Jharkhand High Court
Alamgir Alam S/O Late Sanaul Haque vs The Directorate Of Enforcement on 11 July, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:18996
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
------
Alamgir Alam S/o Late Sanaul Haque, Sex-Male, Age-74
Years, Resident of Sector-2, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa P.S.
Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi, 834002 Jharkhand.
……………Petitioner
Versus
The Directorate of Enforcement, Union of India represented
through, Assistant Director, Ranchi Zonal Office, Plot
Number 1502/B, Airport Road, Hinoo, P.O. and P.S. Hinoo,
District:- Ranchi, Jharkhand ([email protected])
…………….Opposite Party
——-
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
——-
For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate
Mr. Kishlaya Prasad, Advocate
Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Zohab Hossain, Advocate
Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Varun Girdhar, Advocate
Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Advocate
——
C.A.V. on 20/06/2025 Pronounced on 11/07/2025
Prayer:
1. The instant application has been filed under Section 45
of the PML Act, 2002 read with Sections 439 and 440 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and an application under
Sections 483 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 praying for grant of bail in connection with
ECIR Case No. 2 of 2023 arising out of
ECIR/RNSZO/16/2020 dated 17.09.2020 for the offence
under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
1 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:189962002 [hereinafter referred to as PML Act, 2002] punishable
under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002, based on FIR bearing No. 13/2019 registered by
Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jamshedpur under Section 7(a) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act (amended as on 2018)
[hereinafter referred to as P.C. Act, 2018] pending in the
court of learned A.J.C. XVIII-cum-Special Judge, PML Act,
Ranchi.
Factual Matrix of the Case
2. An ECIR bearing No. ECIR/RNSZO/16/2020 was
recorded on 17.09.2020 based on the FIR bearing No.
13/2019 dated 13.11.2019, registered by ACB
Jamshedpur, under section 7(a) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, (amended as on 2018). Subsequently,
Charge-sheet dated 11.01.2020 was submitted by ACB
against Alok Ranjan and Suresh Prasad Verma under
Section 7 (b) of P.C. Act, 2018 and under Sections 120B
and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, which are scheduled
offences under Part-A, Paragraph 1 of the PML Act, 2002.
3. During the course of investigation upon Veerendra
Kumar Ram and his close associates, several searches were
conducted under Section 17 PML Act 2002 to investigate
the role of the accused persons and their close associates,
wherein it was found that part of the proceeds of crime is
2 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
acquired in the form of commission/bribe in lieu of
allotment of tenders by Veerendra Kumar Ram, the then
Chief Engineer in Rural Works Department, Jharkhand.
The said bribe money was getting routed by the Delhi based
CA Mukesh Mittal to the bank accounts of family members
of said Veerendra Kumar Ram with the help of bank
accounts of Delhi based Mukesh Mittal‟s
employees/relatives.
4. It is also alleged that Veerendra Kumar Ram used to give
cash to CA Mukesh Mittal who with the help of other entry
providers used to take entries in the bank accounts of his
employees and relatives and then such fund was
transferred by Mukesh Mittal into the bank accounts of the
co-accused Rajkumari (wife of Veerendra Kumar Ram) and
Genda Ram (father of Veerendra Kumar Ram).
5. Further, it is also alleged that some bank accounts,
opened (at Delhi) on the basis of forged documents, were
also being used in such routing of funds. Therefore,
findings related to such routing of funds were shared with
the Delhi Police under Section 66(2) of the PMLA by the I.O.
Further, on the basis of the information shared U/s 66(2) of
PMLA, 2002, an FIR No. 22/2023 was registered by
Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Delhi against (i) Veerendra
Kumar Ram, (ii) Mukesh Mittal and (iii) unknown Others
3 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
under Sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 473, 474,
476, 484, and 120-B of IPC, 1860 and under Sections 7
and 5 of Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act,
2017.
6. Consequently, in the light of additional facts emerging
out of investigation, FIR No.22/2023 registered by the
EOW, Delhi was merged with the investigation of ECIR No.
RNSZO/16/2020.
7. A prosecution complaint vide ECIR Case No. 02/2023
was filed before the learned Special Court, (PMLA), Ranchi
on 21.04.2023 against Veerendra Kumar Ram; Alok
Ranjan, Rajkumari and Genda Ram and cognizance of the
same was taken by the learned Special Judge, PMLA,
Ranchi on 29.04.2023.
8. Further, a supplementary prosecution complaint vide
ECIR Case Number 02/2023 under Section 45 of PMLA,
2002 was filed before the learned Special Court (PMLA),
Ranchi on 20.08.2023 against Veerendra Kumar Ram, Alok
Ranjan, Rajkumari, Genda Ram, Mukesh Mittal, Tara
Chand, Neeraj Mittal, Ram Prakash Bhatia, Harish Yadav
and Hirdya Nand Tiwari and the cognizance of the same is
taken on 22.08.2023.
9. During the further course of investigation searches were
conducted on 06-05-2024, 07-05-2024, 08-05-2024, 09-
4 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
05-2024, 10-05-2024 and 24-05-2024 under section 17 of
the PMLA, 2002 in the premises of Sanjeev Kumar Lal,
Jahangir Alam, Munna Singh, Kuldip Kumar Minz, Vikash
Kumar, Raj Kumar Toppo, Ajay Tirkey, Rajiv Kumar Singh,
Amit Kumar and Santosh Kumar at various places.
10. As a result of the search, huge cash was recovered
and seized from the residential premises of Jahangir Alam
situated at Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli,
Ranchi. Further, huge cash have been recovered and seized
from the residential premises of Munna Singh situated at
Flat No. 1A, Kashmiri Gali, PP Compound, Ranchi. Munna
Singh stated that he used to collect cash from the
engineers/contractors on the instruction of Sanjeev Lal.
Thereafter, searches were also conducted at the residences
of these engineers viz. Rajiv Kumar, Santosh Kumar,
Rajkumar Toppo, Ajay Tirkey and Amit Kumar.
11. Accordingly, on 07-05-2024 Sanjeev Kumar Lal and
Jahangir Alam were arrested for the commission of the
offence under sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, 2002.
12. Alamgir Alam (present petitioner) being the minister
of Department of Rural Works (RWD) and all the
departments under it, he is at the top in the syndicate of
commission collection. Sanjeev Kumar Lal used to collect
the share of 1.35 % of minister Alamgir Alam on his behalf
5 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
from Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers via Chief
Engineers.
13. Accordingly, Sanjeev Kumar Lal has instructed
departmental engineers to hand over the petitioner’s
commission to Munna Singh and/or his brother Santosh
Kumar alias Rinku Singh. Further Munna Singh has stated
that he has collected a total of Rs. 53 crores of commission
from such engineers/contractors and handed over Rs.50
crores approx. to Sanjeev Lal through Jahangir Alam. Thus,
the same amount was acquired by the petitioner through
Sanjeev Kumar Lal, out of this Rs.53 crores, an amount of
Rs.35 crores approx. was seized during the search
proceedings.
14. Further, it has been alleged that the petitioner also
acquired a commission amount of Rs. 3 crores from
Veerendra Kumar Ram through one engineer of the
department and same transaction was also assisted by
Sanjeev Kumar Lal in September 2022.
15. It is also alleged that the petitioner is found to be
directly indulged and actually involved in possession and
concealment of at least Rs 35 crores of the Proceeds of
Crime through Sanjeev Kumar Lal and he has also been
found to be directly indulged and actually involved in
6 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
acquisition and concealment of at least Rs. 56 crores of the
Proceeds of Crime.
16. A supplementary prosecution complaint vide ECIR
Case Number 02/2023 under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002
has been filed before the Learned Special Court (PMLA),
Ranchi on 04.07.2024 against Veerendra Kumar Ram, Alok
Ranjan, Rajkumari, Genda Ram, Mukesh Mittal, Tara
Chand, Neeraj Mittal, Ram Prakash Bhatia, Harish Yadav,
Hirdya Nand Tiwari, Alamgir Alam the present petitioner,
Sanjeev Kumar Lal and Jahangir Alam and the cognizance
of the same was taken on 12.07.2024.
17. Thereafter, the present petitioner preferred Misc.
Cri. Application No. 2190 of 2024 for grant of bail but the
same was rejected vide order dated 09.08.2024 by the court
of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII-cum-
Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi. Hence the present petition
has been filed.
Argument advanced by learned senior counsel for the
petitioner:
18. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner has argued inter alia on the
following grounds:
I. That the petitioner is quite innocent and has falsely
been implicated in this case with oblique motive and
mala fide intention to harass the petitioner.
7 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
II.The petitioner has duly cooperated with the
investigation agency and further as and when required
he appeared before them despite that he has been
arrested in the present case.
III.The petitioner is a sitting M.L.A. of the Jharkhand
State Legislative Assembly having portfolio of Rural
Development Department but the petitioner was not
the minister at the relevant period of time, when it is
alleged that „proceeds of crime‟ was collected by way of
commission in awarding tender.
IV.It is admitted fact that neither the petitioner was
named in the initial predicate offence [FIR No.
13/2019] nor he was named in the ECIR. Therefore,
petitioner‟s involvement cannot be made out on the
ground of demand of gratification since the petitioner
was not minister at the relevant point of time and
hence there was no question of implicating the present
petitioner of any demand to be made by him of its
share.
V. Furthermore, the petitioner even cannot be implicated
for the offence said to be committed in the financial
year 2014-15; 2015-16; 2016-17; 2018-19 since, he
was not the Minister during the relevant time.
8 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
VI.The first occurrence of committing offence is prior to
the date of his becoming minister. He was elected and
made minister in the State Legislative Assembly on
27.12.2019 whereas the complaint is dated
13.11.2019 registered under Section 7(a) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding
gratification by the junior engineer to the tune of Rs.
28 lacs. Upon which, a trap team was constituted on
14.11.2019, in which one Suresh Prasad Verma, the
then Junior Engineer was arrested. One Alok Ranjan,
who was the tenant of said Suresh Prasad Verma, was
arrested and from his house about Rs. 2.45 crore was
recovered. It has been contended that the said
occurrence is prior to becoming of the petitioner as
Minister and as such the petitioner cannot be co-
related with the instance of recovery made either from
the house of the said Suresh Prasad Verma or from
the house of the Alok Ranjan.
VII.The complaint was made by way of ECIR No. 16 of
2020 on 17.09.2020 against Alok Ranjan and Suresh
Prasad Verma, who are accused in the predicate case.
The ECIR complaint case was again instituted on
21.04.2023 being ECIR Complaint Case No. 2 of 2023
against four accused persons, namely, Veerendra
9 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
Kumar Ram (Chief Engineer); Alok Ranjan; Rajkumari
and Genda Ram. The first supplementary complaint
was made on 20th August, 2023 wherein (i).Mukesh
Mittal, (ii).Tara Chand (iii).Neeraj Mittal; (iv).Ram
Prakash Bhatia (v).Harish Yadav (vi).Hirdya Nand
Tiwari were made accused.
VIII.The second supplementary complaint was made on
04.07.2024, in which, the present petitioner has been
arrayed as accused no. 11; Sanjeev Kumar Lal, the
Private Secretary to the Minister as accused no. 12;
and Jahangir Alam, the friend of Sanjeev Kumar Lal
as accused no. 13.
IX. The ground has been taken by referring to the
complaint showing the role of the present petitioner in
commission of offence of money laundering that for
tenders floated in the concerned Department of Rural
Works Division; Department of Panchayati Raj;
Department of Rural Road Development Authority and
Rural Development Special Division, of which the
petitioner is minister, 3% commission has been
collected for the tenders floated by the departments.
X. It is alleged that the petitioner pressurized the Chief
Engineer to collect commission and gave him his
share of 1.35% through his PS, Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
10 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
But no case has been instituted of demanding
commission from his agent by deputing the agent to
collect the money by way of commission in lieu of
allotting the work in favour of one or the other
contractor. It has been submitted that in absence of
any predicate offence no case can be said to be made
out or even initiated under Section 3 of the PMLA Act.
XI.From the accusation, it is evident that allegation has
been leveled that Rs. 3 Crores was given to the
petitioner through his private secretary, namely,
Sanjeev Kumar Lal but said Sanjeev Kumar Lal in his
statement recorded under Section 17 and 50 of the
Act, 2002 has nowhere stated that after collecting the
amount from the engineers he had delivered a single
penny to the petitioner.
XII.Even from perusal of entire record, it is evident that
there is no evidence to prove that any amount of
commission reached to the hand of petitioner. It is
stated that cash totaling Rs. 37.55 crores approx. has
been recovered from the various premises of Sanjeev
Kumar Lal, Jahangir Alam and other persons but
none of them have stated that they had paid any
amount of commission directly to the petitioner.
11 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
XIII. Furthermore, from the entire complaint as well as the
documents of the complainant, there is no evidence
that petitioner being the Minister of Rural
Development Department had ever demanded or
received any amount from engineers, contractors or
any persons.
XIV.So far recovery of cash amounting to Rs.
32,20,78,900/- from the flat of Jahangir Alam is
concerned, in the complaint it is averred that he is
close associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and he acts as a
close trusted aid of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. Even the said
Sanjeev Kumar Lal has nowhere in his statement,
recorded under Section 17 and 50 of the PMLA, has
stated that the petitioner has ever directed him to
collect his share from the engineers.
XV. Further, in the complaint, statement of 34 persons,
including engineers, contractors, Sanjeev Kumar Lal,
Jahangir Alam and other engineers were recorded but
none of them have stated that the petitioner ever
demanded any amount of commission from them or
they have stated that amount collected by Sanjeev
Kumar Lal have reached to the hand of petitioner.
XVI.It has been submitted that co-accused Sanjeev Kumar
Lal had the knowledge that prior to taking over the
12 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
charge of petitioner as Minister of Rural Development
Department, it was prevalent that some amount of
commission were taken in the name of minister, as
such there is possibility that Sanjeev Kumar Lal with
intention to generate money put the impression upon
the contractors and engineers to give him the amount
of commission and after being exposed by the ED, he
had made exculpatory statement that he used to
collect amount of commission of the share of Minister.
XVII.Herein, there is no evidence on record that the said
collection of amount of commission was in knowledge
of the petitioner and any amount of commission
reached in the hand of the petitioner and the same
can be corroborated from the fact that nothing has
been recovered from the premise of the petitioner, as
such no offence of Money Laundering is made out
against the petitioner.
