Jharkhand High Court
Md. Afsar Ali @ Afshar Ali @ Afsu Khan vs The Union Of India Through The … on 11 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:1141
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.3193 of 2024
-----
Md. Afsar Ali @ Afshar Ali @ Afsu Khan, aged about 55
years, son of Late Abid Khan, resident of near Millat
Colony, Bariatu Basti, P.O. and P.S. Bariatu, District-
Ranchi. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement,
Government of India, Zonal Office, Ranchi.
... ... Opp. Party
-------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
——-
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
——
CAV on 07.02.2025 Pronounced on 11/04/2025
Prayer
1. The instant application has been filed for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner, in connection with ECIR Case
No.05 of 2023 in ECIRRNZO/10/2023, registered for
alleged offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4
of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, pending in
the Court of Special Judge, P.M.L. Act, Ranchi.
Prosecution case/Facts
2. The brief facts of the case is that an ECIR bearing
no. RNZO/10/2023 was recorded on 07.03.2023 and
investigation under the provisions of Prevention of Money
Laundering Act (PMLA) was initiated on the basis of FIR
being Sadar P.S. Case no. 399 of 2022 dated 08.09.2022
registered for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468,
1
2025:JHHC:1141
447, 504, 506, 341, 323 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
since offences under Section 420 and 467 of IPC are
Scheduled Offences under Part A of the Schedule of PMLA,
2002.
3. It has been stated that the FIR being Sadar P.S.
Case No. 399 of 2022 was registered on the directions of
the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in
Complaint Case No. 3111 of 2021 passed vide order dated
28.06.2022.
4. A complaint case was filed by Umesh Kumar Gope
against Rajesh Rai, Imtiaz Ahmad, Bharat Prasad, Lakhan
Singh, Punit Bhargav and Bishnu Kumar Agarwal for
fraudulently acquiring one acre of land situated at Cheshire
Home Road, Plot No 28, Khata No. 37, Mouza Gari, Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
5. The allegations in the first information report being
Sadar PS Case no. 399 of 2022 are that one Rajesh Rai
illegally and fraudulently made a Power of Attorney in the
name of Imtiaz Ahmad and Bharat Prasad on the strength
of the said Power of Attorney they prepared a forged sale
deed and sold the above-mentioned parcel of land
admeasuring 1 acre to Punit Bhargav for an amount of
Rs.1,78,55,800/- and Puneet Bhargav further sold the said
land to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal through two Sale Deeds for
a total amount of Rs.1,80,00,000/- (Two Sale deeds dated
2
2025:JHHC:1141
01.04.2021 for an amount Rs.1,02,60,000/- and
Rs.77,40,000/-).
6. It has been alleged that though the consideration
amount in the deed between Imtiaz Ahmed, Bharat Prasad
and Puneet Bhargav is shown as Rs.1,78,55,800/-, but
only an amount of Rs.25,00,000 was paid from the account
of Shiva Fabcons one proprietorship firm of Punit Bhargava
into the account of Rajesh Rai on 12.02.2021. Investigation
further reveals that out of the said 25 lakhs an amount of
Rs.18,00,000/- was immediately transferred to the Bank
account of Green Traders, a partnership firm under the
control of Md. Saddam Hussain.
7. Further during the investigation, surveys were
conducted on 09.02.2023 and 15.02.2023 at the Circle
Office, Bargain, Ranchi, and office of Registrar of
assurances Kolkata respectively and original register
II/volumes containing the above entry were inspected
falsification of the original records were identified and the
custody of original registers were taken. After obtaining
permission the original registers were sent for examination
by an expert to Directorate of Forensic Science,
Handwriting and Forensic Bureau, Gandhinagar which
confirmed the forgery and tampering in the above stated
registers.
3
2025:JHHC:1141
8. It has been alleged that during further investigation
it revealed that the accused persons namely, Md. Saddam
Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmed, Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, Prem
Prakash, Chhavi Ranjan, Rajesh Rai, Lakhan Singh, Bharat
Prasad and the present petitioner i.e. Afsar Ali, are habitual
offenders and they are involved in mass forgery.
9. During the course of investigation, searches were
conducted at the residential premises under the use and
occupation of the present petitioner on 13.04.2023 in
another case pertaining to fraudulent acquisition of a
defence land (ECIR: RNZO/18/2022).
10. Further, on having reasons to believe that the
present petitioner namely Afshar Ali was guilty of the
offence of money laundering as defined under section 3 of
PMLA, 2002, he was arrested on 14.04.2023 in the said
ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 which pertains to illegal acquisition
of a defence land.
11. Based on the above, the Prosecution Complaint was
filed on 01.09.2023 in ECIR Case No. 05 of 2023 in
ECIR/RNZO/10/2023 dated 07.03.2023, and accordingly
vide order dated 04.09.2023 cognizance of the said offence
was taken by the Special Judge PML Act Ranchi.
12. The present petitioner has been remanded in this
case on 27.09.2023, accordingly, he, preferred
Miscellaneous Criminal Application (MCA No. 98 of 2024)
4
2025:JHHC:1141
but the same was rejected on 30.01.2024, hence, the
instant bail application.
Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner:
13. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner has taken the following grounds that:-
(i) 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.
(ii) Sadar P.S. Case No.399/2022, has been instituted
against six named accused persons, namely, Rajesh
Rai, Imtiyaz Amad, Bharat Prasad, Lakhan Singh,
Punit Bhargava and Bishnu Kumar Agrawal but this
petitioner has not been named in the schedule
offence. No allegation has been alleged against the
present petitioner even in the entire complaint case
no suspicion has been raised against the petitioner
with respect to his involvement. This, petitioner is
having no concern at all with the entire transaction.
(iii) The complainant after thorough inspection of the
records and after going through the each and every
aspect of the matter with all supported documents
filed complaint case No.3111/2021 but in none of the
documents slightest role of the petitioner has been
5
2025:JHHC:1141suspected.
(iv) Neither this petitioner is the power of attorney holder
nor the seller or purchaser of the land in question.
(v) The aforesaid complaint was instituted in the year
2021. The same was sent u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
for institution and investigation before concerned
Police Station and accordingly Sadar P.S. Case
No.399/22 was instituted. During investigation no
material has been collected against this petitioner till
2023.
(vi) The, ECIR 5/23/RNZO/10/23 has been instituted on
07.03.2023. This petitioner was not even named in
the ECIR. Even in the entire ECIR no suspicion has
been raised against this petitioner and even his
involvement has not been discussed.
(vii) All of a sudden without following the procedure
mentioned under the Statute without application of
section 19 which is the mandatory, this petitioner
has been remanded in the present case on
27.09.2023 though this petitioner remained in
custody since April, 2023 in relation to one another
case instituted by the Enforcement Directorate itself
and even in spite of the knowledge about the custody
of this petitioner, he was not remanded or produced
for about five months in the present case though the
6
2025:JHHC:1141
case was instituted in the month of March and this
petitioner is in custody since April, 2023.
(viii) This petitioner having no concern with the entire
transaction. He having no concern with the land in
question. This petitioner has not received a single
penny related with the present case.
(ix) This petitioner was apprehended in one another case
i.e. ECIR No.1/23, and based upon the statement
recorded in the said case, this petitioner has
subsequently been remanded in the present case.
(x) No proceeds of crime have been recovered from the
possession of this petitioner and even no proceed of
crime has been connected with the petitioner.
(xi) This petitioner has never met or having any
connection with the aforesaid seller or purchaser and
even with the mediator as such, it cannot be said or
alleged that this petitioner connived with the seller or
purchaser in question.
