Jharkhand High Court

Mrs. Pinki Basu Mukherjee vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 10 September, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                 2025:JHHC:28027
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                 B.A. No. 5860 of 2025
                          ------

Mrs. Pinki Basu Mukherjee, aged about 33 years, daughter of Dipak Kumar Mukherjee, resident of C/o Abhijit Basu, P- 29, Bijay Nagar Gate No.1, Khosla Electronics, Madhyamgram, P.O. and P.S. Madhamgram, District-North 24 Parganas (West Bengal)-700129.

                                   ...    ...    Petitioner
                      Versus

Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Zonal Office, Ranchi. ... ... Opp. Party

-------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

-------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party-ED : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate : Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Varun Girdhar, Advocate

------

C.A.V. on 27/08/2025 Pronounced on 10/09/2025

Prayer:

1. The instant application has been filed under Section

483 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023 praying for grant of bail in ECIR Case No.06 of 2024

arising out of ECIR/RNZO/17/2024 dated 18.09.2024 for

offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 registered in

view of the F.I.R. bearing No.188 of 2024 dated 04.06.2024

registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the

I.P.C., Section 12 of Passport Act, 1967 and 14A of

Foreigners Act, 1946, pending in the court of learned

Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi.

2025:JHHC:28027

Prosecution Case:

2. The prosecution story, in brief, as per the allegation

made in the instant ECIR/complaint reads as under:

The case of the prosecution is that an ECIR/

RNZO/17/2024 has been recorded on the basis of FIR No.

188 of 2024 dated 04.06.2024 which was lodged by PS -

Bariatu, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand, under Sections 420,

467, 468, 471 & 34 of IPC 1860, Section 12 of Passports

Act 1967; Section 14-A of Foreigners Act, 1946.

3. As per the aforesaid FIR, one Nipah Akhtar Khushi

aged about 21 years hailing from Bangladesh was brought

to Kolkata by a girl named Manisha with the help of

another girl named Jhuma on the midnight of 31.05.2024,

by illegally facilitating her crossing Bangladesh border from

the jungle area, on the pretext of getting her engaged in any

work in India.

4. The said Nipah Akhtar Khushi was then brought to

Ranchi by car, where she was first kept at Bali Resort,

Ranchi for two days with other girls. The Bangladeshi girl

namely Nipah Akhtar and another girl Haasi Akhtar alias

Hasi Vishwas, also hailing from Bangladesh, were kept at

one Apartment with two other different Bangladeshi girls

Parveen and Jhuma. Jhuma had helped Nipah Akhtar

Khushi in crossing the Bangladesh border to enter into

2025:JHHC:28027 India. These girls were brought illegally there for

prostitution.

5. On 03.06.2024, taking advantage of the

opportunity, the girl Nipah Akhtar Khushi sneaked away

and somehow reached to the Police and lodged the

complaint.

6. After registering a complaint, on 04.06.2024 at

around 15:30 hrs., the police conducted raids and three

girls out of which 2 girls hailing from Bangladesh were

found inside one room at Bali Resort in Ranchi.

7. It has been revealed that the rooms were booked by

one Manisha Rai and her guests were accommodated there.

Further upon searching the rooms, police recovered some

mobiles and a fake Aadhaar card, which was meant to be

used for stay fraudulently in India by one Bangladeshi

national connected to the above stated person.

8. Since Sections 420, 467 & 471 IPC 1860 and

Section 12 of Passports Act 1967 are scheduled offences

under PMLA, 2002, the instant ECIR: RNZO/17/2024 was

recorded for investigation under PMLA, 2002.

9. During the course of investigation under PMLA,

2002, the CDR analysis of mobile number used by the

suspects were analysed which revealed frequent contacts

with various connected persons and the SIMs used by them

were registered in the name of the accused Pinki Basu

Mukherjee.

2025:JHHC:28027

10. From the above scrutiny, it was revealed that the

mobile number used by above-mentioned girls are

registered in name of Pinki Basu Mukherjee who is actively

involved in the above stated illegal activities after illegally

infiltrating Bangladeshi nationals in India.

11. It has also been revealed that the said Jhuma and

Manisha are involved in facilitating Bangladeshi nationals

in illegally infiltrating India in order to carry out illegal

activities and they have frequent contacts with the said

Pinki Basu Mukherjee. Further, the CDR analysis of the

mobile number used by the accused Pinki Basu Mukherjee

reveals frequent contacts with a number of Bangladeshi

numbers.

12. Thus, a nexus is seen between the said Jhuma,

Manisha Roy, the above-named Bangladeshi nationals and

several others with the accused Pinki Basu Mukherjee, who

are all together involved in aiding Bangladeshis by way of

providing them shelter/settlement including sim cards

registered in her name.

13. Further, the CDR of the other accused persons of

this case revealed frequent calls with various Bangladeshi

numbers. During investigation, the CDRs of the various

Indian mobile numbers, with which the abovementioned

Bangladeshi numbers had contacted with, were scrutinized.

The scrutiny of the said mobile numbers revealed that the

sim card of one mobile number 9007934310 is registered in

2025:JHHC:28027 the name of accused Rony Mondal. The accused Rony

Mondal has frequent contacts and calls with 42 different

Bangladeshi numbers, out of which, several were among

those, with whom, Manisha Roy had frequent contacts.