XVIII. Furthermore, the petitioner has fully co-operated with
the investigation while his statement has been
recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act 2002, many
times but even then, he has been taken into custody
on 15.05.2024 and since then he is languishing in
judicial custody.
13 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
XIX.The submission has been made that the petitioner has
been implicated in the present case on the basis of
statement recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act of
the co-accused, who was already in custody, hence,
the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PML
Act of the co-accused, who were already in custody
cannot be used against the present petitioner.
XX. Submission has been made that according to Section
19 of the PML Act, arrest can only be effectuated when
there are valid „reasons to believe‟, that the person is
guilty of offence under PMLA and such „reasons to
believe‟ must be founded on credible and substantive
material evidence and the same has been reduced in
writing and furnished to the arrestee as has been held
by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Arvind
Kejriwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 SCC
OnLine 1703] but the principles as laid down in the
said case has not been complied with in the instant
case.
XXI.Learned senior counsel has relied upon paragraph
253 of the case of the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary
and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2022) SCC
OnLine SC 929 in order to buttress his argument on
14 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
the issue of statement recorded under Section 50 of
the PML Act.
XXII. Raising the ground of parity, submission has been
made that taking the ground of long incarceration and
further there is no possibility of a trial even
commencing in the near future, co-accused Veerendra
Kumar Ram has been granted bail by the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 in Cr.
Appeal No. 4615 of 2024. Likewise, accused Harish
Yadav was already granted bail vide order dated
30.08.2024 in Special Leave petition (Crl.) No. 6174 of
2024 on the ground that prima facie it is very difficult
to attribute any direct role, and thus, the twin tests
laid down under Section 45(1) of the PMLA are
satisfied and also that of long incarceration.
XXIII. Accused Tara Chand has also been granted bail by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25.11.2024
in Cr. Appeal No. 4760 of 2024 on the ground that it
is difficult to attribute any direct role and also on
principle of parity, as accused Harish Yadav has been
granted bail. Furthermore, other accused persons,
namely, Rajkumari, Genda Ram, Mukesh Mittal,
Neeraj Mittal and Ram Prakash Baitha have also been
granted regular bail by the Hon‟ble Apex Court.
15 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
XXIV. In the case at hand, the petitioner is in custody since
15.05.2024 i.e., for more than 13 months and it is not
likely that the trial would conclude in near future
since only one witness has been examined, therefore,
taking into consideration the law laid down in the case
of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
[2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920; Union of India Vs.
K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713]; Arvind Kejriwal Vs.
Enforcement Directorate (supra) and V. Senthil
Balaji Vs. State represented by the Deputy
Director & Ors. (2024) 3 SCC 51 the petitioner may
be directed to be released on bail
XXV. Further, submission has been made that the
petitioner is suffering from various ailment having the
age of about 75 years.
XXVI.It has been contended that there is no allegation said
to be committed so as to attract the offence under
Section 3 of the PML Act since there is no allegation of
laundering of money against the petitioner.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the
aforesaid grounds, has submitted as per the ground
agitated hereinabove, it is a fit case where the petitioner is
to be given the benefit of privilege of bail.
Argument advanced by learned counsel for the opposite
party-Enforcement Directorate:
16 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
20. While on the other hand, Mr. Zohab Hossain,
assisted by Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the
opposite party-Enforcement Directorate has seriously
opposed the said submission/ground both based upon the
fact and the law as referred hereinabove, on the following
grounds.
I. Submission has been made that the argument that
merely because petitioner was not the minister on the
date when the FIR No. 13 of 2019 was registered or he
was not the minister on the collection of the money for
the financial year 2014-15; 2015-16; 2016-17; 2018-
19, is having no aid to the petitioner reason being that
the applicability of Section 3 of the PML Act wherein
specific stipulation has been made that 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.
II. It has been contended by referring to Section 3(ii) of
the PML Act, 2002 that the process or activity
connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing
17 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
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.
III. The argument, therefore, has been advanced
that even though the initial offence is prior to the
becoming of minister of the petitioner but the
statement which was recorded by his private
secretary, namely, Sanjeev Kumar Lal, or the
engineers who have fully supported the fact of
demanding commission to the tune of 1.5% from the
contractors to be collected by the engineers or agents
for the purpose of handing over to the minister,
clarifies that the petitioner was directly as also
indirectly involved in the process or activity connected
with the proceeds of crime in acquisition of money and
the same has been treated to be continuing activity
when the FIR was instituted in view of statement of
Private Secretary, namely, Sanjeev Kumar Lal and one
Jahangir Alam and other engineers who were even not
in custody at that time of collection of money from the
contractors, hence, irrespective of the fact that the
petitioner on the date of institution of FIR was
18 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
minister or not but taking into consideration the fact
that he immediately after taking oath as minister has
indirectly involved in the collection of money and
subsequent thereto directly involved in getting the
money from either from the contractor or engineer, as
has been stated by them in the statement under
Section 50 of the PML Act, therefore, the involvement
of the petitioner cannot in the alleged crime cannot be
denied.
IV. Hence, merely because the petitioner has
become minister on 27.12.2019 will not suffice to
show his innocence.
V. The question of non-institution of FIR of the charge
as contained in complaint against the petitioner, as
has been argued on behalf of the petitioner will also
have no aid reason being that the said offences are
continuing offence of collecting money by the minister
directly involve in collection of the said money which
is connected with the proceeds of crime by way of
continuing activity as stipulated in Section 3 (ii) of the
PML Act, hence the petitioner is deeply involved in
commission of crime.
VI. It has been submitted that the proceeds of
crime have been defined under Section 2(u) of PML
19 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
Act, 2002 which 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. It has been contended that the
statement, as has been recorded under Section 50 of
the PML Act, 2002 is very much clear of the
involvement of the present petitioner in relation to
collection of money involved in the criminal case
registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 2018 and by way of continued
process, the ED has filed supplementary complaint in
which complicity of the present petitioner has been
surfaced.
VII. Argument has been advanced that the
petitioner being minister, people representative, has
been found to be indulged in such type of collection of
money as has been recovered from the house of the
Jahangir Alam to the tune of Rs. 32,20,78,900/-
having been corroborated by the private secretary to
the minister, namely, Sanjeev Kumar Lal and further
the aforesaid fact has been corroborated by the
20 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
statement as recorded under Section 50 of the
different accused persons and the engineers who were
not in custody during the relevant period of time.
VIII. Submission has been made that ground which
has been advanced that neither the statement of the
Sanjeev Kumar Lal nor the statement of Jahangir
Alam, is to be taken into consideration since it is
recorded while they were in custody but the law is
otherwise as has been held by Hon‟ble Apex Court in
the case of Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of
Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46 wherein the
statement if recorded of the co-accused persons in
custody under Section 50 of the PML Act will also
have the impact in implicating a person under Section
3 of the PML Act and exactly the case herein.
IX. It has been submitted that otherwise also it is
not the case where only the statement of the co-
accused persons have been recorded under Section 50
of the PML Act but the statement of the engineers,
who were not in custody on the date of recording of
their statement, have been taken who have specifically
stated in their statements under Section 50 of the
PML Act that on the direction of the concerned
minister as was being informed by his private
21 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
secretary, Sanjeev Kumar Lal, the money was collected
from the contractors and the share of the present
petitioner in the capacity of minister was 1.35 %,
which was being collected either by the private
secretary, Sanjeev Kumar Lal or by his agent,
Jahangir Alam.
X. The statement, therefore, has been made that
since the cogent evidence has been collected both of
the co-accused persons, who have been remanded to
the judicial custody, and the other engineers who were
not the accused, hence the petitioner is directly
involved in commission of crime of obtaining
money/commission said to be „proceeds of crime‟.
XI. Learned counsel has argued by referring to
Sections 19 and 45 of the PML Act, that Section 19
confers power upon the prosecuting agency either the
Director or the Deputy Director or Assistant Director
to arrest a person on the basis of his satisfaction of
reason to believe of involvement of one or the other in
commission of crime and the ground for arrest is to be
given to the person concerned. While on the other
hand Section 45 of the PML Act confers power upon
the court to consider the issue of bail of the said
person and on being satisfied that no prima facie case
22 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
is being made out then only the prayer for bail is to be
considered on the ground that there is sufficient
ground for believing that he is not guilty of such
offence and he is not likely to commit any offence
while on bail.
XII. It has been submitted that twin conditions
have been provided under Section 45 of the Act 2002
but herein the first condition is of bearing which
pertains to the satisfaction of the court of the
reasonable ground for believing that he is not guilty of
such offence and there is no likelihood of committing
any offence while on bail. It has been submitted based
upon the grounds i.e., recovery of huge amount from
the house of Jahangir Alam, a close associate of the
petitioner and co-accused Sanjeev Kumar Lal, who is
private Secretary to the minister; the recovery of the
diary having with code-word therein for the purpose of
transmitting the amount as also the scripted letter
head addressed to the minister have been found from
the house of Jahangir Alam where huge amount of
money has been recovered, hence, it is not a case to
have the believe of reasonable ground that the
petitioner is not guilty of the offence.
23 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
XIII. So far as the grounds of parity is concerned,
the case of the present petitioner is quite distinct to
that of other co-accused persons, who have been
granted bail by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, not only on
the long incarceration but as also on the ground that
there direct involvement of the petitioner, who is none
other than a people representative, therefore,
submission has been made that no consideration is to
be given on the issue of parity on the aforesaid
distinguishable fact.
XIV. So far as the medical ground as has been
taken, it is evident that the nature of disease, which
has been shown, is not such a nature which is vital
for life rather no such medical certificate has been
annexed with the application.
XV. It has been submitted by referring to the
judgment rendered by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case
of State through Deputy Commissioner of Police v.
Jaspal Singh Gill, (1984) 3 SCC 555 that the
medical ground can only be taken into consideration
for the purpose of release of the accused person on
bail if the disease of the accused person is fatal and it
is not treatable by the authorised prison‟s doctor.
Learned counsel based upon the aforesaid ground has
24 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
submitted that it is not a case wherein the petitioner
is to be released on bail.
XVI. Submission has been made that the petitioner
was the minister in the Jharkhand State Legislative
Assembly, a people representative and a public figure,
and as such, it is not expected for the person like the
present petitioner to indulge himself in such nature of
crime.
21. Learned counsel for the respondent-Enforcement
Directorate, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has
submitted that it is not a fit case where the prayer for bail is
to be allowed taking into consideration his involvement in
directly acquiring the proceeds of crime.
Discussion:
22. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties,
gone across the pleading available on record as also the
finding recorded by learned trial court.
23. This Court, before appreciating the argument advanced
on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to discuss
herein some of the provision of law as contained under the
Act, 2002 with its object and intent.
24. The Act was enacted to address the urgent need to have a
comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-
laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication
25 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
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.
25. The issues were debated threadbare in the United Nation
Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances, Basle Statement of Principles
enunciated in 1989, the FATF established at the summit of
seven major industrial nations held in Paris from 14th to
16thJuly, 1989, the Political Declaration and Noble
Programme of Action adopted by United Nations General
Assembly vide its Resolution No. S-17/2 of 23.2.1990, the
United Nations in the Special Session on countering World
Drug Problem Together concluded on the 8th to the 10thJune,
1998, urging the State parties to enact a comprehensive
legislation. This is evident from the introduction and
Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Bill
which became the 2002 Act. The same reads thus:
“INTRODUCTION
Money-laundering poses a serious threat not only to the
financial systems of countries, but also to their integrity and
sovereignty. To obviate such threats international community
has taken some initiatives. It has been felt that to prevent
money-laundering and connected activities a comprehensive
legislation is urgently needed. To achieve this objective the
Prevention of Money-laundering Bill, 1998 was introduced in26 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996the Parliament. The Bill was referred to the Standing
Committee on Finance, which presented its report on 4th
March, 1999 to the Lok Sabha. The Central Government
broadly accepted the recommendation of the Standing
Committee and incorporated them in the said Bill along with
some other desired changes.
STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
It is being realised, world over, that money-laundering poses a
serious threat not only to the financial systems of countries,
but also to their integrity and sovereignty. Some of the
initiatives taken by the international community to obviate
such threat are outlined below:–
(a) the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, to which India is
a party, calls for prevention of laundering of proceeds of drug
crimes and other connected activities and confiscation of
proceeds derived from such offence.
(b) the Basle Statement of Principles, enunciated in 1989,
outlined basic policies and procedures that banks should
follow in order to assist the law enforcement agencies in
tackling the problem of money-laundering.
(c) the Financial Action Task Force established at the summit
of seven major industrial nations, held in Paris from 14th to
16th July, 1989, to examine the problem of money-laundering
has made forty recommendations, which provide the
foundation material forcomprehensive legislation to combat the
problem of money-laundering. The recommendations were
classified under various heads. Some of the important heads
are–
(i) declaration of laundering of monies carried through serious
crimes a criminal offence;
(ii) to work out modalities of disclosure by financial institutions
regarding reportable transactions;
(iii) confiscation of the proceeds of crime;
(iv) declaring money-laundering to be an extraditable offence;
and
27 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
(v) promoting international co-operation in investigation of
money-laundering.
(d) the Political Declaration and Global Programme of Action
adopted by United Nations General Assembly by its Resolution
No. S-17/2 of 23rd February, 1990, inter alia, calls upon the
member States to develop mechanism to prevent financial
institutions from being used for laundering of drug related
money and enactment of legislation to prevent such
laundering. (e) the United Nations in the Special Session on
countering World Drug Problem Together concluded on the 8th
to the 10th June, 1998 has made another declaration
regarding the need to combat money-laundering. India is a
signatory to this declaration.”
26. It is thus evident that the Act, 2002 was enacted in order
to answer the urgent requirement to have a comprehensive
legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering,
attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and
confiscation thereof for combating money-laundering and also
to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime.
27. It needs to refer herein the definition of “proceeds of
crime” as provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002
which reads as under:
“2(u) “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 3[or where such property is taken or held
outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held
within the country] 4[or abroad]; [Explanation.–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 or28 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal
activity relatable to the scheduled offence;]”
28. It is evident from the aforesaid provision 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.
29. In the explanation part of the aforesaid Section, 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.
30. 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
29 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
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.
31. 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.
32. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x)
which means schedule to the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002. The “scheduled offence” has been
defined under Section 2(1)(y) which reads as under:
“2 (1)(y) “scheduled offence” means– (i) the offences specified
under Part A of the Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified
under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such
offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or (iii) the offences
specified under Part C of the Schedule.”
33. 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.
