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:35721]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.8888 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'BLEMR. 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.06 of 2023,
arising out of ECIR/RNZO/25/2023, dated 26.06.2023
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 are that an ECIR bearing
No. 06/2023 was recorded on 26.06.2023, on the basis of
Sadar P.S. case No. 272 of 2023 dated 01.06.2023, for the
offence registered under Sections 465, 467, 466, 469, 471,
[2025:JHHC:35721]
379, 420 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code against the
petitioner.
3. The complainant Mr. Manoj Kumar has stated that the
petitioner (Ex Revenue Sub Inspector) was having illegal
possession of 17 original registers (Panji-II) out of which
several were tampered, along with several property deeds
which were the official documents.
4. It is further alleged that the registers seized from the
possession of the petitioner is a property as per the
definition provided u/s 2 (1)(v) of PMLA, 2002 as it is
involved/used in the commission of Scheduled offence and
the said registers contained references to several properties
which have been acquired in illegal manner including the
reference of properties admeasuring 8.86 acres at Shanti
Nagar, Bargain, Bariyatu Road, (near Lalu Khatal), illegally
acquired and possessed by the co-accused Hemant Soren.
5. It is further alleged that on 21.10.2022, searches were
conducted U/s 17 of PMLA Act, 2002 and on 13.04.2023 at
several premises including two premises under use and
occupation of Bhanu Pratap Prasad (the Petitioner), at Road
No.7, Hill View Road, Bariyatu, Ranchi, Jharkhand and at
Jhulan Singh Chowk, Simdega, Jharkhand. In course of
searches 11 trunks of voluminous property documents
including following 17 original registers (Panji 2) were
[2025:JHHC:35721]
seized from the possession of Bhanu Pratap Prasad which
were concealed and secreted by him at his home.
6. It is further stated that documents/registers volume was
examined and explanation U/s 50 of PML Act, 2002 was
sought from the accused Bhanu Pratap Prasad, which
further led to the identification of tampering in the said
original registers aimed at extending illegal benefits to other
persons. It is further stated and alleged that during
searches dated 13.04.2023 in ECIR/RNZO/18/2022,
handwritten diaries were also seized from the possession of
other persons namely Md. Saddam Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmed
and others, who were his associates. In the said diaries,
cash payments to the petitioner were also mentioned by his
associates.
7. It is further alleged that there are the cash transaction
details in respect of a property admeasuring 4.83 acres,
situated at Plot No. 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 72 and 73,
Khata No. 53, Mauja- Gari, Bargain Anchal, Ranchi for
which 2 fake deeds, one of year 1940 and other of year
1974 was prepared by the associates of Bhanu Pratap
Prasad (Petitioner). It is further stated that Rs.20 Lakhs has
been accounted on the Page which has been shown in the
Prosecution Complaint on Page No. 11. It is further also
stated that cash payments of Rs.2 Lakhs to the petitioner
have also been made. It is further stated that the accused
[2025:JHHC:35721]
petitioner was a member of syndicate which was involved in
acquiring lands by fraudulent means which included
tampering with original government registers, falsification
of government records and manufacturing fake documents.
It is further stated that Bhanu Pratap was directly involved
in hatching conspiracy with other persons to acquire and
dispose properties in illegal manner and accomplice to
several persons including the accused namely Hemant
Soren. This very fact is corroborated from the seizure of an
image recovered from his mobile phone which contains the
details of a cluster of landed properties, situated adjacently
on 12 plots at Bargain Anchal, total area of which is around
8.86 acres. The property was acquired in an illegal and
unauthorized manner by the accused person Hemant Soren
and he has been in continuous possession of this property
since 2010-11.
8. It is further alleged that the accused Bhanu Pratap
Prasad had physically inspected the above land on two
occasions, that is first in the month of December 2020
(evident from WhatsApp chat between Bhanu Pratap
Prasad and Sailesh Kumar, Circle Officer posted in 2020 at
Bargain Anchal), and second in the month of January,
2023 (evident from the imaged dated 21.01.2023 recovered
from the mobile phone of Bhanu Pratap Prasad) and after
inspecting it he had also made certain noting in the said
[2025:JHHC:35721]
list in his own handwriting. That image of the Simdega and
another search was conducted at rental residential places
situated at Road No.7, Hill View Road, Bariatu, Ranchi.
9. After investigation the Enforcement Directorate has
filed prosecution complaint No. 06 of 2023 against the
petitioner and others under sections 45 r/w 44 Prevention
of Money Laundering Act, 2002, for alleged offence under
sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002.
10. The Petitioner was initially arrested on 14.04.2023
in a connected matter arising out of ECIR/RNZO/18/2022
and was subsequently produced and arrested in the
present ECIR on 03.02.2024.
11. Thereafter the petitioner had preferred a Misc. Cri.
Application being MCA 1069 of 2025 before Spl. Judge PML
Cases, Ranchi for his bail but the same was rejected vide
order dated 15.07.2025, hence the present application has
been filed.
Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner:
12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
taken the following grounds that: -
(i) The petitioner is quite innocent and has been falsely
implicated in the instant case without any cogent and
reliable evidence as against him.
