.Specific Roles of the Accused/Co-Accused/person
abetting in the commission of offence of money laundering
by directly/ indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly
assist or knowingly is a party or is involved in
concealment/ possession/ acquisition or use in projecting
or claiming proceeds of crime as untainted property in
terms of section 3 of PMLA:
Accused Role of accused Proceeds of crime
name involved with the
and No. accused person
Bhanu The accused was The accused was
Pratap knowingly involved in knowingly involved in
activities connected to activities connected to
Prasad
proceeds of crime proceeds of crime
(accused including its acquisition, including its
no.11) concealment, use and acquisition,
projecting proceeds of concealment, use and
crime as untainted projecting proceeds of
property. The accused crime as untainted
person directly assisted property. The accused
the other accused person directly assisted
persons in acquisition the other accused
and concealment of the persons in acquisition
property situated at M.S and concealment of the
Plot No 557, Mouza property situated at
Morabadi, admeasuring M.S Plot No 557, Mouza
4.55 cares, acquired by Morabadi,
the accused No 1,2 and admeasuring 4.55
3. The accused was also cares, acquired by the
a party in acquiring accused No 1,2 and 3.
property at Khata no. The accused was also a
53, Plot no. 31, having party in acquiring
area 8 decimals, Plot no. property at Khata no.
32 having area 2.13 53, Plot no. 31, having
acres, Plot no. 33 having area 8 decimals, Plot
area 25 decimals, plot no. 32 having area 2.13
no. 35 having area 3 acres, Plot no. 33
decimals, plot no. 36, having area 25
having area 27 decimals, decimals, plot no. 35
plot no. 38 having area having area 3 decimals,
1.48 acres, plot no. 72 plot no. 36, having area
[2025:JHHC:35668]
having area 24 decimals, 27 decimals, plot no. 38
plot no. 73 having area having area 1.48 acres,
35 decimals in the name plot no. 72 having area
of Samrendra Chandra 24 decimals, plot no. 73
Ghoshal. Samrendra having area 35
Chandra Ghoshal is the decimals in the name of
father of Nilanjan Samrendra Chandra
Ghoshal who is son-in- Ghoshal. Samrendra
law of Pradip Bagchi, Chandra Ghoshal is the
accused no. 5. Thus, the father of Nilanjan
accused is a member of Ghoshal who is son-in-
the above organized law of Pradip Bagchi,
racket which is accused no. 5. Thus,
habitually involved in the accused is a
forging original records member of the above
of thelands and later organized racket which
disposing them for is habitually involved in
acquiring the proceeds forging original records
of crime. The accused of thelands and later
visited Registrar of disposing them for
Assurances, Kolkata on acquiring the proceeds
the directions of the of crime. The accused
accused Chhavi Ranjan, visited Registrar of
the ex-D.C, Ranchi for Assurances, Kolkata on
obtaining certified deeds the directions of the
of property measuring accused Chhavi
3.81 acres at Bariyatu, Ranjan, the ex-D.C,
Ranchi which were Ranchi for obtaining
forged in name of certified deeds of
Saraswati Devi, mother property measuring
of Lakhan Singh. 3.81 acres at Bariyatu,
Lakhan Singh is one of Ranchi which were
the accomplices of the forged in name of
above accused persons Saraswati Devi, mother
on whose name several of Lakhan Singh.
fake deeds have been Lakhan Singh is one of
prepared from Kolkata the accomplices of the
by Afshar Ali and others above accused persons
and have been sold to on whose name several
several persons. fake deeds have been
prepared from Kolkata
Thus, the accused by Afshar Ali and
person was knowingly a others and have been
party and assisted the sold to several persons.
other accused persons
in activity connected Thus, the accused
with the proceeds of person was knowingly a
crime i.e. its acquisition, party and assisted the
use and projecting and other accused persons
claiming the proceeds of in activity connected
[2025:JHHC:35668]
crime as untainted with the proceeds of
property. Thus, the crime i.e. its
accused person has acquisition, use and
committed the offence of projecting and claiming
money laundering under the proceeds of crime
section 3 of PMLA, 2002 as untainted property.
and is liable to be Thus, the accused
punished under section person has committed
4 of PMLA, 2002. the offence of money
laundering under
section 3 of PMLA,
2002 and is liable to be
punished under section
4 of PMLA, 2002.
63. Thus from the aforesaid paragraph of the prosecution
complaint it is evident that during investigation it has come
on record that the accused person directly assisted the other
accused persons in acquisition and concealment of the
property situated at M.S Plot No 557, Mouza Morabadi,
admeasuring 4.55 acres, acquired by the accused No 1,2 and
3. The accused was also a party in acquiring property at
Khata no. 53, Plot no. 31, having area 8 decimals, Plot no.
