[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Shashi Prakash vs The Directorate Of Enforcement on 8 April, 2026

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

                                                                  2026:JHHC:9935




  INTHE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                         B.A. No. 454 of 2026
                                 ---------

Shashi Prakash, aged about 70 years, son of Late Brij Nandan Prasad, resident of N2/8, Vatika Green City, Diamond Block, Mango, P.O. & P.S.- Mango, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum.

... Petitioner Versus The Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi ... Opp. Party

---------

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

----------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate : Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate

----------

04/Dated: 8 April, 2026 th

1. The instant application has been filed under Sections 483 & 484of

BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with

ECIR/03/2018registered under Section 3, punishable under

Section 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act,

2002presently pending in the court of learned Special Judge, PML

Act, Ranchi.

2. It is a case where the petitioner has already remained in judicial

custody for more than 3 years, the submission therefore has been

made that the petitioner had remained in custody for minimum

sentence as has been provided under Section 4 of the PML Act

2002.

3. Further, submission has been made that the other co-accused

persons, namely Ram Binod Prasad Sinha and Suman Kumar @

Suman Kumar Singh (the Chartered Accountant) have already

2026:JHHC:9935

been granted bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order

dated15.03.2024 and 04.04.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal

arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4603 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal

arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 6970 of 2023, respectively.

4. Further, the other co-accused person, namely Pooja Singhal has

been released on bond under Section 479 (1) BNSS 2023vide

order dated 07.12.2024 by the learned Special Judge, PML Act,

Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 3059 of 2024.

5. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is 70-year-old

and is suffering from so many ailments.

6. Further submission has been made that on the last occasion the

status report has been called for by this Court and the same has

been received and is available on record. It is evident therefrom

that altogether 47 witnesses are to be examined and out of which

17 witnesses have been examined, and as such, more time is

required for the conclusion of the evidence of prosecution

witnesses as well as trial.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring the aforesaid fact

has submitted that there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the

trial, as such, on the ground of custody and parity, the present

petitioner may also be enlarged on bail.

8. Learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate although has

vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner by

2026:JHHC:9935

referring the culpability of the present petitioner in the alleged

commission of crime, but he is fair enough to admit the fact that

the aforesaid co-accused persons namely Ram Binod Prasad Sinha

and Suman Kumar @ Suman Kumar Singh have already been

directed to be released on bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties.

10. This Court has considered the imputation made against the

present petitioner as available in the ECIR in order to compare the

issue on parity, since the ground has been taken that the aforesaid

co-accused persons have been directed to be released on bail.

11. In the aforesaid context, it requires to refer herein that this Court

is conscious with the settled position of law that the issue of

parity, is to be taken into consideration but the same is to be taken

into consideration by applying the factual aspect along with the

surrounding facts, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of

Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486 wherein it has held as

under:

18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant bail to the appellant on the ground that the other co accused who were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is not the law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration."

2026:JHHC:9935

12. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot exercise

its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality

of circumstances before granting bail and by simply saying that

another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to

determine whether a case for grant of bail on the basis of parity has

been established. Reference in this regard may be made to the

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Ramesh Bhavan

Rathod vs. VishanbhaiHirabhai Makwana", (2021) 6 SCC 230

wherein it has been held as under:

"25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 527], this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed: (SCC p. 515, para 17):

"17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the second respondent was a history sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] clearly exposes the nonapplication of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second respondent has been charge-sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this Court would

2026:JHHC:9935

tantamount to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside."

26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of parity. By its two orders both dated 21-12- 2020 [PravinbhaiHirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2986] , [Khetabhai Parbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22- 10-2020 [Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was "assigned similar role of armed with stick (sic)". Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A16) on the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-

15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law."

13. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court

has gone through the imputation made against the present

petitioner available in the certified copy of supplementary

complaint/charge-sheet dated 05.07.2022 in PC No.

ECIR/03/2018. The said supplementary complaint/charge-sheet is

available on record and the same has been appended as Annexure-

1 to the present bail application.

2026:JHHC:9935

14. The role of the present petitioner has been mentioned in paragraph

11 of the said supplementary complaint/charge-sheet, for ready

reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:

Shashi Prakash (Accused No. 5): -He was Executive Engineer in District Board, Khunti, wherein R. K. Jain (Accused no. 6) was Assistant Engineer and Ram Binod Prasad Sinha (Accused no. 1) was Junior Engineer. Shashi Prakash (Accused no. 5) bypassed the proper channel and directly gave project related advance fund to Ram Binod Prasad Sinha in lieu of commission offered by Ram Binod Prasad Sinha as confessed by him in his statement dated 05.07.2020 and 20.09.2021. Shashi Prakash (Accused no. 5) has also stated in his statement dated 26.06.2022 that he was aware and allowed 5% Commission to be paid to Pooja Singhal (Accused no. 2) DC out of the fund disbursed by him to JE Ram Binod Prasad Sinha. It is also found that he bypassed the proper channel for transfer of funds and directly gave project related advance fund to Ram Binod Prasad Sinha (Accused no. 1) and not through AE R.K. Jain (Accused no. 6). He further stated that he did that. because of pressure from Pooja Singhal (Accused no. 2) the then DC, Khunti. He was also aware and allowing payment of 3% of the disbursed amount as commission to R. K. Jain (Accused no. 6). Ram Binod Prasad Sinha (Accusedno. 1) has also confessed that he was paying 2% of the said disbursed amount to Shashi Prakash (Accused no. 5) as commission. Thus, Shashi Prakash has directly indulged and knowingly assisted in the offence of money laundering, and committeed an offence of money laundering as described in Section 3 of PMLA and punishable under Section 4 of the said Act.

15. It is evident from the aforementioned paragraph that the present

applicant/petitioner Shashi Prakash (Accused no. 5) bypassed the

proper channel and directly gave project related advance fund to

Ram Binod Prasad Sinha in lieu of commission offered by Ram

2026:JHHC:9935

Binod Prasad Sinha as confessed by him in his statement dated

05.07.2020 and 20.09.2021.

16. This Court has further gone through the other various paragraphs

of the supplementary complaint/charge-sheet and has found that

the nature of imputation made against the present petitioner is

similar to the co-accused person particularly Ram Binod Prasad

Sinha who has been directed to be released on bail by the Hon'ble

apex Court.

17. This Court considering the applicability of principle of parity

enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar

vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement (supra) has

found that the case of the present petitioner is identically placed to

the other co-accused person particularly Ram Binod Prasad Sinha.

18. Further, in addition, thereof, the petitioner has already remained in

custody for more than 3 years, which is the minimum punishment

stipulated under section 4in the Act 2002 for the offence alleged to

be committed under Section 3 of Act 2002.