[2025:JHHC:35721]
(ii) The petitioner joined his services as a Rajaswa
Karamchari in the year 1990 in the District of Gumla
and time-to-time he has been transferred from one
Circle Office to another Circle Office in the different
districts 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.
(iii) It is stated that in the month of May 2020 there was
an incident of theft which took place in the office of
Circle Officer, Bargain, Ranchi and in this regard one
F.I.R. bearing No. Sadar P.S. Case No.185/2020
corresponding to G.R. case no-1533/2020 was
registered under Section 461 and 379 of the Indian
Penal Code and which is pending before the court of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi. In that
theft incident many articles including documents
were stolen and later on by the order of the Ld. Court
those items were released in favour of the Circle
Officer, Bargain, Ranchi.
(iv) 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
[2025:JHHC:35721]
another search was conducted at rental residential
places situated at Road No.7, Hill View Road,
Bariatu, Ranchi.
(v) It is further stated 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
Pass Books and 4 cheque books were seized and
apart from that no any other incriminating
documents and articles were seized and same seizure
is also subject matter of ECIR case No. 01 of 2023
arising out of ECIR/RNZO/18/2022, dated
21.10.2022.
(vi) It is stated that during search of rental residential
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 and
the said seizure is the subject matter of ECIR case
[2025:JHHC:35721]
No. 01 of 2023 arising out of ECIR/RNZO/18/2022,
dated 21.10.2022 also.
(vii) When the on-line mutation process and issuance of
rent receipt process were started in the Session
2015-16, the sale deeds were used to be uploaded by
the petitioner on the website of revenue department.
When the Revenue Karamchari, Revenue Sub
Inspector and Circle Inspector used to visit on the
land for which the applicant applies for mutation
then a copy of the sale deed used to be procured from
the petitioner for the conveniences and also at the
same time it is down loaded by the petitioner and the
hard copies of the those sale deeds were seized which
were kept in the rental premises in a general mode.
These documents do not have any legal importance.
When the searches were conducted then the
Enforcement Department seized those documents
and kept those documents in 11 trunks which were
brought by the officials of Enforcement Department.
(viii) 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.
(ix) It is stated that the petitioner's mother namely Smt.
[2025:JHHC:35721]
Gaumati Devi aged about 87 years resides with the
family of the petitioner at Simdega. The mother of the
petitioner is suffering from various old aged diseases
and she needs expertized treatment and it is always
presumed that any un-to-do happenings may happen
with regard to her health and for the purpose of her
treatment a handsome amount was used to be kept
in the house for the urgent medical aid to her. Due to
this reason an amount to the tune of Rs.3,97,800/-
were kept in the ancestral house at Simdega for the
treatment of the mother of the petitioner and for
other house hold expenses.
(x) It is further stated that wife of the petitioner namely
Smt. Nutan Kumari is a trained teacher and
employed in S.S. Girls High School, Simdega since
2019 prior to joining as a trained teacher in this
school, she was a teacher in Kasturba Gandhi Balika
Awasiya Vidyalaya, Thethaitangar, Simdega. The wife
of the petitioner has got independent source of
income from her salary and hence recovery of gold
chain worth of Rs. 77,000/- is normal in nature.
(xi) The passbooks, cheque books which have been
recovered either from the parental house of the
petitioner or from his rental house are belonging
either to the petitioner or his wife or his other family
[2025:JHHC:35721]
members, however from perusal of the said accounts
no suspicious transaction has been found.
(xii) The petitioner has been arrested by the Enforcement
Directorate on 13.04.2023 in connection with ECIR
No. 01/2023 though the recovery of the alleged
incriminating articles in the said case is identical as
seized in the instant case.
(xiii) The petitioner has not acquired any movable or
immovable 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.
(xiv) In the instant case, even if the allegations levelled
against the petitioner in the Prosecution Complaint
are accepted at its face value and in their entirety;
prima facie, the same do not make out a case under
Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in as
much as, such allegations fall short of the essential
ingredients for offence of money-laundering under
Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002.
(xv) The prosecution case is totally based on statements
recorded u/s 50 Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002 which is not supported by any corroborative
[2025:JHHC:35721]
admissible evidence on record.
(xvi) 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
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.
(xvii) That it is stated that the Hon'ble Apex court held that
the "proceeds of crime" being the core of the
ingredients constituting the offence of money
laundering, that expression needs to be construed
strictly. In that, all properties recovered or attached
by the investigating agency in connection with the
criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence under
the general law cannot be regarded as proceeds of
crime. There may be cases where the property
involved in the commission of scheduled offence
attached by the investigating agency dealing with
that offence cannot be wholly or partly regarded as
[2025:JHHC:35721]
proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section
2(1)(w) of Act 2002.
(xviii) It is contended that it is only such property which is
derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result
of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence can
be regarded as proceeds of crime. The authorities
under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
cannot resort to action against any person for money-
laundering on an assumption that the property
recovered by them must be proceeds of crime and
that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless
the same is registered with the jurisdictional police or
pending inquiry by way of complaint before the
competent forum.
(xix) 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.
(xx) It is stated that the petitioner has been remanded in
the instant case on 03.02.2024 and since then he is
languishing in jail custody i.e., for about more than 1
year 09 months.