14. Further, the SDR of mobile number 7908031504

revealed that the said mobile number is registered in name

of the accused Pintu Haldar. It further reveals that Pintu

Haldar is in frequent contacts with mobile number used by

Manisha Roy as well as with various other suspicious

Bangladeshi numbers.

15. Thus, on having reasons to believe that the above

stated accused persons along with others are knowingly

indulged in illegal activities pertaining to facilitating illegal

infiltration of Bangladeshi nationals in India and use,

acquisition, and possession of proceeds of crime generated

therefrom, searches were conducted on 12.11.2024 under

Section 17 of PMLA, 2002 in the instant ECIR at 17

premises under the use and occupation of the above

mentioned persons and premises linked to them, including

the premises of the said Pinki Basu Mukherjee, Rony

Mondal and Pintu Haldar.

16. During course of the search at the premises under

the use and occupation of the petitioner Pinki Basu

Mukherjee at Sapphire Apartment, Madhyamgram,

Accused No. 2 i.e. Sandip Chowdhury was found to be

present at the said premises. During his statement

2025:JHHC:28027 recorded under Sections 17 and 50, it is found that he is an

illegal immigrant (Bangladeshi national), who has been

living in India for the past 3 years and a very close

associate of Pinki Basu Mukherjee (who has also provided

multiple SIMs in her name of the persons linked with this

case). Further, on the scrutiny of the mobile phone of the

said Accused No.2. it is revealed that he has connections

with several brokers, who are involved in supplying girls for

immoral work from Bangladesh in lieu of money. Further,

incriminating WhatsApp Chat were found on the Mobile

Phone of Accused No.2 having content related to immoral

trafficking and the supply of girls for immoral or sexual

work. Also, several Bangladeshi contacts and chats, on the

phone of Accused No. 2 establish that he with others

knowingly indulged in illegal activities pertaining to the

facilitation of Bangladeshi nationals to infiltrate India for

illegal activities in lieu of proceeds of crime.

17. The petitioner has admitted in her statement that

she provides women to various establishments, including

dance bars, hotels, and events across multiple cities in lieu

of proceeds of crime. Her clientele spans Kolkata, Ranchi,

and Jaipur, and the women involved include both local and

Bangladeshi nationals. She works with intermediaries,

including a Bangladeshi connection who supplies women

for her operations. She reportedly works with brokers who

supplies Bangladeshi women, receiving hefty commission.

2025:JHHC:28027 Pinki resides with another accused Sandip Chowdhury,

who claims to assist her daily. They met through Facebook,

and he illegally entered India from Bangladesh to join her.

He assists in operations, including logistical support for

delivering women to clients.

18. Thus, the Accused Persons and other people are

part of a bigger syndicate that operates extensively and in a

discreet manner across West Bengal and parts of

Jharkhand, including Ranchi. The said persons are

engaged in facilitating the illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi

nationals into India for the purpose of carrying out illicit

activities in lieu of generating proceeds of crime. Hence, the

said Accused persons are knowingly and directly involved

in processes and activities connected with the generation

and acquisition of proceeds of crime as well as their use

which are derived out of illegal activities which are

scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money

Laundering Act 2002.

19. The generation, acquisition and use of the proceeds

of crime out of the above-stated activities are corroborated

by the seizure of mobile phones containing various

incriminating chats relating to monetary transactions in

lieu of above-stated illegal activities including prostitution

by these girls. During the course of searches, documents

have also been recovered which contain the details/list of

the payments in lieu of the prostitution racket being run by

2025:JHHC:28027 the above syndicate by the involvement of the above-

mentioned Bangladeshi Nationals.

20. On having material in possession and reasons to

believe recorded in writing, that the accused persons are

guilty of the offence of Money Laundering for the reasons,

as discussed above, the petitioner was arrested on

13.11.2024 in the ongoing investigation.

21. Since the said accused was arrested outside the

territorial jurisdiction of the Learned Special Court (PMLA),

Ranchi and could not be produced before the Ld. Special

Court (PMLA), Ranchi within 24 hours of his arrest u/s 19

of PMLA, 2002 and hence, the accused was produced

before the Court of the Ld. Chief Judge, City Sessions Court

at Kolkata under Section 187 of BNSS (earlier 167 of

Cr.P.C) r/w Section 19 of PMLA, 2002 for issuance of order

of transit remand which was given by the Ld. Court vide

order dated 13.11.2024.

22. The present petitioner preferred MCA No. 691 of

2025 for grant of bail which was rejected vide order dated

30.04.2025 by learned Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi.

23. Hence the present petition has been preferred for

the grant of bail.

Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner:

24. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner seeking relief for grant of bail has submitted

that the petitioner is wholly innocent and has committed no

2025:JHHC:28027 offence whatsoever and she has got no criminal

antecedents.

25. Learned counsel has further submitted that the

petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case only on

the basis of vague and hypothetical allegations not

supported and corroborated by any material evidence.