34. The offence of money laundering has been defined under
Section 3 of the Act, 2002 which reads as under:
30 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
“3. Offence of money-laundering. –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. [Explanation.– For the removal of doubts,
it is hereby clarified that,– (i) a person shall be guilty of
offence of money-laundering if such person is found to have
directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly
assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one
or more of the following processes or activities connected with
proceeds of crime, namely:– (a) concealment; or (b)
possession; or (c) acquisition; or (d) use; or (e) projecting as
untainted property; or (f) claiming as untainted property, in
any manner whatsoever; (ii) 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.]”
35. It is evident from the aforesaid 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, acquisition or use and projecting or
claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of
money-laundering.
36. 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
31 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
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.
37. The punishment for money laundering has been provided
under Section 4 of the Act, 2002.
38. Further, Section 50 of the Act, 2002 confers power upon
the authorities regarding summons, production of documents
and to give evidence. For ready reference, Section 50 of the
Act, 2002 is quoted as under:
“50. Powers of authorities regarding summons, production of
documents and to give evidence, etc.–(1) The Director shall, for
the purposes of section 13, have the same powers as are vested in
a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:–
(a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of any
person, including any officer of a [reporting entity] and examining
him on oath; (c) compelling the production of records; (d) receiving
evidence on affidavits; (e) issuing commissions for examination of
witnesses and documents; and (f) any other matter which may be
prescribed. (2) The Director, Additional Director, Joint Director,
Deputy Director or Assistant Director shall have power to summon
any person whose attendance he considers necessary whether to
give evidence or to produce any records during the course of any
investigation or proceeding under this Act. (3) All the persons so
summoned shall be bound to attend in person or through
authorised agents, as such officer may direct, and shall be bound
to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are
examined or make statements, and produce such documents as
may be required. (4) Every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and
(3) shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning
of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860). (5) Subject to any rules made in this behalf by the Central32 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996Government, any officer referred to in sub-section (2) may
impound and retain in his custody for such period, as he thinks
fit, any records produced before him in any proceedings under
this Act: Provided that an Assistant Director or a Deputy Director
shall not– (a) impound any records without recording his reasons
for so doing; or (b) retain in his custody any such records for a
period exceeding three months, without obtaining the previous
approval of the [Joint Director].”
39. It needs to refer herein that 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., (supra) 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, as would appear from
paragraph 128, 129 and 130. For ready reference, relevant
paragraph is being referred as under:
“128. To put it differently, the section as it stood prior to 2019
had itself incorporated the expression “including”, which is
indicative of reference made to the different process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime. Thus, the principal
provision (as also the Explanation) predicates that if a person
is found to be directly or indirectly involved in any process or
activity connected with the proceeds of crime must be held
guilty of offence of money laundering. If the interpretation set
forth by the petitioners was to be accepted, it would follow
that it is only upon projecting or claiming the property in
question as untainted property, the offence would be
complete. This would undermine the efficacy of the legislative
intent behind Section 3 of the Act and also will be in disregard33 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996of the view expressed by the FATF in connection with the
occurrence of the word “and” preceding the expression
“projecting or claiming” therein.
129.This Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand,
enunciated that the international treaties, covenants and
conventions although may not be a part of municipal law, the
same be referred to and followed by the Courts having regard
to the fact that India is a party to the said treaties. This Court
went on to observe that the Constitution of India and other
ongoing statutes have been read consistently with the rules of
international law. It is also observed that the Constitution of
India and the enactments made by Parliament must
necessarily be understood in the context of the present-day
scenario and having regard to the international treaties and
convention as our constitution takes note of the institutions of
the world community which had been created.
130.In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, the
Court observed that domestic Courts are under an obligation
to give due regard to the international conventions and norms
for construing the domestic laws, more so, when there is no
inconsistency between them and there is a void in domestic
law. This view has been restated in Githa Hariharan, as also
in People’s Union for Civil Liberties, and National Legal
Services Authority v. Union of India.”
40. The implication of Section 50 has also been taken
into consideration. Relevant paragraph, i.e., paragraphs-
327 to 332, 338, 339, 342 are quoted as under:
“327. The validity of this provision has been challenged on
the ground of being violative of Articles 20(3) and 21 of the
Constitution. For, it allows the authorised officer under the
2002 Act to summon any person and record his statement
during the course of investigation. Further, the provision
mandates that the person should disclose true and correct
facts known to his personal knowledge in connection with the
subject matter of investigation. The person is also obliged to
sign the statement so given with the threat of being punished34 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996for the falsity or incorrectness thereof in terms of Section 63 of
the 2002 Act. Before we proceed to analyse the matter further,
it is apposite to reproduce Section 50 of the 2002 Act, as
amended. —–:
330. By this provision, the Director has been empowered to
exercise the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under
the 1908 Code while trying a suit in respect of matters
specified in sub-section (1). This is in reference to Section 13 of
the 2002 Act dealing with powers of Director to impose fine in
respect of acts of commission and omission by the banking
companies, financial institutions and intermediaries. From the
setting in which Section 50 has been placed and the expanse
of empowering the Director with same powers as are vested in
a civil Court for the purposes of imposing fine under Section
13, is obviously very specific and not otherwise.
331. Indeed, sub-section (2) of Section 50 enables the
Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or
Assistant Director to issue summon to any person whose
attendance he considers necessary for giving evidence or to
produce any records during the course of any investigation or
proceeding under this Act. We have already highlighted the
width of expression “proceeding” in the earlier part of this
judgment and held that it applies to proceeding before the
Adjudicating Authority or the Special Court, as the case may
be. Nevertheless, sub-section (2) empowers the authorised
officials to issue summon to any person. We fail to understand
as to how Article 20(3) would come into play in respect of
process of recording statement pursuant to such summon
which is only for the purpose of collecting information or
evidence in respect of proceeding under this Act. Indeed, the
person so summoned, is bound to attend in person or through
authorised agent and to state truth upon any subject
concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make
statement and produce documents as may be required by
virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the 2002 Act. The
criticism is essentially because of subsection (4) which
provides that every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3)35 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the
meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC. Even so, the fact
remains that Article 20(3) or for that matter Section 25 of the
Evidence Act, would come into play only when the person so
summoned is an accused of any offence at the relevant time
and is being compelled to be a witness against himself. This
position is well-established.
332.The Constitution Bench of this Court in M.P. Sharma had
dealt with a similar challenge wherein warrants to obtain
documents required for investigation were issued by the
Magistrate being violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
This Court opined that the guarantee in Article 20(3) is against
“testimonial compulsion” and is not limited to oral evidence.
Not only that, it gets triggered if the person is compelled to be
a witness against himself, which may not happen merely
because of issuance of summons for giving oral evidence or
producing documents. Further, to be a witness is nothing more
than to furnish evidence and such evidence can be furnished
by different modes. The Court went on to observe as follows:
“Broadly stated the guarantee in article 20(3) is against
“testimonial compulsion”. It is suggested that this is confined
to the oral evidence of a person standing his trial for an
offence when called to the witness-stand. We can see no
reason to confine the content of the constitutional guarantee to
this barely literal import. So to limit it would be to rob the
guarantee of its substantial purpose and to miss the
substance for the sound as stated in certain American
decisions. The phrase used in Article 20(3) is “to be a
witness”. A person can “be a witness” not merely by giving
oral evidence but also by producing documents or making
intelligible gestures as in the case of a dumb witness (See
section 119 of the Evidence Act) or the like. “To be a witness”
is nothing more than “to furnish evidence”, and such evidence
can be furnished through the lips or by production of a thing
or of a document or in other modes. So far as production of
documents is concerned, no doubt Section 139 of the Evidence
Act says that a person producing a document on summons is
36 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
not a witness. But that section is meant to regulate the right of
cross examination. It is not a guide to the connotation of the
word “witness”, which must be understood in its natural
sense, i.e., as referring to a person who furnishes evidence.
Indeed, every positive volitional act which furnishes evidence
is testimony, and testimonial compulsion connotes coercion
which procures the positive volitional evidentiary acts of the
person, as opposed to the negative attitude of silence or
submission on his part. Nor is there any reason to think that
the protection in respect of the evidence so procured is
confined to what transpires at the trial in the court room. The
phrase used in article 20(3) is “to be a witness” and not to
“appear as a witness”. It follows that the protection afforded
to an accused in so far as it is related to the phrase “to be a
witness” is not merely in respect of testimonial compulsion in
the court room but may well extend to compelled testimony
previously obtained from him. It is available therefore to a
person against whom a formal accusation relating to the
commission of an offence has been levelled which in the
normal course may result in prosecution. Whether it is
available to other persons in other situations does not call for
decision in this case.” (emphasis supplied)
338. In the context of the 2002 Act, it must be remembered
that the summon is issued by the Authority under Section 50
in connection with the inquiry regarding proceeds of crime
which may have been attached and pending adjudication
before the Adjudicating Authority. In respect of such action,
the designated officials have been empowered to summon any
person for collection of information and evidence to be
presented before the Adjudicating Authority. It is not
necessarily for initiating a prosecution against the noticee as
such. The power entrusted to the designated officials under
this Act, though couched as investigation in real sense, is to
undertake inquiry to ascertain relevant facts to facilitate
initiation of or pursuing with an action regarding proceeds of
crime, if the situation so warrants and for being presented
before the Adjudicating Authority. It is a different matter that
37 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
the information and evidence so collated during the inquiry
made, may disclose commission of offence of money-
laundering and the involvement of the person, who has been
summoned for making disclosures pursuant to the summons
issued by the Authority. At this stage, there would be no
formal document indicative of likelihood of involvement of such
person as an accused of offence of money laundering. If the
statement made by him reveals the offence of money
laundering or the existence of proceeds of crime, that becomes
actionable under the Act itself.
339.To put it differently, at the stage of recording of statement
for the purpose of inquiring into the relevant facts in
connection with the property being proceeds of crime is, in that
sense, not an investigation for prosecution as such; and in
any case, there would be no formal accusation against the
noticee. Such summons can be issued even to witnesses in the
inquiry so conducted by the authorised officials. However,
after further inquiry on the basis of other material and
evidence, the involvement of such person (noticee) is revealed,
the authorised officials can certainly proceed against him for
his acts of commission or omission. In such a situation, at the
stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection
under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. However, if his/her
statement is recorded after a formal arrest by the ED official,
the consequences of Article 20(3) or Section 25 of the Evidence
Act may come into play to urge that the same being in the
nature of confession, shall not be proved against him. Further,
it would not preclude the prosecution from proceeding against
such a person including for consequences under Section 63 of
the 2002 Act on the basis of other tangible material to indicate
the falsity of his claim. That would be a matter of rule of
evidence.
342. It is, thus, clear that the power invested in the officials is
one for conducting inquiry into the matters relevant for
ascertaining existence of proceeds of crime and the
involvement of persons in the process or activity connected
therewith so as to initiate appropriate action against such
38 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
person including of seizure, attachment and confiscation of the
property eventually vesting in the Central Government.”
41. It is evident from the observation so made as above
that the purposes and objects of the 2002 Act for which it
has been enacted, is not limited to punishment for offence
of money-laundering, but also to provide measures for
prevention of money-laundering. It is also to provide for
attachment of proceeds of crime, which are likely to be
concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which
may result in frustrating any proceeding relating to
confiscation of such proceeds under the 2002 Act. This Act
is also to compel the banking companies, financial
institutions and intermediaries to maintain records of the
transactions, to furnish information of such transactions
within the prescribed time in terms of Chapter IV of the
2002 Act.
42. 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
which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a
39 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
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.
43. So far as the purport of Section 45(1)(i)(ii) is
concerned, 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.
44. 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.
45. 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
40 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
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.
46. 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) at paragraphs-268-270. For ready reference,
the said paragraphs are being referred as under:
“268. Section 45 has been amended vide Act 20 of 2005, Act 13 of
2018 and Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. The provision as it obtained
prior to 23.11.2017 read somewhat differently. The constitutional
validity of Sub-section (1) of Section 45, as it stood then, was
considered in Nikesh Tarachand Shah. This Court declared
Section 45(1) of the 2002 Act, as it stood then, insofar as it
imposed two further conditions for release on bail, to be
unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution. The two conditions which have been mentioned as
twin conditions are: (i) that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) that he is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail.
269. According to the petitioners, since the twin conditions have
been declared to be void and unconstitutional by this Court, the
same stood obliterated. To buttress this argument, reliance has
been placed on the dictum in State of Manipur.
270. The first issue to be answered by us is: whether the twin
conditions, in law, continued to remain on the statute book post
decision of this Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah and if yes, in41 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996view of the amendment effected to Section 45(1) of the 2002 Act
vide Act 13 of 2018, the declaration by this Court will be of no
consequence. This argument need not detain us for long. We say
so because the observation in State of Manipur in paragraph 29 of
the judgment that owing to the declaration by a Court that the
statute is unconstitutional obliterates the statute entirely as
though it had never been passed, is contextual. In this case, the
Court was dealing with the efficacy of the repealing Act. While
doing so, the Court had adverted to the repealing Act and made
the stated observation in the context of lack of legislative power.
In the process of reasoning, it did advert to the exposition in
BehramKhurshidPesikaka and Deep Chand including American
jurisprudence expounded in Cooley on Constitutional Limitations
and Norton v. Shelby County.”
47. 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
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
42 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
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.
48. For ready reference, paragraph-17 of the said
judgment is quoted 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.”
49. 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
43 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
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.
50. In the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court
in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of
India and Ors.(supra) as under paragraph 284, it has been
held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute
a person for offence of money-laundering only if it has
reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing
that the person is in possession of “proceeds of crime”. Only
if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible
evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned
in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of
crime, action under the Act can be taken to forward for
attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until
vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process
initiated would be a standalone process.
51. So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45
of the Act, 2002 is concerned, at paragraph-412 of the
judgment rendered in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and
Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) it has been held
therein by making observation that whatever form the relief
44 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
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 rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 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.
52. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam
Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of
Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through
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
45 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this
Act.
53. 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 appellant. For ready
reference, paragraph-30 of the said judgment reads as
under:
“30. 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 CrPC 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. 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 appellant.”
46 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
54. Now adverting to the fact of the present case,
learned senior 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. 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.
55. 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.
