Jharkhand High Court
Pradip Bagchi vs Union Of India Through Directorate Of ... on 17 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
[2025:JHHC:28554]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 6314 of 2025
---------
Pradip Bagchi, aged about 68 years, son of Late Prafulla Bagchi, resident of
Ushagram, Asansol, P.S. Asansol-3, P.O. Asansol-3, District Paschim
Burdwan, West Bengal.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement
... ... Opposite Party
----------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
-----------
th
C.A.V. on 10 September, 2025 Pronounced on 17/09/2025
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.01 of 2023 [arising out of
ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 dated 21.10.2022] instituted for the offence under
Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2002).
Factual Matrix:
2. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the instant
ECIR/complaint reads as under:
3. An ECIR bearing No. 18/2022 was recorded on the basis of the FIR bearing
No. 141 of 2022 dated 04.06.2022, lodged at Bariyatu police station,
Ranchi Jharkhand under sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, 1860, against
Pradeep Bagchi on the basis of complaint of one Sri Dilip Sharma, Tax
Collector, Ranchi Municipal Corporation for submission of forged papers
i.e. Aadhar Card, Electricity Bill and Possession letter for obtaining holding
number 0210004194000A1 and 0210004031000A5. Investigation revealed
that by submitting the forged documents, a holding number was obtained in
name of Pradeep Bagchi for property at Morabadi Mouza, Ward No. 21/19,
Ranchi having an area of the plot measuring 455.00 decimals approx.
[2025:JHHC:28554]
4. Investigation further revealed that the above property belonged to Late
B.M. Laxman Rao which was given to the Army and had been in the
possession of the Defence, in occupation of the Army since independence.
Investigation reveals that by way of creating a fake owner (Pradeep
Bagchi) of the above said property, it was sold to one company M/s
Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd for which the consideration amount was
shown Rs. 7 crores which was highly under value and out of this amount
Rs. 7 crores payment amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs only were made into the
account of said Pradeep Bagchi and rest of the money was falsely shown to
be paid through cheques in the sale deed being deed no.- 6888 of 2021.
5. It has come during investigation that records available at the Circle Officer
Bargain, Ranchi along with the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata
have been altered and records have been modified. The survey of Circle
Office Bargain as well as Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata transpires that
documents have been tempered to create fictitious owner of the above
properties.
6. The Enforcement Directorate upon completion of investigation filed the
prosecution complaint under section 45 read with 44 of PML Act 2002,
being ECIR Case no. 01/2023 against the present petitioner and
consequently, the trial court vide order dated 19.06.2023 has taken the
cognizance of the aforesaid offence.
7. The present petitioner was arrested on 14.04.2023 under section 19 of
PML, Act 2002 accordingly the petitioner had preferred the Misc. Cri.
Application No. 3675 of 2023 for grant of his bail which was dismissed
vide order dated 16.12.2023 by the learned AJC-I-Cum Special Judge,
PMLA at Ranchi.
8. Hence the present application has been preferred for the grant of bail.
Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner:
9. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued
inter alia on the following grounds:
(i) It has been submitted that all the alleged manipulation and
manufacturing of forged documents have been done by other co-
[2025:JHHC:28554]
accused persons. It has further been submitted that as per the
prosecution complaint the main accusation is against accused no. 1,
namely, Jagatbandhu Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd.; accused no. 2, namely,
Dilip Kumar Ghosh and; accused no. 3, namely, Amit Kumar
Agarwal and against the present petitioner allegation is that he is
indulged in the fraudulent generation of two municipal holdings.
(ii) It is further submitted that there is no case of invocation of the
jurisdiction under PMLA as neither any offence has been committed
by the accused/petitioner nor is there any case of commission of
scheduled offence by this petitioner nor proceeds of crime has been
generated by the petitioner nor any laundering of the proceeds of
crime has been committed.
(iii) It is further submitted that in any event and at any rate, even if all the
allegations made against the petitioner in the prosecution complaint
are accepted at its face value and in their entirety, the same do not
make out any case under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the
PMLA in as much as such allegations falls out of the essential
ingredients for offence of money laundering u/s 3 of the PMLA.