(xxi) It is stated that other several co-accused persons
have been granted bail either by this Hon'ble court or
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court the details are as
[2025:JHHC:35721]
follows:
(i)Md. Irshad in SLP (Crl.) No. 6705 of 2025 vide
order dated 29.05.2025.
(ii)Bipin Kumar Singh in B.A. no. 151 of 2025 vide
order dated 17.07.2025.
(iii)Priya Ranjan Sahay in B.A. no. 612 of 2025 vide
order dated 17.07.2025.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the
aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the learned Spl.
Judge 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.
14. 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
15. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for
the Enforcement Directorate, has vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail by taking the following grounds:
(i) It has been submitted that the present bail application
is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. The
petitioner, a public servant, is a key conspirator in an
organized land-grabbing syndicate and actively
[2025:JHHC:35721]
facilitated the generation of proceeds of crime worth
crores of rupees by misusing his official position.
(ii) The investigation has unearthed cogent and
overwhelming evidence establishing his pivotal role in
the commission of the offence of money laundering.
The petitioner fails to satisfy the mandatory twin
conditions for bail stipulated under Section 45 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA),
and granting him bail would severely prejudice the
ongoing investigation and the cause of justice.
(iii) It has been contended that the investigation has
conclusively established that the petitioner was not a
passive bystander but an active and pivotal
conspirator in a large-scale, organized land-grabbing
syndicate.
(iv) The act of illegally removing and concealing these
crucial government documents at his private
residence is prima facie evidence of his criminal intent
to tamper with, manipulate, and conceal evidence. The
investigation has confirmed that these very registers,
seized from his illegal custody, were indeed falsified
and tampered with to create fraudulent land titles.
(v) 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
[2025:JHHC:35721]
hiding official land records at his private residence
changing land entries to benefit others.
(vi) The explanations given by the petitioner about the
seized materials are false. Handwritten diaries seized
from the co-accused shows entries of cash payments
made to the petitioner in connection with fraudulent
acquisition of a 4.83-acre property and also payment
of Rs. 2,00,000/ to the petitioner.
(vii) WhatsApp chats recovered from another co-accused
shows transaction of Rs. 5 Lakhs to the petitioner for
his role in the same 4.83-acre land fraud. Also cash
amounting to Rs. 3,97,800/- and a gold chain seized
from his premises which shows his established role as
a beneficiary of illicit cash payments from the
syndicate.
(viii) Thus, the petitioner was knowingly a party and
actually involved with the other accomplices in activity
connected with the proceeds of crime. Thus, the
petitioner is guilty of the offence of money laundering
as defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002, punishable
under section 4 of PMLA, 2002.
(ix) The instant prosecution complaint is backed by
documentary evidences and incriminating seizure
which are further corroborated from other accused or
[2025:JHHC:35721]
witnesses during their statements under Section 50 of
PMLA, 2002.
(x) The petitioner's claims are merely an attempt to
conceal his involvement in illegal activities related to
assisting his accomplices in fraudulently acquiring
properties.
16. Learned counsel for the Opp. Party-ED, based upon
the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is not a fit
case for grant of regular bail in favour of the petitioner.
Analysis
17. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the documents available on record.
18. 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.
19. 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
[2025:JHHC:35721]
persons indulging in the process or activity connected with
the proceeds of crime.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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
[2025:JHHC:35721]
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;]"
23. It is evident from the aforesaid provision by which
the "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or
obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of
criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value
of any such property or where such property is taken or
held outside the country, then the property equivalent in
value held within the country or abroad.
24. 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.
25. 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
[2025:JHHC:35721]
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.
26. 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.
27. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x)
which means schedule to the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002.
28. 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.
[2025:JHHC:35721]
29. 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.]"
30. 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
[2025:JHHC:35721]
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.
31. 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.
32. The punishment for money laundering has been
provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2002.
33. Section 50 of the Act, 2002 confers power upon the
authorities regarding summons, production of documents
and to give evidence.
34. 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.
[2025:JHHC:35721]
35. 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.
36. 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
[2025:JHHC:35721]
believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is
not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
37. 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.
38. 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 fulfillment of
conditions under section 19 and subject to the conditions
enshrined under this section
39. 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
[2025:JHHC:35721]
conditions are that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that the accused is not guilty of offence of money laundering
and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
286.Considering the purposes and objects of the legislation
in the form of the 2002 Act and the background in which it
had been enacted owing to the commitment made to the
international bodies and on their recommendations, it is
plainly clear that it is a special legislation to deal with the
subject of money laundering activities having transnational
impact on the financial systems including sovereignty and
integrity of the countries. This is not an ordinary offence. To
deal with such serious offence, stringent measures are
provided in the 2002 Act for prevention of money laundering
and combating menace of money laundering, including for
attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and to
prosecute persons involved in the process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime. In view of the gravity of
the fallout of money laundering activities having
transnational impact, a special procedural law for prevention
and regulation, including to prosecute the person involved,
has been enacted, grouping the offenders involved in the
process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime as a
separate class from ordinary criminals. The offence of money
laundering has been regarded as an aggravated form of
crime "world over". It is, therefore, a separate class of offence
requiring effective and stringent measures to combat the
menace of money laundering.
