Jharkhand High Court
Shri Rony Mondal Aged About 47 Years vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 10 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:28015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 5669 of 2025
------
Shri Rony Mondal aged about 47 years, son of Shri
Nandalal Mondal, resident of 7/5 Jafferpur Road, 7th Lane,
PO: Nana Chandan Pukur, PS : Titagarh, Dist : North 24
Pargana, PIN:700122, Kolkata, West Bengal.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, represented through its
Assistant Director, Ranchi Zonal Office, Plot No. 1502/B,
Airport Road, P.O. & P.S. Hinoo, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand ([email protected]).
... ... Opp. Party
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Chandra, Advocate
: Mr. Atul Rai, Advocate
: Mr. Vivek Kumar Sharma, 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 connection with 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:28015
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:28015
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 that one SIM card is
registered in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner had
frequent contacts and calls with 42 different Bangladeshi
2025:JHHC:28015
numbers out of which several were among those with whom
Manisha Rai had frequent contacts.
10. 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.
11. During the course of investigation, it has been
revealed that the accused Rony Mondal is a Bangladeshi
national born on 07.07.1977 in Sologhor Village, Srinagar,
Munshiganj, Bangladesh. He illegally migrated to India
through the Benapole-Petrapole border in search of better
livelihood opportunities. He was initially residing in
Hooghly, West Bengal, thereafter, he returned to
Bangladesh before migrating again to India in 2002. During
his stay, he acquired fraudulent ration cards for his family
and subsequently obtained various Indian citizenship
documents, including a passport, PAN card, Aadhaar card,
and voter ID, based on forged records. He extended this
2025:JHHC:28015
fraudulent activity to his family members, enabling them to
open bank accounts and access services in India.
Additionally, he engaged in multiple fraudulent activities,
including acquiring assets, evading taxes, and
accumulating wealth through undisclosed means. A search
conducted on 12.11.2024 at his premises uncovered an
unlicensed gun along with nine live bullets. Despite being a
Bangladeshi national, this petitioner acquired substantial
assets in India by posing as an Indian citizen using fake
documents.
12. During his statement, Rony Mondal admitted that
he did not possess a license for the gun recovered from his
residence during the search conducted on 12.11.2024,
along with nine live bullets, both of which were kept
illegally. Additionally, cash amounting to 5 lakhs was seized
during the search, including brand-new ₹500 notes in
consecutive serial numbers. He also admitted of having
previously obtained ration against fraudulent ration cards
issued in his name and the names of his family members.
13. During the course of statement recorded under
PMLA, it revealed that the accused/petitioner Rony has
amassed significant assets in India, including immovable
properties such as land in Barrackpore (purchased in 2013
jointly with his mother, Jyostana Rani Mondal), land in
Mohanpur (purchased in 2016-2017, where he constructed
2025:JHHC:28015
Jyotsana Villa Hostel in 2020-2021) and land in Debpukur
(purchased in 2020-2021 in his name). He also owns
movable assets, including jewelry worth approximately 50
lakhs and Fixed Deposits (FDs) totaling ₹70 lakhs.
14. He has leased the Jyostana Villa for a monthly rent
of Rs. 80,000. In addition to this, he runs a construction
business, operates a clothing business and his annual
income is around Rs. 15 lakhs. Further, during his
statement, the accused Rony Mondal admitted to
contacting brokers to obtain fake documents, paying
various amounts for each document, and later acquiring a
fake passport in 2008.
15. In his statement dated 20.11.2024, the accused
person Rony Mondal confirmed that the documents-PAN
cards, voter cards, Aadhaar cards, and ration cards-
recovered during the search on 12.11.2024 belonged to his
family members. He acknowledged that, while opening
bank accounts in India, he declared himself an Indian
citizen, using his PAN card as proof of identity.
Furthermore, he stated that he had an Indian passport,
while his family members held Bangladeshi passports. He
also confessed to evading taxes by underreporting his
income in his Income Tax Returns (ITRs) while continuing
to file fraudulent ITRs for family members to maintain their
accounts in India.
2025:JHHC:28015
16. During the course of searches at the premises
under the use and occupation of Rony Mondal, several
incriminating material and records/documents including
passport No. K 12228139 and H 1728795 in the name of
Rony Mondal cancelled by the Passport Seva Kendra,
Kolkata, along with unauthorized arms and ammunition as
well as cash amounting to Rs. 5 lacs were recovered along
with gold jewellery.