(xii) The proceeds of crime were allegedly from the
account of co-accused, Rajesh Rai transferred to one
Green Traders. This petitioner is having no concern
with Green Traders. Neither he is the partner nor he
is the proprietor nor even Director of the aforesaid
firm/company and only on vague allegation this
petitioner has been implicated in the present case
7
2025:JHHC:1141
and remanded to the custody in the month of
September, 2023.
(xiii) No proof or material has been collected by the
Enforcement Directorate to show the specific role of
this petitioner either in manufacture of the
documents or in laundering of the amount in
question.
(xiv) The statement of the co-accused persons, namely,
Saddam Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmed have also been
referred, wherefrom, it is evident in order to make out
a case that the transaction in lieu of the illegal
transfer of land is nowhere related with the
petitioner, rather, the land has been transferred by
another person in favour of the person, namely,
Puneet Bhargav who had paid the consideration
amount and said Puneet Bhargav subsequently
transferred it to Bishnu Kumar Agarwala but without
taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the
petitioner has been implicated in the instant case
(xv) The ground of mens rea has also been taken by
making reference that there was no intention of the
petitioner to commit an offence said to attract the
money laundering.
(xvi) The reliance of some of the paragraphs of the
judgment of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors.
8
2025:JHHC:1141
Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2022) SCC
OnLine SC 929 has been made as under
paragraphs-235, 239, 243, 252, 253, 388, 400 and
401.
The purpose for putting reliance upon these
paragraphs are that the very object and intent of the
P.M.L. Act is that the twin conditions are to be
fulfilled which is to be considered at the time of grant
of bail from the angle as to whether the accused was
possessed the requisite mens rea.
Herein, if the entire ECIR will be taken into
consideration, there is no mens rea and in that view
of the matter, it is a fit case for grant of bail.
(xvii) The reliance has also been placed upon the judgment
rendered in the case of Manish Sisodia Vrs. Central
Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1393 by referring the paragraphs-27 and
29, wherein, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex
Court that as per the provision of Section 436-A, it
should not be construed as a mandate that an
accused should not be granted bail under P.M.L. Act
till he has suffered incarceration for the specified
period.
(xviii) The ground of parity has also been taken, since, one
Bishnu Kumar Agarwala and Chhavi Ranjan have
9
2025:JHHC:1141
been granted bail by the coordinate bench of this
Court vide order dated 12.01.2024 passed in B.A.
No.10166 of 2023 and vide order dated 21.08.2024 in
B.A No.10833 of 2023 hence, applying the principle
of parity, the petitioner of the present case is also fit
to be released on bail.
(xix) Further the other co-accused namely Rajesh Rai,
and Prem Prakash has also been enlarged on bail by
the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 10.01.2025
and 28.08.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 163 of
2025 and Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5416 of
2024 respectively.
(xx) It has been submitted that the petitioner in the
present case is in custody since 27.09.2023 and as
such, taking into consideration the involvement of
the petitioner even it will be considered from the
ECIR, there is no ingredient of commission of any
predicate offence of the schedule offence and as such,
the petitioner may be granted the privilege of bail.
Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
respondent/Directorate of Enforcement
14. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel
for the Enforcement Directorate, has vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail by taking the following grounds: –
10
2025:JHHC:1141
(i) It has been submitted that it is incorrect on the part
of the petitioner that he is innocent and having no
connection with the commission of crime.
(ii) Further, it has come in the ECIR that the Petitioner
is a part of the syndicate involved in acquiring and
disposing landed properties by way of preparing fake
deeds. Further, the frequent transactions with other
accused persons corroborate the fact that the accused
person is a beneficiary of the proceeds of crime
generated out of the illegal activities of fraudulently
acquiring land parcels.
(iii) The documents used in the commission of crime are
mostly fake property documents which have been
used to create fictitious ownership in relation to
several targeted properties. The searches were
conducted at the premises of the petitioner and his
close accomplices namely Md. Saddam Hussain and
others has led to the recovery of 36 fake deeds which
have been verified from the registration offices
situated at Kolkata as well as Ranchi. Thus, the
petitioner is the mastermind of this syndicate
operating in the activities of acquisition of landed
properties including government properties on the
basis of fake documents and deeds.
11
2025:JHHC:1141
(iv) Further, the investigation established the fact that
the petitioner in connivance with his accomplices, is
habitually indulged in illegal activities of preparing
fake deeds and later executing a power of attorney in
his name for disposing of properties in a fraudulent
manner.
(v) The investigation conducted in the instant case
revealed that the petitioner Afshar Ali was actually
involved and was knowingly a party to the activities
connected with proceeds of crime including its
acquisition, possession, concealment, use and
projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted property
and he was guilty of the offence of the Money
Laundering as defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002.
Thus, he was made an accused in the instant case
along with his accomplices.
(vi) Hence, the petitioner is knowingly involved in the
activities connected with the acquisition, possession,
concealment, of the proceeds of crime and claiming
and projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted
property. Thus, the petitioner Afshar Ali has
committed the offence of money laundering as defined
under Section 3 of PMLA, 2002 and is liable to be
punished under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002.
12
2025:JHHC:1141
(vii) So far, the contention as has been raised that all
the scheduled offences cannot be said to be attracted
under the P.M.L. Act is concerned, as has been
aggrieved on behalf of the petitioner, the same at this
stage, cannot be looked into, rather, the same is to be
looked into at the stage of trial.
(viii) Herein, in response to the issue of parity as raised
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
Bishnu Kumar Agarwala was granted bail merely on
the ground that he was purchaser of the property but
herein the allegation against the petitioner is that he
was instrumental in the preparation of the fake deed
of the landed property, thus case of this petitioner is
entirely different to the other co-accused persons
particularly from the case of Bishnu Kumar
Agarwala.
(ix) Further, it has also come in the inquiry that the
fabricated document has been created on the behest
of this petitioner, therefore, on fact the petitioner is
not entitled to get the advantage of parity on the basis
of the order granting bail in favour of the other co-
accused namely Chavi Ranjan, and Prem Prakash,
since this court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court while
allowing the prayer of aforesaid co-accused for bail
13
2025:JHHC:1141
has taken into consideration the particular role of the
said co-accused in the alleged commission of crime.
(x) So far parity of the present applicant with the co-
accused namely Rajesh Rai is concerned the Hon’ble
Apex Court while taking in to consideration the
probable delay in conclusion of the trial has allowed
the prayer for bail of the said co-accused. In the
aforesaid context the learned counsel for respondent
has submitted at bar that all possible step has been
taken by the prosecution to earlier conclusion of the
trial, since the present petitioner was very much
instrumental in preparation of the several fake deed,
therefore, the benefit of parity should not have been
granted to the present applicant.
(xi) In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
respondent has relied upon the following judgments :-
(a) Manharibhai Mohanbhai Patel v.
Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel reported in (2012)
10 SCC 517.
(b) Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs.
Union of India and Ors., reported in (2022) SCC
OnLine SC 929.
(c) Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director, reported
in 2023 INSC 1006.
14 2025:JHHC:1141 (d) Y. S Jagan Mohan Reddy v/s C. B. I., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439. (e) State of Gujrat v/s Mohan Lal Jitamal
Porwal and Anr., reported in (1987) 2 SCC 364.
(f) Nimgadda Prasad v/s CBI, reported in (2013)
7 Supreme Court Cases 466.
(g) CBI v/s. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, reported in
(2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 452.
(h) C.R. Patil v/s. State of Gujrat & others,
reported in 2005 CRLJ 1231.
(i) Gautam Kundu v/s. Assistant Director,
Enforcement, Govt. of India Criminal Appeal
No. 1706/2015.
(j) Ajay Kumar v/s Directorate of Enforcement
through its Assistant Director, Sub Zonal
Officer, Nagpur in the High Court of Bombay
Bench at Nagpur. Criminal Application (BA) No.