26. He has submitted that the opposite party-E.D. is

very much relying upon the call details of the petitioner

that she was regularly connected with other accused

persons. The opposite party-E.D. is only drawing an

inference that since other accused person are involved in

illegal infiltration in India, the petitioner might have been

also involved in the same.

27. Learned counsel has further submitted that no

incriminating article has been recovered from the

possession of the petitioner. All the alleged recovery are

planted with an intention to implicate the petitioner in this

case and left the actual culprit free.

28. It has been contended that the petitioner is a poor

housewife though the first information report was lodged

initially against six accused persons with specific

allegations and ECIR was lodged against six named and

one unknown but later this petitioner has been implicated

and remanded to custody.

2025:JHHC:28027

29. It has been contended that this petitioner is not

named under the schedule offence and even no complaint

initially was filed/lodged against the petitioner.

30. It has further been contended that the present

petitioner is being mother of minor of child and as such in

view of section 45 of PML Act 2002, she is entitled for bail.

31. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has

submitted that in the present case investigation has been

completed and no further custodial interrogation is

required.

32. Learned counsel has further submitted that the

petitioner is in custody since 14.11.2024.

33. Based upon the aforesaid grounds, learned senior

counsel has submitted that the petitioner may kindly be

allowed on regular bail.

Argument on behalf of Respondent-ED:

34. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel

appearing for the respondent-ED has taken the following

ground in opposition:

(i) The accused petitioner was knowingly involved in the

illegal facilitation of Bangladeshi nationals into India.

(ii) She alongwith other co-accused played a key role in

the syndicate by manufacturing forged Indian identity

documents, primarily Aadhaar cards, using a

computer, printer, and lamination machine seized

from the premises. These documents were prepared

2025:JHHC:28027 on the instructions of co-accused Monisha Roy, Juel

(a Bangladeshi national), and Mona, who provided

details and photographs via WhatsApp.

(iii) It has been further submitted that during her

statement under section 17 and 50 of PMLA Act, Pinki

Basu Mukherjee admitted to indulging in facilitating

Bangladeshi nationals to infiltrate in India illegally for

exploitation and immoral activities.

(iv) The petitioner is indulged in smuggling women across

the India-Bangladesh border with the assistance of

her associates.

(v) Learned counsel has further submitted that it revealed

during investigation that she played a critical role in

facilitating the illegal transportation, covering

expenses related to the women's entry and travel from

chittagong to the border. Upon their arrival, her

associates ensured women's safe passage into India,

specifically to areas like Madymgram in West Bengal.

(vi) In her statement, she has admitted that she provided

temporary shelter and forged documents such as

Aadhaar cards, to assist the trafficked women

integrate into the system and avoid detection.

(vii) Learned counsel for the ED has further submitted

that the co-accused Sandip Chowdhury, in his

statement, recorded u/s-50 of PMLA, Act, 2002, he

acknowledged his indulgence in illegal activities as

2025:JHHC:28027 well as knowingly assisting Pinki Basu Mukherjee in

her criminal activities and generation of proceeds of

crime.

(viii) It has further been submitted that the petitioner is not

entitled to the relief of bail in view of the stringent

provisions of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, 2002. The twin conditions prescribed

therein mandate that (i) the Public Prosecutor must be

given an opportunity to oppose the bail application,

and (ii) the Court must be satisfied that there are

reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is

not guilty of such offence and is not likely to commit

any offence while on bail. These conditions have been

held to be mandatory and have consistently been

upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of

economic offences. In Rohit Tandon v. Directorate

of Enforcement [(2018) 11 SCC 46], bail under

PMLA was explicitly denied on the ground that such

offences must be dealt with strictly, keeping in mind

the deterrent objective of the Act. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court underscored that economic offences

are a class apart and bail cannot be granted

mechanically or merely on the ground of personal

hardship or assurances of cooperation.

(ix) Learned counsel for the ED has submitted that the

allegations involve laundering of substantial proceeds

2025:JHHC:28027 of crime, and the investigation is at a crucial stage.

Grant of bail at this juncture would not only hamper

the ongoing investigation but would also set a

dangerous precedent in cases involving organized

financial crime and money laundering.

35. Learned counsel for the respondent-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:

36. This Court has heard learned counsel for the

parties, considered the argument advanced on behalf of

parties as also the judgments relied upon by the parties

and other materials available on record.

37. This Court before appreciating the argument

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

discuss herein the admitted factual aspects of the instant

case.

38. An ECIR/ RNZO/17/2024 has been recorded on the

basis of FIR of Bariatu P.S. Case No. 188 of 2024 dated

04.06.2024 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 &

34 of IPC 1860, Section 12 of Passports Act 1967; Section

14-A of Foreigners Act, 1946.

39. As per the aforesaid FIR, one Nipah Akhtar Khushi

aged about 21 years hailing from Bangladesh was brought

to Kolkata by a girl named Manisha with the help of

another girl named Jhuma on the midnight of 31.05.2024,

2025:JHHC:28027 by illegally facilitating her crossing Bangladesh border from

the jungle area, on the pretext of getting her engaged in any

work in India. The said Nipah Akhtar Khushi was then

brought to Ranchi by car, where she was first kept at Bali

Resort, Ranchi for two days with other girls. The

Bangladeshi girl namely Nipah Akhtar and another girl

Haasi Akhtar alias Hasi Vishwas, also hailing from

Bangladesh, were kept at one Apartment with two other

different Bangladeshi girls Parveen and Jhuma.