32 having area 2.13 acres, Plot no. 33 having area 25
decimals, plot no. 35 having area 3 decimals, plot no. 36,
having area 27 decimals, plot no. 38 having area 1.48 acres,
plot no. 72 having area 24 decimals, plot no. 73 having area
35 decimals in the name of Samrendra Chandra Ghoshal.
Samrendra Chandra Ghoshal is the father of Nilanjan
Ghoshal who is son-in-law of Pradip Bagchi, accused no. 5.
64. Thus, from the aforesaid prima facie it appears that
the petitioner/accused is a member of the organized
[2025:JHHC:35668]
racket/syndicate which is habitually involved in forging
original records of the lands and later disposing them for
acquiring the proceeds of crime.
65. Further it is revealed during the investigation that
the petitioner/visited Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata on
the directions of the accused Chhavi Ranjan, the ex-D.C,
Ranchi for obtaining certified deeds of property measuring
3.81 acres at Bariyatu, Ranchi which were forged in name of
Saraswati Devi, mother of Lakhan Singh. Lakhan Singh is
one of the accomplices of the accused persons on whose
name several fake deeds have been prepared from Kolkata
by co-accused Afshar Ali and others and have been sold to
several persons.
66. Thus, prima facie it appears that the accused person
was knowingly a party and assisted the other accused
persons in activity connected with the proceeds of crime i.e.
its acquisition, use and projecting and claiming the proceeds
of crime as untainted property.
67. It has further revealed in the investigation that the
petitioner had received bribe amounting to several lacs of
rupees against the assistance that he provided to the
accused persons including Afshar Ali and others while
holding the post of a government servant. During the course
of search, payment receipt had been recovered from the
mobile phone of Md. Saddam Hussain which reveals that
[2025:JHHC:35668]
Bhanu Pratap Prasad received certain amount of money in
lakhs as a commission. He used to receive a fixed sum of
money in each mutation case. Thus, the role of the
petitioner in the alleged commission of crime of money
laundering is conspicuous and apparent.
68. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further
contended that the case is based only on Section 50
statements therefore the implication of the petitioner in the
instant case is not sustainable in the eye of law.
69. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein that
the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2018)
11 SCC 46 has held that the statements of witnesses
recorded by Prosecution-ED are admissible in evidence, in
view of Section 50. Such statements may make out a
formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the
commission of the offence of money laundering.
70. In the instant case, it has been found that during the
course of investigation from the statements recorded under
Section 50 of the P.M.L.A that the petitioner had directly
indulged, knowingly is as the party and is actually involved
in all the activities connected with the offence of money
laundering, i.e., use or acquisition, possession, concealment,
and projecting or claiming as untainted property.
[2025:JHHC:35668]
71. Further the culpability of the petitioner is not based
only upon the statement recorded under Section 50 of the
Act 2002, rather the petitioner's involvement is proved by
many independent sources of evidence, such as seizure of 17
original land registers from petitioner's private residence,
and also Call detail records (CDRs) showing regular contact
with co-accused. Further the unlawful removal of the 17
original government land registers from the proper place
itself indicates that these acts were done with full knowledge
and intent to hide the true nature of tainted properties.
72. Further it requires to refer herein that the offence of
money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA is not limited
to those who ultimately benefit from the crime. It also covers
anyone who knowingly helps, or is a knowing party, in any
process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime,
including their concealment, possession, acquisition, or use.
73. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
culpability of the petitioner solely based upon the statement
recorded under Section 50 of the Act 2002 is not fit to be
accepted.
74. Further, the burden of proof is on the Petitioner until
the contrary is proved, the same is observed in various
judicial pronouncements and upheld in the case of Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary (supra). Further in Rohit Tandon v.
[2025:JHHC:35668]
Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that the
provisions of section 24 of the PMLA provide that unless the
contrary is proved, the authority or the Court shall presume
that proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering and
the burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not
involved, lies on the appellant.
75. 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.
76. 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.
77. In the instant case from the record, it is evident that
the prosecution has established a strong prima facie case
[2025:JHHC:35668]
against the petitioner, supported by direct admissions,
physical evidence, and the same was corroborated by the
statements from co-accused.
