Jharkhand High Court

Pintu Haldar vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 10 September, 2025

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                             2025:JHHC:27988




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   B.A. No. 5514 of 2025
                              ------

Pintu Haldar, aged about 40 years, Son of Adhir Haldar, Resident of Neheru Nagar, P.O.-Bongaon, P.S.-Bongaon(M), District-North 24 Parganas/West Bengal.

                                     ...  ...    Petitioner
                        Versus

Directorate of Enforcement, represented through its Assistant Director, Ranchi Zonal Office, Plot No. 1502/B, Air-port Road, P.O.- Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, Dist.-

Ranchi/Jharkhand
                                     ...  ...    Opp. Party
                        -------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

-------

For the Petitioner : Mr. B.M.Tripathy, Sr. Advocate : Ms. Nutan Kumari Sharma, Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, 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 No./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:27988

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:27988

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 at 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 staying 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

2025:JHHC:27988

were registered in the name of the accused Pinki Basu

Mukherjee.

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 above-mentioned

2025:JHHC:27988

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

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.

2025:JHHC:27988

16. During the course of searches at the residential-

premises under the use and occupation of Accused No.3 i.e.

Pintu Haldar a computer setup for printing/forging

duplicate Aadhaar, along with printing machines, papers as

well as several duplicate Aadhaar have been recovered and

seized. It reveals that the said Accused No. 3. is engaged in

making fake Aadhaar cards and other identities for

Bangladeshi nationals for their illegal stay in India.

Further, he is involved in making fake Aadhaar, voter ID

cards and other identity documents for Bangladeshi

nationals which is further corroborated by his frequent

contacts with several Bangladeshi persons as well as with

the said Manisha Roy as evident from his CDR.

17. 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

2025:JHHC:27988

scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money

Laundering Act 2002.

18. 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.

19. It is submitted that this is a serious case involving

illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi nationals in India and

acquiring citizenship and settlement by use of fake

documents. Also, accused persons are also a threat to

national security and the economy as they are deeply

involved in grave and heinous activities that have cross-

border implications and inter-state operations.

20. Further, there is strong apprehension that the

Accused persons will evade the process of investigation and

may abscond. Further, there is a possibility that the said

persons may hamper the investigation by influencing the

witnesses and other persons associated with the case.

2025:JHHC:27988

21. 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 Accused Shri Pintu Halder was arrested

on 12.11.2024 in the ongoing investigation and 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 .

22. Thereafter, the accused was produced before the

Court of the Learned 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.

23. The present petitioner preferred MCA No. 547 of

2025 for grant of bail which was rejected vide order dated

29.04.2025 by learned Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi.

24. Hence the present petition has been preferred for

the grant of bail.

Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner:

25. Mr. B.M.Tripathy, the learned senior counsel

appearing for the petitioner seeking relief for grant of bail

has submitted that the petitioner is wholly innocent and

2025:JHHC:27988

has committed no offence whatsoever and he has got no

criminal antecedents.

26. Learned senior 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.

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

very much relying upon the call details of the petitioner

that he 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.

28. Learned senior 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 leave the actual culprit free.

29. It has been contended that the petitioner is a

permanent resident of West Bengal and he had nothing to

do with Jharkhand. He had never visited this place at any

point of time and hence there is no question of arranging

any accommodation or residence for any outsider.

30. It has further been contended that the petitioner is

a very poor person and he is a worker in a small grocery

2025:JHHC:27988

shop and his financial status is fully apparent from his

seized three bank accounts where there was only ₹8000/-

in his all accounts which is his hard-earned money. The

recovery from other accused person is handsome but the

recovery from this petitioner itself speaks about his

innocence.

31. Further, the girl's allegedly coming from Bangladesh

are themselves illegal migrants on their own choice as

because they are infiltrating in India to search a job over

here and entering without passport and Visa but now, they

are posing themselves as victims. But in fact, they are not

the victim and in actual sense they are accused of illegal

infiltration in India.

32. He has submitted that the petitioner is not the

person who is pushing the alleged ladies from Bangladesh

in immoral acts. None of the recovered ladies from

Bangladesh has alleged that this petitioner has provided

them fake aadhar card or any other fake documents to her

for settling down in India. Neither none of the victims has

also alleged that this petitioner, has provided them shelter

in India.

33. It has been lastly contended that the petitioner is

rustic person and doing work for his livelihood and his

entire family depends upon him.

2025:JHHC:27988

34. Learned counsel has further submitted that the

petitioner is in custody since 14.11.2024.

