[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Shailash Kumar Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 11 March, 2026
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (Cr.) No. 354 of 2025
------
Shailash Kumar Singh .... .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Rudra Pratap Singh .... .... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vimal Kirti Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Raja Ravi Shekhar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Raunak Sahay, Advocate
Mr. Adwitiya Atishrestha, Advocate
Mr. Ujjwal Choudhary, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Deepankar, A.C. to G.A. III
For the ED : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
------
Order No.05 / Dated : 11.03.2026
I.A. No.11512 of 2025
Heard learned counsel, Mr. Amit Kumar Das in I.A. No.11512 of
2025 which has been filed on behalf of the Directorate of Enforcement for
permission to be impleaded in the present writ petition so as to bring on
record certain facts and subsequent developments pertaining to the
investigation in ECIR/RNZO/02/2025.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that the offence involved in
the present case which is lodged under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471,
120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code are schedule offence as in Part A of the
Schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which are the
offences arrayed against the petitioner in CID P.S. Case No.4 of 2025. The
Enforcement Directorate has registered ECIR/RNZO/02/2025 for the
offence of money laundering and investigation is pending. Therefore, E.D.
has a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the present writ
petition which is quashing of the FIR pertaining to the predicate offence. The
investigation so far as reveal a well-orchestrated conspiracy involving Md.
Izhar Hussain, his brother Md. Akhtar Hussain, Shailesh Kumar Singh and
others including Circle Officer, Diwakar C. Dwivedi to illegally acquire
forest land by manufacturing forged auction certificate of 1933. On the basis
of the said forged document, unlawful mutation of the land was made.
Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has opposed the
intervenor application and a reply has been filed. It is submitted that law has
been settled in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Others Vs. Union of India
(2023) 12 SCC 1, if the predicate offence has already been quashed then in
that circumstance, offence of money laundering will not survive. In Cr.M.P.
No.444 of 2017, wherein FIR of similar set of allegations has already been
quashed by this Court vide order dated 24.06.2024.
It is also submitted that the facts in CID P.S. Case No.4 of 2025
dated 09.01.2025 and that Bokaro Sector XII P.S. Case No.50 of 2016 are not
completely identical. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in A.B.A. No.5132
of 2025 with A.B.A. No.5698 of 2025 has rejected the anticipatory bail
application and has not accepted the plea that both the cases were founded
on identical facts.
Without entering into the merit of the case, the matter for
consideration is whether the intervener petitioner, the Enforcement
Directorate has sufficient interest for being impleaded in the present writ
petition. It is trite law that an investigation, enquiry or trial for the offence of
money laundering can proceed only if the accused is proceeded against for a
predicate offence. The Enforcement Directorate has already instituted a case
for money laundering against the present petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be
said that the intervener petitioner has no interest and is not likely to be
affected by the outcome of the present writ petition. Intervener petitioner
being necessary party, is permitted to be impleaded in the present writ
petition.
Under the circumstance, I.A. No.11512 of 2025, is allowed and
Directorate of Enforcement is impleaded as party respondent no.3.
Let this case be listed on 16.03.2026.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
Uploaded
11.03.2026