(iv) It is further submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that for
acquiring the said property only an amount of Rs. 25.00 lacs (out of
the agreed sale consideration of Rs. 700.00 lacs) has been paid by
M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. to the petitioner out of the
deposit of cash in the bank account of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate
Pvt. Ltd., thus, by no stretch of imagination can it be alleged that
entire value of the said property as defined in Section 2(1)(b) of the
PMLA amounts to "proceeds of crime", particularly when it has been
revealed during investigation that the petitioner never had any title
over the said property.
(v) It is submitted that since Pradip Bagchi did not have the title over the
said property, no title can be passed to M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate
Pvt. Ltd. and in such an event, how the entire value of the said
property can be termed as "proceeds of crime" has been wrongly
alleged in the prosecution complaint.
[2025:JHHC:28554]
(vi) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also raised the ground that the
petitioner cannot be deprived of his constitutional right of personal
liberty as petitioner has been languishing in the custody since
14.04.2023.i.e., for about 2 ½ years.
(vii) The ground of parity has also been taken as it has been submitted that
the co-accused person, namely, Dilip Kumar Ghosh has been granted
bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in B.A. No. 7233
of 2023 vide order dated 28.11.2023.
(viii) It has also been submitted another co-accused person, namely, Amit
Kumar Agarwal has also been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court vide order dated 01.08.2025 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 7799 of
2025.
10. Further submission has been made, in the aforesaid view of the matter, as
per the grounds agitated, that it is a fit case where the petitioner is to be
given the privilege of bail.
Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent:
11. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the
respondent-Enforcement Directorate has vehemently opposed the prayer
for grant of regular bail by taking the following grounds:
(i) It has been submitted by drawing the attention of the Court towards
serial no.3 para-7.2 of the prosecution complaint that a raid carried out
on 13.04.2023 at residential premises of the petitioner cheque leaf of
different banks, pass book, bank statement, sale agreement, sale deed
and gift deed recovered from his house. Para-8.8 of prosecution
complaint reveals that petitioner knows co-accused Afsar Ali, Imtiyaz
Ahmad, Md. Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan @ Sunny and Faiyaz Khan
and they all are involved in manipulating sale deeds of landed property
and paid him money for getting signatures on forged sale deeds.
(ii) It has also been submitted that the petitioner in his statement recorded
u/s 50 of the PMLA stated that he has forged around 5 sale deeds and
had done signatures as its owner and for this, he has obtained money
from the other co-accused. He has stated that Afsar Ali, Imtiyaz Ahmad
[2025:JHHC:28554]
and others manufactured fake deed of property. MS Plot no. 557
Morabadi, Mauza Ranchi admeasuring 4.55 acres and sold it to Dilip
Ghosh who was working under Amit Kumar Agarwal. Afsar Ali
arranged fake deed of the year 1943 and executed it in the name of the
petitioner's deceased father Praful Bagchi. As per direction of Afsar
Ali, he executed sale deed agreement with Talha Khan @ Sunny.
Petitioner has also stated that Afsar Ali informed him that Dilip Ghosh
wanted to make an agreement for the purported due of Rs. 6.75 crores
and according to them which shall be paid after the possession of the
said land.
(iii)It has further been submitted that Para 9.3.1 of the prosecution
complaint transpires that the sale deed of property in possession of the
defence was executed on 01st October, 2021 and the consideration
amount of the property was shown as Rs. 7 crores, however, the
government value/market value of the said property as declared in the
deed was Rs. 20,75,84,200/-. Dilip Kumar Ghosh representing M/s
Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. purportedly issued 11 cheques of
IDFC First Bank Account No. 10060532973 total amount of Rs. 7
crores.
(iv) It has further been submitted that Para 9.3.2 of the prosecution
complaint reveals that only one cheque bearing no. 461153 of amount
Rs. 25 lacs credited into the account of Pradip Bagchi/petitioner by
HDFC Cheque No. 461153 and rest of the money falsely shown to be
paid in the deed no. 6888 of 2021 through above cheques.
(v) It is evident that the declaration of payment of full amount of 7 crores
by the purchaser Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. represented by
accused Dilip Ghosh and beneficially owned by Amit Kumar Agarwal
and its receipt by the seller/petitioner assisted by other co-accused is
deliberate, thoughtful & planned to given legitimate appearance to the
bogus transactions recorded in the sale deed for acquiring the above
property in order to project the acquisition of proceeds of crime in the
form of landed property as an untainted.
