Patna High Court – Orders
Satish Kumar Singh vs The Union Of India Through Assistant … on 10 January, 2025
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30505 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2022 Thana- E.C.I.R (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL) Dis-
trict- Patna
======================================================
JAG NARAYAN SINGH S/O LATE NAURANG DEO SINGH R/O
NAVRANG VATIKA, NEAR HAPPY CHILD SCHOOL, POLYTECHNIC
ROAD, JHARUDIH, P.S- DHANBAD, DISTRICT- DHANBAD, JHARK-
HAND
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENFORCE-
MENT DIRECTORATE, PATNA ZONAL OFFICE BIHAR
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31322 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2022 Thana- E.C.I.R (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL) Dis-
trict- Patna
======================================================
Satish Kumar Singh son of Jag Narayan Singh Village- Navrang Vatika Near
Happy Child School, Polytechnic Road, Jharudih Ps- Dhanbad Dist- Dhan-
bad, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union of India through Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate,
Patna Zonal Office Bank Roa Bank Road Chandpura Palace, Patna Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 30505 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhav Khurana, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Madhukar Anand, Advocate
Mr. Riya Arora, Adv.
Mr. Shubham Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Amit Anand, Adv.
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Amarjeet, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh (A.S.G)
Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Spl. PPED
Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Singh, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Adv.
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 31322 of 2024)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Madhukar Anand, Advocate
Mr. Amit Anand, Adv.
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Amarjeet, Adv.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30505 of 2024(12) dt.10-01-2025
2/20
For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. Dr. K.N.Singh (Asg)
Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
12 10-01-2025
Heard Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner duly assisted by Mr. Madhav
Khurana, Mr. K.N. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General
of India as also Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
Enforcement Directorate.
2. The petitioners, father-son duo are in judicial
custody in connection with Special Trial No. (PMLA) Case No.
09 of 2023, arising out of ECIR No. PTZO/07/2022 for the
offence punishable under Section 4 of PMLA Act.
3. This order be read along with the order dated
06.12.2024 in which facts/submissions of the parties have
already been narrated and read as follows:
“Heard Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi,
learned Senior counsel and Mr. Madhav
Khurrana, learned counsel representing the
petitioner and Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh,
learned Additional Solicitor General of India.
2. The petitioners are in judicial
custody in connection with Special Trial No.
(PMLA) Case No. 09 of 2023, arising out of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30505 of 2024(12) dt.10-01-2025
3/20ECIR No. PTZO/07/2022 for the offence
punishable under Section 4 of PMLA Act.
3. The two petitioners who are
Directors of M/s Aditya Multicom Private
Limited (henceforth for short ‘the Company’),
are in custody since 16.09.2023. The allegation
that has come is/are that:
(i) they embezzled sand and sold it
stealthily without issuing Challan in Form-E or
Form-G Challan;
(ii) the company was also involved in
sand mining during the rainy season and mining
of sand beyond the capping limit fixed by the
State Level Environment Impact Assessment
Authority of Bihar (henceforth for short ‘the
SEIAA’) through Environmental Certificate
(henceforth for short ‘the EC’);
(iii) it as such violated the conditions
of K-Licenses Issued to it.
4. The case of the two petitioners
is/are that they paid advance royalty for the
period they were granted the lease i.e. from
01.01.2015 to 30.04.2021 and surrendered the
same on 01.05.2021, whereafter it was taken
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30505 of 2024(12) dt.10-01-2025
4/20
over by the Government. However, the first FIR
came to be lodged on 16.09.2021 which
followed multiple FIRs against them.
5. Thereafter, the Enforcement
Directorate stepped in and the present case was
lodged which followed their arrest on
16.09.2023.
6. The case of the petitioners as
argued by Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi and Mr.
Madhav Khurrana is/are that in a similar
situated case related to the stake holders of M/s
Broad Son, a Coordinate Bench took up the
matter and vide an order dated 29.11.2024,
relief was granted to the said petitioners in Cr.
Misc no. 34015 of 2024 and analogous cases.
7. Let the same be kept on record.
8. The learned Counsels took this
Court to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (henceforth for short ‘the
Act’) which read as follows:-
45. Offences to
be cognizable and non-
bailable.