1149 of 2021.
Analysis
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the documents available on record.
16. 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 PML Act, 2002 (Act 2002) with its object and
15
2025:JHHC:1141
intent as also the legal proposition as settled by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in various judgments.
17. The Act 2002 was enacted to address the urgent
need to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for
preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of
crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof including
vesting of it in the Central Government, setting up of
agencies and mechanisms for coordinating measures for
combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the
persons indulging in the process or activity connected with
the proceeds of crime.
18. It is 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.
19. The objective of the PMLA is to prevent money
laundering which has posed a serious threat not only to the
financial systems of the country but also to its integrity and
sovereignty. The offence of money laundering is a very
serious offence which is committed by an individual with a
deliberate desire and the motive to enhance his gains,
disregarding the interest of the nation and the society as a
16
2025:JHHC:1141
whole, and such offence by no stretch of imagination can
be regarded as an offence of trivial nature. The stringent
provisions have been made in the Act to combat the
menace of money laundering.
20. 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 or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result
of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled
offence;]”
21. It is evident from the aforesaid provision by which
the “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.
22. In the explanation, it has been referred that for the
removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that “proceeds of
17
2025:JHHC:1141
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.
23. 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 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.
24. 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.
25. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x)
which means schedule to the Prevention of Money
18
2025:JHHC:1141
Laundering Act, 2002. The “scheduled offence” has been
defined under Section 2(1)(y) which reads as under:-
“2(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.”
26. 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.
27. The offence of money laundering has been defined
under Section 3 of the Act, 2002 which reads as under:-
“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
19
2025:JHHC:1141
(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.]”
28. 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.
29. 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 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.
20
2025:JHHC:1141
30. The punishment for money laundering has been
provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2002.
31. Section 50 of the Act, 2002 confers power upon the
authorities regarding summons, production of documents
and to give evidence.
32. The various provisions of the Act, 2002 along with
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., reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 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.
33. The implication of Section 50 has been taken into
consideration in the aforesaid judgment. Relevant
paragraph, i.e., paragraphs-422, 424, 425, 431, 434 reads
as under:-
“422. 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 punished for the falsity or incorrectness
thereof in terms of Section 63 of the 2002 Act. Before21
2025:JHHC:1141we proceed to analyse the matter further, it is
apposite to reproduce Section 50 of the 2002 Act, as
amended. —–:-
424. 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.
425. 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
22
2025:JHHC:1141
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) shall 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. 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 producing23
2025:JHHC:1141documents 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 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)
431. 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 have24
2025:JHHC:1141been 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 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. 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, the25
2025:JHHC:1141person 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.
434. 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 person including of
seizure, attachment and confiscation of the property
eventually vesting in the Central Government.”
34. 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
26
2025:JHHC:1141
within the prescribed time in terms of Chapter IV of the
2002 Act.
35. The predicate offence has also 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 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.
36. 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 an opportunity to
oppose the application for such release; and
27
2025:JHHC:1141
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the
court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is
not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
Sub-section (2) thereof puts limitation on granting
bail specific in sub-section (1) in addition to the limitations
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other
law for the time being in force on granting of bail.
The explanation is also there as under sub-section
(2) thereof which is for the purpose of removal of doubts, a
clarification has been inserted that the expression “Offences
to be cognizable and non-bailable” shall mean and shall be
deemed to have always meant that all offences under this
Act shall be cognizable offences and non-bailable offences
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and accordingly the
officers authorised under this Act are empowered to arrest
an accused without warrant, subject to the fulfilment of
conditions under section 19 and subject to the conditions
enshrined under this section.
37. 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-387 and 412. For ready
reference, the said paragraphs are being referred as under:-
28
2025:JHHC:1141
“387………….The provision post the 2018
Amendment, is in the nature of no bail in relation to
the offence of money laundering unless the twin
conditions are fulfilled. The twin conditions are
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that
the accused is not guilty of offence of money
laundering and that he is not likely to commit any
offence while on bail. Considering the purposes
and objects of the legislation in the form of the
2002 Act and the background in which it had been
enacted owing to the commitment made to the
international bodies and on their recommendations,
it is plainly clear that it is a special legislation to
deal with the subject of money laundering activities
having transnational impact on the financial
systems including sovereignty and integrity of the
countries. This is not an ordinary offence. To deal
with such serious offence, stringent measures are
provided in the 2002 Act for prevention of money
laundering and combating menace of money
laundering, including for attachment and
confiscation of proceeds of crime and to prosecute
persons involved in the process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime. In view of the
gravity of the fallout of money laundering activities
having transnational impact, a special procedural
law for prevention and regulation, including to
prosecute the person involved, has been enacted,
grouping the offenders involved in the process or
activity connected with the proceeds of crime as a
separate class from ordinary criminals. The offence
of money laundering has been regarded as an
aggravated form of crime “world over”. It is,
therefore, a separate class of offence requiring
effective and stringent measures to combat the
menace of money laundering.
29
2025:JHHC:1141
412. As a result, we have no hesitation in
observing that in whatever form the relief 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
rigours of Section 45 of the 2002 Act 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.”
38. 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), it has been 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.
39. 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 proceeds of crime under the Act, in the case of a
person charged with the offence of money laundering under
30
2025:JHHC:1141
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. For ready reference, paragraph-17 of the said
judgment reads 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.”
40. 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
with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal
31
2025:JHHC:1141
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.
41. 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
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.
42. 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,
reported in (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,
32
2025:JHHC:1141
which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section
65 and also Section 71 of PMLA.
43. 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.
44. 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 petitioner.
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 the33
2025:JHHC:1141provisions 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.”
45. It needs to refer herein that while dealing with bail
applications under UAP Act 1967, the Hon’ble Apex Court
recently in the case of Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of
Punjab and Anr., reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 109,
has observed that the conventional idea in bail
jurisprudence vis-à-vis ordinary penal offences that the
discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted
phrase – ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception’ – unless
circumstances justify otherwise – does not find any place
while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act and the
‘exercise’ of the general power to grant bail under the UAP
Act is severely restrictive in scope. For ready reference,
relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred as
under:
34
2025:JHHC:1141
“28. The conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis-
à-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of
Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase –
‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception’ – unless
circumstances justify otherwise – does not find any
place while dealing with bail applications under UAP
Act. The ‘exercise’ of the general power to grant bail
under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. The
form of the words used in proviso to Section 43D (5)-
‘shall not be released’ in contrast with the form of the
words as found in Section 437(1) CrPC – ‘may be
released’ – suggests the intention of the Legislature to
make bail, the exception and jail, the rule.”
46. The reason for making reference of this judgment is
that in the Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr., the
UAPA has also been brought under the purview of category
‘c’ wherein while laying observing that in the UAPA Act, it
comes under the category ‘c’ which also includes money
laundering offence wherein the bail has been directed to be
granted if the investigation is complete but the Hon’ble
Apex Court in Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and
Anr. (supra) has taken the view by making note that the
penal offences as enshrined under the provision of UAPA
are also under category ‘c’ making reference that jail is the
rule and bail is the exception.
47. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled legal
position this Court is now adverting to the grounds as has
been raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that even if the entire ECIR will be taken into
35
2025:JHHC:1141
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. Further ground has been taken that the
allegation against the petitioner is that neither this
petitioner is the power of attorney holder nor the seller or
purchaser of the land in question.
48. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also
taken the ground that there is no proof or material has
been collected by the Enforcement Directorate to show the
specific role of this petitioner either in manufacture of the
documents or in laundering of the amount in question.