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."
[2025:JHHC:35721]
40. 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.
41. 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 reads as under:-
[2025:JHHC:35721]
"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."
42. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment has
further laid down that the twin conditions as to fulfill 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.
43. 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
[2025:JHHC:35721]
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.
44. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam
Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of
Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through
Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region,
reported in (2015) 16 SCC 1 has been pleased to hold at
paragraph -30 that the conditions specified under Section
45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with,
which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section
65 and also Section 71 of PMLA.
45. 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
[2025:JHHC:35721]
overriding effect and the provisions of Cr.P.C. would apply
only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act.
46. 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 Cr.P.C. That
coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides that
unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court
shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in
money-laundering and the burden to prove that the
proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the petitioner.
47. It needs to refer herein that while dealing with bail
applications under UAP Act 1967, the Hon'ble Apex Court
recently in the case of Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and Anr., reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 109,
has observed that the conventional idea in bail
jurisprudence vis-à-vis ordinary penal offences that the
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:
[2025:JHHC:35721]
"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."
48. 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 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.
49. Adverting to the factual aspect of the case it is
evident that the investigation in the instant case was
initiated based on FIR No. 272/23 dated 01.06 2023,
registered at P.S. Sadar, Ranchi, against the petitioner and
[2025:JHHC:35721]
others for scheduled offences under Sections 420, 467, and
476 of the IPC. This FIR was a direct consequence of
information shared by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED)
with the State Government under Section 66(2) of the
PMLA, after the syndicate's operations were first unearthed
during a separate PMLA investigation
(ECIR/RNZO/18/2022) into the fraudulent acquisition of
Army land in Morabadi.
50. It has been alleged that a multi-layered syndicate
involving government officials, private individuals, and
intermediaries. The key members include the petitioner
Bhanu Pratap Prasad (ex-Revenue Sub-Inspector), Manoj
Kumar Yadav (Clerk, LRDC Office); Afshar Ali, Md. Saddam
Hussain, Shekhar Prasad Mahto Shekhar Kushwaha, Bipin
Kumar Singh, and Priya Ranjan Sahay.
51. It has been alleged that the syndicate employed a
sophisticated modus operandi. They would identify prime
properties, especially restricted tribal (Bhuinhari) lands,
and then manufacture antedated fake deeds to create a
fraudulent ownership trail. This was achieved by procuring
original blank pages stolen from old registers at the
Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata, and these forged deeds
were then planted back into the official volumes.
Subsequently, with the active connivance of the petitioner
Bhanu Pratap Prasad (petitioner), corresponding fraudulent
[2025:JHHC:35721]
entries were made in the local land records in Ranchi,
including the original revenue registers (पंजीII), to reflect the
forged ownership and illegally change the land's character,
making it saleable.
52. The Petitioner was initially arrested on 14.04.2023
in a connected matter arising out of ECIR/RNZO/18/2022
and was subsequently produced and arrested in the
present ECIR on 03.02.2024. Pursuant to the investigation,
one main Prosecution Complaint and two Supplementary
Prosecution Complaints have been filed before the Learned
Special Court (PMLA), Kanchi, detailing the layered roles
and interlinkages of members of the land-grabbing
syndicate. The Learned Special Court has duly taken
cognizance of the offence under Section 3 read with Section
4 of the PMLA against all accused persons named therein.
53. 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 prolonged custody of petitioner
since 03.02.2024 has also been raised.
[2025:JHHC:35721]
54. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-E.D. has
submitted that there are ample materials surfaced in
course of inquiry, based upon which, the prosecution
complaint 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 (1
year 9 months) 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.
55. This Court, in order to appreciate the rival
submissions, is of the view that material available on record
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.
56. The relevant paragraphs of supplementary
prosecution complaint dated 07.06.2024 which has been
submitted against the other co-accused persons and
[2025:JHHC:35721]
appended as Annexure -2 to this petition are being referred
as under: -
3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE
OFFENCE/ALLEGATION/CHARGE/AMOUNT
INVOLVED UNDER PMLA:
3.1Brief facts of the offence- That, the information
shared under section 66(2) of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002 by the Directorate of
Enforcement is an integral part of the FIR 272/23
dated 01/06/23 (RUD No- 2 of PC dated 30.03.2024)
registered by the Ranchi Police. This FIR was
registered on the written complaint of Manoj Kumar,
Circle Officer, Bargai Anchal and the information
shared under section 66 (2) of PMLA, 2002 was part
of the said complaint. As per the information shared
by the Directorate of Enforcement, seventeen
registers and 11 trunks of property documents were
seized from the premises under use and control of
Bhanu Pratap Prasad on 13.04.2023 by the
Directorate of Enforcement. It was mentioned in the
complaint that the accused Bhanu Pratap Prasad
(Ex Revenue Sub-Inspector, Bargai, Ranchi) was
having illegal possession of seventeen original
registers (पंजी II) (out of which several were tampered)
along with several property deeds which were the
official documents. The registers seized from the
possession of Bhanu Pratap Prasad are properties as
per the definition provided under section 2(1)(v) of
PMLA, 2002 as it is involved/used in the
commission of scheduled offence. The above
registers contain references to several properties
which have been acquired in illegal manner
including the reference of properties admeasuring
8.86 acres at Shanti Nagar, Baragain, Bariyatu Road
(near Lalu Khatal) illegally acquired and possessed
by the accused Hemant Soren and a property
[2025:JHHC:35721]
admeasuring 4.83 acres at Muza Gari, khata No 53,
Plot Nos 31, 32, 33,35, 36 and 37.