40. On 03.06.2024, taking advantage of the

opportunity, the girl Nipah Akhtar Khushi sneaked away

and somehow reached to the Police and lodged the

complaint.

41. After registering a complaint, on 04.06.2024 at

around 15:30 hrs., the police conducted raids and three

girls out of which 2 girls hailing from Bangladesh were

found inside one room at Bali Resort in Ranchi.

42. It was revealed that the rooms were booked by one

Manisha Rai and her guests were accommodated there.

Further upon searching the rooms, police recovered some

mobiles and a fake Aadhaar card, which was meant to be

used for staying fraudulently in India by one Bangladeshi

national connected to the above stated person.

43. Accordingly, the trial court has taken the

cognizance of the aforesaid offence. Thereafter, petitioner

had preferred the Misc. Cri. Application being MCA

2025:JHHC:28027 691/2025 for his bail, which was dismissed vide Order

dated 30.04.2025.

44. Hence the present application has been preferred

before this Court for grant of regular bail.

45. Before appreciating the aforesaid contention of the

learned counsel for the parties, this Court thinks fit to refer

the provision of law as contained under the Act, 2002 with

its object and intent as also the legal proposition as settled

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments.

46. 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.

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

crime" has been provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act,

2002 wherefrom it is evident that "proceeds of crime"

means any property derived or obtained, directly or

indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity

relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such

property or where such property is taken or held outside

2025:JHHC:28027 the country, then the property equivalent in value held

within the country or abroad.

48. 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.

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

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

to the effect that whether as per the substantive provision

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

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

relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such

property or where such property is taken or held outside

the country but by way of explanation the proceeds of crime

has been given broader implication by including property

not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but

also any property which may directly or indirectly be

derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity

relatable to the scheduled offence.

50. 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

2025:JHHC:28027 instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property

or assets, wherever located.

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

which means schedule to the Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, 2002. 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.

52. The offence of money laundering has been defined

under Section 3 of the Act, 2002, it is evident from the said

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.

53. 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:28027

54. The various provisions of the Act, 2002 alongwith

interpretation of the definition of "proceeds of crime" has

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

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India

and Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 wherein the Bench

comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court have decided the issue by taking into consideration

the object and intent of the Act, 2002.

55. 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.

56. It needs to refer herein the purport of Section

45(1)(i)(ii), the aforesaid provision starts from the non-

obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no person accused

2025:JHHC:28027 of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on

his own bond unless -

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given a 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.

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

bail specific in subsection (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.

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

(2) thereof which is for the purpose of removal of doubts. A

clarification has been inserted that the expression "Offences

to be cognizable and non-bailable" shall mean and shall be

deemed to have always meant that all offences under this

Act shall be cognizable offences and non-bailable offences

notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and accordingly the

officers authorised under this Act are empowered to arrest

an accused without warrant, subject to the fulfilment of

conditions under section 19 and subject to the conditions

enshrined under this section.

59. 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

2025:JHHC:28027 Ors.(supra) for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs are

being referred as under:

"387.............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. 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.

412. 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

2025:JHHC:28027 Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of money laundering."

60. 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), has laid down

that since the conditions specified under Section 45 are

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

required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds

for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence

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

has further been observed that as per the statutory

presumption permitted under Section 24 of the Act, the

Court or the Authority is entitled to presume unless the

contrary is proved, that in any proceedings relating to

proceeds of crime under the Act, in the case of a person

charged with the offence of money laundering under

Section 3, such proceeds of crime are involved in money

laundering. Such conditions enumerated in Section 45 of

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

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

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

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

Act.

2025:JHHC:28027

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

further laid down that the 'twin conditions' as to fulfil the

requirement of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 before granting

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

with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal

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

wherein it has been observed that the accused is not guilty

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

on bail.

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

Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of

Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through

Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region,

(2015) 16 SCC 1 has been pleased to hold at paragraph -

30 that the conditions specified under Section 45 of PMLA

are mandatory and need to be complied with, which is

further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and

also Section 71 of PMLA. Section 65 requires that the

provisions of Cr.P.C shall apply insofar as they are not

inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and Section 71

provides that the provisions of PMLA shall have overriding

effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith

contained in any other law for the time being in force.

PMLA has an overriding effect and the provisions of CrPC

would apply only if they are not inconsistent with the

provisions of this Act.

2025:JHHC:28027

63. 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 accused.

64. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court

recently in the case of Gurwinder Singh vs. State of

Punjab and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109, in the

matter of UAP Act 1967 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:

"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

2025:JHHC:28027 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.

65. The reason for making reference of this judgment is

that in the Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr,

(2022) 10 SCC 51 , the UAPA has also been brought under

the purview of category 'c' wherein while laying observing

that in the UAPA Act, it comes under the category 'c' which

also includes money laundering offence wherein the bail

has been directed to be granted if the investigation is

complete but the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurwinder Singh

vs. State of Punjab and 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.

66. Now adverting to the fact of the present case,

learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

allegation leveled against the present petitioner cannot be

said to attract the ingredient of Section 3 of PMLA.