49. At this juncture it is required to consider the
various paragraphs of the prosecution complaint as
appended to the counter affidavit by the Enforcement
Directorate. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of
the same is being reproduced as under: –
“Brief facts of the offence/ Allegation/
Charge/Amount Involved under PMLA
3.1 An FIR bearing no. 399 of 2022, dated
08.09.2022 (RUD No. 3) was registered by Sadar
Police Station, Ranchi, Jharkhand under section
sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 447, 504, 506, 341, 323
& 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860. The FIR was
registered on the directions of the Ld. Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in complaint case no.
3111 of 2021 passed by order dated 28.06.2022. A
complaint case was filed by Umesh Kumar Gope
against Rajesh Rai, Imtiyaz Ahmad, Bharat Prasad,
Lakhan Singh, Punit Bhargav and Bishnu Kumar
Agarwal for fraudulently acquiring one acre of land36
2025:JHHC:1141situated at Plot no. 28, Khata No. 37, situated at
village Gari, Cheshire Home Road, PS Sadar, Ranchi.
3.2 The FIR alleged that Rajesh Rai, S/o Jagdish
Rai, illegally and fraudulently made a power of
attorney in the name of Imtiyaz Ahmed and Bharat
Prasad. On the strength of the said power of attorney,
they prepared a forged sale deed and sold the above-
mentioned parcel of land admeasuring 1 acres to
Punit Bhargav for an amount of Rs. 1,78,55,800/-.
Punit Bhargava further sold the said land to Bishnu
Kumar Agarwal, vide two sale deeds for the total
amount of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- (Vide two sale deeds,
both dated 01.04.2021, for an amount of Rs.
1,02,60,000/- and Rs. 77,40,000/-).
3.5 Investigation reveals that Rajesh Rai in
connivance with Bharat Prasad, Md. Saddam
Hussain, Afshar Ali, Imtiaz Ahmed and others
prepared one forged deed of 1948 was prepared by
the accused persons and on the basis of that a power
of attorney was given in favour of Imtiaz Ahmed and
Bharat Prasad. The other accomplice namely Lakhan
Singh became the confirming party in the deed and
they executed sale deed dated 06.02.2021 {RUD No. 3
(i)} in favour of Punit Bhargava for an amount of Rs.
1,78,55,800/- which was registered as document no.
2021/RAN/1016/BK1/906 in book no. BK1, Vol. no.
112 from page no.369 to 506 at the office of SRO,
Ranchi.
3.6 Punit Bhargava further sold the said land to
Bishnu Kumar Agarwal vide two sale deeds, both
dated 01.04.2021, registered as document no.
2021/RAN/2784/BK1/2483 in book no. BK1, Vol.
no. 316 from page no. 405 to 532 at the office of SRO,
Ranchi (for an amount of Rs. 1,02,60,000/-) and
document no. 2021/RAN/2783/BK1/2482 in book
no. BK1, Vol. no. 316 from page no. 261 to 404 at the
office of SRO, Ranchi (for an amount of Rs.
77,40,000).
37
2025:JHHC:1141
3.7 Investigation further reveals that though the
consideration amount in the deed between Imtiaz
Ahmed and Bharat Prasad and Punit Bhargava is
shown as Rs. 1,78,55,800/-, but only an amount of
Rs. 25 lacs have been paid from the Bank of Baroda
account of Shiva Fabcons, (account no
52580200000085) (RUD No. 85) one of the
proprietorship firms of Punit Bhargava into the SBI
Account no. 31180122501 of Rajesh Rai (RUD No.
100) on 12.02.2021. Further investigation reveals
that out of the said amount of Rs. 25 lacs, an amount
of Rs. 18 lacs were immediately transferred to the
bank account of Green Traders (RUD No. 92] a
partnership firm under the control of Md. Saddam
Hussain (one of the accused arrested by this office an
14.04.2023 and presently languishing in Judicial
Custody).
3.8 During Investigation, surveys were conducted on
09.02.2023 at the Circle office, Bargai, Ranchi (RUD
No 6) and on 15.02.2023 (RUD No 7) at the office of
Registrar of Assurances (Records), Kolkata under
section 16 of PMLA, 2002 and the original register
II/volumes, containing the above entry were
inspected and falsification of the original records were
identified in the above documents. The custody of the
original registers was taken from the Orde Office as
well as from the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata
after the permission of Hon’ble PMLA Court, Ranchi
under section 91 of Cr.PC. After sttaiming due
permission, the said original register was sent for
examination by an expert to Directorate of Forensic
Science, Handwriting and Forensic Bureau,
Gandhinagar The Directorate of Forensic Science has
confirmed the rgery and tempering in the above
stated registers. (RUD No. 8)
3.9 During further investigation, it revealed that the
accused persons namely Afshar Ali, Md. Saddam
Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmed, Bishnu Kumar Agarwal,
38
2025:JHHC:1141
Chhavi Ranjan, Prem Prakash, Rajesh Rai, Lakhan
Singh and Bharat Prasad are habitual offenders and
they are involved in mass forgery.—
Brief detail of person examined under section
50(2) & 3 of PMLA
8.12 Afshar Ali –
The accused Afshar Ali is a habitual offender who has
manufactured several fake deeds and is one of the
masterminds behind the activities of falsification of
government records and planting fake deeds in the
records of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata. He was
arrested on 14.04.2023 after searches were
conducted at his residential premises on 13.04.2023.
At present, he is in Judicial custody. In his statement
dated 17.04.2023, (RUD No 33) he stated that he was
aware of the fact that the one acre of land situated at
Plot no. 28, Khata no. 37, Village Gari, Cheshire
Home Road, Ranchi was part of ten acres of land
which was acquired by Birlas and later sold to
Kanodias. Out of these ten acres, the above said one
acre of land was unsold. Further, out of the ten acres
of land, a plot of 3.51 acres was initially sold to one
Gangadhar Rai, and as such, he made a fake deed
wherein the said one acre of land was sold by
Gangadhar Rai to Jagdish Rai, father of Rajesh Rai.
He also made one more claimant of this land i.e., to
Lakhan Singh by showing that the Kanodias had sold
this one acre of land to Kaliram Singh, father of
Lakhan Singh.
Later, he made Rajesh Rai a seller and Lakhan
a confirming party in the deed by which the property
was sold to Punit Bhargava, on behalf of Prem
Prakash. Afshar Ali also stated that he took the help
of his associate Bipin Singh to insert the name of
Jagdish Rai in the records of Circle Office. For this,
he paid Bipin Singh a sum of rupees fifteen lacs as a
bribe to the officials of Circle Office, Baragai, Ranchi
and as his commission. Later, he came to know that
39
2025:JHHC:1141
the land was under vigilance by the police as this
land had certain disputes. Later, he met with Prem
Prakash with one of his associates and Prem Prakash
was informed about the dispute and the vigilance of
the police. He further stated that Prem Prakash took
the stock of the status of the land arid called the then
D.C, Chhavi Ranjan and told him that the registry of
the above stated Cheshire Home property was to be
done after removing the vigilance observed by the
police.
After this, the consideration amount of Rs. 1.5
crores was fixed by Prem Prakash for this land.
Afshar Ali accepted the offer as he was made to
understand that Prem Prakash was a very influential
person who could be very useful in any kind of work
in Jharkhand. Afshar Ali further stated that he
accepted the consideration amount and further
requested Prem Prakash to arrange for unblocking
two plots of land, plot no. 891 and 893 measuring 1
acre 32 decimals (approx.) which were blocked from
the D.C office. The said plots were part of a property
admeasuring 3.81 acres of which fake deeds were
prepared by Afshar Ali. Afshar Ali further stated that
after talking to Chhavi Ranjan over this issue, Prem
Prakash demanded Rs. 1 crore for the above work.