35. 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:

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

appearing for the respondent-ED has taken the following

ground in opposition:

(i) The accused petitioner Pintu Halder was knowingly

involved in the illegal facilitation of Bangladeshi

nationals into India. He 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 his premises. These documents were prepared on

the instructions of the co-accused Monisha Roy, Juel

(a Bangladeshi national), and Mona, who provided

details and photographs via WhatsApp. For each

Aadhaar card, he charged ₹1,200 and received

payments through PhonePe and cash.

(ii) In addition to document forgery, Pintu Halder also

transported trafficked Bangladeshi women from the

border area in Bongaon to Ranchi, Jharkhand, where

2025:JHHC:27988

they were handed over to Monisha Roy. He charged

around ₹15,000 per trip and admitted to delivering

individuals like Hasi Biswas and Khushi Biswas in

May 2024.

(iii) The communication records and seized digital

evidence from his mobile phone confirmed frequent

contact with Monisha Roy and several Bangladeshi

numbers. A fake Aadhaar card used by arrested

Bangladeshi national Anika Dutta was recovered from

his phone, directly linking him to the illegal network.

(iv) It has been further submitted that during a search

conducted on 12.11.2024 under Section 17 of PMLA,

incriminating items were recovered from his premises,

including a computer setup, lamination equipment,

fake Aadhaar cards, six SIM cards (including a

Bangladeshi SIM), forged documents, and a hard disk

containing multiple Aadhaar templates. His mobile

phone contained WhatsApp chats, photographs used

in fake IDs, and the Aadhaar of Monisha Roy.

(v) Further, his call detail records revealed contact with

at least 10 Bangladeshi mobile numbers.

(vi) During his statement under PMLA, Pintu Halder

admitted to fabricating fake Aadhaar cards and

knowingly assisting Monisha Roy and others in

transporting Bangladeshi girls to Ranchi.

2025:JHHC:27988

(vii) He confirmed receiving payments for these services,

some of which were deposited in his Bank of India

account. The evidence establishes that Pintu Halder

was knowingly and directly involved in activities

connected with the proceeds of crime and was a key

operational link in the human trafficking syndicate.

(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

2025:JHHC:27988

mechanically or merely on the ground of personal

hardship or assurances of cooperation.

(ix) In the present case, the petitioner has failed to satisfy

the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA. The

allegations involve laundering of substantial proceeds

of crime, and the investigation is at a crucial stage

and 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.

37. 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:

38. This Court has heard learned counsel for the

parties, considered the argument advanced on behalf of

parties and other materials available on record.

39. 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.

40. 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 &

2025:JHHC:27988

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

14-A of Foreigners Act, 1946.

41. 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 Rai 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. 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.

42. 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.

43. 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.

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

Manisha Rai and her guests were accommodated there.

2025:JHHC:27988

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.

45. Accordingly, the trial court has taken the

cognizance of the aforesaid offence. Thereafter, petitioner

had preferred the Misc. Cri. Application being MCA

547/2025 for his bail, which was dismissed vide Order

dated 29.04.2025.

46. Hence the present application has been preferred

before this Court for grant of regular bail.

47. Before appreciating the 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.

48. 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.

2025:JHHC:27988

49. 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

the country, then the property equivalent in value held

within the country or abroad.

50. 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.

51. 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

2025:JHHC:27988

also any property which may directly or indirectly be

derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity

relatable to the scheduled offence.

52. 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.

53. 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.

54. 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,

2025:JHHC:27988

acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted

property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.

55. 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.

56. 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.

57. 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

2025:JHHC:27988

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.

58. 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

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.

59. 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.

60. 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

2025:JHHC:27988

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.

61. 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) 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

2025:JHHC:27988

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

62. 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

2025:JHHC:27988

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.

63. 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.

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

Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of

Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through

2025:JHHC:27988

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.

65. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45

of PMLA will have to be complied with even in respect of an

application for bail 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.

66. 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

2025:JHHC:27988

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 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.

67. 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

2025:JHHC:27988

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.

68. 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.

69. 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.

70. This Court, in order to appreciate the rival

submission, is of the view that various paragraphs of

prosecution complaint upon which the reliance has been

placed on behalf of both the parties, needs to be referred

herein so as to come to the conclusion as to whether the

parameter as fixed under Section 45(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.