67. While on the other hand, the learned counsel

appearing for the ED has submitted by referring to various

paragraphs of prosecution complaint that the offence is very

much available attracting the offence under provisions of

PML Act.

68. This Court, in order to appreciate the rival

submission, is of the view that various paragraphs of

2025:JHHC:28027 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(ii) of the 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.

69. In order to reach to conclusion regarding alleged

culpability of the accused/applicant in commission and

accumulation of 'proceeds of crime', this Court has gone

through the FIR, the relevant material available on record

and the counter affidavit filed by the respondent ED. The

relevant paragraph of the ECIR which has been annexed as

Annexure -1 to the petition is being quoted as under:

During the course of investigation under PMLA, 2002, the CDR analysis of mobile number used by the suspects were analysed which revealed frequent contacts with various connected persons and the SIMs used by them were registered in the name of the accused Pinki Basu Mukherjee.

From the above scrutiny, it is evident that the mobile number used by above-mentioned girls are registered in name of Pinki Basu Mukherjee who is actively involved in the above stated illegal activities after illegally infiltrating Bangladeshi nationals in India. It is revealed that the said Jhuma and Manisha are involved in facilitating Bangladeshi nationals in illegally infiltrating India in order to carry out illegal activities and they have frequent contacts with the said Pinki Basu Mukherjee. Further, the CDR analysis of the mobile number ***262 used by the accused Pinki Basu Mukherjee reveals frequent contacts with a number of Bangladeshi numbers------- Thus, a nexus is seen between the said Jhuma, Manisha Roy, the above-named Bangladeshi nationals and several

2025:JHHC:28027 others with the accused Pinki Basu Mukherjee, who are all together involved in aiding Bangladeshis by way of providing them shelter/settlement including sim cards registered in her name.

Thus, on having reasons to believe that the above stated accused persons along with others are knowingly indulged in illegal activities pertaining to facilitating illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi nationals in India and use. acquisition, and possession of proceeds of crime generated therefrom, searches were conducted on 12.11.2024 under Section 17 of PMLA, 2012 in the instant ECIR at 17 premises under the use and occupation of the above mentioned persons and premises linked to them, including the premises of the said Pinki Basu Mukherjee, Rony Mandal and Pintu Haldar During course of the search at the premises under the use and occupation of Pinki Basu Mukherjee at Sapphire Apartment, Madhyamgram, Accused No. 2 i.e. Sandip Chowdhury was found to be present at the said premises During his statement recorded under Sections 17 and 50, it is found that he is an illegal immigrant (Bangladeshi national), who has been living in India for the past 3 years and a very close associate of Pinki Baau Mukherjee (who has also provided multiple SIMs in her name of the persons linked with this case). Further, on the scrutiny of the mobile phone of the said Accused No 2. it is revealed that he has connections with several brokers, who are involved in supplying girls for immoral work from Bangladesh in lieu of money. Further, incriminating WhatsApp Chat were found on the Mobile Phone of Accused No.2 having content related to immoral trafficking and the supply of girls for immoral or sexual work. Also, several Bangladeshi contacts and chats, on the phone of Accused No. 2 establish that he with others knowingly indulged in illegal activities pertaining to the facilitation Bangladeshi nationals to infiltrate India for illegal activities in lieu proceeds of crime.

Thus, the Accused Persons and other people are part of a bigger syndicate that operates extensively and in a discreet manner across West Bengal and parts of

2025:JHHC:28027 Jharkhand, including Ranchi. The said persons are engaged in facilitating the illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi nationals into India for the purpose of carrying out illicit activities in lieu of generating proceeds of crime. Hence, the said Accused persons are knowingly and directly involved in processes and activities connected with the generation and acquisition of proceeds of crime as well as their use which are derived out of illegal activities which are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. The generation, acquisition and use of the proceeds of crime out of the above-stated activities are corroborated by the seizure of mobile phones containing various incriminating chats relating to monetary transactions in lieu of above-stated illegal activities including prostitution by these girls. During the course of searches, documents have also been recovered which contain the details/list of the payments in lieu of the prostitution racket being run by the above syndicate by the involvement of the above-mentioned Bangladeshi Nationals.

70. It is evident from the record that searches under

Section 17 of PMLA at the premises of the petitioner,

yielded her mobile phone containing WhatsApp chats with

absconding accused Monisha Roy and Rajan, payment

confirmations, UPI screenshots, and identity documents of

trafficked women. Further, scrutiny of present petitioner's

bank accounts revealed cash deposits of ₹12,70,820/- and

UPI credits of 33,40,887/- which has been alleged as

proceeds of crime.

71. It is revealed during investigation that from mobile

phone of the petitioner which has contained WhatsApp

chats with absconding accused Monisha Roy and Rajan,

wherein photographs of trafficked women, payment

2025:JHHC:28027 confirmations, and bank account details were exchanged.

Screenshots of UPI payments amounting to 37,27,115/-

were also recovered. These chats revealed that the

petitioner was actively coordinating with Rajan in Ranchi

and Monisha Roy in West Bengal in relation to supply of

trafficked women and payments, and logistics.