The said amount of Rs. 1 crore was adjusted in the
above said consideration amount of Rs. 1.5 crores.
Later on, the said two blocks were unblocked but the
other plot no. 903 was blocked by the D.C office
which was beyond their understanding and the
reason of the same was not known to him. He further
stated that he came in contact with Prem Prakash
and one of his associates Rajdeep Kumar used to act
as a mediator between these two persons. Prem
Prakash asked him to do the registry of the said one
acre land situated at Cheshire Home Road in the
name of his associate Punit Bhargava. Further he has
stated that owing to the ill-health of Rajesh Rai, the
40
2025:JHHC:1141
power of attorney was given to Bharat Prasad and
Imtiaz Ahmed and subsequently as asked by Prem
Prakash, the land was registered in the name of Punit
Bhargava and Lakhan Singh was shown as the
confirming party over the said piece of land.
Moreover, he has stated that they were paid Rs.25
lacs directly into the bank accounts and they were
assured to be paid the remaining amount of Rs. 25
lacs in cash. Rest of the amount of Rs. 1 crore was
adjusted for unblocking the aforementioned blocked
piece of plot in land measuring 3.81 acres.
Further in his statement, he has stated that
while the transactions were being finalized with Prem
Prakash, he had further fixed the deal of this land
with Bishnu Kumar Agarwal. Bishnu Kumar Agarwal
had knowledge about the disputes involved in this
land for which he first asked Prem Prakash to fence
the abovesaid one acres of land with boundary walls.
For this, first the land was fenced with aluminum
sheets and later, wick walls were constructed inside.
Brief summary of result of investigation under
PMLA
9.1 The investigations under the provisions of PMLA,
2002 in FIR no. 399/2022 dated 08.09.2022 revealed
that there is organized group of persons who are
habitually involved in making fake deeds and
falsifying original land records at Circle Offices and
Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata and with the help of
said fake deeds, acquire and dispose properties in
fraudulent manner.
9.2 Investigation reveals that such forgery is
widespread and certain government officials are part
of the said conspiracy. Various influential persons
like Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, Prem Prakash and
others in connivance with senior government officials
like Chhavi Ranjan are involved in acquisition of
landed properties in Ranchi.
41
2025:JHHC:1141
9.3 Investigation has revealed that Bishnu Kumar
Agarwal has been assisted by Prem Prakash, Chhavi
Ranjan and others in acquiring proceeds of crime in
the form of landed properties the details of which are
given below.
9.4 The FIR alleged that Rajesh Rai, S/o Jagdish Rai,
illegally and fraudulently made a power of attorney in
the name of Imtiyaz Ahmed and Bharat Prasad. On
the strength of the said power of attorney, they
prepared a forged sale deed and sold the above-
mentioned parcel of land measuring 1 acres to Punit
Bhargav for an amount of Rs. 1,78,55,800/-. Punit
Bhargava further sold the said land to Bishnu Kumar
Agarwal, vide two sale deeds for the total amount of
Rs. 1,80,00,000/-. (Vide two sale deeds, both dated
01.04.2021, for an amount of Rs. 1,02,60,000/- and
Rs. 77,40,000/-).
9.5 Thus, the FIR stated that the land admeasuring 1
acres, situated at Gari, Cheshire Home Road, PS
Sadar, Ranchi was acquired in a fraudulent manner
by the above persons who indulged in fabricating
documents and forging records, on the basis of which
a power of attorney was fraudulently executed and
subsequently the land was transferred to Punit
Bhargava, who Immediately sold this land to Bishnu
Agarwal, a businessman having interests in several
avenues including real estate business.
9.6 Investigation reveals that Rajesh Rai in
connivance with Bharat Prasad, Md. Saddam
Hussain, Afshar Ali, Imtiaz Ahmed and others
prepared one forged deed of 1948 was prepared by
the accused persons and on the basis of that a power
of attorney was given in favour of Imtiaz Ahmed and
Bharat Prasad. The other accomplice namely Lakhan
Singh became the confirming party in the deed and
they executed sale deed dated 06.02.2021 in favour
of Punit Bhargava for an amount of Rs.
1,78,55,800/- which was registered as document no.
42
2025:JHHC:1141
2021/RAN/1016/BK1/906 in book no. BK1, Vol. no.
112 from page no. 369 to 506 at the office of SRO,
Ranchi.
9.7 Punit Bhargava further sold the said land to
Bishnu Kumar Agarwal vide two sale deeds, both
dated 01.04.2021, registered as document no.
2021/RAN/2784/BK1/2483 in book no. BK1, Vol.
no. 316 from page no. 405 to 532 at the office of SRO,
Ranchi (for an amount of Rs. 1,02,60,000/-) and
document no. 2021/RAN/2783/BK1/2482 in book
no. BK1, Vol. no. 316 from page no. 261 to 404 at the
office of SRO, Ranchi (for an amount of Rs.
77,40,000).
9.8 Investigation further reveals that though the
consideration amount in the deed between Imtiaz
Ahmed and Bharat Prasad and Punit Bhargava is
shown as Rs. 1,78,55,800/-, but only an amount of
Rs. 25 lacs have been paid from the Bank of Baroda
account of Shiva Fabcons, (account
no.52580200000085) one of the proprietorship firms
of Punit Bhargava into the SBI Account no.
31180122501 of Rajesh Rai on 12.02.2021. Further
Investigation reveals that out of the said amount of
Rs. 25 lacs, an amount of Rs. 18 lacs were
immediately transferred to the bank account of Green
Traders, a partnership firm under the control of Md.
Saddam Hussain (one of the accused arrested by this
office on 14.04.2023 and presently languishing in
Judicial Custody).
9.9 During investigation, surveys were conducted
on 09.02.2023 (RUD No. 06) at the Circle office,
Bargai, Ranchi and on 15.02.2023 (RUD No. 07) at
the office of Registrar of Assurances (Records),
Kolkata under section 16 of PMLA, 2002 and the
original register II/volumes, containing the above
entry were inspected and falsification of the original
records were identified in the above documents. The
custody of the original registers was taken from the
43
2025:JHHC:1141
Circle Office as well as from the Registrar of
Assurances, Kolkata after the permission of Hon’ble
PMIA Court Ranchi under section 91 of Cr.PC. After
obtaining due permission, the said original register
was sent for by an expert to Directorate of Forensic
Science, Handwriting and Forensic Bureau,
Gandhinagar. The Directorate of Forensic Science has
confirmed the forgery and tempering in the above
stated registers.
9.10 During further investigation, it revealed that
the accused persons namely Afshar All, Md. Saddam
Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmed, Bishnu Kumar Agarwal,
Chhavi Ranjan, Prem Prakash, Rajesh Rai, Lakhan
Singh and Bharat Prasad are habitual offenders and
they are involved in mass forgery. It is also
established that Bishnu Kumar Agarwal has acquired
other lands in frivolous manner with the help of
government officials.
9.11 As stated above, investigation has established
that the property situated at Khata no. 93, Plot no.
543, 544, 546 and 547, total area 9.30 acres
acquired by Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was a
government property (Khasmahal Land). And the said
property has been acquired by the accused Bishnu
Kumar Agarwal by influencing the government
officials including the Ex-DC Chhavi Ranjan who
helped him by suppressing and shelving all the
official records and documents which established
that the above property acquired by Bishnu Kumar
Agarwal was a government property (Khasmahal
Land). Further, this property has been in possession
of Nazarat Hussain & his families without any
grounds and has been in their occupation. Later, this
land was taken on lease by Ramchandra Mukherjee
effective from the year 1985 and expired in the year
2014 after which, the lease of the above-stated was
not renewed in name of any person. However, Bishnu
Kumar Agarwal by concealing and suppressing the
44
2025:JHHC:1141
facts and by assistance of the accused Chhavi Ranjan
and others purchased this Khasmahal land in illegal
manner.