[2025:JHHC:28554]
12. The learned counsel for the ED, on the basis of the aforesaid grounds, has
submitted that the instant application is fit to be dismissed but he is fair
enough to admit the fact that the other co-accused person, namely, Dilip
Kumar Ghosh has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
passed in B.A. No. 7233 of 2023 vide order dated 28.11.2023 and one
another co-accused person, namely, Amit Kumar Agarwal has also been
granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 01.08.2025
passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 7799 of 2025.
Analysis:
13. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the
argument advanced on behalf of parties and the pleadings available on
record as also the documents appended therewith and other materials
available on record.
14. 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.
15. An ECIR bearing No. 18/2022 was recorded on the basis of the FIR bearing
No. 141 of 2022 dated 04.06.2022, lodged at Bariyatu police station,
Ranchi Jharkhand under sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, 1860, against
Pradeep Bagchi on the basis of complaint of one Sri Dilip Sharma, Tax
Collector, Ranchi Municipal Corporation for submission of forged papers
i.e. Aadhar Card, Electricity Bill and Possession letter for obtaining holding
number 0210004194000A1 and 0210004031000A5.
16. In consequence thereof, after investigation, the present petitioner was
arrested on 14.04.2023 under section 19 of PML, Act 2002 accordingly the
petitioner had preferred the Misc. Cri. Application No. 3675 of 2023 for
grant of his bail which was dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2023 by the
learned AJC-I-Cum Special Judge, PMLA at Ranchi.
17. Before adverting into the merit of the case this Court thinks fit to discuss
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.
[2025:JHHC:28554]
18. 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.
19. From bare perusal of Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002, "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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. It is evident from Section 3 of the Act, 2002 that the "offence of money-
laundering" means whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or
knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any
process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its
concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as
untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.
23. So far as the purport of Section 45(1)(i)(ii) of the Act, 2002, which is very
much relevant for the adjudication of the present application is concerned,
the aforesaid provision starts from the non-obstante clause that
[2025:JHHC:28554]
notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on
bail or on his own bond unless -
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the
application for such release; and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is
satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is
not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail
Sub-section (2) thereof puts limitation on granting bail specific in sub-
section (1) in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of
bail.
The explanation is also there as under sub-section (2) thereof which is
for the purpose of removal of doubts, a clarification has been inserted that
the expression "Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable" shall mean
and shall be deemed to have always meant that all offences under this Act
shall be cognizable offences and non-bailable offences notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, and accordingly the officers authorised under this Act are
empowered to arrest an accused without warrant, subject to the fulfilment
of conditions under section 19 and subject to the conditions enshrined
under this section.
24. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar
Antil vs. CBI and Anr., (2022) 10 SCC 51 has passed the order that if the
investigation has been completed and if there is full cooperation of the
accused persons, there may not be any arrest. The Hon'ble Apex Court
categorised the offences in different group for purpose of bail. The
reference may be taken from Paragraph -2 of the aforesaid judgment which
reads as under:
"2. After allowing the application for intervention, an appropriate order
was passed on 7-10-2021 [Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC
773 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 153] . The same is reproduced as under :
[2025:JHHC:28554]
(Satender Kumar Antil case [Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC
773 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 153] , SCC pp. 774-76, paras 2-11)
"2. We have been provided assistance both by Mr S.V. Raju, learned
Additional Solicitor General and Mr Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior
Counsel and there is broad unanimity in terms of the suggestions made by
the learned ASG. In terms of the suggestions, the offences have been
categorised and guidelines are sought to be laid down for grant of bail,
without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and keeping in
mind the statutory provisions.
3. We are inclined to accept the guidelines and make them a part of the
order of the Court for the benefit of the courts below. The guidelines are
as under:
'Categories/Types of Offences
(A) Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not
falling in Categories B & D.
(B) Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or
imprisonment for more than 7 years.
(C) Offences punishable under Special Acts containing stringent
provisions for bail like NDPS (Section 37), PMLA (Section 45), UAPA
[Section 43-D(5)], Companies Act, [Section 212(6)], etc.
(D) Economic offences not covered by Special Acts.
REQUISITE CONDITIONS
(1) Not arrested during investigation.
(2) Cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing
before investigating officer whenever called.
(No need to forward such an accused along with the charge-sheet
(Siddharth v. State of U.P. [Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676 :
(2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 423] )
CATEGORY A
After filing of charge-sheet/complaint taking of cognizance
(a) Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting
appearance through lawyer.