56. In order to reach to conclusion regarding share of
the accused persons in commission against allotment of
tenders and accumulation of „proceeds of crime‟, this Court
needs to refer the relevant paragraph 7 of the prosecution
complaint, which reads as under:
“7. INVESTIGATION LEADING TO FURTHER SEARCHES
UNDER PMLA:
7.1 During the course of the investigation, Veerendra Kumar
Ram was arrested u/s 19 of PMLA, 2002 on 23.02.2023 for the
offence defined under Section 3 of PMLA. During his custodial47 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996interrogation, Veerendra Kumar Ram disclosed that he was
taking commission against the allotment of tenders from the
contractors. He further disclosed in his statement that the
commission amount taken from the contractors is 3.2% of the
total tender value and that his share was 0.3% of the total
tender value which at some postings was higher than 0.3%.
However, given the total Proceeds of Crime acquired by him, it is
believed that the percentage (%) of commission varied from 0.3%
to 1% of the tender value which is being stated by him under
Section 50 of PMLA, 2002.
7.2 Veerendra Kumar Ram in his statement further stated that
the whole process of collection and distribution of commission
was taken care of by the assistant engineers posted at the Rural
Development Special Zone and Rural Works Department. He
further stated that the share of Minister Alamgir Alam was 1.5%
of the allocated tender amount. Investigation revealed that Rs. 3
crores were given to Alamgir Alam by engineers of the Rural
Works Department through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal in
September 2022.
7.3 Further, it was ascertained that the amount of commission
on behalf of Alamgir Alam was getting collected by Sanjeev
Kumar Lal (his PS). Further, it was ascertained that a person
named Jahangir Alam collects such commission on the
instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal who is an associate of
Sanjeev Kumar Lal. During investigation, it was found that
Sanjeev Kumar Lal resides at Booty Road, Ranchi which is a
government accommodation. During analysis of the seized
mobile phone of Veerendra Kumar Ram, contact details of
Sanjeev Kumar Lal was found as ‘Sanjeev Lal PA of RDD
Minister’ and two mobile nos. (9939121851 and 8789745592)
are saved in the said contact’s name. Further, SDR, CAF and
CDR of the aforesaid mobile nos, were sought and it was
revealed that the mobile no. 9939121851 is in the name of
Sanjeev Kumar Lal himself. However, another mobile no.
8789745592 was found to be in the name of Jahangir Alam,
S/o- Ekramul Haque. Thus, it became evident that Jahangir
Alam is a close associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and the
48 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
Jahangir acts as a close trusted aid of Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
Further, analysis of the CDR and tower location of both mobile
nos. was also made and it was found that they live in very close
proximity to the government accommodation and it was found
during search that they were residing in the same government
residence. Further, it was gathered that there is a flat in the
name of Jahangir Alam which was used by Sanjeev Kumar Lal
for secreting the proceeds of crime. It was also gathered that the
wife of Sanjeev Lal @ Sanjeev Kumar Lal is involved in
businesses related to construction and is a
director/partner/shareholder in an entity with one builder
Munna Singh. It was learnt that the proceeds of crime in the
form of cash acquired by the officials/officers of the Rural
Development Department are deposited to a builder on the
instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. Therefore, on the basis of
reasons to believe, search u/s 17 of PMLA, 2002 was conducted
at seven premises on 06.05.2024.
7.4.As a result of the search, huge cash to the tune of Rs 32.20
crores was recovered and seized on 06/07.05.2024 from the
premises of Jahangir Alam i.e. Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency,
Kumhartoli, Ranchi.
…..
Further, huge cash amount to the tune of Rs. 2.93 Crore have
been recovered and seized on 06.05.2024 from the premises of
Munna Singh i.e. Flat No. 1A Kashmiri Gali, PP Compound,
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
7.5 On the basis of statement recorded of Munna Singh wherein
he stated that he used to collect such cash from the
engineers/contractors on the instruction of Sanjeev Lal, searches
were also conducted at the residences of these engineers viz.
Rajiv Kumar, Santosh Kumar, Rajkumar Toppo, Ajay
Tirkey & Amit Kumar on 07.05.2024.
7.6 Further, as a result of the search on 07.05.2024 at the
Residential premises of Rajeev Kumar Singh i.e. E-4, Mecon
Vatika, Kalyanpur Hatiya, Ranchi Jharkhand-834003, a huge
cash amount to the tune of Rs. 2.13 Crore have been recovered
and seized.
49 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
7.7 Apart from the above, as a result of the search other cash
amounts that were recovered and seized on different dates from
the other premises.
……..
In this way, Cash totalling to Rs. 37.55 Crores Approx. has
been recovered and seized from the various premises searched
u/s 17 of the PMLA,2002 on 06th, 07th and 08th of May 2024.
7.8 Apart from the above cash amounts several digital devices,
incriminating documents and records were found and seized
from the aforesaid premises during the course of searches on
06.05.2024, 07.05.2024, 08.05.2024, 10.05.2024 & 24.05.2024
under section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002………”
57. This Court has also gone through the averments
made in the prosecution complaint regarding modus
operandi of generation of „proceeds of crime‟, wherein it has
been stated that total of 18 searches were conducted u/s 17
of PMLA in Ranchi, at the premises of Sanjeev Kumar Lal,
Jahangir Alam, some Engineers and other persons on
different dates. As a result of search, huge amount of cash
to the tune of Rs. 37.55 Crore, digital devices, records and
various incriminating documents were recovered which gave
details with regard to the various individuals involved in the
process of generation and distribution of proceeds of crime.
Statement of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD,
JSRRDA and RDSD were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002
wherein they have inter alia stated that commission is
collected by the engineers/officials from
contractors/companies/firms against tender allocation in
50 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
the RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD departments. The
commission of 3% of the total amount mentioned in LOA
(Letter of Acceptance) is fixed for tender allotment, the
distribution of which among the Minister, bureaucrats,
engineers and other officials is distributed as -(a) 1.35%-
Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal;
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials.
They also stated that the collection of commission for
minister, Alamgir Alam, has been done by Sanjeev Kumar
Lal through his person/agent and for other persons the
commission has been collected by Chief Engineer, JSRRDA
himself and, through his selected persons. For ready
reference, the relevant portion of paragraph 8 is quoted as
under:
“8. GENERATION OF PROCEEDS OF CRIME
8.1 A total of 18 searches were conducted u/s 17 of PMLA in
Ranchi, at the premises of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, Jahangir
Alam, some Engineers and other persons on different dates.
As a result of the search huge amount of cash to the tune of
Rs. 37.55 Crore, digital devices, records and various
incriminating documents were recovered which gave details
with regard to the various individuals involved in the process of
generation and distribution of proceeds of crime.
8.2 Sanjeev Kumar Lal during his ED Custody interrogation
also stated that the commission in the range of 3 to 4 % of
the total tender amount is collected in cash by the Asst.
Engineers/Executive Engineers of the respective
departments. He further stated that he used to collect the
share of 1.35 % of minister Alamgir Alam on his behalf from
Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers via Chief Engineers. He51 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996further stated that first of all, the Asst. Engineers/Executive
Engineers used to inform him regarding handing over the share of
Alamgir Alam and they requested Sanjeev Kumar Lal to send some
person to collect cash i.e. commission.
Thereafter, Sanjeev Kumar Lal used to instruct Munna Singh
who was his close friend, and/or his brother (Santosh Kumar) to
collect cash from the said engineers. Sanjeev Kumar Lal further
instructed Jahangir Alam to stand near Abhinandan Marriage hall,
near Rani Hospital and Deendayal Nagar, Ranchi with his Aprilia
scooter bearing Registration No. JH01ES8402, where Rinku alias
Santosh Kumar (brother of Munna Singh) handed over bags filled
with currency/note bundles, and after receiving those bags, he
used to park the said bags beneath bed and almirah at his Flat
No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi safely. Thus, it is
ascertained that Sanjeev Kumar Lal takes care of the collection of
commission on behalf of Minister Alamgir Alam.
8.3 Statements of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of
RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002
wherein they have inter alia stated that commission is collected by
the engineers/officials from contractors/companies/firms against
tender allocation in the RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD departments.
The commission of 3% of the total amount mentioned in LOA (Letter
of Acceptance) is fixed for tender allotment, the distribution of
which among the Minister, bureaucrats, engineers and other
officials is distributed as under:
(a) 1.35%- Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev
Kumar Lal)
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials
They also stated that the collection of commission for minister
Alamgir Alam has been done by Sanjeev Kumar Lal through his
person/agent and for other persons the commission has been
collected by Chief Engineer, JSRRDA himself and, through his
selected persons.
8.4 Further, From the statements of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and
aforesaid Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD
the modus operandi of allocation of Tenders and collection of
52 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
commission against the tenders has surfaced which is detailed as
under:
(i) The modus operandi regarding collection of commission against
allotment tenders starts with the floating of tenders by RWD,
RDSD and JSRRDA for the construction of roads, bridges and other
government buildings in Jharkhand.
Firstly, the Government takes decision to construct
road/bridge, the Detailed Project Report (DPR) is prepared by
Executive Engineer. Thereafter, the technical sanction is approved
by the competent Authority i.e. up to 1.00 Crore by Superintendent
Engineer and more than 01.00 Crore by Chief Engineer. After that
sanctioned estimate is sent to the Department/Secretary and
processed by the Department for Administrative Approval (AA) duly
approved by the Hon’ble Minister of the department. Once the
Administrative Approval (AA) sanction letter is issued by the
Secretary, it is sent to Chief Engineer for Tender Process.
Further, Apart from huge cash as mentioned above, several
documents including letters on official letterheads were found from
the said premise of Jahangir Alam, which were kept there on the
instructions of, and under the possession of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, as
PS to Alamgir Alam RDD minister, which clearly establishes that
Sanjeev Kumar Lal was using the said premise of Jahangir Alam
as a safe house for keeping cash, documents/records and other
belongings related to Minister Alamgir Alam and himself.
……..
…….
8.15 Further, Apart from huge cash as mentioned above, several
documents including letters on official letterheads were found from
the said premise of Jahangir Alam, which were kept there on the
instructions of, and under the possession of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, as
PS to Alamgir Alam RDD minister, which clearly establishes that
Sanjeev Kumar Lal was using the said premise of Jahangir Alam
as a safe house for keeping cash, documents/records and other
belongings related to Minister Alamgir Alam and himself……
8.16.That, several documents and records pertaining to Sanjeev
Kumar Lal were seized from the said premise of Jahangir Alam
including several torn pages of a few diaries and notes. When
53 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
these torn pages of diaries were confronted with Sanjeev Kumar
Lal, he in his statements recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 has inter
alia stated that these torn pages and notes contain the calculations
(Hisab Kitab) of cash/commission collected against the allocation
of tenders of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD………”
58. In order to prove the allegation, statements of
several persons were recorded under the provisions of
PMLA, the gist of the statements is quoted as under:
“10. BRIEF DETAILS OF PERSONS EXAMINED UNDER
SECTION 17 AND 50 OF PMLA, 2002.
During the course of the search and investigation, statements
of several persons were recorded under the provisions of PMLA,
the gist of the statements relevant to this investigation is as
under:
10.1. Veerendra Kumar Ram: Veerendra Kumar Ram is a chief
engineer in Rural Department Special Zone and also in additional
charge of Rural Works Department. In his statement recorded
u/s 50 of PMLA during custodial interrogation and in
judicial custody on different dates wherein he inter alia
accepted that commission was taken in lieu of allotment
of tenders and that the total commission was 3.2% of
tender value and that his share of commission was 0.3% of
the total tender amount which varies from 0.3% to 1%. The
share of Minister Alamgir Alam is around 1.5% of the
allocated tender amount. He further stated that the whole
process of collection and distribution of commission was taken
care of by the assistant engineers posted at Rural Development
Special Zone and Rural Works Department. He further stated that
Rs. 3 crores were given to Alamgir Alam by engineers of Rural
Works Department through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal in
September 2022.
During analysis of the seized mobile phone of Veerendra
Kumar Ram, contact details of Sanjeev Lal was found as
‘Sanjeev Lal PA of RDD Minister’ and two mobile nos.
(9939121851 and 8789745592) are saved in the-said-contact’s
name.
54 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
10.2. Alamgir Alam: He is the minister of RWD and other
departments. He was arrested on 15.05.2024 and during his ED
custodial interrogation u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002, he showed
complete non-cooperation, by not divulging the true facts about
Rs. 56 crores which are the Proceeds of Crime acquired by him
and other seized records and documents. He has not disclosed
the true facts even in his statements recorded u/s 50 of PMLA,
2002 during his ED Custody and Judicial Custody. He failed to
discharge the burden of proof which is bestowed upon him u/s
24 of PMLA.
10.3. Sanjeev Kumar Lal: He is PS to minister Alamgir Alam.
He was arrested on 07.05.2024 and during his ED custodial
interrogation u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002, he showed complete non-
cooperation, by not divulging the true facts about 53 crores
initially, which are the Proceeds of Crime acquired by Alamgir
Alam and himself and other seized records and documents.
When he was shown the evidences, he disclosed that he
was collecting the share of Minister Alamgir Alam (1.35%)
from the total commission which is 3% of total tender
amount that was collected against the tenders of RWD, JSRRDA,
RDSD, RDSD and RDSZ. He has instructed the Chief-Engineers
and other engineers to collect the commission and give him the
share of Minister Alamgir Alam. He instructed Santosh Kumar,
brother of Munna Singh to collect commission/cash from Chief
Engineers and other engineers and hand over the same to
Jahangir Alam. He further instructed Jahangir Alam to collect
cash/commission from Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh
and store the same at his (Jahangir Alam’s) premises safely. He
further accepted that the cash amount recovered and seized from
the premises of Munna Singh and Rajeev Kumar Singh during the
search is also the commission amount of Alamgir Alam which
was yet to be handed over to Jahangir Alam. He maintained the
calculations (Hisab Kitab) of the collected commission of Alamgir
Alam in torn pages of diaries.
He has also taken his share of around Rs. 2.05 Crore from the
commission and invested the same in immovable and movable
properties in his name and in the name of his family members.
55 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
Further, Sanjeev Kumar Lal stated u/s 50 of PMLA that Munna
Singh and his brother were not aware that the money they were
collected, was the commission amount against the tenders. They
did the same on his instructions.
10.4. Jahangir Alam: He is a close aide of Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
He was arrested on 07.05.2024 and during his ED custodial
interrogation u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002, he showed complete non-
cooperation, by not divulging the true facts about Rs. 32.20 crore
initially, which are the Proceeds of Crime acquired by Alamgir
Alam and Sanjeev Kumar Lal and other seized records and
documents.