Brief facts of the FIR and the reasons of the ECIR
10.1.1 An FIR bearing no. 399 of 2022 dated
08.09.2022 (RUD No.03) was registered by Sadar
Police Station, Ranchi, Jharkhand under section
sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 447, 504, 506, 341, 323
& 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860. The FIR was
registered on the directions of the Ld. Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in complaint case no.
3111 of 2021 passed by order dated 28.06.2022 for
fraudulently grabbing one land measuring 1 acre at
Plot no. 28, Khata No. 37, situated at village Gari,
Cheshire Home Road, PS Sadar, Ranchi.
10.1.2 Investigation reveals that Rajesh Rai, S/o
Jagdish Rai, illegally and fraudulently gave a power of
attorney in respect of the above-stated property to
Imtiyaz Ahmed (one of the accused arrested on
14.04.2023 in case No ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 in
matter of forgery in making fake deeds of property in
possession of the defence) and Bharat Prasad. Later,
the abovestated persons namely Rajesh Rai, Bharat
Prasad, Imtiaz Ahmed in connivance with other
accomplices namely Afshar Ali, Lakhan Singh, Md.
Saddam Hussain and others made a forged sale deed
and sold the abovementioned parcel of land
admeasuring 1 acres to one person namely Punit
Bhargav. Punit Bhargava is one of the close
associates of Prem Prakash (also languishing in
Judicial Custody in connection with illegal stone
mining case).
10.1.3 Rajesh Rai in connivance with Bharat Prasad,
Md. Saddam Hussain, Afshar Ali, Imtiaz Ahmed and
others created forged deed 184 of 1948 (RUD No. 07)
and on the basis of that, executed power of attorney
in favour of Imtiaz Ahmed and Bharat Prasad.
Further, one of their accomplices namely Lakhan
45
2025:JHHC:1141
Singh became the confirming party in the deed and
they executed sale deed dated 06.02.2021 in favour
of Punit Bhargava for an amount of Rs.
1,78,55,800/- which was registered as document no.
2021/RAN/1016/BK1/906 in book no. BK1, Vol. no.
112 from page no. 369 to 506 at the office of SRO,
Ranchi.
10.1.4 Punit Bhargava further sold the said land to
Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, another suspect of the ECIR,
vide two sale deeds, both dated 01.04.2021,
registered as document no.
2021/RAN/2784/BK1/2483 in book no. BK1, Vol.
no. 316 from page no. 405 to 532 at the office of SRO,
Ranchi (for an amount of Rs. 1,02,60,000/-) and
document no. 2021/RAN/2783/BK1/2482 in book
no. BK1, Vol. no. 316 from page no. 261 to 404 at the
office of SRO, Ranchi (for an amount of Rs.
77,40,000). (Part of RUD No. 03).
10.1.5 Thus, the land admeasuring 1 acres, situated
at Gari, Cheshire Home Road, PS Sadar, Ranchi was
acquired in a deceitful manner by the conspiracy and
criminal activities of the above-stated persons who
indulged into fabrication of documents and forging
records.
10.1.6 During investigation at the office of the
Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata, the forgery in the
original records for obtaining the above-said property
was observed by the officials of the Directorate of
Enforcement as well as the officials of the Registrar of
Assurances, Kolkata. Further, an FIR no. 137 of 2023
dated 10.05.2023 under section 120B, 465, 467, 468
and 471 of IPCP-M was also registered at Hare Street
P.S, Kolkata on the report of the fact- finding
committee of the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata.
14 Specific Roles of the Accused persons in
commission of offence of Money laundering
14.5 Afshar Ali Afsu Khan, s/o Late Abid Ali
(Accused no. 5) -The accused person was one of the
46
2025:JHHC:1141
main conspirators behind manufacturing fake deeds.
He was a one of the parties with other accused
persons namely Md. Saddam Hussain, Rajesh Rai
and Imtiaz Ahmed, in manufacturing fake deeds for
acquisition of proceeds of crime in form of landed
property admeasuring 1 acre situated at Pict no. 28,
Khata no. 37, Village Gan, Cheshire Home Road,
Ranchi. The accused person knowingly indulged in
the process and activity of manufacturing fake deed
in name of father of Rajesh Rai namely Jagdish Rai to
acquire the above property. The accused person was
also involved in making fake deed of sale dated
04.01.1952 being number 31 for the year 1952 of the
office of the Registrar of Calcutta, entered in book 1,
volume no. 20 at pages 243-248 shown to be
executed by one Tulsi Das Kanoreya in favour of
Kaliram Singh, father of the accused Lakhan Singh.
The accused directly indulged with the above accused
persons namely Imtiaz Ahmed, Bharat Prasad,
Lakhan Singh and with other accused persons
namely Md. Saddam Hussain, Punit Bhargava in
disposing this property to the accused person Prem
Prakash which was registered in the name of Punit
Bhargava. The accused person was also involved in
making fake deeds of properties admeasuring 3.61
acres situated at Plat no. 891, 892 and 903, Khata
no. 256, Bargai, Ranchi in name of Saraswati Devi,
mother of the accused Lakhan Singh and several
other properties. An amount of Rs. 25 lacs was
received in the bank account of Rajesh Rai for
making fake deed of the above property admeasuring
1 acre situated at Plot no. 28, Khata no. 37, Village
Gart, Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi out of which Rs. 1
lac was received by the accused in his IDBI Bank
account which establishes the indulgence of the
accused person in the above conspiracy and
knowingly being a party and getting actually involved
with other accused persons in the process or
47
2025:JHHC:1141
activities connected with proceeds of crime including
its acquisition, possession, and projecting and
claiming the proceeds of crime as untainted property.
Another fake deed no. 1219 of 1941 dated
28.04.1941 in name of Jagdish Rai, father of Rajesh
Ral was recovered from the residential premises of
the accused Afshar All for the property bearing Khata
no. 140, Khewat no. 103, Plot no. 845, 851, 853,
514/2784, 514/2782, 514/2783, total area 5.01
acres, This proves that the accused Afshar Ali is an
accomplice of Rajesh Rai and others who are involved
in manufacturing fake deeds for acquiring properties
in fraudulent manner. The accused has received Rs.
26,60,218 from the accused Bharat Prasad on
different dates and has also transferred Rs. 1,40,000
to him on several occasions from the bank accounts
linked to him.
Hence, the accused person Afshar Ali is involved in
the activities connected with the acquisition,
possession, concealment, of the proceeds of crime
and claiming and projecting the proceeds of crime as
untainted property. Thus, the accused person Afshar
Ali has committed the offence of money laundering as
defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002 and is
accordingly liable to punished under section 4 of
PMLA, 2002.”
50. It is evident from the prosecution complaint that the
searches were conducted at the premises of the petitioner
and his close accomplices namely Md. Saddam Hussain
and others has led to the recovery of 36 fake deeds which
have been verified from the registration offices situated at
Kolkata as well as Ranchi and same has not been found as
genuine.
48
2025:JHHC:1141
51. It is evident from the aforesaid paragraph that
during the course of investigation, the statement of the
Petitioner, Afshar Ali was recorded under section 50 of the
PMLA, 2002, in the custody of the Directorate of
Enforcement in ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 as well as in the
judicial custody after taking permission from the Ld.
Special Court, PMLA, Ranchi. Further, the statements of
his accomplices were also recorded under section 50 of the
PMLA, 2002 as well as; in the custody of the Directorate of
Enforcement post arrest. From the statements of the
aforesaid co-accused the case of the prosecution has fully
been substantiated.