(1)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30505 of 2024(12) dt.10-01-2025
5/20
[Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973
(2 of 1974), no person
accused of an offence
[under this Act]
[Substituted by Act 20 of
2005, Section 7, for certain
words (w.e.f. 1.7.2005).]
shall be released on bail or
on his own bond unless]
(i) the Public
Prosecutor has been given
an opportunity to oppose
the application for such
release; and
(ii) where the
Public Prosecutor opposes
the application, the Court
is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not
guilty of such offence and
that he is not likely to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30505 of 2024(12) dt.10-01-2025
6/20
commit any offence while
on bail:Provided that a
person, who is under the
age of sixteen years or is a
woman or is sick or infirm
[or is accused either on his
own or along with other
co-accused of money-
laundering a sum of less
than one crore rupees]
[Inserted by Finance Act,
2018 (Act No. 13 of 2018)
dated 29.3.2018.], may be
released on bail, if the
Special Court so
directs:Provided further
that the Special Court shall
not take cognizance of any
offence punishable under
section 4 except upon a
complaint in writing made
by(i)the Director; or(ii)any
officer of the Central
Government or State
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30505 of 2024(12) dt.10-01-2025
7/20
Government authorised in
writing in this behalf by the
Central Government by a
general or a special order
made in this behalf by that
Government.[(1-A)
Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973
(2 of 1974), or any other
provision of this Act, no
police officer shall
investigate into an offence
under this Act unless
specifically authorised, by
the Central Government by
a general or special order,
and, subject to such
conditions as may be
prescribed;] [Inserted by
Act 20 of 2005, Section 7
(w.e.f. 1.7.2005).](2)The
limitation on granting of
bail specified in [***] [The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30505 of 2024(12) dt.10-01-2025
8/20
words “clause (b)” omitted
by Act 20 of 2005, Section
7 (w.e.f. 1.7.2005).] of sub-
section (1) is in addition to
the limitations under the
Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974) or any other law for
the time being in force on
granting of bail.”
9. Learned counsels submit that
though the money involved in the present case is
around 22 Crores, the first Director, Jag
Narayan Singh faces some health issues, they
would confine their case to the fact that there is
no likelihood of conclusion of Trial in the near
future. In that circumstance, if granted relief,
not only they shall be co-operating the
Enforcement Directorate, but also be diligently
appearing in trial.
10. In support of the case, the
learned counsels have cited the judgments, of
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others reported
in 2022 SCC online SC 929 Union of India and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30505 of 2024(12) dt.10-01-2025
9/20
others in S.L.P. (Cr.) no. 4634 of 2014 reported
in 2022 SCC online SC 929.
11. Learned Additional Solicitor
General, Dr. K.N. Singh representing the
Enforcement Directorate has justified the
custody of the two petitioners highlighting that
despite surrendering their land, they continued
with the illegal activities and it came to light
later that even during the rainy season, they
were continuing with the sand mining. He
submits that number of premises of other
persons were also raided and in a raid of one
Radha Charan Shah, the documents that were
seized matches the documents that were seized
from the petitioners.
12. It is his further submission that
the two petitioners do not fit in the two criteria
of ‘the Act’, as the amount is much more than
one crore and there is nothing on record to show
that both of them have any such illness
deserving relief. However, on the point of delay
in trial, it is his submission that no such report
is on record to show that the trial is not likely to
be concluded in near future.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30505 of 2024(12) dt.10-01-2025
10/20
13. Both the parties intend to file
their respective short affidavits on this point.
14. It would be appropriate that even
this Court directs the concerned learned Trial
Court to submit a detailed report on the present
stage of the case.
15. Let the parties file their
respective affidavits as also the Trial Court
Report comes on or before 09.01.2025 so that
the matter is taken up on 10.01.2025.
16. List this case on 10.01.2025.”
4. It is the case of learned Senior Counsel representing
the petitioners that in view of the recent judgment of Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. the Directorate
of Enforcement reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920
wherein it has been held that if there is delay in the trial, the
case of the accused persons can be considered for extending the
relief with appropriate conditions. The submission is that the
petitioners are in custody since 16.09.2023 (para 1 of the
petition) and prior to the present scenario where multiple cases
have been lodged against them, they had no criminal antecedent.
5. Mr. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel has taken this
Court to paragraphs 49 to 57 of the order passed in Manish
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30505 of 2024(12) dt.10-01-2025
11/20
Sisodia (supra) which deals with the grant of relief if there is
delay in the commencement/conclusion of the trial.
6. The aforesaid paragraph nos. 49 to 57 read as
follows:
49. We find that, on account of a long period of
incarceration running for around 17 months and
the trial even not having been commenced, the
appellant has been deprived of his right to
speedy trial.
50. As observed by this Court, the right to
speedy trial and the right to liberty are
sacrosanct rights. On denial of these rights, the
trial court as well as the High Court ought to
have given due weightage to this factor.
51. Recently, this Court had an occasion to
consider an application for bail in the case of
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh
v. State of Maharashtra and Another wherein
the accused was prosecuted under the
provisions of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967. This Court surveyed the
entire law right from the judgment of this Court
in the cases of Gudikanti Narasimhulu and
Others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh7, Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia
and Others v. State of Punjab8, Hussainara
Khatoon and Others (I) v. Home Secretary, State
of Bihar9, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb10 and
Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another11. The Court
observed thus:
“19. If the State or any prosecuting agency
including the court concerned has no
wherewithal to provide or protect the
fundamental right of an accused to have a
speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30505 of 2024(12) dt.10-01-2025
12/20Constitution then the State or any other
prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea
for bail on the ground that the crime committed
is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies
irrespective of the nature of the crime.”