72. Further it has come on record that the petitioner's

Bank of Baroda account no. 19450100020700 was found to

have received cash deposits of 12,70,820/- and UPI credits

of ₹33,40,887/-, while her Axis Bank account also recorded

suspicious cash deposits.

73. It has come in the counter affidavit that the

statements of the petitioner recorded under Sections 17

and Section 50 of the PMLA where she had admitted that

she facilitated illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi women,

provided them shelter and forged Aadhaar/SIM cards, and

arranged their transportation to Ranchi, Odisha, and

Rajasthan. She also admitted to receiving commissions

ranging from 1,00,000 to 1,20,000 per woman per month

from individuals such as Rajan in Ranchi. The petitioner's

close association with co-accused Sandip Chowdhury, an

illegal Bangladeshi infiltrator, has also been mentioned, as

also the said Sandip Chowdhury assisted petitioner in

financial transactions, transportation, and use of forged

documents.

2025:JHHC:28027

74. Thus, from the aforesaid fact it appears that present

petitioner engaged herself in the alleged commission of

crime. Further the petitioner's role is that of an active

conspirator and beneficiary of the proceeds of crime, having

directly indulged in the acquisition, possession, use, and

projection of such proceeds as untainted property.

75. At this juncture it needs to refer herein that it is

settled connotation of law that at the stage of considering

bail, the duty of the Court is not to weigh the evidence

meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad

probabilities and Court should not venture into the merit of

the case by analyzing that whether conviction is possible or

not. Meaning thereby at this stage the Court has to see the

prima facie case only.

76. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit

Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) while

referring the ratio of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing

Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC

294 has categorically held that the Court ought to maintain

a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and

conviction and an order granting bail much before

commencement of trial. The duty of the Court at this stage is

not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a

finding on the basis of broad probabilities.

77. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay

Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and

2025:JHHC:28027 Ors(supra) has reiterated the same view and has observed

that the Court while dealing with the application for grant of

bail need not to delve deep into the merits of the case and

only a view of the court based on available material on

record is required. For ready reference the relevant

paragraph is being quoted as under:

303. We are in agreement with the observation made by the Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma [Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1057] . The Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the court based on available material on record is required. The court will not weigh the evidence to find the guilt of the accused which is, of course, the work of the trial court. The court is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material collected during investigation and the said view will not be taken into consideration by the trial court in recording its finding of the guilt or acquittal during trial which is based on the evidence adduced during the trial. As explained by this Court in Nimmagadda Prasad [Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 575] , the words used in Section 45 of the 2002 Act are "reasonable grounds for believing" which means the court has to see only if there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

78. Hence, from the record prima facie it appears that

the petitioner is directly indulged in all the activities

connected with the offence of money laundering. as defined

u/s 3 of PMLA, 2002.Further, the role of the petitioner in the

laundering of proceeds of crime generated out of the

commission of scheduled offence has been discussed in

2025:JHHC:28027 detail in the prosecution complaint as the paragraphs of the

prosecution complaint abovementioned.

79. It needs to refer herein that to constitute any

property as proceeds of crime, it must be derived or obtained

directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal

activity relating to a scheduled offence. The explanation

clarifies that the proceeds of crime include property, not only

derived or obtained from scheduled offence but also any

property which may directly or indirectly be derived or

obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the

scheduled offence. Clause (u) also clarifies that even the

value of any such property will also be the proceeds of crime.

80. Further by virtue of Section 24 of the PMLA, the

respondent ED is not required to conclusively establish the

applicant's guilt at the pre-trial stage, rather, the applicant

must demonstrate that the proceeds of crime attributed to

him are not linked to money laundering. In the absence of

any rebuttal by the applicant, the presumption under

Section 24 of the PMLA stands in favor of the respondent,

thereby, justifying his continued detention.

81. Be it noted that the legal presumption under

Section 24(a) of the Act 2002, would apply when the person

is charged with the offence of money-laundering and his

direct or indirect involvement in any process or activity

connected with the proceeds of crime, is established. The

existence of proceeds of crime is, therefore, a foundational

2025:JHHC:28027 fact, to be established by the prosecution, including the

involvement of the person in any process or activity

connected therewith. Once these foundational facts are

established by the prosecution, the onus must then shift on

the person facing charge of offence of money- laundering to

rebut the legal presumption that the proceeds of crime are

not involved in money-laundering, by producing evidence

which is within his personal knowledge of the accused.

82. In other words, the expression "presume" is not

conclusive. It also does not follow that the legal presumption

that the proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering

is to be invoked by the authority or the court, without

providing an opportunity to the person to rebut the same by

leading evidence within his personal knowledge.

83. Such onus also flows from the purport of Section

106 of the Evidence Act. Whereby, he must rebut the legal

presumption in the manner he chooses to do and as is

permissible in law, including by replying under Section 313

of the 1973 Code or even by cross-examining prosecution

witnesses. The person would get enough opportunity in the

proceeding before the authority or the court, as the case may

be. He may be able to discharge his burden by showing that

he is not involved in any process or activity connected with

the proceeds of crime.

84. Thus, in light of the aforesaid principles and the law

enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay

2025:JHHC:28027 Madanlal Choudhary (Supra), this Court must determine

whether the foundational facts necessary to invoke the

presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA have been

established by the respondent/ED.