3.3 The above stated documents/register volume were
examined and an explanation under section 50 of
PMLA was sought from the accused Bhanu Pratap
Prasad which further led to the identification of
tampering and concealment of the original registers
aimed at extending illegal benefits to other persons to
acquire properties in illegal manner. As mentioned
above, during searches dated 13.04.2023 in
ECIR/RNZO/18/2022, handwritten diaries were also
seized from the possession of other persons namely
Md. Saddam Hussain, Imtiyaz Ahmed, and others,
who were his associates. In the said diaries, cash
payments to the said Bhanu Pratap Prasad were also
mentioned by his associates in reference to certain
properties.
The above image shows the account of cash
maintained by the accused persons namely Md.
Saddam Hussain, Afshar Ali and others in respect of
the property admeasuring 4.83 acres, situated at Plot
No. 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 38, 72 and 73, Khata 53,
Mauja Gari, Baragain Anchal, Ranchi for which two
fake deeds, 3954 of the year 1974 and other of the
year 2376 of the year 1940 were prepared by accused
persons namely Md. Saddam Hussain, Afshar Ali and
others who are the associates of Bhanu Pratap
Prasad. It is evident from the accounts (highlighted in
red box) that Rs. 20,00,000/- has been accounted for
something which has been written as 'Two pieces'. In
addition to this, 1974 and 1940 has been written on
the paper. Two pieces represent two fake deeds and
1974 and 1940 represent the year of which, fake
deeds were made by the accused persons. In addition
to this, a cash payment of Rs. 2 lacs to Bhanu Pratap
Prasad has also been highlighted. On the top of the
note, Khata 53, Mauja Gari 4.83 Cheshire Home Road
[2025:JHHC:35721]
is written which represents the area and the location
of the land.
3.6The above-stated facts were confronted with
Bhanu Pratap Prasad initially on 23.04.2023. and
again on 10.02.2024 (RUD No-34 of PC dated
30.03.2024). during his statement under section 50
of the PMLA, 2002 wherein he admitted about his
involvement with other accused persons namely
Afshar Ali, Saddam Hussain, Md. Irshad, Bipin
Singh.
3.8During investigation, it was also revealed that the
accused Bhanu Pratap Prasad was also party with
Hemant Soren in activities of acquiring and
possessing a piece of land in a concealed manner,
having an area of around 8.86 acres. An image of a
report was recovered from the mobile phone of
Bhanu Pratap Prasad regarding verification of the
said 8.86 acres of land in which certain hand written
notes in respect of a cluster of landed properties,
situated adjacently on 12 plots at Baragain Anchal,
the total area of which is around 8.86 acres were
written by him. It revealed that the said property
was acquired in illegal and concealed possession of
the accused Hemant Soren since.
Background of the information shared under
section 66(2) of the PMLA, 2002 to the Chief
Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand
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
[2025:JHHC:35721]
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 persons 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.
Bhanu 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 P.S. 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
ECIRRNZO/25/2023 was recorded for further
investigation under PMLA, 2002.
Investigation under PMLA, 2002 in ECIR:
RNZO/25/2023-
The register seized from the possession of Bhanu
Pratap Prasad are properties as per the definition
provided under section 2(1)(v) of PMLA 2002 as it is
involved/used in the commission of scheduled
offence. Any forgery/criminality/tampering relatable
to these properties (registers) come within the ambit
of the investigation under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002.
[2025:JHHC:35721]
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 8.86 acres property situated
at Shanti Nagar, Behind DAV School, Bariatu,
Ranchi, acquired and possessed by Hemant Soren.
Another property admeasuring 4.83 acres which
were acquired by the above stated syndicate of
Bharu Pratap Prasad, Afshar Ali and others was also
identified.
9.6 Two surveys were conducted on 20.04.2023 as
well as on 10.02.2024 at the above stated 8.86 acres
land in the presence of the Circle Officer, Circle
Inspector, Anchal Ameens and others. Both surveys
confirmed the possession of Hemant Soren over the
said 8.86 acres property. It was also revealed
subsequently that the said 8.86 acres of property
was acquired in an illegal and unauthorized manner
with the assistance of Bhanu Pratap Prasad,
thereby, being the proceeds of crime in hands of the
accused person Hemant Soren. Several
incriminating evidences including transfer of
construction plans on the said property in between
the accused persons were also recovered from the
seized mobile phone of the associate Binod Kumar
Singh which further corroborated direct links of the
accused person Hemant Soren with the said
property.