He further stated that the cash amount seized from his
said premises belongs to Sanjeev Kumar Lal, and he
collected the aforesaid huge cash amount i.e. Rs. 32.20
Crore on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further
stated that about 4 to 5 months ago Sanjeev Kumar Lal
instructed him to stand near Abhinandan Marriage hall, near
Rani Hospital and Deendayal Nagar, Ranchi with his Aprilia
scooter bearing, where Rinku alias Santosh Kumar (brother of
Munna Singh) handed over bags filled with currency/note
bundles, and after receiving those bags, he used to park the said
bags beneath bed and almirah at his Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed
Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi safely. He has also taken cash
around Rs. 40.40 Lakhs from Sanjeev Kumar Lal and invested
the same in immovable and movable properties in his name with
the help of his friends. With respect to jewellery seized from his
premises, he in his statement recorded in judicial custody, has
accepted that the seized jewellery belongs to him and the said
jewellery items was purchased by him in cash, however, he has
no invoice in support of such purchase.
10.5. Reeta Lal: Statements of Reeta Lal W/o Sanjeev Kumar
Lal were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein she inter alia stated
that she is a housewife and her source of income is agriculture.
She has purchased immovable properties in Khunti, Bariyatu,
Kanke Road and Pundag. She further stated that she is a partner
in Tejaswini Buildcon with Munna Singh. She transferred Rs 10
Lakhs on 22.04.2022 to the bank account of Tejaswini Buildcon
56 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
as an investment. She further stated that she has invested Rs.
21-22-Lakhs in the said firm. She further stated that she has
received Rs. 9,00,000/- from TEJASWINI BUILDCON as a partner
against her aforesaid investment made in Tejaswini Buildcon
which has been further used for purchase of aforesaid property.
Further, regarding the source of funds for the purchase of the
said property, she stated that it is either a loan taken from
various persons or her agriculture income, but she failed to
produce any documents regarding her aforesaid loans and
agriculture income.
10.6. Munna Singh: Statements of Munna Singh were recorded
u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that the huge cash
amount seized from his premises i.e. Rs. 2.93 Crore is the
commission amount which was yet to be handed over to the
person of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further stated that Rs. 50 Crore
were collected from assistant engineers, and he sent it to Sanjeev
Kumar Lal during the period of 8 to 9 months. When asked about
regarding Rs. 50 Crore already sent to Sanjeev Kumar Lal but
only Rs. 32.20 Crore have been recovered and seized from the
premised of Jahangir Alam he stated that only Sanjeev Kumar
Lal can explain the same. Further, a diary was recovered and
seized from the premises of Munna Singh which contains the
details of commission amount of around Rs. 50 Crore collected
from the Chief and other engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD.
Further, Munna Singh has stated in his statement recorded on
u/s 50 of PMLA, that he has not received any share from the
commission he used to collect. He did the collection and handing
over of the cash only following the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar
Lal. Munna Singh further stated that he showed his inability and
objected against the collection of cash and he tried to know the
source of funds from Sanjeev Kumar Lal, however, Sanjeev
Kumar Lal never revealed him the actual source of the cash
collected. Sanjeev Kumar Lal always told him that there would be
no issue in aforesaid task.
10.7. Santosh Kumar alias Rinku: Statements of Santosh
Kumar alias Rinku, brother of Munna Singh were recorded u/s
50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that he following the
57 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal has collected the
commission/cash from the Chief and other engineers, and
handed over the same to the person of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He
further stated that he has received cash-several times from
various persons.
10.8. Rajkumar Toppo: Statement of Rajkumar Toppo,
Executive Engineer was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he
inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the
commission was collected by the engineers/official from
Contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the
departments. He further stated that the commission is 3% of
total LOA, for the allotment of tenders. The said 3%
commission amount is distributed as under:
(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev
Kumar Lal)
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials
He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal
and his Chief-Engineer Singrai Tuti he has collected around Rs. 5
Crore commission from the contractors and further handed over
to Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh for giving the same to
Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further stated when he was confronted
with the documents seized from his premises on 07.05.2024, that
‘U’ stands for Umesh Kumar, “DS” code stands for Deposited
Sum, “H” code stands for Ministry (Hon’ble Minister Alamgir
Alam) and Ce stands for Chief Engineer.
10.9. Ajay Tirkey: Statement of Ajay Tirkey, Executive
Engineer, JSRRDA was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he
inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the
commission was collected by the engineers/official from
contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the
departments. He further stated that the commission is 3% of the
total LOA, for allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission
amount is distributed as under:
(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev
Kumar Lal)
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials
58 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal
and his Chief Engineer Promod Kumar, he has collected around
Rs. 6.36 Crore against the total tender amount of Rs. 212 Crores.
Out of which 2.86 Crores i.e. share of Alamgir Alam has been
handed over to Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
10.10. Ajay Kumar: Statement of Ajay Kumar, Executive
Engineer, JSRRDA was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he
inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the
commission was collected by the engineers/official from
contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the
departments. He further stated that the commission is
3% of total LOA, for allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission
amount is distributed as under:
(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev
Kumar Lal)
(b) 1.65% – Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials
He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal
and his Chief Engineer Pramod Kumar he has collected around
Rs. 4.77 Crore against total tender amount of Rs. 150 Crores. Out
of which 2.295 Crores i.e. share of Alamgir Alam has been
handed over to Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
10.11.Ashok Kumar Gupta: Statement of Ashok Kumar Gupta,
Executive Engineer was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he
inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the
commission was collected by the engineers/official from
contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the
departments. He further stated that the commission is 3% of total
LOA, for allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is
distributed as under:
(a) 1.35%- Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev
Kumar Lal)
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials
He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal
and his Chief-Engineers Singrai Tuti and Pramod Kumar he has
collected around Rs. 10.50 Crore commission from the
contractors. He further stated that he along with Ajay Kumar had59 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996handed over Rs. 4.72 Crores to Sanjeev Kumar Lal as share of
Minister Alamgir Alam.
10.12. Santosh Kumar: Statement of Santosh Kumar,
Executive Engineer was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he
inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the
commission was collected by the engineers/official from
contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the
departments. He further stated that the commission is 3% of the
total LOA, for allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission
amount is distributed as under:
(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev
Kumar Lal)
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials
He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal
and his Chief-Engineer Rajiv Lochan he has collected around Rs.
20 Crore commission from the contractors, and further handed
over to Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh for giving the
same to Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
10.13. Singrai Tuti: Statement of Singrai Tuti, retired Chief-
Engineer, JSRRDA was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he
inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the
commission was collected by the engineers/official from
contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the
departments under his portfolios. He further stated that the
commission is 3% of total LOA, for the allotment of tenders. The
said 3% commission amount is distributed as under:
(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev
Kumar Lal)
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials
He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal,
PS to Alamgir Alam he has collected around Rs. 18 Crore through
Assistant Engineers against a total tender amount of Rs. 600
Crores. Out of which 12 Crores i.e. share of Alamgir Alam has
been handed over to Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further stated that
Sanjeev Kumar Lal told him that the excess commission amount
would be adjusted in future. He further stated that during one of
his visits to Project Bhavan in April 2023 Minister Alamgir Alam60 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996had asked him about his share in commission against the
allotment of tenders and Alamgir Alam also told him that his PS
Sanjeev Kumar Lal would handle the collection of commission on
his behalf and also told him to follow the directions of Sanjeev
Kumar Lal in this regard.
10.14. Surendra Kumar: Statement of Surendra Kumar, Chief-
Engineer, RDSD was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter
alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the commission
was collected by the engineers/official from
contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the
departments under his portfolios. He further stated that the
commission is 3% of the total LOA, for allotment of tenders. The
said 3% commission amount is distributed as under:
(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev
Kumar Lal)
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials
He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal,
PS to Alamgir Alam he has collected around Rs. 15 Crore through
Assistant Engineers and the same was handed over to Rajeev
Kumar Singh, his known one, and further Rajeev Kumar Singh
handed over the same to Munna Singh for giving it to Sanjeev
Kumar Lal.
10.15. Pramod Kumar: Statement of Pramod Kumar, Chief-
Engineer, JSRRDA was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he
inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the
commission was collected by the engineers/official from
contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the
departments under his portfolios. He further stated that the
commission is 3% of total LOA, for the allotment of tenders. The
said 3% commission amount is distributed as under:
(a) 1.35%- Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev
Kumar Lal)
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials
He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal,
PS to Alamgir Alam he has collected around Rs. 10.5 Crore
against total LOAs of Rs. 300 Crores, through Assistant
Engineers. Out of which 7.50 Crore was handed over to Sanjeev61 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996Kumar Lal. He further stated that he kept his share of Rs. 1.75
Crore and the rest amount was distributed among others.
10.16. Rajiv Lochan: Statements of Rajiv Lochan, retired Chief-
Engineer, RWD were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter
alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the commission
was collected by the engineers/official from
contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the
departments under his portfolios. He further stated that the
system of collecting commission from contractors was prevalent
even before he taking the charge as Chief Engineer in RWD. He
further stated that some person of Sanjeev Kumar Lal used to
collect commission amount from his subordinate assistant
engineers time to time. He further stated that Sanjeev Kumar Lal
used to forward his instructions to Assistant Engineers through
Santosh Kumar, Executive Engineer and/or other executive
engineers to collect commission amount, and this system had
been continuously followed. He further stated that he had
collected Ra. 9 Crores through his subordinate engineers, and
same was further handed over to Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further
stated that the commission is 3% of total LOA, for allotment of
tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed as under:
(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar
Lal)
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials
10.17. Ramesh Ojha: Statement of Ramesh Ojha, Retired
Assistant Engineer, RWD and RDSZ was recorded u/s 50 of
PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that Veerendra Kumar Ram
instructed and pressurized him to receive a commission in lie of
allotment of tenders.
He further stated that the commission is 3% of total LOA, for the
allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is
distributed as under:
(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar
Lal)
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials
He further stated that the commission was collected by the then
Chief Engineer Veerendra Kumar Ram by his selected person62 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996and through him. Further, he has collected and handed over Rs.
1.5 Crore to Veerendra Kumar Ram.
10.18. Umesh Kumar: Statement of Umesh Kumar, Executive
Engineer was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia
stated that he was aware of the fact that the commission was
collected by the engineers/official from
contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the
departments under portfolio of Chief Engineer Singrai Tuti. He
further stated that the commission is 3% of total LOA, for
allotment of tenders.
The said 3% commission amount is distributed as under:
(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar
Lal)
(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials
He further stated that during his period as superintending
engineer in JSRRDA he has collected around Rs. 3.5 to 3.8 Crore
commission amount from contractors through his
executive/assistant Engineers on behalf of his Chief-Engineer
Singrai Tuti and further handed over to the person of Sanjeev
Kumar Lal.
10.19. Siddhant Kumar: Statement of Siddhant Kumar,
Executive Engineer, RDSZ was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein
he inter alia stated that Veerendra Kumar Ram instructed and
pressurized him to receive commission in lieu of allotment of
tenders.
Similar was the statement of other engineers, as mentined in the
prosecution complaint.
59. From the statement so recorded of the accused
persons as also of the Statement of various Chief
Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD recorded
u/s 50 of PMLA, it is evident that they all are consistent in
their statement that the commission is 3% of total LOA is for
the allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is
distributed in share of 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam
63 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal and rest 1.65% Top
bureaucrats and other engineers/officials.
60. Role of the present petitioner along with his close
allied in the commission of offence of money laundering, in
particular, who have been arrayed as accused in the second
supplementary prosecution, as mentioned at paragraph 15.1
of the prosecution complaint has been made. For ready
reference, the same is quoted as under:
“15.1 Role of the accused persons in the commission of
offence of money laundering.
1.Alamgir Alam [Accused No. 11]-
a) Alamgir Alam is Minister of (i) Department of Rural Works
(RWD), (ii) Department of Panchayati Raj and (iii) Department
of Rural Development (RDD). Jharkhand State Rural Road
Development Authority (JSRRDA) and Rural Development
Special Division (RDSD) are the part of the Department of
Rural Works (RWD). RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD constructs the
roads and bridges in the state of Jharkhand, for which
tenders are floated by these departments, against which 3%
commission has been collected. He being the minister of these
departments, is all in all and at the top echelon in the
syndicate of commission collection.
b) He has pressurised and compelled the Chief Engineer
under his portfolio to collect commission and give him
his share through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
c) He has instructed Sanjeev Kumar Lal to collect his
1.35% share in total commission which is 3% of total
tender value(Discussed in detail in Para 8.2 88.3).
d) Accordingly, Sanjeev Kumar Lal has instructed
departmental engineers to hand over the commission part of
Alamgir Alam to Munna Singh and/or his brother Santosh
Kumar alias Rinku Singh. Further Munna Singh has stated
that he has collected a total of Rs. 53 crores of commission
64 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
from such engineers/contractors and handed over Rs.50
crores approx. to Sanjeev Lal through Jahangir Alam. Thus,
the same amount of PoC was acquired by Alamgir Alam
through Sanjeev Kumar Lal, out of this Rs.53 crores, an
amount of Rs.35 crores approx. was seized during the search
proceedings.
e) Further, it is ascertained from the statement of Veerendra
Kumar Ram and Sanjeev Kumar Lal that Alamgir Alam also
acquired a commission amount of Rs. 3 crores from Veerendra
Kumar Ram through one engineer of the department and same
transaction was also assisted by Sanjeev Kumar Lal in
September 2022.
f) Thus, Alamgir Alam is found to be directly indulged and
actually involved in possession and concealment of atleast Rs
35 crores of the Proceeds of Crime through Sanjeev Kumar Lal
and he has also found to be directly indulged and actually
involved in acquisition and concealment of atleast Rs. 56
crores of the Proceeds of Crime.
2.Sanjeev Kumar Lal (Accused No.-12):
a) He is the PS to Minister Alamgir Alam, and he has misused
his official position for collection of commission on behalf of
Minister Alamgir Alam.
b) He has pressurised, threatened and instructed the Chief-
Engineers and other engineers to collect commission and give
him the share of Minister Alamgir Alam.
c) He is the person who is controlling whole syndicate of
collection of commission against tenders from top to bottom on
behalf of Minister Alamgir Alam.
d) He instructed Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh to
collect commission/cash from Chief Engineers and other
engineers and hand over the same to Jahangir Alam.
e) He instructed Jahangir Alam to collect cash/commission
from Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh and store the
same at his (Jahangir Alam’s) premises safely.
f) He has taken his share of around Rs. 2.05 Crore from the
commission and integrated the proceeds of crime in
65 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
immovable and movable properties in his name and in the
name of his family members and associates. He has
purchased immovable properties, plot alongwith building at
Bariyatu, which was also renovated by him and plot at
Pundag, Ranchi in the name of his wife using proceeds of
crime. He has also found to be involved in using PoC more
than Rs 2.05 crores, for purchasing immovable properties in
the name of himself, his wife and his close aid Jahangir Alam.