71. In order to reach to conclusion regarding alleged

culpability of the accused/applicant in commission and

accumulation of 'proceeds of crime', this Court needs to

2025:JHHC:27988

refer the relevant paragraphs of the FIR Annexed herein as

Annexure-1 which reads as under:

Further, the CDR of the other accused persons of this case revealed frequent calls with various Bangladeshi numbers. During investigation, the CDRa of the various Indian mobile numbers, with which the above mentioned Bangladeshi numbers had contacted with were scrutinized. The scrutiny of the said mobile numbers revealed the following facts-

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 (****678) as well as with various other suspicious Bangladeshi numbers 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 matant 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 the course of searches at the paşidental-premises under the use an occupation of Accused No.3 Pintu Haldar a computer setup for printing/forging duplicate Aadhaar, along with printing machines, papers as well as several duplicate Aadhaar have been recovered and seized. It reveals that the said Accused No. 3. is engaged in making fake Aadhaar cards and other identities for Bangladeshi nationals for their illegal stay in India. Further, he is involved in making fake Aadhaar, voter ID cards and other Identity documents for Bangladeshi nationals which is further corroborated by his frequent contacts with several

2025:JHHC:27988

Bangladeshi persons an well as with the said Manisha Roy as evident from his CDR.

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. 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.

72. Thus, it is evident that prima-facie the petitioner's

role, has surfaced in fabrication of Aadhaar cards through a

home setup of computer, printer and lamination machine,

acting on the instructions of co-accused, charging per card,

and receiving payments in cash and through Phone Pe.

73. It has come on record that the search conducted on

12.11.2024 under Section 17 of the PMLA at the premises of

the Petitioner led to the seizure of the computer setup,

2025:JHHC:27988

lamination equipment, fake Aadhaar cards, multiple SIM

cards (including a Bangladeshi SIM), forged documents, and

digital storage devices containing Aadhaar templates and

photographs. CDRs and WhatsApp chats show frequent

contact with Bangladeshi numbers and co-accused, and one

fake Aadhaar recovered from an arrested Bangladeshi

national matched files found on the petitioner's seized

device.

74. Further it appears that petitioner was involved in

producing forged IDs, arranging logistics for trafficked

victims, and receiving funds both in cash and digital modes,

with part of the funds deposited in his bank account.

75. Further it has been stated in the counter affidavit

that during investigation it has come that role of the present

petitioner in creating forged identity documents and his

international links create serious risks of tampering with

evidence, intimidating witnesses, and absconding, all of

which militate against grant of bail. It has been further

pleaded that the findings recorded at the transit stage by the

Ld. Calcutta Court also remain unrebutted, as the present

petition tenders no new material to dislodge them. The

predicate offence narrative, as reproduced in the petitioner's

own submissions, details the illegal cross-border entry, use

of forged Aadhaar to remain in India, and the recovery of

2025:JHHC:27988

forged documents and devices from the Bali Resort and Raj

Apartment.

76. Thus, prima facie it appears that the evidence

available on record reveals that the petitioner was allegedly

involved in fabricating forged Aadhaar cards using his home-

based setup and was acting under instructions from co-

accused and charging a fixed rate per forged Aadhaar, and

payments were received by him both in cash and through

digital channels such as PhonePe. Thus, such amounts as

per the mandate of PML Act 2002 comes under the purview

of proceeds of crime, being funds generated out of the illegal

activity of providing false identity documents to foreign

nationals.

77. 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.

78. 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

2025:JHHC:27988

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.

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

Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and

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

2025:JHHC:27988

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.

80. 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

detail in the prosecution complaint as the paragraphs of the

prosecution complaint abovementioned.

81. 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.

82. 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

2025:JHHC:27988

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.

83. 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

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.

84. 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.

2025:JHHC:27988

85. 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.

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

enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay

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.

87. It needs to refer herein that cognizance of the

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

duly taken.

88. Further from the forensic examination of the

petitioner's devices revealed that Aadhaar templates and

photographic data corresponding to several Bangladeshi

nationals. Significantly, one of the forged Aadhaar cards

recovered from a Bangladeshi national already arrested in

the predicate offence case was found to have originated from

2025:JHHC:27988

the petitioner's setup. This directly links the petitioner's

fabrication activity with the infiltration and sheltering of

Bangladeshi nationals in Jharkhand.

89. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances the

presumption under Section 24 of the Act 2002 is available

herein.

90. Now in the light of aforesaid discussion at this

juncture this Court thinks it fit to revisit the scope of Section

45 of the PML Act 2002. As discussed in preceding

paragraphs that Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 provides

twin test. First 'reason to believe' is to be there for the

purpose of reaching to the conclusion that there is no prima

facie case and second condition is that the accused is not

likely to commit any offence while on bail.