17. Further, show cause notice issued by the Ministry
of External Affairs, Govt. of India was recovered from the
said premises. As per the letter issued by the Regional
Passport Office (Kolkata) bearing ref. no. R-
612/FM5018/19/IW/2987 dated 30.08.2019 it was found
that Rony Mondal is a Bangladeshi National as per
immigration data and has acquired Indian citizenship
fraudulently on the basis of false documentation, and made
false statement to support the documents.
18. 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.
2025:JHHC:28015
19. 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.
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 Accused No. 4 viz. Rony Mondal 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.
21. 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. 222 of
2025 for grant of bail which was rejected vide order dated
22.03.2025 by learned Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi.
2025:JHHC:28015
23. Hence the present petition has been preferred for
the grant of bail.
Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner:
24. Mr. Praveen Chandra, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner seeking relief for grant of bail has submitted
that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of
PMLA is not made out against the petitioner as the
scheduled offence in Bariatu P.S. Case No.188 of 2024 is
not with regard to the property confiscated from the
petitioner, hence, PMLA proceedings against the petitioner
cannot be sustained.
25. Learned counsel has further submitted that alleged
offence of the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with
FIR number 188 of 2024. In Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary
Versus Union of India (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that any property can be
termed as proceeds of crime under section 2(1)(u) of PMLA
only when it can be said to have been derived from the
scheduled offence and without the said link, the petitioner
cannot be said to have been involved in money laundering.
26. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner has no relation or connection with the
scheduled offence. The proceeds of crime have not been
connected to the schedule offence. Hence there is no
property that has been derived by the petitioner from the
2025:JHHC:28015
scheduled offence and in the absence of any material or
even and allegation that the property alleged attributed as
proceeds of crime to the petitioner has been derived
through the scheduled offence the offence of money
laundering cannot be said to be made out against the
petitioner.
27. It has been contended that the opposite party has
failed to prove that the article and cash seized from the
premise of the accused is a "proceeds of crime" as defined
under section 2(u) of the PMLA, Act 2002, which is sine qua
non in proving any accused guilty under PMLA,2002. So, it
would not be appropriate under the facts and
circumstances of the case that innocent persons be
punished behind the bars.
28. It has been contended that it is the case of the
prosecution that the subject property is proceeds of crime
acquired and possessed by the petitioner which has no
legal or factual basis. The subject property is the hard-
earned money by the petitioner which cannot be by any
stretch of imagination termed as proceeds of crime.
29. Learned counsel has further contended that
recovery of cash deposit and ornaments does not make out
a case of money laundering against the petitioner. The
opposite party-ED has not been able to show that the fixed
2025:JHHC:28015
deposit and the ornaments were proceeds of crime and
were being depicted by the petitioner as untainted property.
30. It has been submitted that the cash seized from the
petitioner is only to the tune of Rs 5 Lakh which can be
answered by the fact that petitioner is having an annual
income of Rs 15 Lakhs per annum and is a businessman
which can be seen by the ITR Filling of the
accused/petitioner for last 3 years.
31. Learned counsel has further submitted that the
jewellery seized from the premise of the accused/petitioner
is necessary wearing apparel and opposite party has failed
to prove that the jewellery seized are in disproportional to
the income of the accused/petitioner.
32. It has further been contented that the
accused/petitioner shall never try to influence the
investigation and co-operate with the trial and since the
accused/petitioner is a respectable person of the locality
hence, if released on regular bail, there is no chance of his
absconding or evading the trial.
33. Learned counsel has further submitted that the
petitioner is in custody since 14.11.2024.
34. Based upon the aforesaid grounds, learned senior
counsel has submitted that the petitioner may kindly be
allowed on regular bail.
2025:JHHC:28015
Argument on behalf of Respondent-ED:
35. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel
appearing for the opp. party-ED has taken the following
ground in opposition:
(i) Learned counsel for the Opp. Party-ED has submitted
that the investigation revealed that the
accused/petitioner Rony Mondal is a Bangladeshi
national born on 07.07.1977 in Sologhor Village,
Srinagar, Munshiganj, Bangladesh. He illegally
migrated to India through the Benapole-Petrapole
border in search of better livelihood opportunities.
Initially he was residing in Hooghly, West Bengal.