Hence, Sanjeev Kumar Lal is directly enjoying the proceeds of
crime by its concealment, possession, utilisation and
acquisition.
g) Sanjeev Kumar Lal is the mastermind and has played vital
role in this syndicate/organized structure of illegal collection
of proceeds of crime.
h) He is found to be directly indulged and actually involved
and knowingly assisted Alamgir Alam in acquisition,
possession and concealment of the Proceeds of Crime at least
to the tune of Rs. 56 crores.
i) He is also found to be directly indulged and actually
involved in the acquisition and concealment of PoC at least to
the tune of Rs. 2.05 crores and claimed the proceeds of crime
as untainted.
j) He has also found to be directly indulged and actually
involved in using Proceeds of crime in at least 4 (four)
immovable properties which he acquired in his own name, in
name of his wife and his close aide Jahangir Alam and same
four properties have been attached u/s 5(1) of the PMLA, 2002
and also being prayed for confiscation.
3. Jahangir Alam (Accused No.-13)
(a) Jahangir Alam is close associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal,
and has collected commission on behest of Sanjeev Kumar
Lal.
(b) Following the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, he has
collected cash/commission from Santosh Kumar, brother of
Munna Singh.
66 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
(c) He has played vital role in collection of cash/commission
and concealment of the proceeds of crime clandestinely at his
premises.
(d) He has also taken cash around Rs. 40.40 Lakhs from
Sanjeev Kumar Lal which is commission amount against
tenders i.e. Proceeds of Crime and invested the same in
immovable and movable properties in his name. He has
purchased immovable properties, flat at Sir Syed Residency
and plot at Pundag, Ranchi.
(e) Jahangir Alam is the key person who has facilitated the
movement and hiding of cash/commission i.e. Proceeds of
Crime.
(f) He is found to be directly indulged, actually involved and
knowingly assisted Sanjeev Kumar Lal in acquisition,
possession and concealment of the Proceeds of Crime at least
to the tune of Rs. 50 crores approx. and jewellery worth Rs
14.50 lakhs approx.
(g) He is found to be directly indulged and actually involved
and knowingly assisted Sanjeev Kumar Lal in utilisation,
possession and concealment of Proceeds of Crime to the tune
of Rs. 1,10,25,000/- for purchasing two immovable properties
in his own name and claimed the proceeds of crime as
untainted, which were attached u/s 5(1) of the PMLA, 2002
and also being prayed for confiscation vide this PC.
(h) Jahangir Alam has also found to be actually involved and
knowingly assisted Sanjeev Kumar Lal in utilising Proceeds of
crime in purchasing one vehicle viz. Tata Harrier having Reg.
No. JH01DK-7459 which was seized u/s 17(1-A) of the Act,
same vehicle was also used for commissioning of an offence
under the Act, and also being prayed for confiscation.
61. Herein, it has come in the statement of the accused
Veerendra Kumar Ram that the share of Minister Alamgir
Alam was 1.35% of the allocated tender amount.
Investigation revealed that Rs. 3 crores was given to Alamgir
Alam by engineers of the Rural Works Department through
67 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal in September 2022. Further, it
has come in the statement of the aforesaid accused that the
amount of commission on behalf of Alamgir Alam was
getting collected by Sanjeev Kumar Lal (personal secretary of
petitioner Alamgir Alam) and a person named Jahangir Alam
who is an associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal collected such
commission on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
62. It has further come on record that analysis of the
seized mobile phone of Veerendra Kumar Ram, contact
details of Sanjeev Kumar Lal was found as ‘Sanjeev Lal PA of
RDD Minister’. It is evident from the aforesaid complaint
that huge cash to the tune of Rs 32.20 crores was recovered
and seized on 06/07.05.2024 from the premises of Jahangir
Alam i.e. Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli,
Ranchi.
63. It has further come on record that a total of 18
searches were conducted u/s 17 of Act 2002, in Ranchi, at
the premises of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, Jahangir Alam, some
Engineers and other persons on different dates. As a result
of the search huge amount of cash to the tune of Rs. 37.55
Crore, digital devices, records and various incriminating
documents were recovered which gave details with regard to
the various individuals involved in the process of generation
and distribution of proceeds of crime.
68 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
64. Sanjeev Kumar Lal during his ED Custody
interrogation also stated that the commission in the range of
3 to 4 % of the total tender amount is collected in cash by
the Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers of the respective
departments. He further stated that he used to collect the
share of 1.35 % of minister Alamgir Alam on his behalf from
Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers via Chief Engineers.
65. It has also come on record that Statements of
various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and
RDSD were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 wherein they
have inter alia stated that commission is collected by the
engineers/officials from contractors/companies/firms
against tender allocation in the RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD
departments. The commission of 3% of the total amount
mentioned in LOA (Letter of Acceptance) is fixed for tender
allotment, the distribution of which among the Minister,
Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal) was
1.35%.
66. Thus, from the complaint it appears that apart from
huge cash as mentioned above, several documents including
letters on official letterheads were found from the premise of
Jahangir Alam, which were kept there on the instructions of,
Sanjeev Kumar Lal, as PS to Alamgir Alam RDD minister,
which indicates that Sanjeev Kumar Lal was using the said
69 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
premise of Jahangir Alam as a safe house for keeping cash,
documents/records and other belongings.
67. Thus, from perusal of the entire prosecution
complaint prima facie it appears that the whole modus-
operandi regarding collection of commission and later
distribution has been illustrated to the respondent ED by
the co-accused Veerendra Kumar Ram and Sanjeev Kumar
Lal, during their statement‟s u/s 50 of PMLA, which are
mentioned in Para-10.1 and 10.3 of the prosecution
complaint dated 04.07.2024.
68. Further, the similar is the statements of witnesses
Raj Kumar Toppo, Executive Engineer given in Para-10.8,
Ajay Kumar, Executive Engineer in Para- 10.9, Ajay Tirkey,
Executive Engineer in Para-10.10, Ashok Kumar Gupta,
Executive Engineer in Para-10.11, Santosh Kumar,
Executive Engineer mentioned in Para-10.12, Singrai Tuti,
Retd Chief Engineer in Para-10.13, Surendra Kumar, Chief
Engineer in Para-10.14, Pramod Kumar, Chief Engineer in
Para-10.15, Rajeev Lochan, Chief Engineer in Para-10.16,
Ramesh Ojha, Retd Assistant Engineer in Para-10.17,
Umesh Kumar, Executive Engineer in Para-10.18 and
Siddhant Kumar, Executive Engineer in Para-10.19 as
recorded u/s 50 PMLA and also mentioned in the
prosecution complaint dated 04.07.2024.
70 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
69. 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.
70. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit
Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) while
referring the ratio of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing
Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC
294 has categorically held that the Court ought to
maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal
and conviction and an order granting bail much before
commencement of trial. The duty of the Court at this stage is
not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a
finding on the basis of broad probabilities.
71. Further the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and
Ors(supra) has reiterated the same view and has observed
that the Court while dealing with the application for grant of
bail need not to delve deep into the merits of the case and
only a view of the court based on available material on
71 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
record is required. For ready reference the relevant
paragraph is being quoted as under:
303. We are in agreement with the observation made by the
Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma [Ranjitsing
Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC
294 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1057] . The Court while dealing with the
application for grant of bail need not delve deep into the merits
of the case and only a view of the court based on available
material on record is required. The court will not weigh the
evidence to find the guilt of the accused which is, of course, the
work of the trial court. The court is only required to place its
view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material
collected during investigation and the said view will not be
taken into consideration by the trial court in recording its
finding of the guilt or acquittal during trial which is based on
the evidence adduced during the trial. As explained by this
Court in Nimmagadda Prasad [Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI,
(2013) 7 SCC 466 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 575] , the words used in
Section 45 of the 2002 Act are “reasonable grounds for
believing” which means the court has to see only if there is a
genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not
required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
72. This Court is now re-adverting to the fact of the
case. On perusal of the Paras- 8.16, 8.18, 8.19, 8.20 & 8.26
of the prosecution complaint where the images of the hand
written notes etc. have been mentioned/displayed, which
depicts that the accounting of the collections and
distributions of the commission were being maintained in
the diaries or note books seized by the agency from the
locations related to the Personal secretary of the present
petitioner, where the code name the petitioner with his
72 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
specific share in that commission is also mentioned. Thus
from the aforesaid it is evident that prosecuting agency has
arrested the present petitioner not only on basis of the
statement of the persons recorded u/s 50 PMLA rather there
is other evidence also available on record.
73. Thus, on the basis of the material available in
prosecution complaint the role of the present petitioner in
the alleged money laundering cannot be negated.
74. So far, the issue of non-availability of money trail as
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned
it has come on the record that a huge cash of Rs.32.20 crore
was recovered and seized from the premises of Jahangir
Alam an associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal who was personal
Secretary to the Minister i.e. the applicant herein. It is also
pertinent to note that several incriminating notes and pages
of diaries were also found during search and seizure which
was maintained by Sanjeev Kumar Lal recording the share of
the minister Alamgir Alam from the total commission
collected from the tenders. By way of Section 50 statement
Sanjeev Kumar Lal, the personal Secretary to the
Minister/applicant, has admitted the contents of these
seized pages and the fact that he was collecting commission
on behalf of the applicant/minister as recorded in the
„Hisab-Kitab‟ seized by ED corroborates the factum of
73 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
recovery. He further decoded the code words and clearly
mentioned that the applicant/minister was the beneficiary of
commission amount.
75. Thus, this Court is of prima facie view that the
contention of the petitioner that the prosecution has failed to
establish the entire money trail, is without any factual basis
and moreover section 3 of PMLA no where requires the entire
money trail or where the money eventually went.
76. It needs to refer herein that the Hon‟ble Apex Court
in the case of Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement)
(2023) 4 SCC 357 observed as follows:
“19. The word “money-laundering” is defined in Section 2(1)(p)
of the Act to have the same meaning as assigned to it in Section
3. Section 3 of the Act makes a person guilty of the offence of
money laundering, if he (1) directly or indirectly attempts to
indulge, or (n) knowingly assists or, (im) knowingly is a party,
or (iv) is actually involved in any process or activity. Such
process or activity should be connected to “proceeds of crime ”
including its concealment or possession or acquisition or use. In
addition, a person involved in such process or activity
connected to proceeds of crime, should be projecting or claiming
it as untainted property. The Explanation under Section 3
makes it clear that even if the involvement is in one or more of
the following activities or processes, namely: (i) concealment; (ii)
possession; (im) acquisition; (iv) use; (o) projecting it as
untainted property, or (vi) claiming it as untainted property, the
offence of money-laundering will be made out.
20. Thus, Section 3 comprises of two essential limbs, namely: (i)
involvement in any process or activity, and (ii) connection of
such process or activity to the proceeds of crime. The expression
“proceeds of crime” is defined in Section 2(1)(u) to mean any
74 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
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 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.”
77. In the light of the aforesaid statutory definitions, it
can safely be inferred that it is enough if the prosecution
establishes that there was generation of proceeds of crime
and the accused was involved in any process or activity in
connection with the proceeds of crime. Therefore, it is
considered view of this Court that since concealment of the
proceeds of crime is itself an offence it is not necessary for
the prosecution to establish the money trail.
78. Further, in view of above, prima facie it appears that
there is direct complicity of the petitioner in collecting money
through his private secretary, Sanjeev Kumar Lal which has
come in evidence in the statement recorded under Section
50 of the PML Act and the diary making reference of the said
fact showing the complicity of the present petitioner in
collecting commission in lieu of tender. Therefore, in view of
Section 3 of the PML Act particularly its explanation part,
the aforesaid argument is having no substance.
79. So far, the contention as raised by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the „reason to believe‟ has not
been furnished to the petitioner is concerned, it has been
argued that the judgment in the case of Arvind Kejriwal
75 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
was pronounced on 12.07.2024 while the present petitioner
has been taken into custody on 15.05.2024 hence whatever
has been laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of
Arvind Kejriwal will have no retrospective application.
80. The learned counsel for ED in order to buttress his
argument has relied upon the judgment rendered by Delhi
High Court in the case of Arvind Dham vs. Union of India
[2024 SCC OnLIne Del 8490], in which, the Delhi High
Court has taken into consideration the aforesaid fact and on
the principle of retrospectively the judgment passed by
Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Arvind Kejriwal has not
been followed.
81. It has been contended that the said order passed by
the Delhi High Court has been questioned before the Hon‟ble
Apex Court by filing SLP(Cr.) No. 017357 of 2024 and the
order passed by the Delhi High Court in Arvind Dham
(supra) has been upheld by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
82. It needs to refer herein that from the record it is
evident that during the arrest of the petitioner the directions
of the Hon‟ble Court given in the cases of Pankaj Bansal vs
Union of India 2023 SCC Online SC 1244 and Ram
Kishore Arora vs Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC
Online SC 1682 have been fully complied as the grounds
mentioned explicitly in a separate memo handed over to the
76 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
petitioner in writing before his arrest u/s 19 of PMLA, 2002
on 15.05.2024. Further, petitioner had never challenged the
arrest or remand order which was passed by learned court
after considering the material and other evidence supporting
the arrest.
83. Argument has been advanced by referring to
provision of Section 22 of the PML Act, 2002 wherein it has
been provided of presumption as to records or property in
certain cases, in which it is provided that where any records
or property are or is found in the possession or control of
any person in the course of a survey or a search, [or where
any record or property is produced by any person or has
been resumed or seized from the custody or control of any
person or has been frozen under this Act or under any other
law for the time being in force, it shall be presumed that
(i)such records or property belong or belongs to such
person;(ii)the contents of such records are true; and (iii)the
signature and every other part of such records which
purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or
which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by,
or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in
that persons‟ handwriting, and in the case of a record,
stamped, executed or attested, that it was executed or
77 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so
stamped, executed or attested.
84. From perusal of section 22 of the Act 2002 it is
evident that if any books of account, documents, money,
bullion, jewellery, or other valuable article or thing are found
in possession or control of any person during a search under
this Act, then it may be presumed that such items belong to
such person and the contents of the books or documents are
true, and the signature and handwriting in such documents
are of the person to whom they are attributed.