(b) If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons,
then bailable warrant for physical appearance may be issued.
(c) NBW on failure to appear despite issuance of bailable warrant.
(d) NBW may be cancelled or converted into a bailable
warrant/summons without insisting physical appearance of the accused, if
such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of
the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the
next date/s of hearing.
(e) Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided
without the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim
bail till the bail application is decided.
CATEGORIES B/D
On appearance of the accused in court pursuant to process issued bail
application to be decided on merits.
CATEGORY C
Same as Categories B and D with the additional condition of
compliance of the provisions of Bail under NDPS (Section 37), Section 45
[2025:JHHC:28554]
of the PMLA, Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, Section 43-D(5) of the
UAPA, POSCO, etc.
..."
25. In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal provisions and settled law this court
is now adverting to contention of the learned counsel for the parties.
26. It needs to refer herein that the co-accused person, namely, Dilip Kumar
Ghosh has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed
in B.A. No. 7233 of 2023 vide order dated 28.11.2023.
27. Further, another co-accused person, namely, Amit Kumar Agarwal has also
been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated
01.08.2025 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 7799 of 2025 upon whom the
allegation is that the address where books of accounts of the company M/s
Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. (A-1) were maintained is the corporate
office of various companies of Amit Kumar Agarwal and his brothers
namely Amar Kumar Agarwal and Rajesh Agarwal. For ready reference,
the order dated 01.08.2025 by which co-accused person, namely, Amit
Kumar Agarwal has been granted bail, reads as under:
"...
4. Admittedly, the appellant has been under incarceration for 2½ years. From
the records, we gather that the trial would take considerable length of time,
though it has been commenced.
5. Considering the above, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order
and grant bail to the appellant.
6. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside and the appellant is
granted bail, subject to the terms and conditions that may be imposed by the
Trial Court.
7. The appeal is allowed, accordingly.
..."
28. From the aforesaid order, it is evident that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
observed that the trial would take considerable length of time though it has
been commenced and further by taking into consideration the incarceration
of 2½ years of the co-accused person, namely, Amit Kumar Agarwal, he
has been granted bail.
29. At this juncture, it needs to refer herein that the jurisdiction to grant bail is
to be exercised on the basis of the well settled principles having regard to
the facts and circumstances of each case and while allowing or refusing bail
the nature of accusation and the nature of the materials relied upon by the
[2025:JHHC:28554]
prosecution must be taken care of, reference in this regard may be made to
the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.
Chidambaram v. Central of Investigation, (2020) 13 SCC 337. Relevant
extract from the decision is reproduced hereunder:--
"21. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of
the well settled principles having regard to the facts and
circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into
consideration while considering an application for bail : (i) the nature
of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of
conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the
prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the
witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv)
character, behaviour and standing of the accused and the
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of
the public or the State and similar other considerations.
22. There is no hard-and-fast rule regarding grant or refusal to grant
bail. Each case has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of
each case and on its own merits.--"
30. Herein, in the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspect, this Court is of the
view that since the trial with respect to the present petitioner is not likely to
be completed in near future, as such, taking into consideration the
incarceration of the present petitioner of about 2½ years and also that the
co-accused person, namely, Dilip Kumar Ghosh has been granted bail by
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in B.A. No. 7233 of 2023 vide
order dated 28.11.2023 as also another co-accused person, namely, Amit
Kumar Agarwal has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
order dated 01.08.2025 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 7799 of 2025, is of the
view that there is no reason to take distinct view with respect to the case of
the present petitioner.
31. Accordingly, the present bail application stands allowed.
32. In view thereof, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (One Lakh Only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner-I-cum-Special Judge, PMLA at Ranchi, in connection with
ECIR Case No. 01 of 2023 [arising out of ECIR/RNZO/18/2022] with the
condition that the petitioner will not tamper with any evidence and/or will
not threaten any of the witnesses as also the petitioner shall appear before
the Learned Special Judge on each and every date unless exempted by the
[2025:JHHC:28554]
learned Trail court on being satisfied with the causes shown by the
petitioner in this regard.
33. It is made clear that views expressed in this order are prima facie for
consideration of matter of bail only.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
17th September, 2025
Saurabh/-
A.F.R.