Thereafter, he returned to Bangladesh before
migrating again to India in 2002. During his stay, he
fraudulently acquired ration cards for his family and
subsequently obtained various Indian citizenship
documents, including a passport, PAN card, Aadhaar
card, and voter ID, based on forged records.
(ii) Learned counsel has further submitted that the
petitioner extended this fraudulent activity to his
family members, enabling them to open bank
accounts and access services in India. Additionally, he
engaged in multiple fraudulent activities, including
2025:JHHC:28015
acquiring assets, evading taxes, and accumulating
wealth through undisclosed means.
(iii) It has been submitted that an unlicensed gun, along
with nine live bullets was recovered from his
possession during the search dated 12.11.2024.
(iv) Learned counsel has further submitted that despite
being a Bangladeshi national, Rony Mondal acquired
substantial assets in India by posing as an Indian
citizen using fake documents.
(v) In his statement, Rony Mondal admitted that he did
not possess a license for the gun recovered from his
residence along with nine live bullets, both of which
were kept illegally.
(vi) The cash amounting to 5 lakhs was seized during the
search, including fresh ₹500 notes in consecutive
serial numbers. The petitioner claimed he had a
personal interest in collecting new currency and
exchanging old notes for new ones, but he was unable
to provide any documentary proof for this claim.
(vii) The petitioner has also admitted to having previously
obtained ration against forged ration cards issued in
his name and the names of his family members.
(viii) During the course of the statement recorded under
PMLA, it revealed that the accused Rony has amassed
significant assets in India, including immovable
2025:JHHC:28015
properties such as land in Barrackpore (purchased in
2013 jointly with his mother, Jyostana Rani Mondal),
land in Mohanpur (purchased in 2016-2017, where he
constructed Jyotsana Villa Hostel in 2020- 2021) and
land in Debpukur (purchased in 2020-2021 in his
name).
(ix) Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner
also owns movable assets, including jewellery worth
approximately 50 lakhs and Fixed Deposits (FDs)
totaling ₹70 lakhs. He has leased the Jyostana Villa
for a monthly rent of Rs. 80,000. In addition to this,
he runs a construction business, and operates a
clothing business, and his annual income is around
Rs. 15 lakhs.
(x) Further, during his statement, the accused Rony
Mondal admitted to contacting brokers to obtain fake
documents, paying various amounts for each
document, and later acquiring a fake passport in
2008.
(xi) Learned counsel for the ED has further submitted
that during the course of search at the residence of
the accused person Rony Mondal, a Show-cause was
recovered which had been issued by the Ministry of
External Affairs, Govt. of India, wherein, the contents
of the letter issued by Regional Passport Office
2025:JHHC:28015
(Kolkata) bearing ref. no. R-
612/FM5018/19/IW/2987 dated 30.08.2019 was
quoted as "the applicant, i.e., Sh. Rony Mondal, is a
Bangladeshi National as per profiling and immigration
data available with Immigration Office. It was further
alleged that the applicant had acquired the Indian
Passport on production of Indian documents acquired
on the basis of false statements. The O/o Foreigner's
Regional Registration Officer, Kolkata to substantiate
this claim, had quoted the Bangladeshi passports
issued in r/o applicant's parents"
(xii) Learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that from
the above observations of the MEA, it is established
that the said Rony Mondal is a Bangladeshi national,
who acquired Indian citizenship fraudulently on the
basis of false documentation and indulged in illegal
activities pertaining to illegally acquiring Indian
citizenship as well as aiding several other Bangladeshi
in illegal infiltration in India.
(xiii) It has further been submitted that the petitioner in his
statement dated 20.11.2024, has confirmed that the
documents-PAN cards, voter cards, Aadhaar cards,
and ration cards-recovered during the search on
12.11.2024 belonged to his family members. He
acknowledged that, while opening bank accounts in
2025:JHHC:28015
India, he declared himself an Indian citizen, using his
PAN card as proof of identity. Furthermore, he stated
that he had an Indian passport, while his family
members held Bangladeshi passports. Rony operates
several bank accounts in India, both individually and
jointly with family members. He also confessed about
evading taxes by under reporting his income in his
Income Tax Returns (ITRs) while continuing to file
fraudulent ITRs for family members to maintain their
accounts in India.