85. Hence, it appears that the petitioner is directly
indulged and is actually involved in all the activities
connected with the offence of money laundering. i.e., use or
acquisition, possession, concealment, and projecting or
claiming as untainted property, as defined u/s 3 of PMLA,
2002.
86. 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 and supplementary prosecution
complaint as well as the paragraphs abovementioned.
87. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner
that petitioner is not the named accused in the first FIR and
78 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
as such his culpability in alleged crime cannot be fully
established.
88. In this context it is pertinent to mention here that
the provisions of the PMLA is an independent offence and
the investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate
under the PMLA, 2002 is triggered after committing, the
commission of a scheduled offence, out of which proceeds
have been generated. During the investigation, there is the
active involvement of the petitioner in the layering, transfer
and use as well as the petitioner entering into transactions
to launder the proceeds of crime generated out of such
scheduled offence.
89. Thus, prima-facie, it appears that the petitioner has
involved himself in accumulating proceeds of crime and the
aforesaid plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner
doesn‟t hold water. Further the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Pavna
Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal
No. 2779/2023) held that the who could commit an offence
under the PMLA maybe not be named in the scheduled
offence.
90. Further the offence of money laundering as
contemplated in Section 3 of the PMLA has been elaborately
dealt with by the three Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary (supra), in which it has been observed that
79 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
Section 3 has a wider reach. The offence as defined captures
every process and activity in dealing with the proceeds of
crime, directly or indirectly, and is not limited to the
happening of the final act of integration of tainted property
in the formal economy to constitute an act of money
laundering. Of course, the authority of the Authorised
Officer under the Act to prosecute any person for the offence
of money laundering gets triggered only if there exist
proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of
the Act and further it is involved in any process or activity.
Not even in case of existence of undisclosed income and
irrespective of its volume, the definition of “Proceeds of
Crime” under Section 2(1)(u) will get attracted, unless the
property has been derived or obtained as a result of criminal
activity relating to a scheduled offence. The property must
qualify the definition of “Proceeds of Crime” under Section
2(1)(u) of the Act. As observed, in all or whole of the crime
property linked to scheduled offence need not be regarded as
proceeds of crime, but all properties qualifying the definition
of “Proceeds of Crime” under Section 2(1)(u) will necessarily
be the crime properties.
91. It is required to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Pavana Dibbur vs. The Directorate of
Enforcement passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2779 of 2023
80 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
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. The Hon’ble Apex
Court by interpreting the provision of Section 3 of the Act,
2002 has come out with the finding that on a plain reading
of Section 3, unless proceeds of crime exist, there cannot be
any money laundering offence.
92. 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 at paragraph-12 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.
93. 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.
81 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
94. At paragraph-14 of the aforesaid judgment, it has
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 said to be committed after a scheduled offence 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.
95. So far as the facts of the present case are
concerned, the respondent ED has placed heavy reliance on
the statements of witnesses and the documents produced by
them under Section 50 of the said Act, to prima facie show
the involvement of petitioner in the alleged offence of money
laundering under Section 3 thereof.
82 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
96. The three Judge Bench the Hon‟ble Apex Court in
the case of Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement
(supra) held that the statements of witnesses recorded by
Prosecution – ED are admissible in evidence in view of
Section 50. Such statements may make out a formidable
case about the involvement of the accused in the
commission of the offence of money laundering. For ready
reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
31. Suffice it to observe that the appellant has not succeeded in
persuading us about the inapplicability of the threshold
stipulation under Section 45 of the Act. In the facts of the present
case, we are in agreement with the view taken by the Sessions
Court and by the High Court. We have independently examined
the materials relied upon by the prosecution and also noted the
inexplicable silence or reluctance of the appellant in disclosing the
source from where such huge value of demonetised currency and
also new currency has been acquired by him. The prosecution is
relying on statements of 26 witnesses/accused already recorded,
out of which 7 were considered by the Delhi High Court. These
statements are admissible in evidence, in view of Section 50 of the
2002 Act. The same makes out a formidable case about the
involvement of the appellant in commission of a serious offence of
money laundering. It is, therefore, not possible for us to record
satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that
the appellant is not guilty of such offence. Further, the courts
below have justly adverted to the antecedents of the appellant for
considering the prayer for bail and concluded that it is not
possible to hold that the appellant is not likely to commit any
offence ascribable to the 2002 Act while on bail. Since the
threshold stipulation predicated in Section 45 has not been
overcome, the question of considering the efficacy of other points
urged by the appellant to persuade the Court to favour the
appellant with the relief of regular bail will be of no avail. In other83 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996words, the fact that the investigation in the predicate offence
instituted in terms of FIR No. 205/2016 or that the investigation
qua the appellant in the complaint CC No. 700 of 2017 is
completed; and that the proceeds of crime are already in
possession of the investigating agency and provisional attachment
order in relation thereto passed on 13-2-2017 has been confirmed;
or that charge-sheet has been filed in FIR No. 205/2016 against
the appellant without his arrest; that the appellant has been
lodged in judicial custody since 2-1-2017 and has not been
interrogated or examined by the Enforcement Directorate
thereafter; all these will be of no consequence.
97. In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Enforcement Directorate,
(2024) 9 SCC 22 has again made similar observations:
“21. …Section 160 which falls under Ch. XII empowers the police
officer making an investigation under the said chapter to require
any person to attend within the limits of his own or adjoining
station who, from the information given or otherwise appears to be
acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case,
whereas, the process envisaged by Section 50 PMLA is in the
nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not
“investigation” in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution;
and the authorities referred to in Section 48 PMLA are not the
police officers as held in Vijay Madanlal [Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] .
22. It has been specifically laid down in the said decision that the
statements recorded by the authorities under Section 50 PMLA are
not hit by Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution, rather such
statements recorded by the authority in the course of inquiry are
deemed to be the judicial proceedings in terms of Section 50(4),
and are admissible in evidence, whereas the statements made by
any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation
under Ch. XII of the Code could not be used for any purpose,
except for the purpose stated in the proviso to Section 162 of the
Code. In view of such glaring inconsistencies between Section
50 PMLA and Sections 160/161CrPC, the provisions of Section84 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:1899650 PMLA would prevail in terms of Section 71 read with Section
65 thereof.”
98. In light of the foregoing judicial pronouncements, it
is evident that statements recorded under Section 50 of the
PMLA hold evidentiary value and are admissible in legal
proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while emphasizing
the legal sanctity of such statements, observed that they
constitute valid material upon which reliance can be placed
to sustain allegations under the PMLA.
99. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court also reaffirmed the admissibility of Section 50 of the
PMLA distinguishing them from statements recorded under
the CrPC. The Court underscored that such statements,
being recorded during an inquiry rather than an
investigation, are not subject to the restrictions under Article
20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution. Instead, they are
deemed to be judicial proceedings under Section 50(4) of the
PMLA and, therefore, admissible as evidence in proceedings
under the PMLA. The Hon’ble Apex Court further clarified
that the provisions of Section 50 of the PMLA having an
overriding effect by virtue of Sections 65 and 71 of the PMLA
prevail over the procedural safeguards under the CrPC.
100. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view
that statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA are
85 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
admissible in evidence and can be relied upon to establish
culpability in money laundering cases.
101. In the instant case, it has been found that during
the course of investigation statement so recorded of the
accused persons as also of the statement of various Chief
Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD and the
witnesses were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, who all are
consistent in their statement that the commission is 3% of
total LOA, for the allotment of tenders. The said 3%
commission amount is distributed in share of 1.35%
Minister, Alamgir Alam through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal
and rest 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other
engineers/officials.
102. Thus, the petitioner knowingly is as the party and is
actually involved in all the activities connected with the
offence of money laundering. i.e., use or acquisition,
possession, concealment, and projecting or claiming as
untainted property.
103. Having examined the admissibility of statements
recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, this Court shall now
proceed to analyze the statutory framework governing the
burden of proof under Section 24 in proceedings related to
proceeds of crime.
“24. Burden of proof. –In any proceeding relating to proceeds of
crime under this Act, — (a) in the case of a person charged with the86 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996offence of money-laundering under section 3, the Authority or
Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such
proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering; and
(b) in the case of any other person the Authority or Court, may
presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-
laundering.”
104. From the bare perusal of Section 24 of the PMLA, it
is evident that once a person is charged with the offence of
money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA, the law
presumes that the proceeds of crime are involved in money
laundering unless the contrary is proven by the accused.
105. In the present case, the investigating agency has
relied not only on the statement of co-accused under Section
50 of the PMLA but also other evidences which indicate the
applicant’s active role in the alleged money laundering
activities.
106. 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.
107. With regard to the above, this Court has referred to
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem
87 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
Prakash v. Union of India through Directorate of
Enforcement, (2024) 9 SCC 787, wherein, the following
observations were made:
“18.In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v.
Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] dealing with Section 24 PMLA,
the three-Judge Bench held as under : (SCC pp. 229-31, paras
237 & 239-40)
“237. Be that as it may, we may now proceed to decipher the
purport of Section 24 of the 2002 Act. In the first place, it must be
noticed that the legal presumption in either case is about the
involvement of proceeds of crime in money-laundering. This fact
becomes relevant, only if, the prosecution or the authorities have
succeeded in establishing at least three basic or foundational
facts. First, that the criminal activity relating to a scheduled
offence has been committed. Second, that the property in question
has been derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person
as a result of that criminal activity. Third, the person concerned is,
directly or indirectly, involved in any process or activity connected
with the said property being proceeds of crime. On establishing
the fact that there existed proceeds of crime and the person
concerned was involved in any process or activity connected
therewith, itself, constitutes offence of money-laundering. The
nature of process or activity has now been elaborated in the form
of Explanation inserted vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. On
establishing these foundational facts in terms of Section 24 of the
2002 Act, a legal presumption would arise that such proceeds of
crime are involved in money-laundering. The fact that the person
concerned had no causal connection with such proceeds of crime
and he is able to disprove the fact about his involvement in any
process or activity connected therewith, by producing evidence in
that regard, the legal presumption would stand rebutted.
108. 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
88 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
direct or indirect involvement in any process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime, is established. The
existence of proceeds of crime is, therefore, a foundational
fact, to be established by the prosecution, including the
involvement of the person in any process or activity
connected therewith. Once these foundational facts are
established by the prosecution, the onus must then shift on
the person facing charge of offence of money- laundering to
rebut the legal presumption that the proceeds of crime are
not involved in money-laundering, by producing evidence
which is within his personal knowledge of the accused.
109. 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.
110. 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
89 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
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.
111. In the case of Collector of Customs & Ors. v. D.
Bhoormall (1974) 2 SCC 544 proceedings were initiated
under Section 167(8)(c) of the Customs Act for confiscation
of contraband or smuggled goods and it was observed by the
Hon‟ble Apex Court that on the principle underlying Section
106, Evidence Act, the burden to establish those facts is cast
on the person concerned; and, if he fails to establish or
explain those facts, an adverse inference of facts may arise
against him. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid
Judgment is being quoted as under:
“Since it is exceedingly difficult, if not absolutely impossible, for
the prosecution to prove facts which are especially within the
knowledge of the opponent or the accused, it is not obliged to
prove them as part of its primary burden.
… On the principle underlying Section 106, Evidence Act, the
burden to establish those facts is cast on the person concerned;
and, if he fails to establish or explain those facts, an adverse
inference of facts may arise against him, which coupled with the
presumptive evidence adduced by the prosecution or the
Department would rebut the initial presumption of innocence in
favour of that person, and in the result, prove him guilty.”
112. 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
90 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA have been
established by the respondent/ED.
113. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held
that the prosecution must satisfy three essential ingredients.
First, the commission of a scheduled offence must be
established. Second, the property in question must be
shown to have been derived or obtained, directly or
indirectly, as a result of such criminal activity and third, the
accused must be linked, directly or indirectly, to any process
or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
114. Thus, from the entire discussion it is evident that
the petitioner is an influential person being Cabinet Minister
in the State of Jharkhand and the evidence collected during
investigation by the agency broadly speaks that the co-
accused Veerandra Kumar Ram used to collect commission
in terms of allocation of tender and execution of work and
the said commission/fixed share of 1.35% was distributed
among his seniors and politicians and the said commission
is also collected by co-accused Sanjeev Kumar Lal, P.S. of
the present petitioner through certain persons. It has also
been submitted that during the investigation, it has been
ascertained that the entire collection and distribution of
commission was taken care of by the assistant engineers
posted at the Rural Development Special Division and Rural
91 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
Works Department. Further, it was also found that the share
of the petitioner, who was the Minister, was 1.35% of the
allocated tender amount and also, in one of the instances, it
was found that the petitioner had received his share of
commission of Rs. 3 Crore which was sent by one Assistant
Engineer in September 2022 which was facilitated by one of
his close persons.
115. Further during statement made under Section 50 of
PMLA, 2002 and in one of the instances Veerendra Kumar
Ram disclosed that crores of the commission were handed
over to the co-accused Sanjeev Kumar Lal, Personal
Secretary of the present petitioner, in September 2022. It
has also come that co-accused Jahangir Alam was assisting
Sanjeev Kumar Lal and was hoarding the said commission
on the instruction of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and the said
Sanjeev Kumar Lal takes care of the collection of
commission, and Jahangir Alam collected the same at the
instruction of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, who in turn was doing so
on behalf of the present petitioner.
116. Now in the light of aforesaid discussion at this
juncture this Court thinks it fit to revisit the scope of Section
45 of the PML Act 2002. As discussed in preceding
paragraphs that Section 45 of the PMLA Act, 2002 provides
twin test. First „reason to believe‟ is to be there for the
92 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
purpose of reaching to the conclusion that there is no prima
facie case and second condition is that the accused is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail.
117. Sub-section (1)(ii) of Section 45 of the Act, 2002,
provides that if the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable
grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence
and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail,
meaning thereby, the parameter which is to be followed by
the concerned court that satisfaction is required to be there
for believing that such accused person is not guilty of such
offence and is not likely to commit offence while on bail.
118. Section 45(2) of the Act 2002 provides to consider
the limitation for grant of bail which is in addition to the
limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, i.e.,
limitation which is to be considered while granting the
benefit either in exercise of jurisdiction conferred to this
Court under BNSS 2023 is to be taken into consideration.