9.9As stated above, during investigation, another
4.83 acres property, situated at Cheshire Home
Road, Mauja Gari, Ranchi was also identified to be
acquired by the accused persons including Afshar
Ali, 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
[2025:JHHC:35721]
Ahmed (an accomplice of Afhsar 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. ---
9.10 Investigation revealed that the above stated
8.86 acres property was in concealed possession and
use of Hemant Soren and the said Bhanu Pratap
Prasad was assisting him in acquisition of the said
property. ----
9.21 From the various documents gathered during
the course of investigation, it has been established
that Bhanu Pratap Prasad was member of the
syndicate comprising of the accused persons namely
Afshar Ali, Md. Saddam Hussain, Md. Irshad, Bipin
Singh and others who were involved in acquiring
landed properties by creating fake deeds. Bhanu
Pratap Prasad also assisted several persons
including Hemant Soren in acquiring properties in
concealed and fraudulent manner. The recovery of
the verification report of the said 8.86 acres property
for benefit of the accused person Hemant Soren, the
recovery of the brown-coloured file containing 44
pages exclusively related to said 8.86 acres property
in possession of Hemant Soren (on which CMO
Urgent Pintu was written) establish the assistance
provided by Bhanu Pratap Prasad to Hemant Soren
in fraudulently acquiring the said 8.86 acres
property.
Involvement of the accused persons in acquiring
property admeasuring 4.83 acres at Mouza Gari,
Chesire Home Road, Ranchi, illegally by way of
manufacturing fake deeds, in connivance with the
accused Bhanu Pratap Prasad.
Investigation reveals that the syndicate used to
identify vacant land parcels in Ranchi, where no
activity was done. In addition to this the accused
[2025:JHHC:35721]
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 Cicle 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 also 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 fake deeds, deed no. 2376 of the
year 1940 and other 3954 of the year 1974 were
prepared by Saddam Hussain, Md. Afshar Ali and
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 Mabul 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.
57. From the material available on record and also from
counter affidavit prima facie it appears that the petitioner
alleged to misused his official position as a Revenue Sub-
Inspector and custodian of sensitive government records to
facilitate a massive land scam and he provided the
[2025:JHHC:35721]
syndicate with illegal access to original land records and
personally carried out or facilitated their forgery and
manipulation, thereby enabling the fraudulent acquisition
of high-value properties.
58. It has come on record that petitioner's had kept 17
original government registers (पं जी II) and 11 trunks of
official documents at his private rented residence for
security reasons, however, as a public servant, the
petitioner was legally and duty-bound to maintain the
custody and sanctity of these records within the designated
government office.
59. It has been revealed in the investigation that the
primary role of the petitioner was to facilitate the
generation of massive proceeds of crime for the main
beneficiaries like Hemant Soren and other syndicate
members, and further there is direct and corroborative
evidence of him receiving illicit payments for his illegal acts.
60. Further it has come in the investigation that
handwritten diaries seized from co-accused Md. Saddam
Hussain, which contain explicit entries of cash payments
made to "Bhanu" in connection with the fraudulent
acquisition of a 4.83-acre property. One entry specifically
notes a payment to "Bhanu Rsiad" (Bhanu Prasad the
present petitioner). Further, WhatsApp chats recovered
from another co-accused, which show a transaction list
[2025:JHHC:35721]
where an entry "Bhanu 5" represents a payment of 25
Lakhs to the petitioner for his role in the same 4.83-acre
land fraud.
61. Thus, admittedly the 17 original tampered registers
and 11 trunks of documents seized from personal custody
of the petitioner. Further, Forged Sale Deeds (eg. Deed No.
3954 of 1974, Deed No. 3985 of 1940) created and used by
the syndicate of which petitioner was a pivotal member.
Handwritten diaries and WhatsApp chats of co-accused
persons evidencing cash payments to the petitioner.
62. Thus, during searches conducted on April 13, 2023,
at the petitioner's rented residence, a huge cache of official
documents was seized, including 11 trunks of voluminous
property documents and 17 original government land
revenue registers (पंजी II). The petitioner had illegally
removed these critical records from the Circle Office and
kept them at his private residence, an act indicative of a
intent of the petitioner to tamper with evidence.
Examination of these seized registers revealed widespread
tampering, falsification, and forgery, where names of
original landowners were erased or overwritten to illegally
insert new names, thereby unlawfully changing the nature
of lands to extend undue benefits to members of the
syndicate and other influential individuals.
[2025:JHHC:35721]
63. Thus, prima facie the petitioner's argument that no
offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is made out is legally
flawed. Further, the offence of money laundering explicitly
includes any person who "knowingly assists or knowingly is
a party or is actually involved in any process or activity
connected with proceeds of crime including its
concealment, possession, acquisition or use, therefore, the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not
tenable herein.
64. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further
contended that case rests solely on the confessional
statements under Section 50 of the PMLA and as such it is
not admissible as evidence against the petitioner.
65. 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.
66. It is evident that the instant case, is supported by a
wealth of independent and corroborative evidence,
including Physical Evidence as the 17 original tampered
registers and 11 trunks of documents seized from the
[2025:JHHC:35721]
personal custody of the petitioner and further Forged Sale
Deeds created and used by the syndicate of which he was
alleged to be a pivotal member. Further Handwritten diaries
and WhatsApp chats of co-accused persons evidencing
cash payments to the petitioner.