(xiv) It has further been submitted that the digital evidence
was retrieved from a seized iPhone 14 Plus belonging
to Rony Mondal. The device contained images of PAN
cards, Aadhaar cards, and Bangladeshi passports
belonging to his family members. The passports of his
mother, wife, son, and daughter were found, with
issuance dates ranging from 2019 to 2021. These
documents listed Rony Mondal as the emergency
contact, providing an address in Tanti Bazar, Dhaka,
Bangladesh, and a Bangladeshi phone number, which
was saved as "Nandi Babu" in his mobile phone.
(xv) Learned counsel for the E.D. has submitted that the
evidence gathered during the search revealed that
Rony Mondal was part of a larger syndicate operating
across West Bengal and Jharkhand, facilitating the
2025:JHHC:28015
illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi nationals into India.
This network was engaged in various illicit activities
and generated substantial proceeds of crime. The
nature of the evidence clearly established that Rony
Mondal and his associates were knowingly involved in
generating, acquiring, and utilizing proceeds of crime.
36. Learned counsel for the Opp. Party-ED, based upon
the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is not a fit
case for grant of regular bail in favour of the petitioner.
Analysis:
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. The investigation under the PMLA, 2002 was
initiated by recording an ECIR bearing no.
ECIR/RNZO/17/2024, dated 18.09.2024 based on FIR No.
188 of 2024 dated 04.06.2024 lodged at P.S. Bariatu, Dist-
Ranchi U/ss 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 IPC, section 12 of the
2025:JHHC:28015
Passport Act, 1967 and section 14A of the Foreigners Act,
1946.
40. 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. 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.
41. 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.
42. 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.
43. It was revealed that the rooms were booked by one
Manisha Rai and her guests were accommodated there.
2025:JHHC:28015
Further upon searching the rooms, police recovered some
mobiles and a fake Aadhaar card, which was meant to stay
fraudulently in India by one Bangladeshi national
connected to the above stated person.
44. Accordingly, the trial court has taken the
cognizance of the aforesaid offence. Thereafter, petitioner
had preferred the Misc. Cri. Application being MCA
222/2025 for his bail, which was dismissed vide Order
dated 22.03.2025.
45. Hence the present application has been preferred
before this Court for grant of regular bail.
46. Before appreciating to the aforesaid contention, 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.
47. 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:28015
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. 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:28015
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. 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.
52. 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.
53. 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:28015
acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted
property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.
54. 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.
55. 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.
56. 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:28015
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.
57. 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.
58. 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.
59. 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:28015
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.
60. 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:28015
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."
61. 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:28015
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.
62. 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.
63. 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:28015
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.
64. 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.
65. 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:28015
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.
66. 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:28015
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.
67. Now adverting to the fact of the present case. The
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.
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. 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:28015
refer the relevant paragraphs of the prosecution complaint,
which reads as under:
MODUS ADOPTED BY RONY MONDAL
8.29 During the course of investigation, it is revealed that the
accused person Rony Mondal is a Bangladeshi national born
on 07.07.1977 in Sologhor Village, Srinagar, Munshiganj,
Bangladesh. He illegally migrated to India through the
Benapole-Petrapole border in search of better livelihood
opportunities. Initially residing briefly in Hooghly, West
Bengal, he returned to Bangladesh before migrating again to
India in 2002. During his stay, he acquired fraudulent ration
cards for his family and subsequently obtained various
Indian citizenship documents, including a passport, PAN
card, Aadhaar card, and voter ID, based on forged records.
He extended this fraudulent activity to his family members,
enabling them to open bank accounts and access services in
India. Additionally, he engaged in multiple fraudulent
activities, including acquiring assets, evading taxes, and
accumulating wealth through undisclosed means. A search
conducted on 12.11.2024 at his premises uncovered an
unlicensed gun along with nine live bullets. Despite being a
Bangladeshi national, Rony acquired substantial assets in
India by posing as an Indian citizen using fake documents.
8.32 During the course of statement recorded under PMLA, it
revealed that the accused Rony has amassed significant
assets in India, including immovable properties such as land
in Barrackpore (purchased in 2013 jointly with his mother,
Jyostana Rani Mondal), land in Mohanpur (purchased in
2016-2017, where he constructed Jyotsana Villa Hostel in
2020-2021), and land in Debpukur (purchased in 2020-2021
in his name). He also owns movable assets, including jewelry
worth approximately 250 lakhs and Fixed Deposits (FDs)
totaling 270 lakhs. He has leased the Jyostana Villa for a
monthly rent of Rs. 80,000. In addition to this, he runs a
construction business, operates a clothing business and his
annual income is around Rs. 15 lakhs. Further, during his
statement, the accused Rony Mor dal admitted to contacting
2025:JHHC:28015
brokers to obtain fake documents, paying various amounts
for each document, and later acquiring a fake passport in
2008.