78. The petitioner's deep and active involvement in the
criminal conspiracy is evident during a search of the
petitioner's private residences on 13.04.2023 wherein an
unprecedented seizure was made of seventeen original
government land registers (पंजी II) and voluminous loose
official papers, which he had illegally removed from the Circle
Office. Such an act by a public servant is not for "security,"
but is a direct attempt to tamper with and control primary
evidence and further the substantial cash was also seized
from his premises, directly linking him to the proceeds of
crime.
79. In his own voluntary statement dated 16.04.2023,
the petitioner admitted to his role in a larger system of
corruption, stating that a fixed bribe of Rs.2 to 2.5 lakhs was
collected every month and sent to the higher officials and the
said statement has been corroborated by evidence of cash
payments found in a diary seized from co-accused Imtiaz
Ahmed.
80. Further from the prosecution complaint it is evident
that the petitioner has failed to discharge the heavy burden
of showing that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that he is not guilty of the offence as on 13.04.2023 from the
[2025:JHHC:35668]
private residence of the petitioner an unprecedented seizure
was made of seventeen original government land registers
(पंजी II) and voluminous loose official papers, which he had
illegally removed from the Circle Office.
81. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner has no role in the alleged
commission of money laundering is not tenable in the eye of
law.
82. So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45
of the Act, 2002 is concerned, as has been referred
hereinabove, at paragraph412 of the judgment rendered in
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India
and Ors. (supra), it has been held therein by making
observation that whatever form the relief is couched
including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section 438
or 439 of the 1973 Code 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.
83. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45
of P.M.L.A. will have to be complied with even in respect of
an application for bail made under Section 439 Cr.P.C. That
[2025:JHHC:35668]
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.
84. 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. Section 2(1)(u) also
clarifies that even the value of any such property will also be
the proceeds of crime and in the instant case from perusal of
paragraph of the prosecution complaint it is evident that the
petitioner is not only involved rather his involvement is direct
in procuring the proceeds of crime by way of connivance with
the other accused persons.
85. Thus, from the record prima facie it appears that the
petitioner, Bhanu Pratap Prasad, who held the post of
Revenue Sub-Inspector at the Circle Office, Bargain, was an
active member of land grabbing syndicate and further his
[2025:JHHC:35668]
claims of innocence are contradicted by the overwhelming
evidence establishing his participation in the alleged crime
of money laundering. It has come on record that the
petitioner connived with syndicate members to make
fraudulent entries in Register-II for Khata no. 53, Mauja
Gari, to create a fabricated ownership claim for another 4.83
acres in the name of Samrendra Chandra Ghoshal, a relative
of Pradip Bagchi.
86. It is admitted fact that a search at the petitioner's
private residence on 13.04.2023 led to the seizure of 17
original government land registers and voluminous official
papers. Thus, his illegal possession of these sensitive original
registers outside the government office is a highly
incriminating act, pointing directly to his role in their
concealment and manipulation, and constitutes an act of
tampering with primary evidence. Further the investigation
has established that the petitioner was a beneficiary of the
proceeds of crime as evidence from the mobile phone of co-
accused Mohammad Saddam Hussain included noting of
specific cash payments made to the petitioner. Further His
deep nexus with the syndicate is further corroborated by Call
Detail Records, which show 48 calls exchanged between him
and co-accused Talha Khan.
87. Thus, prima facie it appears that the petitioner was
not a passive official but part of the criminal conspiracy and
[2025:JHHC:35668]
he abused his public office to falsify records, conceal
evidence, and gain illicit financial benefits, thereby playing a
direct and active role in the commission of the offence of
money laundering.
88. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made
hereinabove the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that even if the entire ECIR will be taken into
consideration, no offence will be said to be committed so as
to attract the ingredients of Sections 3 & 4 of the P.M.L. Act,
2002, is totally misplaced in the light of accusation as
mention in prosecution complaint.
89. So far as the issue of period of custody as agitated by
learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is settled
proposition of law which has been settled by the Hon'ble
Apex Court that the long incarceration (herein about 31
month) or delay in trial alone cannot be ground to release
the petitioner on bail, rather in case of scheduled
offences/special offences the seriousness of the matter and
the societal impact should be taken in to consideration by
the Court concerned while enlarging the petitioner on bail.
90. At this juncture, the learned counsel for ED has
submitted at Bar that all endeavour will be taken to expedite
the trial and now the ED has taken his all endeavour to
examine the further witnesses and there is likelihood that
[2025:JHHC:35668]
witnesses will be examined and they will try to examine
remaining witnesses expeditiously.
91. This Court is conscious with the fact that personal
liberty is utmost requirement to maintain the individuality of
the person concerned but at the same time it is equally
settled that the balance between personal liberty and societal
impact of the alleged offence should be taken care of by the
Court concerned.
92. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with
the offences under UAP Act 1967, in the case of Gurwinder
Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) and taking in to
consideration the ratio of judgment of Union of India vs.
K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 has observed that mere
delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in
the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail,
for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as
under:
"46. As already discussed, the material available
on record indicates the involvement of the
appellant in furtherance of terrorist activities
backed by members of banned terrorist
organisation involving exchange of large quantum
of money through different channels which needs
to be deciphered and therefore in such a scenario
if the appellant is released on bail there is every
likelihood that he will influence the key witnesses
of the case which might hamper the process of
justice. Therefore, mere delay in trial pertaining to
grave offences as one involved in the instant case
[2025:JHHC:35668]
cannot be used as a ground to grant bail. Hence,
the aforesaid argument on behalf of the appellant
cannot be accepted."
93. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled position of
law it is evident that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave
offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used
as a ground to grant bail.
94. Admittedly, the petitioner has been in judicial
custody since 14.04.2023 but delay, under the aforesaid
circumstances, does not entitle the petitioner to bail. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarun Kumar v. Directorate of
Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486, has
authoritatively held that while the period of custody may be
a relevant factor, it cannot by itself override the gravity of the
offence, the seriousness of allegations or the statutory twin
conditions under Section 45 of the Act 2002.
95. Further, the time already spent in custody alone is
not a ground to grant bail in a serious economic offence. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Bihar & Anr. v. Amit
Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751, has observed that the
seriousness of the offence and the strength of evidence must
be given more weight than the period of incarceration.
96. Similarly, in Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate
of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 317, the Hon'ble
Apex Court refused bail despite protracted proceedings.
[2025:JHHC:35668]
97. Thus, given the grave nature of the allegations, the
sophisticated modus operandi employed to project tainted
property as untainted, and the strict statutory framework
governing bail under the PMLA, no ground exists for the
petitioner to claim the benefit of bail either on merits or on
account of delay. The gravity of the offence, misuse of a high
public office, and the serious allegations of facilitating the
laundering of proceeds of crime continue to justify the
petitioner's custody under the strict rigours of Section 45 of
the Act 2002.
Issue of Parity
98. It has been contended that other several co-accused
persons namely Pradip Bagchi (vide order dated 17.09.2025
passed in B.A. No. 6314 of 2025) and Chhavi Ranjan (vide
order dated 10.10.2025 in Special Leave to appeal (Crl.)
No.(s) 12137 of 2025) have been granted bail either by this
Court or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore the present
petitioner is also eligible for such liberty.
99. Per contra the learned counsel for ED has stated that
the petitioner's plea for bail on the grounds of parity is wholly
misplaced and untenable because the role of the petitioner is
entirely distinct and far more egregious than that of the other
co-accused who have been granted bail.
100. Now coming to the ground of parity as raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, the law is well settled that
[2025:JHHC:35668]
the principle of parity is to be applied if the case on fact is
exactly similar then only the principle of parity in the matter
of passing order is to be passed but if there is difference in
between the facts then the principle of parity is not to be
applied.
101. It is further settled connotation of law that Court
cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has
to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail
and by only simple saying that another accused has been
granted bail is not sufficient to determine whether a case for
grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established.
Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Bhavan
Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana & Anr.,
(2021) 6 SCC 230, wherein, it has been held as under:
"25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed
by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under
the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature
and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the
punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v.
State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC
508 :] , this Court has held that while applying the principle
of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a
capricious manner and has to consider the totality of
circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed :
(SCC p. 515, para 17)
"17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a
stand was taken that the second respondent was a history-
sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to
scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the
[2025:JHHC:35668]
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
[2025:JHHC:35668]
assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass
muster under the law."
102. 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.
103. Now, this Court is adverting to the facts of instant
case to decide the issue of parity in the backdrop of aforesaid
settled legal ratio and as such thinks it fit to discuss herein
distinguishable facts in the case of present petitioner to that
of the case of co-accused persons who have been granted
bail.
104. This Court, in order to verify the issue of principle of
parity, has gone through the order by which, co-accused
namely Pradip Bagchi has been enlarged on the bail and
found that Pradip Bagchi is private man but the present
petitioner being a public servant who gravely breached the
trust reposed in him by the State.
105. This Court has also gone through the order dated
10.10.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special
Leave to appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 12137 of 2025 by which co-
accused Chhavi Ranjan has been granted bail wherefrom it
is evident that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by taking into
consideration the period already spent by the said petitioner
[2025:JHHC:35668]
in custody, and without expressing any opinion on the
nature of the allegations levelled against him has enlarged
the said petitioner on bail.