67. The investigation revealed that the petitioner, a
public servant, was a key member of this land-grabbing
syndicate. During searches conducted on April 13, 2023, at
the petitioner's rented residence, a huge cache of official
documents was seized, including 11 trunks of voluminous
property documents and 17 original government land
revenue registers (पंजी II). The petitioner had illegally
removed these critical records from the Circle Office and
concealed them at his private residence, an act indicative of
a clear intent to tamper with evidence. Examination of
these seized registers revealed widespread tampering,
falsification, and forgery, where names of original
landowners were erased or overwritten to illegally insert
new names, thereby unlawfully changing the nature of
lands to extend undue benefits to members of the syndicate
and other influential individuals.
68. Thus, the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the instant case rests solely on the
statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA is not
tenable rather the instant case is supported by a strong
[2025:JHHC:35721]
and coherent body of evidence drawn from multiple
independent sources, which together establish the
petitioner's active and knowing involvement in the offence
of money laundering.
69. Thus, from aforesaid imputation and discussion
prima-facie it appears that the involvement of present
petitioner in alleged crime cannot be denied.
70. Further, it requires to refer herein that the burden
of proof is on the petitioner until the contrary is proved, the
same is observed in various judicial pronouncements and
upheld in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra).
Further in Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement,
(2018) 11 SCC 46, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also
observed that the provisions of section 24 of the PMLA
provide that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or
the Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved
in money laundering and the burden to prove that the
proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the appellant.
71. 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
[2025:JHHC:35721]
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.
72. 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.
73. Herein the 17 seized original government registers
are the primary incriminating evidence in this case, as the
investigation has established that these records were
illegally removed from the government office, concealed by
the petitioner, and were subsequently tampered with to
create fraudulent land titles. The explanation that these
crucial government records were kept at his rental house
for a security reason is a self-serving afterthought,
[2025:JHHC:35721]
unsubstantiated by any official order or logical reasoning.
The very act of illegally removing and concealing these
registers proves the petitioner's malicious intent and his
active role in the criminal conspiracy.
74. Thus, this Court, after taking note of the settled
legal proposition, is of view that the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in the eye
of law.
75. Thus, from the aforesaid deduction, the involvement
of the present petitioner in the alleged crime, prima-facie
appears to be true.
76. So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45
of the Act, 2002 is concerned, as has been referred
hereinabove, the judgment rendered in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra),
it has been held therein by making observation that
whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of
proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or
439 for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the
Constitutional Court, the underlying principles and rigors
of Section 45 of the 2002 must come into play and without
exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of
the 2002 Act, which is a special legislation providing for
stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of
money-laundering.
[2025:JHHC:35721]
77. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45
of P.M.L.A. will have to be complied with even in respect of
an application for bail made under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
That coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides
that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the
Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in
money laundering and the burden to prove that the
proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the appellant.
78. Further, it is evident from the judicial
pronouncement as discussed above that in order to
constitute any property as proceeds of crime, it must be
derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a
result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence.
The explanation clarifies that the proceeds of crime include
property, not only derived or obtained from scheduled
offence but also any property which may directly or
indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal
activity relatable to the scheduled offence. 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.
[2025:JHHC:35721]
79. In the instant case the investigation under PMLA
was initiated only after the registration of a predicate
offence, ie, FIR No. 272/23, which includes offences of
cheating and forgery under Sections 420 and 467 of the
IPC. Therefore, it cannot be stated that action was taken
on an "assumption" rather the 'proceeds of crime in the
instant case have been clearly identified as the high-value
properties illegally acquired through forgery and further
from record it is evident that the illicit cash payments
(bribes) received by the petitioner for his role in "knowingly
assisting in the criminal activities that generated these
proceeds, therefore the aforesaid properties and illicit gains
are thus squarely covered by the definition under Section
2(1)(u) of the PMLA.
80. 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.
81. 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
[2025:JHHC:35721]
about 21 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.
82. At this juncture, the learned counsel for ED has
submitted at Bar that all endeavour will be taken to
expedite the trial and now the ED has taken his all
endeavour to examine the further witnesses and there is
likelihood that witnesses will be examined and they will try
to examine remaining witnesses expeditiously.
83. 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.
84. 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,
[2025:JHHC:35721]
for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted
as under:
"46. As already discussed, the material available on
record indicates the involvement of the appellant in
furtherance of terrorist activities backed by members of
banned terrorist organisation involving exchange of large
quantum of money through different channels which needs
to be deciphered and therefore in such a scenario if the
appellant is released on bail there is every likelihood that
he will influence the key witnesses of the case which
might hamper the process of justice. Therefore, mere delay
in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the
instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail.
Hence, the aforesaid argument on behalf of the appellant
cannot be accepted."
85. 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.
86. Admittedly, the petitioner has been in judicial
custody since February, 2024 but the said incarceration,
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.
[2025:JHHC:35721]
87. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan,
(2004) 7 SCC 528, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
the mere period of incarceration is not a sufficient ground
for bail when the gravity of the offence is severe and there
are allegations of tampering.
88. Similarly, in Satyendar Kumar Jain v.
Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 317,
the Hon'ble Apex Court refused bail despite protracted
proceedings.