8.33 During the course of search at the residence of the
accused person Rony Mondal, a Show-cause was recovered
which had been issued by the Ministry of External Affairs,
Govt. of India, wherein, the contents of the letter issued by
Regional Passport Office (Kolkata) bearing ref. no. R-
612/FM5018/19/IW/2987 dated 30.08.2019 was quoted as
-
"The applicant, te., Sh. Rony Mondal, is a Bangladeshi
National as per profiling and immigration data available
with Immigration Office. It was further alleged that the
applicant had acquired the Indian Passport on production
of Indian documents acquired on the basis of false
statements. The Oo Foreigner's Regional Registration
Officer, Kolkata to substantiate this claim, had quoted the
Bangladeshi passports issued in r/o applicant's parents"
EVIDENCE SEIZED DURING SEARCH FROM THE
PREMISES UNDER THE USE AND OCCUPATION OF RONY
MONDAL
EVIDENCE 15
During the course of searches at the premises under the use
and occupation of Accused No. 1 i.e. Rony Mondal, several
incriminating material and records/documents including
passport No K 12228139 and H 1728795 in the name of
Rony Mondal cancelled by the Passport Seva Kendra,
Kolkata, along with unauthorized arms and ammunition as
well as cash amounting to Rs. 5 lacs were recovered along
with gold jewellery was seized. Further, SCN issued by the
Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India was recovered
from the said premises. As per the letter issued by the
Regional Passport Office (Kolkata) bearing ref. no. R-
612/FM5018/19/IW/2987 dated 30.08.2019 seized from its
premises during the search, it was found that Rony Mondal
is a Bangladeshi National as per immigration data and has
acquired Indian citizenship fraudulently on the basis of false
documentation, and made false statement to support the
2025:JHHC:28015
documents. Further, the office of Foreigner's Regional
Registration Officer, Kolkata, to substantiate this claim, had
quoted the Bangladeshi passports issued in respect of Rony
Mondal's parents. Hence, it is evident that Rony Mondal is a
Bangladeshi national, who acquired Indian citizenship
fraudulently on the basis of false documentation and was
involved in illegal activities by providing aid to Bangladeshi
infiltrators to enter Indian borders and also helping them in
conducting illegal activities on Indian Territory. It is pertinent
to mention that Rony Mondal could not provide any
satisfactory explanation of the cash, jewellery and
ammunition seized from his premises. It is further pertinent
to mention here that Aadhar cards, PAN Cards, ration Cards
and Voter IDs of the family members of Rony Mondal were
also recovered during the said search.
EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE MOBILE PHONES OF RONY
MONDAL
During the course of search dated 12.11.2024 at the
premises under the under use and occupation of Rony
Mondal at 7/5, Jafferpur Road, 7th lane, P.O.- Nona
Chandan Pukur, P.s.- Titagarh, Dist- North 24 Praganas,
Kolkata-700122, mobile phone of Rony Mondal having the
following specifications was seized.
CONCLUSION
8.36 Thus, the Accused Persons 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
2025:JHHC:28015
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.
10. PROCESS AND ACTIVITY CONNECTED WITH
PROCEEDS OF CRIME AND ROLE OF THE ACCUSED
PERSONS IN OFFENCE OF MONEY LAUNDERING -
The processes and activities connected with the proceeds of
crime in the offense of money laundering are generation of
illicit financial gains through criminal activities such as cross-
border human trafficking, forgery, and the smuggling of
individuals. These activities include coercing victims into
immoral practices, fall under scheduled offenses specified by
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, such
as Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and
Section 14-A of the Foreigners Act.
The modus operandi involved the use of forged documents,
including Aadhaar cards and other identity proofs, to
disguise trafficked individuals as legitimate residents,
thereby facilitating their illegal residency and activities in
India. Accused persons namely such as Pinki Basu
Mukherjee and Sandip Chowdhary, played a crucial role by
coordinating logistics, providing shelter, and creating false
identity documents. These facilitators worked with brokers
and traffickers, aiding in the transportation and exploitation
of victims for financial profit.
Money laundering activities in this case included the
concealment of illicit proceeds through cash transactions and
digital payment methods like UPI. The funds derived from
criminal activities were also deposited into bank accounts as
legitimate earnings. Assets and properties have been
accumulated using these proceeds as untainted properties.