85. It needs to refer herein that cognizance of the

offence under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the PMLA was

duly taken on 31.01.2025. The petitioner in her statement

under Section 17 and 50 of the Act had admitted that she

facilitated illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi women, provided

them shelter and forged Aadhaar/SIM cards, and arranged

their transportation to Ranchi, Odisha, and Rajasthan. She

also admitted to receiving commissions ranging from

1,00,000 to 1,20,000 per woman per month from individuals

such as Rajan in Ranchi. Her close association with co-

accused Sandip Chowdhury, an illegal Bangladeshi

infiltrator, is also established, as he assisted her in financial

transactions, transportation, and use of forged documents.

86. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances the

presumption under Section 24 of the Act 2002 is available

herein.

87. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner has

contended that since the name of the petitioner is not

transpired in the predicate FIR therefore, she cannot be

connected with the scheduled offence.

88. In the aforesaid context it requires to refer herein

that Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement,

2025:JHHC:28027 (supra) as well as in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v.

Union of India & Ors (supra), it has been observed by the

Hon'ble Apex Court that the offence of money laundering

under Section 3 of the PMLA is an independent offence. The

Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically laid down that it is not

necessary for a person to be shown as an accused in the

scheduled offence for him to be prosecuted under the PMLA,

provided there exist proceeds of crime derived from a

scheduled offence and the person has indulged in or

facilitated any process or activity connected with such

proceeds of crime.

89. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pavana

Dibbur vs. The Directorate of Enforcement (supra) has

considered the effect of the appellant not being shown as an

accused in the predicate offence by taking into

consideration Section 3 of the Act, 2002.

90. Based upon the definition Clause (u) of sub-section

(1) of Section 2 of the Act 2002 which defines "proceeds of

crime", the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe

that clause (v) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of PMLA defines

"property" to mean any property or assets of every

description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or

immovable, tangible or intangible.

91. 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

2025:JHHC:28027 offence. The explanation clarifies that the proceeds of crime

include property, not only derived or obtained from

scheduled offence but also any property which may directly

or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any

criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. Clause

(u) also clarifies that even the value of any such property will

also be the proceeds of crime.

92. It has further been observed by referring the

decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay

Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and

Ors.(supra) that the condition precedent for the existence of

proceeds of crime is the existence of a scheduled offence. At

paragraph-15 the finding has been given therein that on

plain reading of Section 3 of the Act, 2002, an offence

under Section 3 can be committed after a scheduled offence

is committed. By giving an example, it has been clarified

that if a person who is unconnected with the scheduled

offence, knowingly assists the concealment of the proceeds

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

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

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

that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of

the PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused

in the scheduled offence. For ready reference relevant

paragraphs are being quoted as under:

2025:JHHC:28027 "15. The condition precedent for the existence of proceeds of crime is the existence of a scheduled offence. On this aspect, it is necessary to refer to the decision of this Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] . In para 109 of the said decision [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] , this Court held thus : (SCC p. 166)

"109. Tersely put, it is only such property which is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence that can be regarded as proceeds of crime. The authorities under the 2002 Act 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. For, the expression "derived or obtained" is indicative of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence already accomplished. Similarly, in the event the person named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally absolved by a court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case (scheduled offence) against him/her, there can be no action for money laundering against such a person or person claiming through him in relation to the property linked to the stated scheduled offence.

This interpretation alone can be countenanced on the basis of the provisions of the 2002 Act, in particular Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3. Taking any other view would be rewriting of these provisions and disregarding the express language of definition clause "proceeds of crime", as it obtains as of now."

(emphasis in original and supplied)

16. In paras 134 and 135, this Court held thus : (Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] , SCC p. 182)

"134. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply clear that the offence of money laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity

2025:JHHC:28027 connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. The process or activity can be in any form -- be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so. Thus, involvement in any one of such process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime would constitute offence of money laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence -- except the proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a result of that crime.

135.Needless to mention that such process or activity can be indulged in only after the property is derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity (a scheduled offence). It would be an offence of money-laundering to indulge in or to assist or being party to the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime; and such process or activity in a given fact situation may be a continuing offence, irrespective of the date and time of commission of the scheduled offence. In other words, the criminal activity may have been committed before the same had been notified as scheduled offence for the purpose of the 2002 Act, but if a person has indulged in or continues to indulge directly or indirectly in dealing with proceeds of crime, derived or obtained from such criminal activity even after it has been notified as scheduled offence, may be liable to be prosecuted for offence of money laundering under the 2002 Act -- for continuing to possess or conceal the proceeds of crime (fully or in part) or retaining possession thereof or uses it in trenches until fully exhausted. The offence of money-laundering is not dependent on or linked to the date on which the scheduled offence, or if we may say so, the predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date is the date on which the person indulges in the process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime. These ingredients are intrinsic in the original provision (Section 3, as amended until 2013 and were in force till 31-7-2019); and the same has been merely explained and clarified by way of Explanation vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. Thus understood, inclusion of clause (ii) in Explanation inserted in

2025:JHHC:28027 2019 is of no consequence as it does not alter or enlarge the scope of Section 3 at all."