52. The Court also reproduced the observations
made in Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), which
read thus:
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 (1978) 1 SCC 240 :
1977 INSC 232 (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 INSC
68 (1980) 1 SCC 81 : 1979 INSC 34 (2021) 3
SCC 713 : 2021 INSC 50 (2022) 10 SCC 51 :
2022 INSC 690
“10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind
the trial courts and the High Courts of what
came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti
Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court
reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240. We quote:
“What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants
reminder, is the object to keep a person in
judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an
appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose,
(1898) 18 Cox]: “I observe that in this case bail
was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too
strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the
country that bail is not to be withheld as a
punishment, but that the requirements as to bail
are merely to secure the attendance of the
prisoner at trial.””
53. The Court further observed that, over a
period of time, the trial courts and the High
Courts have forgotten a very well-settled
principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as
a punishment. From our experience, we can say
that it appears that the trial courts and the High
Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant
of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and
refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in
breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in
straight forward open and shut cases, this Court
is flooded with huge number of bail petitions
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30505 of 2024(12) dt.10-01-2025
13/20
thereby adding to the huge
pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and
the High Courts should recognize the principle
that “bail is rule and jail is exception”.
54. In the present case, in the ED matter as well
as the CBI matter, 493 witnesses have been
named. The case involves thousands of pages of
documents and over a lakh pages of digitized
documents. It is thus clear that there is not even
the remotest possibility of the trial being
concluded in the near future. In our view,
keeping the appellant behind the bars for an
unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy
completion of trial would deprive his
fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of
the Constitution. As observed time and again,
the prolonged incarceration before being
pronounced guilty of an offence should not be
permitted to become punishment without trial.
55. As observed by this Court in the case of
Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), the objective
to keep a person in judicial custody pending
trial or disposal of an appeal is to secure the
attendance of the prisoner at trial.
56. In the present case, the appellant is having
deep roots in the society. There is no possibility
of him fleeing away from the country and not
being available for facing the trial. In any
case, conditions can be imposed to address the
concern of the State.
57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the
learned ASG regarding the possibility of
tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be
noted that the case largely depends on
documentary evidence which is already seized
by the prosecution. As such, there is no
possibility of tampering with the evidence.
Insofar as the concern with regard to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30505 of 2024(12) dt.10-01-2025
14/20
influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said
concern can be addressed by imposing stringent
conditions upon the appellant.
(Bold inserted by this Court)
7. He has further taken this Court to the
supplementary affidavit filed on 13.12.2024, particularly,
paragraph nos. 6 and 7 which read as follows:
“6. That at present the aforesaid
Special Trial (PMLA) Case No. 09 of
2023, is at the stage of the
appearance and the next date in the
said case is fixed on 23-12-2024.
7. That the Petitioner has been
languishing in custody since
16.09.2023, and all together 38
witnesses have been named in the
Prosecution Complaint filed against
the Petitioner, who have to be
examined during the course of trial.
Furthermore, 28 sets of documents
spanning over 5787 pages have been
relied upon by the prosecution in the
said Complaint and likelihood of the
trial being concluded in the near
future is impossible.”
8. He submits that the petitioner, Jag Narayan Singh
in Cr. Misc. No. 30505 of 2024 is an aged person having health
issues, is not a flight risk having sufficient investment in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30505 of 2024(12) dt.10-01-2025
15/20
country and if extended relief, shall be diligently appearing in
trial without any delay.
9. So far as the other accused, Satish Kumar Singh
in Cr. Misc. No. 31322 of 2024 is concerned, though he is
young, being the son of the Jag Narayan Singh stands dragged
in the case and again has assets in the country, not a flight risk.
Further, he too undertakes to diligently appear in trial,
commencement of which is not in sight for the present.
10. Mr. Shahi concludes by submitting that the
petitioners are ready to abide by any terms and conditions if
granted relief.
11. Learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. K.N.
Singh representing the Govt. of India/Enforcement Directorate
as also Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh though opposes the prayer for
bail pointing out to the accusations made against them agrees to
the fact that trial has not yet commence and thus it will take
time before the same comes to an end.
12. It was in the aforesaid backdrop that on
06.12.2024, while taking note of the case, this Court wanted a
report from the concerned Court regarding the stage of the trial.