106. This Court, in order to verify the issue of principle of
parity of the present petitioner with the co-accused Chhavi
Ranjan, this Court has gone through the order by which the
said co-accused has been granted bail, and found that the
distinguishing factors are as follows:
(i) As discussed in the preceding paragraph it is
evident that the present petitioner had played active
assistance providing illegal access to original records
and assist in carrying out the forgeries and without his
assistance the land fraud of this magnitude would not
have been possible.
(ii) The gravity of an offence committed by a
custodian of public records is of a significantly higher
degree, therefore, he cannot claim parity with the said
Co-accused Chhavi Ranjan.
107. Thus, in the present case, the petitioner's role is
fundamentally different and far more serious. Unlike the co-
accused individual Chhavi Ranjan, the present petitioner
was directly in helm of revenue record and being Revenue
Sub-Inspector petitioner has been entrusted with the
custody of sensitive land records but he grossly misused his
official position and violated the public trust. It has come on
[2025:JHHC:35668]
record that the petitioner played a key role in providing illegal
access to official land records (Register-II), which enabled the
syndicate to carry out large-scale land fraud, including the
illegal acquisition of the of land. Prima facie it appears that
he knowingly facilitated the alteration of Register-II to
change the classification of a restricted property and
accepted bribes for doing so. His duty with the said co-
accused were not incidental rather he having direct and
closest control of the said revenue record (register-II)
therefore, his role cannot be equated with that of the other
co-accused Chhavi Ranjan, and the claim of parity is without
any merit.
108. Herein the petitioner systematically misused his
official position as a Revenue Sub-Inspector and custodian
of sensitive government records to facilitate a massive land
scam and prima facie it appears that he provided the
syndicate with illegal access to original land records and
facilitated their forgery and manipulation, thereby enabling
the fraudulent acquisition of high-value properties.
109. Further, it requires to refer herein that the Money
Laundering is an economic offence and economic offences
come under the grave offences, as has been held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y. S Jagan Mohan Reddy
Vs. C. B. I., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439. For ready
[2025:JHHC:35668]
reference, the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment
is being quoted as under:
"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart
and need to be visited with a different approach in
the matter of bail. The economic offences having
deeprooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of
public funds need to be viewed seriously and
considered as grave offences affecting the economy
of the country as a whole and thereby posing
serious threat to the financial health of the
country."
110. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Nimgadda Prasad Vs. C.B.I., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466
has reiterated the same view in paragraph-23 to 25, which
reads as under:
"23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country
has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes,
which has affected the fibre of the country's economic
structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have
serious repercussions on the development of the
country as a whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal
Jitamalji Porwal [(1987) 2 SCC 364 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 364]
this Court, while considering a request of the
prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia,
observed as under: (SCC p. 371, para 5)
"5. ... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic
offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not
brought to book. A murder may be committed 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
[2025:JHHC:35668]
justice in an even-handed manner without fear of
criticism from the quarters which view white-collar
crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage
done to the national economy and national interest."
24. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind
the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
conviction will entail, the character of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of
the public/State and other similar considerations. It has
also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting
bail, the legislature has used the words "reasonable
grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which
means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only
satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case
against the accused and that the prosecution will be
able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the
charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the
evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need
to be visited with a different approach in the matter of
bail. The economic offence having deeprooted
conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds
needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave
offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole
and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health
of the country."
111. It is, thus, evident from the discussion made
hereinabove that so far as the case of the present petitioner
is concerned, the twin condition as provided under Section
[2025:JHHC:35668]
45(1) of the Act, 2002 is not being fulfilled so as to grant the
privilege of bail to the present petitioner.
112. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to the facts
and circumstances, as have been analyzed hereinabove and
particularly taking into consideration the serious nature of
the offence, the strong evidence against the petitioner, and
further taking into consideration the failure of
applicant/petitioner to meet the conditions under Section 45
of the PMLA 2002 and considering the facts and parameters,
this Court therefore does not find any exceptional ground to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail.
113. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the bail
application is liable to be rejected.
114. Accordingly, based upon the aforesaid discussion,
this Court is of the view that the instant application is fit to
be dismissed and as such, stands dismissed.
115. The observation/finding, as recorded hereinabove, is
only for the purpose of consideration of issue of bail. The
same will not prejudice the issue on merit in course of trial.
116. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also
stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
26/11/2025
Rohit/A.F.R.
Uploaded on: 28.11.2025