(emphasis supplied)

17. Coming back to Section 3 PMLA, on its plain reading, an offence under Section 3 can be committed after a scheduled offence is committed. For example, let us take the case of 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 PMLA. To give a concrete example, the offences under Sections 384 to 389IPC relating to "extortion" are scheduled offences included in Para 1 of the Schedule to PMLA. An accused may commit a crime of extortion covered by Sections 384 to 389IPC and extort money. Subsequently, a person unconnected with the offence of extortion may assist the said accused in the concealment of the proceeds of extortion. In such a case, the person who assists the accused in the scheduled offence for concealing the proceeds of the crime of extortion can be guilty of the offence of money-laundering. Therefore, it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence. What is held in para 135 of the decision of this Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] supports the above conclusion. The conditions precedent for attracting the offence under Section 3 PMLA are that there must be a scheduled offence and that there must be proceeds of crime in relation to the scheduled offence as defined in clause (u) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 PMLA."

93. Admittedly the petitioner has not been arraigned as

an accused in the Schedule offence but the non-inclusion

of the petitioner's name in any way absolves her under the

stringent framework of the Prevention of Money Laundering

Act, 2002 (PMLA). Further, when a scheduled offence is

2025:JHHC:28027 registered as in FIR No. 188/2024 under Sections 420,

467, 468, 471 of the IPC, Section 12 of the Passports Act,

and Section 14A of the Foreigners Act, the Enforcement

Directorate is empowered to trace the proceeds of crime and

identify all persons involved, regardless of whether they

were specifically named in the FIR.

94. From the preceding paragraph it is evident that the

Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that an accused under

PMLA need not necessarily be named in the scheduled

offence if they are involved in laundering proceeds of crime.

The Hon'ble Court clarified that the offence of money

laundering is independent of the predicate offence. An

accused need not be part of the initial crime to be held

liable for laundering the proceeds; the focus of the law is on

the act of concealing, possessing, or converting the

proceeds of crime. Thus, even those who facilitate this

process, without being involved in the original criminal

activity, are liable for prosecution under PMLA.

95. Therefore, on the basis of the discussion made

hereinabove the contention of learned counsel for the

petitioner is not fit to be accepted.

96. The petitioner has also sought bail on the ground of

being a woman and mother of a minor child. In the

aforesaid context it is considered view of this Court that the

gravity of the allegations, the quantum of proceeds of crime,

and petitioner active role in the trafficking syndicate

2025:JHHC:28027 outweigh any sympathetic considerations. Further, the

proviso to Section 45 of PMLA does not confer an automatic

entitlement to bail and it merely enables the Court to

exercise discretion.

97. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohit Tandon v.

Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46, Y.S.

Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI and Nimmagadda Prasad v.

CBI has consistently held that economic offences involving

deep-rooted conspiracies and cross-border ramifications

are a class apart, and bail cannot be granted mechanically

or on sympathetic grounds.

98. 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 09 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.

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

submitted at Bar that all endeavour will be taken to

expedite the trial and the trial is at the stage of framing of

charge.

100. This Court is conscious with the fact that personal

liberty is utmost requirement to maintain the individuality

2025:JHHC:28027 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.

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

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

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

consideration the ratio of judgment of Union of India vs.

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

delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in

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

for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted

as under:

"46. As already discussed, the material available on record indicates the involvement of the appellant in furtherance of terrorist activities backed by members of banned terrorist organisation involving exchange of large quantum of money through different channels which needs to be deciphered and therefore in such a scenario if the appellant is released on bail there is every likelihood that he will influence the key witnesses of the case which might hamper the process of justice. Therefore, mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail. Hence, the aforesaid argument on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted."

102. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled position

of law it is evident that mere delay in trial and custody of

few months (9 months herein) pertaining to grave offences

as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a

ground to grant bail.

2025:JHHC:28027

103. Further it needs to refer herein that the Section 45

of the PMLA turns the principle of bail is the rule and jail is

the exception on its head. The power of the Court to grant

bail is further conditioned upon the satisfaction of the twin

conditions prescribed under Section 45(1) (i) and (ii) PMLA.

While undertaking this exercise, the Court is required to

take a prima facie view on the basis of materials collected

during investigation. The expression used in Section 45 of

PMLA are "reasonable grounds for believing" which means

that the Court has to find, from a prima facie view of the

materials collected during investigation that there are

reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not

committed the offence and that there is no likelihood of him

committing an offence while on bail. Recently, in Tarun

Kumar v Assistant Directorate of Enforcement, (supra)

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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

2025:JHHC:28027 overriding effect given to the PML Act over the other law for the time being in force, under Section 71 of the PML Act."

104. This Court, based upon the imputation as has been

discovered in course of investigation, is of the view that

what has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that

proceeds cannot be said to be proceeds of crime is not fit to

be acceptable.

105. Thus, taking into consideration the grave nature of

the allegations, the sophisticated modus operandi and the

strict statutory framework governing bail under the PMLA

particularly under Section 45 of the Act 2002, no ground

exists for the petitioner to claim the benefit of bail on

merits and the serious allegations of laundering of

proceeds of crime continue to justify the petitioner's