The proceeds acquired out of such activities were distributed
among network members, which demonstrate the organized
nature of the operation.
2025:JHHC:28015
The accused persons knowingly involved and became a
party of the syndicate thereby enabling the generation,
acquisition and possession of proceeds of crime which
constitute the offense of money laundering as defined
under Section 3 of the PMLA.
The detailed role of the accused persons is given below -
Name of person
Process and activity connected with proceeds of crime
in which the accused persons are involved and their
role in the offence of money laundering:
Rony Mondal
(Accused No. 4)
Rony Mondal is knowingly involved in the acquisition,
possession, and concealment of proceeds of crime, as well as
in activities that directly support illegal infiltration and
fraudulent acquisition of Indian citizenship by Bangladeshi
nationals. Investigation revealed that he is a Bangladeshi
national and illegally infiltrated into India and obtained
Aadhaar card, PAN card, an Indian passport, in fraudulent
manner to pose as an Indian citizen. Proceeds of crime
amounting to Rs. Rs. 7,21,19,030/-has been deposited in
cash which have been identified in his bank accounts.
During a search conducted on 12.11.2024 at premises of the
accused person Rony Mondal, Bangladeshi passports, a fake
Indian passport, unauthorized arms and ammunition, gold
jewelry, and in proceeds of crime in cash amounting to 25
lakh were recovered and seized, which were beyond
explanation. The accused person Rony Mondal has also
acquired an immovable property in North 24 Parganas,
Kolkata. He was directly a party with Bangladeshi nationals
for their illegal entry into India and was part of the syndicate
which operate illegally in India for generating and acquiring
proceeds of crime using fake Indian identity documents. The
same is also established from the transactions in the bank
accounts under his use and control.
Thus, the accused person Rony Mondal is directly involved in
the acquisition, possession, use, concealment, and projection
of proceeds of crime as untainted property. By these acts, he
2025:JHHC:28015
has committed the offense of money laundering as defined
under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002, and is liable to be
punished under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002.
71. It is evident from prosecution complaint that during
the search dated 12.11.2024 at his premises, recovery was
made of cash 5,00,000/-in new 500 denomination notes,
gold jewellery worth 36,41,927/-and an unlicensed firearm
with 9 live rounds. Further Scrutiny of multiple bank
accounts under his control revealed total cash deposits of
7,21,19,030/- besides other credits, clearly establishing
laundering of proceeds of crime through layering and
projection as untainted asset.
72. Further it has come during investigation that
petitioner is a foreign national, illegally residing in India
with forged identity papers and his deep nexus with cross-
border traffickers, fraudulent procurement of documents,
and creation of assets in India has come on record. From
examination of his bank accounts revealed cash deposits of
7,21,19,030/-apart from other credits, wholly
disproportionate to his claimed income and without any
legitimate explanation. Further, CDR analysis showed that
the petitioner was in frequent contact with 42 Bangladeshi
mobile numbers, directly linking him with traffickers.
73. Thus, the investigation revealed the existence of a
well-organised syndicate engaged in cross-border human
trafficking, creation of forged Indian identity documents,
2025:JHHC:28015
and laundering of proceeds of crime through layering in
multiple bank accounts. Further the seizure of 5 lakhs in
cash, jewellery worth 36,41,927/-, incriminating
documents, fake passports, SCN from MEA confirming the
petitioner's Bangladeshi nationality, and analysis of bank
accounts showing unexplained deposits of 7.21 crores
clearly establish the foundation for the charge of money
laundering.
74. Thus, in nutshell it is evident that the petitioner is a
Bangladeshi national who illegally infiltrated into India,
obtained Indian documents through fraudulent means,
facilitated human trafficking, and acquired, possessed, and
laundered proceeds of crime in the form of cash, gold, bank
deposits, and other assets. Hence, prima-facie his actions
squarely attract the provisions of Section 3 of PMLA.
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. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India
and Ors(supra) has observed that the Court while dealing
2025:JHHC:28015
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.
76. 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.
77. It requires to refer herein that 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.
78. 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
2025:JHHC:28015
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.
79. 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.
80. 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.
2025:JHHC:28015
81. 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.