119. It is, thus, evident by taking into consideration the
provision of Sections 19(1), 45(1) and 45(2) of PML Act that
the conditions provided therein are required to be considered
while granting the benefit of regular bail in exercise of power
conferred under statute apart from the twin conditions
93 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
which has been provided under Section 45(1) of the Act,
2002.
120. Thus, Section 45 of the PMLA turns the principle of
bail is the rule and jail is the exception on its head. The
power of the Court to grant bail is further conditioned upon
the satisfaction of the twin conditions prescribed under
Section 45(1) (i) and (ii) PMLA. While undertaking this
exercise, the Court is required to take a prima facie view on
the basis of materials collected during investigation. The
expression used in Section 45 of PMLA are “reasonable
grounds for believing” which means that the Court has to
find, from a prima facie view of the materials collected
during investigation that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that the accused has not committed the offence and
that there is no likelihood of him committing an offence
while on bail. Recently, in Tarun Kumar v Assistant
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 crime94 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996under 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.”
121. This Court, based upon the imputation as has been
discovered in course of investigation, is of the view that what
has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that proceeds
cannot be said to be proceeds of crime is not fit to be
acceptable because as would appear from the preceding
paragraphs, money which has been alleged to be obtained by
the petitioner/accused has been routed through his Private
Secretary, Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
122. If there is a prima facie material to show that the
amount has been received by misusing the position of the
petitioner that by itself will be construed as proceeds of
crime and it is not necessary for the respondent to further
establish that such proceeds of crime was projected as
untainted money subsequently. This is in view of the
amendment that was made to Section 3 of PMLA through
Act 23 of 2019. This position was also made clear by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Directorate of Enforcement.V.
Padmanabhan Kishore reported in 2022 SCC Online SC
95 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
1490. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the
judgment is quoted as under:
“12. The definition of “proceeds of crime” in the PML Act,
inter alia, means any property derived or obtained by any
person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled
offence. The offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and
13 are scheduled offences, as is evident from Para 8 of Part-
A of the Schedule to the PML Act. Any property thus derived
as a result of criminal activity relating to offence mentioned
in said Para 8 of Part-A of the Schedule would certainly be
“proceeds of crime”.
14. The said Section 3 states, inter alia, that whoever
knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually
involved in any process or activity connected with proceeds
of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or
use shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering (emphasis
added by us).”
123. Further, at the stage of recording statements during
enquiry, it cannot be construed as an investigation for
prosecution. The process envisaged under Section 50 of
PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of
crime and it is not an investigation and the authorities who
are recording the statements are not police officers and
therefore, these statements can be relied upon as
admissible piece of evidence before the Court. The
summons proceedings and recording of statements under
PMLA are given the status of judicial proceedings under
Section 50(4) of PMLA. When such is the sweep of Section
50 of PMLA, the statements that have been recorded by the
respondent and which have been relied upon in the
96 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
complaint must be taken to be an important material
implicating the petitioner. The co-accused or the suspected
persons in the predicate offence cannot automatically be
brought within the same status in the PMLA proceedings
and it is always left open to the authorities to deal with
them as witnesses.
124. The statements that were recorded from the
witnesses during the investigation have been dealt with in
prosecution complaint and many of the statements clearly
implicate the petitioner. Therefore, the statements that have
been recorded from the witnesses and which has been relied
upon, is also a strong material that prima facie establishes
the offence of money laundering against the present
petitioner.
125. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made
hereinabove, the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that even if the entire ECIR will be taken into
consideration, no offence will be said to be committed so as
to attract the ingredients of Sections 3 & 4 of the P.M.L. Act,
2002, is totally misplaced in the light of accusation as
mentioned in prosecution complaint.
126. Further, contention has been raised that a
prosecution complaint against the petitioner has already
been filed and, thus, investigation is complete and
97 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
therefore, no purpose would be served in keeping the
petitioner in judicial custody.
127. In the aforesaid context, it is settled position of law
that the mere fact that investigation is complete does not
necessarily confer a right on the accused/petitioner to be
released on bail.
128. In the context of aforesaid contention, it would be
relevant to note here that in the instant case mere
completion of the investigation does not cause material
change in circumstances.
129. Further, it is settled proposition of law that the
filing of charge-sheet is not a circumstance that tilts the
scales in favour of the accused for grant of bail and
needless to say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any
manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution.
130. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of
Virupakshappa Gouda & Anr. vs. State of Karnataka
& Anr., (2017) 5 SCC 406, wherein, at paragraph-12, the
Hon‟ble Apex Court has observed which reads as under:
“12. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial
Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the factum that
when a charge-sheet is filed it amounts to change of
circumstance. Needless to say, filing of the charge-sheet does
not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the
prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet98 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency,
having found materials, has placed the charge-sheet for trial of
the accused persons.”
131. Thus, this Court, after taking note of the settled
legal proposition, is of view that the aforesaid contention is
not tenable in the eye of law.
On the issue of Parity:
132. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the
ground of parity with respect to co-accused person, namely,
Veerendra Kumar Ram who has been granted bail by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 passed
in Cr. Appeal No. 4615 of 2024. Likewise, accused Harish
Yadav was already granted bail vide order dated 30.08.2024
in Special Leave petition (Crl.) No. 6174 of 2024.
Further,accused Tara Chand has also been granted bail by
the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25.11.2024 in
Cr. Appeal No. 4760 of 2024. Furthermore, other accused
persons, namely, Rajkumari, Genda Ram, Mukesh Mittal,
Neeraj Mittal, Ram Prakash Baitha and Harish Yadav have
also been granted regular bail by the Hon‟ble Apex Court.
133. Now coming to the ground of parity as raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, the law is well settled
that the principle of parity is to be applied if the case on fact
is exactly similar then only the principle of parity in the
matter of passing order is to be passed but if there is
99 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
difference in between the facts then the principle of parity is
not to be applied.
134. 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 only simple 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. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana & Anr.,
(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 :] , 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 non-
application of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has been100 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996brought 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 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 [Pravinbhai
Hirabhai 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 (A-16) 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.”
135. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Tarun Kumar Vs.
Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement (supra)
wherein at paragraph-18, it has been held that parity is not
the law and while applying the principle of parity, the Court
101 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused
whose application is under consideration.
136. Now, this Court is adverting to the facts of instant
case to decide the issue of parity in the backdrop of
aforesaid settled legal ratio and as such thinks it fit to
discuss herein distinguishable facts in the case of present
petitioner to that of the case of co-accused persons who
have been granted bail.
137. This Court, in order to verify the issue of principle of
parity, has gone through the order by which, co-accused
have been enlarged on the bail and found that there is
allegation upon the said co-accused persons that they have
worked as a pawn in their individual capacity in the alleged
commission of crime and further the Hon‟ble Apex Court
prima-facie has not found their direct involvement in the
alleged offence but herein the close associate of the
petitioner namely Sanjiv Kumar Lal who was personal
secretary of the present petitioner has taken the tainted
money fixed as percentage or as „cut‟ in lieu of the award of
contract in the department concerned.
138. It is evident from record that the Petitioner was
Minister of (i) Department of Rural Works (RWD), (ii)
Department of Panchayati Raj and (iii) Department of Rural
Development (RDD). Jharkhand State Rural Road
102 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
Development Authority (JSRRDA) and Rural Development
Special Division (RDSD) are part of the Department of Rural
Works (RWD). It has been alleged that the petitioner being
the minister of these departments, was all in all and at the
top echelon in the syndicate of commission collection.
Petitioner compelled the Chief Engineer under his portfolio
to collect commission and give him his share through his
Personal Secretary Sanjeev Kumar Lal.
139. It has been alleged against the petitioner in the
counter affidavit that he is the key person who is at the top
of the hierarchy and receives commission collected from the
subordinates and also controls the whole syndicate of
collection of commission. It has come on record that the
petitioner has misused his official position and acquired
proceeds of crime by collecting bribes as a
commission/bribe from the contractors in lieu of allotments
of tenders with the help of his the then PS Sanjeev Kumar
Lal.
140. Further, there is substantial documentary evidence
that reveals the role of the petitioner in detail as already
discussed in Supplementary Prosecution Complaints as
above.
141. Applying the principle of parity, this Court is of the
view as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
103 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
Court rendered in Tarun Kumar (Supra) that the benefit of
parity is to be given if the facts/involvement of the
petitioner is identical to the persons with whom parity is
being claimed but that is not the case herein.
142. This Court, on the basis of the discussion with
respect to the involvement of the petitioner, vis-à-vis, the
other co-accused person, is of the view that the case of the
petitioner is quite distinguishable to that of the case of the
co-accused persons therefore, is of the considered view that
it is not a fit case for applying the principle of parity.
143. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Apex
Court in P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau
Investigation reported in 2020 13 SCC 337 has come up
with triple test under Section 439 of Cr.PC, while dealing
with cases involving economic offences. The principles that
were summarised in this judgment is extracted 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 the104 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and
similar other considerations.”
144. This Court, on the basis of aforesaid discussion,
factual aspect as also the legal position, is of the prima-facie
view that there is no „reason to believe‟ by this Court that
the petitioner is not involved in managing the money said to
be proceeds of crime.
145. This Court while considering the prayer for regular
bail has taken into consideration that though this Court is
not sitting in appeal on the order passed by learned trial
court but only for the purpose of considering the view which
has been taken by learned court while rejecting the prayer
for bail, this Court is also in agreement with the said view
based upon the material surfaced in course of investigation,
as referred hereinabove.
146. This Court is conscious of this fact that while
deciding the issue of granting bail in grave economic
offences it is the utmost duty of the Court that the nature
and gravity of the alleged offence should have been kept in
mind because corruption poses a serious threat to our
society should be dealt with by iron hand.
147. Further, it is required to refer herein that the Money
Laundering is an economic offence and economic offences
comes under the of grave offences hence needs to be visited
with a different approach in the matter of bail as held by the
105 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
Hon‟ble Apex court in the case of Y. S Jagan Mohan Reddy
v/s C. B. I., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439. For ready
reference, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid
judgments are being quoted as under:
“34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be
visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic
offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of
public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave
offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and
thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.”
148. Similarly, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in case of
Nimgadda Prasad Vs. C.B.I., reported in (2013) 7 SCC
466 has reiterated the same view in paragraphs-23 to 25
which reads as under:
“23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been
seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected
the fibre of the country’s economic structure. Incontrovertibly,
economic offences have serious repercussions on the
development of the country as a whole. In State of
Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [(1987) 2 SCC 364 : 1987
SCC (Cri) 364] this Court, while considering a request of the
prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed
as under: (SCC p. 371, para 5)
“5. … The entire community is aggrieved if the economic
offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to
book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon
passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with
cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal
profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A
disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested
only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community
in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner
without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-collar106 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to
the national economy and national interest.”
24. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature
of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the
severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and
other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that
for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the
words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the
evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail
can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case
against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to
produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not
expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be
visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The
economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving
huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and
considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the
country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the
financial health of the country.”
149. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Central
Bureau of Investigation Vs Santosh Karnani and
Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 427 has observed that
corruption poses a serious threat to our society and must
be dealt with iron hands. The relevant paragraph of the
aforesaid judgment is being referred as under:-
“31. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have
been kept in mind by the High Court. Corruption poses a serious
threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. It not107 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996only leads to abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also
tramples good governance. The common man stands deprived of
the benefits percolating under social welfare schemes and is the
worst hit. It is aptly said, “Corruption is a tree whose branches
are of an unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere; and the
dew that drops from thence, Hath infected some chairs and
stools of authority.” Hence, the need to be extra conscious.”
150. It requires to refer herein that the Hon‟ble Apex
Court in catena of judgments has held that the economic
offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with
a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic
offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge
loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and
considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the
country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the
financial health of the country.
151. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has further observed that
with the advancement of technology and Artificial
Intelligence, the economic offences like money laundering
have become a real threat to the functioning of the financial
system of the country and have become a great challenge
for the investigating agencies to detect and comprehend the
intricate nature of transactions, as also the role of the
persons involved therein. Reference in this regard be made
to the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the
case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate
108 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
of Enforcement (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the
aforesaid Judgment are being quoted as under:
“22. Lastly, it may be noted that as held in catena of decisions,
the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be
visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The
economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving
huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and
considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country
as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial
health of the country. Undoubtedly, economic offences have
serious repercussions on the development of the country as a
whole. To cite a few judgments in this regard are Y.S. Jagan
Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Nimmagadda
Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Gautam
Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra), State of Bihar v. Amit
Kumar alias Bachcha Rai. This court taking a serious note with
regard to the economic offences had observed as back as in 1987
in case of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal as
under:–
“5… The entire community is aggrieved if the economic
offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to
books. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon
passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with
cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal
profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A
disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested
only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community
in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner
without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white
collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage
done to the National Economy and National Interest…”
23. With the advancement of technology and Artificial
Intelligence, the economic offences like money laundering
have become a real threat to the functioning of the
financial system of the country and have become a great
challenge for the investigating agencies to detect and
109 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
comprehend the intricate nature of transactions, as also
the role of the persons involved therein. Lot of minute exercise
is expected to be undertaken by the Investigating Agency to see
that no innocent person is wrongly booked and that no culprit
escapes from the clutches of the law. When the detention of the
accused is continued by the Court, the courts are also expected to
conclude the trials within a reasonable time, further ensuring the
right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
24. With the afore-stated observations, the appeal is dismissed.”
152. This Court, considering the aforesaid material
available against the petitioner in such a grave nature of
offence and applying the principle of grant of bail wherein
the principle of having prima facie case is to be followed, is
of the view that it is not a fit case of grant of bail.
153. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that
the petitioner has miserably failed to satisfy this Court that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of the alleged offences. On the contrary, there is
sufficient material collected by the respondent-ED to show
that he is prima facie guilty of the alleged offences.
154. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to facts
and circumstances, as have been analyzed hereinabove,
since the petitioner has failed to make out a special case to
exercise the power to grant bail and considering the facts
and parameters, necessary to be considered for adjudication
110 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024
2025:JHHC:18996
of bail, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail.
155. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a
case where the prayer for bail is to be granted, as such the
instant application stands dismissed.
156. It is made clear that any observations made herein
are prima-facie for consideration of matter of bail only and
the view expressed herein shall not be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case. The learned Trial
Court shall proceed with the matter uninfluenced by any
observations made by this Court and shall decide the case
strictly in accordance with law.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Alankar/-
A.F.R.
111 B.A. No. 9548 of 2024