89. It requires to refer herein that respondent ED has
specifically express serious apprehension in the Counter
affidavit at para 50 that, if petitioner enlarged on bail, he
may misuse his liberty to derail the ongoing trial averred,
for ready reference the aforesaid paragraph is being quoted
as under:
"50. ----The primary considerations must remain the
gravity of the offence, the strength of the material
collected during investigation, and the likelihood of the
petitioner interfering with the fair administration of
justice. It is submitted that the investigation has revealed
that the petitioner, by virtue of his official position and
domain expertise in land revenue matters, actively
facilitated the concealment and manipulation of vital
government records. Such conduct clearly establishes a
deliberate attempt to frustrate the process of law. It is
further submitted that there exists a credible and serious
apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, the petitioner may
again misuse his liberty to derail the ongoing trial.
Accordingly, the petitioner does not satisfy the stringent
[2025:JHHC:35721]
twin conditions prescribed under Section 45 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002."
90. Thus, given the grave nature of the allegations 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
91. It has been contended that other several co-
accused persons namely Md. Irshad, Bipin Kumar Singh
and Priya Ranjan Sahayhave been granted bail either by
this Court or by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore the
present petitioner is also eligible for such liberty.
92. 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.
93. Now coming to the ground of parity as raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, the law is well settled
that the principle of parity is to be applied if the case on
fact is exactly similar then only the principle of parity in the
[2025:JHHC:35721]
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.
94. It is further settled connotation of law that Court
cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has
to consider the totality of circumstances before granting
bail and by only simple saying that another accused has
been granted bail is not sufficient to determine whether a
case for grant of bail on the basis of parity has been
established. Reference in this regard may be made to the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh
Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana
&Anr., (2021) 6 SCC 230, wherein, it has been held as
under:
"25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed
by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under
the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature
and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of
the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav
v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16
SCC 508 :] , this Court has held that while applying the
principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its
powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the
totality of circumstances before granting bail. This Court
observed : (SCC p. 515, para 17)
"17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a
stand was taken that the second respondent was a
history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High
Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously
record that the second respondent is entitled to be
admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated
[2025:JHHC:35721]
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 [PravinbhaiHirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020
SCC OnLine Guj 2986] , [KhetabhaiParbatbhai 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
SidhdhrajsinhBhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was
granted on 22-10-2020 [SiddhrajsinhBhagubha 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
[2025:JHHC:35721]
simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot
pass muster under the law."
95. 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.
96. 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.
97. This Court, in order to verify the issue of principle of
parity, has gone through the order by which, co-accused
have been enlarged on the bail and found that the
distinguishing factors are:
(i). The petitioner was a public servant who gravely
breached the trust reposed in him by the State.
(ii) He had played active assistance providing illegal
access to original records and personally carrying out
the forgeries and without his assistance the land
fraud of this magnitude would not have been
possible.
[2025:JHHC:35721]
(iii) The gravity of an offence committed by a
custodian of public records is of a significantly higher
degree, therefore, he cannot claim parity with private
individuals who were part of the syndicate.
98. Thus, from the aforesaid, the role of present
petitioner/ accused is comparable to that of the co-accused
who has been granted bail. In the present case, the
petitioner's role is fundamentally different and far more
serious. Unlike the co-accused individuals such as Md.
Irshad, Bipin Kumar Singh, and Priya Ranjan Sahay who
are private persons, the petitioner was a public servant
holding the post of Revenue Sub-Inspector, entrusted with
the custody of sensitive land records. He grossly misused
his official position and violated the public trust. It has
been alleged that he was the central figure in the
conspiracy, playing 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 8.86-acre and 4.83-acre parcels 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
actions were not incidental; therefore, his role cannot be
equated with that of the other co-accused, and the claim of
parity is without any merit.
[2025:JHHC:35721]
99. 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
personally carried out or facilitated their forgery and
manipulation, thereby enabling the fraudulent acquisition
of high-value properties.
100. Further, it requires to refer herein that the Money
Laundering is an economic offence and economic offences
come under the grave offences, as has been held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y. S Jagan Mohan
Reddy Vs. C. B. I., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439. For
ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid
judgment is being quoted as under:
"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart
and need to be visited with a different approach in
the matter of bail. The economic offences having
deeprooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of
public funds need to be viewed seriously and
considered as grave offences affecting the
economy of the country as a whole and thereby
posing serious threat to the financial health of the
country."
101. 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:
[2025:JHHC:35721]
"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
ofthe 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
[2025:JHHC:35721]
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."
102. It is, thus, evident from the discussion made
hereinabove that so far as the case of the present petitioner
is concerned, the twin condition as provided under Section
45(1) of the Act, 2002 is not being fulfilled so as to grant
the privilege of bail to the present petitioner.
103. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to the facts
and circumstances, as have been analyzed hereinabove and
further taking into consideration that 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 further the
cash payments (bribes) received by the petitioner for his
role in knowingly assisting in the criminal activities that
generated these proceeds, the applicant/petitioner failed to
make out a case for exercise of power to grant bail and
[2025:JHHC:35721]
considering the facts and parameters, this Court therefore
does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail.
104. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the bail
application is liable to be rejected.
105. 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.
106. 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.
107. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also
stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad J.)
26/11/2025
Nibha/A.F.R.
Uploaded on: 29.11.2025