91. Sub-section (1)(ii) of Section 45 of the Act, 2002,

provides that if the Public Prosecutor opposes the

application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable

grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence

and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail,

meaning thereby, the parameter which is to be followed by

the concerned court that satisfaction is required to be there

for believing that such accused person is not guilty of such

offence and is not likely to commit offence while on bail.

92. Section 45(2) of the Act 2002 provides to consider

the limitation for grant of bail which is in addition to the

2025:JHHC:27988

limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, i.e.,

limitation which is to be considered while granting the

benefit either in exercise of jurisdiction conferred to this

Court under BNSS 2023 is to be taken into consideration.

93. It is, thus, evident by taking into consideration the

provision of Sections 45(1) of PML Act that the conditions

provided therein are required to be considered while

granting the benefit of regular bail in exercise of power

conferred under statute apart from the twin conditions

which has been provided under Section 45(1) of the Act,

2002.

94. Thus, 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

2025:JHHC:27988

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

95. 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.

96. Further, if there is a prima facie material to show

that the amount has been received while taking part in the

scheduled offence as stipulated in the Act 2002, then it will

be construed as proceeds of crime and it is not necessary

for the respondent to further establish that such proceeds

of crime was projected as untainted money subsequently.

This is in view of the amendment that was made to Section

2025:JHHC:27988

3 of PMLA through Act 23 of 2019. This position was also

made clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Directorate of

Enforcement. V. Padmanabhan Kishore reported in

2022 SCC Online SC 1490. For ready reference, the

relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted as under:

"12. The definition of "proceeds of crime" in the PML Act, inter alia, means any property derived or obtained by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13 are scheduled offences, as is evident from Para 8 of Part-A of the Schedule to the PML Act. Any property thus derived as a result of criminal activity relating to offence mentioned in said Para 8 of Part-A of the Schedule would certainly be "proceeds of crime".

14. The said Section 3 states, inter alia, that whoever 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 shall be guilty of offence of money- laundering (emphasis added by us)."

97. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made

hereinabove, the contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner that even if the entire ECIR will be taken into

consideration, no offence will be said to be committed so as

to attract the ingredients of Sections 3 & 4 of the P.M.L.

Act, 2002, is totally misplaced in the light of accusation as

mentioned in prosecution complaint.

98. Thus, taking into consideration the grave nature of

the allegations, the sophisticated modus operandi and the

2025:JHHC:27988

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

custody under the strict rigours of Section 45 of the Act

2002.

99. This Court, on the basis of aforesaid discussion,

factual aspect as also the legal position, is of the prima-facie

view that there is no 'reason to believe' by this Court that

the petitioner is not involved in the alleged offence under

Section 3 of the PML Act 2002.

100. It requires to refer herein that with the

advancement of technology and Artificial Intelligence, the

economic offences like money laundering have become a

real threat to the functioning of the financial system of a

country and have become a great challenge for the

investigating agencies to detect and comprehend the

intricate nature of transactions, as also the role of the

persons involved therein. Reference in this regard be made

to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate

of Enforcement (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the

aforesaid Judgment are being quoted as under:

2025:JHHC:27988

23. With the advancement of technology and Artificial Intelligence, the economic offences like money laundering have become a real threat to the functioning of the financial system of the country and have become a great challenge for the investigating agencies to detect and comprehend the intricate nature of transactions, as also the role of the persons involved therein. Lot of minute exercise is expected to be undertaken by the Investigating Agency to see that no innocent person is wrongly booked and that no culprit escapes from the clutches of the law. When the detention of the accused is continued by the Court, the courts are also expected to conclude the trials within a reasonable time, further ensuring the right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

24. With the afore-stated observations, the appeal is dismissed."

101. Thus, it appears from the prosecution complaint

that in the alleged offence the petitioner's role is twofold:

(i) to manufacture forged Indian identity documents for

Bangladeshi nationals using the seized computerized setup,

and (ii) to arrange transportation and logistical support for

trafficked Bangladeshi women from border areas to

Jharkhand. Both sets of activities are directly connected

with the generation, acquisition, possession and use of

proceeds of crime, thereby constituting the offence of money

laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA. Hence, prima facie

it appears that the petitioner acted as a key facilitator in the

syndicate's operations, enabling illegal migrants to enter,

settle and operate in India under the cover of forged identity

documents, while simultaneously profiting from the

payments made to him for such unlawful services.