13. Now, vide letter no. 02/Sessions dated 3 rd January
2024 the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Patna has sent a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30505 of 2024(12) dt.10-01-2025
16/20
report and the same read as follows:
No. 02/Sessions
From: Rupesh Deo Principal District & Sessions
Judge, Patna.
To,
The Assistant Registrar
High Court of Judicature at Patna.
Ref: Hon’ble Court’s Order dated 06.12.24 passed in
Criminal Miscellaneous No.30505 of 2024 with Criminal
Miscellaneous No. 31322 of 2024.
Patna, Dated the 3rd January, 2025.
Sir,
With due respect, in compliance of the Hon’ble
Court’s order dated 06.12.2024, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous
No.30505 of 2024 with Criminal Miscellaneous No. 31322 of 2024, I
am most humbly submitting report with respect to the present stage
of the trial in connection with Special Trial (PMLA) No. 09 of 2023,
which is as follows:-
i. There are three accused persons in the present case
namely (i) Mis Aditya Multicom Private Limited through authorized
representatives, (ii) Jag Narayan Singh and (iii) Satish Kumar Singh,
against whom Congnizance has been takern on 10.11.2023 for the
offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act
and summons has been issued to the accused No.1 i.e. a company
namely M/s Aditya Multicom Private Limited on 06.04.2024.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30505 of 2024(12) dt.10-01-2025
17/20ii. The accused persons namely Jag Narayan Singh &
Satish Kumar Singh are in custody since 16.09.2023, and both are
Directors of accused No.1 i.e. a company namely M/s Aditya
Multicom Private Limited.
iii. On 28.08.2024, a petition U/s 305 Cr.P.C. was moved
on behalf of the company stating that company would be represented
by accused No.2 Jag Narayan Singh and on 07.10.2024 reply to the
same has been filed by the Enforcement Directorate.
iv. On 09.12.2024, a petition has been filed on behalf of
accused No.3 Satish Kumar Singh stating that accused No.1 i.e. a
company namely M/s Aditya Multicom Private Limited would be
represented by accused No. 2 Jag Narayan Singh.
v. The next date in this case is fixed on 04.01.2025, for
hearing on the petition u/s 305 Cr.PC. filed on behalf of M/s Aditya
Multicom Private Limited.
vi. It is most humbly requested that this report may kindly
be placed before the Hon’ble Court for kind consideration.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Principal District & Sessions Judge
Patna.
03.01.2025
14. This Court has gone through the facts of the case,
the materials on record, the submissions of the parties as also
the last order passed on 06.12.2024 coupled with the report
submitted by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30505 of 2024(12) dt.10-01-2025
18/20
Patna. This Court has also taken note of the order passed in
Manish Sisodia (supra) especially the paragraphs referred by
the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners where the Hon’ble
Apex Court held that when there is long period of incarceration
with the trial not in sight, the accused cannot be deprived of the
right to speedy trial and in that background, weightage has to be
given while considering the bail petitions. Though in the present
case, the accusations against the petitioners is of more than one
crore and thus one of the ground is not available to them, so far
as the delay in commencement of trial is concerned, the same
is/are valid point that has been raised by the learned Senior
Counsel for the two petitioners.
14. In the present case, 38 witnesses have to be
examined and as per the report dated 03.01.2025 sent by the
learned Principal District Judge, Patna, the trial has not even
commenced and with the voluminous documents on record, the
prayer/submissions of the petitioners that they are entitled for
bail and if granted relief with conditions, they undertake to
diligently abide by it and further shall regularly appear in trial
cannot be over-looked.
15. Taking into account all the aforesaid facts as also
the order passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Manish Sisodia
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30505 of 2024(12) dt.10-01-2025
19/20
(supra) case, this Court is inclined to extend bail to the
petitioners with conditions.
16. Let the petitioners be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of furnishing bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-
(One Lakh) each with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of the concerned Court in connection with
Special Trial No. (PMLA) Case No. 09 of 2023, arising out of
ECIR No. PTZO/07/2022 subject to the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
members/relatives of the petitioners, who shall provide official
document to show their bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of their
bail bond by the Trial court itself;
(iii) the petitioners shall appear before the concerned
police station every month to mark attendance till the
conclusion of the trial;
(iv) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30505 of 2024(12) dt.10-01-2025
20/20
(v) the petitioners shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds.
(vi) the petitioners shall be surrendering their
respective passports before the Trial Court and if needed in
special cases, the Trial Court shall be the Competent Authority
to consider the application and take steps for its interim release.
17. In view of the fact that the Court has extended
relief to the petitioners only because the trial has not even
commence as also because they have undertaken to diligently
appear in trial, failure to do so, the Trial Court shall be free to
take appropriate steps, if the Enforcement Directorate prefers a
proper petition and after hearing the parties to pass an
appropriate order.
18. The two petitions stand disposed of.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U T