82. From the record it is established that the said Rony
Mondal is a Bangladeshi national, who acquired Indian
citizenship fraudulently on the basis of false documentation
and indulged in illegal activities pertaining to illegally
acquiring Indian citizenship as well as aiding several other
Bangladeshi in illegal infiltration in India. Further in his
statement dated 20.11.2024, the petitioner had confirmed
that the documents-PAN cards, voter cards, Aadhaar cards,
and ration cards-recovered during the search on 12.11.2024
belonged to his family members. He acknowledged that,
while opening bank accounts in India, he declared himself
an Indian citizen, using his PAN card as proof of identity.
Furthermore, he stated that he had an Indian passport,
while his family members held Bangladeshi passports.
83. Further from perusal of the material available on
record it is revealed that the total cash deposits in the
accounts held and used by the present petitioner is Rs.
7,21,19,030/- in the bank accounts identified as on the day
of investigation
2025:JHHC:28015
84. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances the
presumption under Section 24 of the Act 2002 is available
herein.
85. 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.
86. In the aforesaid context it requires to refer herein
that Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement,
(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.
87. 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.
2025:JHHC:28015
88. 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.
89. 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.
90. 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
2025:JHHC:28015
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:
"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,
2025:JHHC:28015
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 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
2025:JHHC:28015
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 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
2025:JHHC:28015
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.
91. 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 him under the
stringent framework of the Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002 (PMLA). Further, when a scheduled offence is
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.
92. From the preceding paragraphs 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
2025:JHHC:28015
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.
93. Therefore, on the basis of the discussion made
hereinabove the contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is not fit to be accepted.
94. This Court is conscious with the fact that personal
liberty is utmost requirement to maintain the individuality of
the person concerned but at the same time it is equally
settled that the balance between personal liberty and
societal impact of the alleged offence should be taken care of
by the Court concerned.
95. 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
2025:JHHC:28015
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."
96. 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.
97. 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
2025:JHHC:28015
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 overriding effect
given to the PML Act over the other law for the time
being in force, under Section 71 of the PML Act."
98. Herein The allegation against this
accused/petitioner is that accused/petitioner Rony Mondal
is knowingly involved in the acquisition, possession, and
concealment of proceeds of crime, as well as in activities that
directly support illegal infiltration and fraudulent acquisition
of Indian citizenship by Bangladeshi nationals. Investigation
revealed that he is a Bangladeshi national and illegally
infiltrated into India and obtained Aadhar card, PAN card,
2025:JHHC:28015
an Indian passport, in fraudulent manner to pose as an
Indian citizen. Proceeds of crime amounting to Rs.
7,21,19,030/- has been deposited in cash which have been
identified in his bank accounts. During a search conducted
on 12.11.2024 at premises of the accused person Rony
Mondal, Bangladeshi passports, a fake Indian passport,
unauthorized arms and ammunition, gold jewelry, and in
proceeds of crime in cash amounting to 5 lakhs were
recovered and seized, which were beyond explanation. The
petitioner has also acquired an immovable property in North
24 Parganas, Kolkata.
99. Further it has come on record that the petitioner
was directly a party with Bangladeshi nationals for their
illegal entry into India and was part of the syndicate which
operate illegally in India facilitating the illegal infiltration of
Bangladeshi nationals into India and through that illegal
activity, thus he has been involved in generating and
acquiring proceeds of crime using fake Indian identity
documents.
100. Herein there is sufficient material to prima-facie
show that the petitioner has committed the offence of money
laundering as defined u/s 3 of PMLA, 2002 and is liable to
be punished u/s 4 of PMLA, 2002.
101. This Court, based upon the imputation as has been
discovered in course of investigation, is of the view that what
2025:JHHC:28015
has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that proceeds
cannot be said to be proceeds of crime is not fit to be
acceptable.
102. 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 custody under the
strict rigours of Section 45 of the Act 2002.
103. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to facts
and circumstances, as have been analyzed hereinabove, this
Court is of the view that the applicant has failed to make out
a case for exercise of power to grant bail and considering the
facts and parameters, necessary to be considered for
adjudication of bail, without commenting on the merits of
the case, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail. Therefore,
this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to
be rejected.
104. Accordingly, based upon the aforesaid discussion,
the instant application stands dismissed.
105. It is made clear that the observations/findings, as
recorded hereinabove, is only for the purpose of issue of
2025:JHHC:28015
consideration of bail. The same will not prejudice the issue
on merit in course of trial.
106. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also
stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Birendra/-A.F.R.