52. In his statement the present applicant has admitted
that out of the ten acres of land, a plot of 3.51 acres was
initially sold to one Gangadhar Rai, and as such, he made a
fake deed wherein the said one acre of land was sold by
Gangadhar Rai to Jagdish Rai, father of Rajesh Rai.
53. Record transpires that the accused petitioner
namely Afsar Ali @ Afsu Khan was a party with the other
co-accused persons in acquisition of proceeds of crime in
form of landed property admeasuring 1 acre situated at Plot
no. 28. Khata no. 37, village Gari Chesire Home Road,
Ranchi in the name of Punit Bhargav and Investigation
reveals that Bishnu Kumar Agrawal has paid Rs.
49
2025:JHHC:1141
1,78,20,000/- to the accused Punit Bhargav in his firm
Shiva Fabcons.
54. It has come during investigation that the petitioner
has played major role behind manufacturing fake deeds. He
is one of the parties with his accomplices namely Md.
Saddam Hussain, and Imtiaz Ahmed in manufacturing fake
deeds for acquisition of proceeds of crime in form of landed
property admeasuring 1 acre situated at Plot no. 28, Khata
no. 37, Village Gari, Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi. The
petitioner knowingly indulged in the process and activity of
manufacturing fake deed in name of father of Rajesh Rai
namely Jagdish Rai to acquire the above property.
55. Further, he is also involved in making fake deed of
sale dated 04.01.1952 being number 31 for the year 1952
of the office of the Registrar of Calcutta, entered in book I,
volume no. 20 at pages 243-248 shown to be executed by
one Tulsi Das Kanoreya in favour of Kaliram Singh, father
of the accused Lakhan Singh.
56. Thus, it would be evident from the material
collected that the present petitioner and his associates are
party to the activities connected with the proceeds of crime
in form of immoveable property Cheshire Home Road,
Ranchi having deed value of Rs 1.80 crores including its
acquisition, possession, concealment used and projecting
and claiming the proceeds of crime as untainted property.
50
2025:JHHC:1141
57. Thus, prima-facie it appears that the present
petitioner being an accomplice of a syndicate was
knowingly a party in the preparation of fake deed of the
above stated one acre property with other co-accused
persons.
58. It has further come during the investigation that an
amount of Rs. 25 lacs was received in the bank account of
associate of present petitioner for making fake deed of the
above property admeasuring 1 acre situated at Plot no. 28,
Khata no. 37, Village Gari, Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi
out of which Rs. 1 lac was received by the petitioner in his
IDBI Bank account which establishes his indulgence in the
above conspiracy and knowingly being a party and getting,
actually involved with other accomplices in the process or
activities connected with proceeds of crime including its
acquisition, possession, and projecting, and claiming the
proceeds of crime as untainted property.
59. It is, thus, evident on the basis of the aforesaid
material collected that prima-facie the involvement of the
present petitioner in the alleged offence said to be
committed under the provisions of the Act, 2002, cannot be
denied.
60. It appears from record that the petitioner is a
habitual offender, who is involved in a number of illegal
land acquisitions based on fake deeds, thereby causing
51
2025:JHHC:1141
tremendous loss to the government exchequer. Further, his
active role also surfaced during investigation in other land
scam cases being investigated by this office, bearing ECIR
RNZO/18/2022 and the petitioner was arrested in
ECIR/RNZO/18/2022, a case pertaining to illegal
acquisition of a defence property on having reasons to
believe that he is guilty of the offence of money laundering,
after following the compliances under section 19 of PMLA,
2002.
61. It needs to refer herein that the petitioner was
arrested under section 19 of PMLA, 2002 in
ECIR:RNZO/18/2022 (case pertaining to fraudulent
acquisition of a defence land) on having reasons to believe
that he is guilty of the offence of money laundering as
defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002. Further, the
petitioner was given an opportunity to appear before the
Directorate of Enforcement to give his statement under
section 50 of P’MLA, 2002 in light of summons issued to
him. Moreover, in the instant case too, the statement of the
petitioner was recorded in the judicial custody after
permission of the Ld. Special Court, PMLA, Ranchi .
62. It needs to refer herein that the the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union
of India and Ors. (supra) as under paragraph-284, has
been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to
52
2025:JHHC:1141
prosecute a person for offence of money-laundering only if
it has “reason to believe”, which is required to be recorded
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 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.
63. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion this
court has “reason to believe” that prima-facie the
involvement of the present petitioner is fully substantiated
by the tangible and credible evidences which is indicative of
involvement of the present petitioner in activity connected
with the proceeds of crime.
64. So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45
of the Act, 2002 is concerned, as has been referred
hereinabove, 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 is couched
including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section
438 of the 1973 Code or 439 for that matter, by invoking
the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the underlying
53
2025:JHHC:1141
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.
65. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45
of P.M.L.A. 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
accused/petitioner.
66. As discussed above, the “offence of money-
laundering” means whosoever directly or indirectly
attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a
party or is actually involved in any process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime including its
concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting
or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of
offence of money-laundering and 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
54
2025:JHHC:1141
or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as
untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in
any manner whatsoever.
67. Further, it is evident from the judicial
pronouncement as discussed above that in order 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 and in the instant case from
perusal of paragraph of the prosecution complaint it is
evident that the petitioner is not only involved rather his
involvement is direct in procuring the proceeds of crime by
way of connivance with the other accused persons.
68. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that a
person accused of the offence of money Laundering need
not to be accused in predicate offence and this position has
been cleared in the judgement in the case of Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary and others (supra) as well as in
the case of Pavna Dibbur Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
55
2025:JHHC:1141
in Criminal Appeal No. 2779/2023, wherein, it is
categorically held that the person accused of PMLA offence
need not be an accused in scheduled offence.
69. 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
mention in prosecution complaint.
Ground of Parity
70. Now coming to the ground of parity. Law is well
settled that the principle of parity is to be applied if the
case of the fact is exactly to be similar then only the
principle of parity in the matter of passing order is to be
passed but if there is difference in between the facts then
the principle of parity is not to be applied.
71. 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 the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been
established. Reference in this regard may be taken from the
judgment as rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
56
2025:JHHC:1141
Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai
Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230, wherein, it has been held as
under:-
“25. We are constrained to observe that the orders
passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass
muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and
innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged
offences and to the severity of the punishment in the
event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P.
[Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508:],
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 been
brought on record that the second respondent has
been charge-sheeted in respect of number of other
heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take
note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave
the path of extinction, for its approval by this
Court would 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 dated57
2025:JHHC:114121-12- 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 (A13)
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.”
72. 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
is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused
whose application is under consideration.
58
2025:JHHC:1141
73. This Court in order to come to the conclusion as to
whether the case of the petitioner is at par with Bishnu
Kumar Agarwala and Chhavi Ranjan who has been granted
bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, needs to
consider the allegation as has been surfaced in course of
interrogation of the witness as accused persons as available
in the ECIR for the purpose of clarification regarding the
commission of the Act by Bishnu Kumar Agarwala, Chavi
Ranjan and the petitioner.
74. This Court deems it fit and proper to go through the
paragraphs of the said orders by which Bishnu Kumar
Agarwala and Chavi Ranjan has been granted bail, so as to
come to the conclusion that whether the accountability of
Bishnu Kumar Agarwala and Chavi Ranjan in commission
of predicate offence attracting the ingredient of Section 3 of
the Act, 2002 is at par with the case of present
petitioner/applicant herein. The aforesaid orders granting
bail are available on record.
75. On comparative assessment of the allegation as per
the material available on record it is evident that against
the said Bishnu Kumar Agarwala, the allegation of
purchase of the land in question has been alleged and
further allegation against him is that he is involved in the
activities connected with the acquisition, possession,
59
2025:JHHC:1141
concealment and use of the proceeds of crime and claiming
and projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted property.
76. Further on comparative assessment of the allegation
as per the material available on record, it is evident that
against the said co-accused Chavi Ranjan the use of state
machinery in felicitating the commission of the said offence
has been alleged.
77. So far parity of the present applicant with the co-
accused namely Prem Prakash is concerned the Hon’ble
Apex Court while enlarging him has observed that
independently, the statement of Afshar Ali does not prima
facie indicate anything about the role of the appellant (Prem
Prakash) in the forgery of sale deed and other documents or
being involved in the offence of money laundering. But in
the instant case as per discussion in preceding paragraph
it has come in the investigation that the present petitioner
was very much active and instrumental in preparation of
the various fake deeds of land situated in Ranchi.
78. So far parity of the present applicant with the co-
accused namely Rajesh Rai is concerned the Hon’ble Apex
Court while taking in to consideration the probable delay in
conclusion of the trial has allowed the prayer for bail of the
said co-accused.
79. But, against the present petitioner, the allegation
has been leveled as would appear from various paragraphs
60
2025:JHHC:1141
of the complaint that he has been instrumental behind
manufacturing of fake deeds and he is one of the parties
with his accomplices namely Md. Saddam Hussain, and
Imtiaz Ahmed in manufacturing fake deeds for acquisition
of proceeds of crime in form of landed property
admeasuring 1 acre situated at Plot no. 28, Khata no. 37,
Village Gari, Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi. Further The
petitioner was indulged in the process and activity of
manufacturing of various fake deed.
80. Further during the investigation, it has come
against the petitioner Afsar Ali that accused persons
connived among themselves for preparation of fake deed of
the property in question and thereafter property was
registered in the name of Punit Bhargava, co-accused
persons and the investigation further reveals that though
the consideration amount in the deed between Imtiyaz
Ahmed and Bharat Prasad and Punit Bhargava was shown
as Rs. 1,78,55,800/-, but only an amount of Ra. 25 lacs
was paid into the SBI Account no. 31100122501 of the
dummy owner/accused Rajesh Rai on 12.02.2021.
81. Further, in the counter affidavit it has been
submitted that the accused/petitioner is a habitual
offender who is also involved in making fake deeds of
properties admeasuring 3.81 acres situated at Plot no. 891,
892 and 903, Khata no. 256, Bargai, Ranchi in name of
61
2025:JHHC:1141
Saraswati Devi, mother of the accused Lakhan Singh and
several other properties. This fact indicates the present
petitioner Afshar Ali an accomplice of syndicate who is
involved in manufacturing fake deeds for acquiring
properties in fraudulent manner.
82. Hence, the petitioner Afshar Ali is involved in the
activities connected with the acquisition, possession,
concealment, of the proceeds of crime and claiming and
projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted property.
Thus, the petitioner Afshar Ali has committed the offence of
money laundering as defined under section 3 of PMLA,
2002.
83. Further, the learned counsel for respondent has
submitted at bar that all possible step would be taken by
the prosecution to earlier conclusion of the trial.
84. Therefore, it is evident from the discussion as made
above as per the allegation the case of the petitioner is
different to that of the said co-accused persons against
whom the parity is claimed.
85. At this juncture, it needs to refer herein that the
Hon’ble Apex Court in very recent judgment in the case of
Union of India through the Assistant Director Vs
Kanhaiya Prasad reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 306
has categorically held that the person summoned under
Section 50(2) is bound to attend in person or through
62
2025:JHHC:1141
authorized agents before the authority and to state truth
upon any subject concerning which he is being examined or
is expected to make statements and to produce the
documents as may be required by virtue of sub-section (3)
of Section 50. It has been further observed that
Article 20(3) of the Constitution would not come into play in
respect of the process of recording statement pursuant to
such summon issued under sub-section (2) of Section 50.
The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed that It is no
more res integra that the offence of money laundering is an
independent offence regarding the process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime, which had been
derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating
to or in relation to a schedule offence. For ready reference
the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being
quoted as under:
18. Though it was sought to be submitted by learned senior
Advocate Mr. Ranjit Kumar for the respondent that the
appellant had relied upon the statements of the respondent
recorded under Section 50 of the Act which were
inadmissible in evidence, the said submission cannot be
accepted in view of the position of law settled by this Court
in Vijay Madanlal (supra) in which it has been held inter
alia that the person summoned under Section 50(2) is
bound to attend in person or through authorized agents
before the authority and to state truth upon any subject
concerning which he is being examined or is expected to
make statements and to produce the documents as may be
required by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 50. It has
been further observed that Article 20(3) of63
2025:JHHC:1141the Constitution would not come into play in respect of the
process of recording statement pursuant to such summon
issued under sub-section (2) of Section 50. 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 insofar as it is related to the phrase “to be a
witness” is in respect of testimonial compulsion in the court
room, and it may also 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 a prosecution.
19. We also do not find any substance in the submission
made by learned Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar for the
respondent that the respondent has not been shown as an
accused in the predicate offence. It is no more res
integra that the offence of money laundering is an
independent offence regarding the process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime, which had been
derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating
to or in relation to a schedule offence. Hence, involvement
in any one of such process or activity connected with the
Proceeds of Crime would constitute offence of money
laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do with
the criminal activity relating to a schedule offence, except
the Proceeds of Crime derived or obtained as a result of that
crime. The precise observations made in Vijay
Madanlal (supra) in this regard may be reproduced
hereunder:–
“270. Needless to mention that such process or activity can
be indulged in only after the property is derived or obtained
as a result of criminal activity (a scheduled offence). It
would be an offence of money laundering to indulge in or to
assist or being party to the process or activity connected
with the proceeds of crime; and such process or activity in a
given fact situation may be a continuing offence,
irrespective of the date and time of commission of the
scheduled offence. In other words, the criminal activity may64
2025:JHHC:1141have been committed before the same had been notified as
scheduled offence for the purpose of the 2002 Act, but if a
person has indulged in or continues to indulge directly or
indirectly in dealing with proceeds of crime, derived or
obtained from such criminal activity even after it has been
notified as scheduled offence, may be liable to be
prosecuted for offence of money laundering under the 2002
Act — for continuing to possess or conceal the proceeds of
crime (fully or in part) or retaining possession thereof or
uses it in trenches until fully exhausted. The offence of
money laundering is not dependent on or linked to the date
on which the scheduled offence, or if we may say so, the
predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date is
the date on which the person indulges in the process or
activity connected with such proceeds of crime. These
ingredients are intrinsic in the original provision (Section 3,
as amended until 2013 and were in force till 31-7-2019);
and the same has been merely explained and clarified by
way of Explanation vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. Thus
understood, inclusion of clause (ii) in the Explanation
inserted in 2019 is of no consequence as it does not alter or
enlarge the scope of Section 3 at all.
271 to 405……………
406. It was urged that the scheduled offence in a given case
may be a non-cognizable offence and yet rigours of Section
45 of the 2002 Act would result in denial of bail even to
such accused. This argument is founded on clear
misunderstanding of the scheme of the 2002 Act. As we
have repeatedly mentioned in the earlier part of this
judgment that the offence of money laundering is one
wherein a person, 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. The fact that the proceeds of crime have
been generated as a result of criminal activity relating to a
scheduled offence, which incidentally happens to be a non-
cognizable offence, would make no difference. The person is
not prosecuted for the scheduled offence by invoking65
2025:JHHC:1141provisions of the 2002 Act, but only when he has derived or
obtained property as a result of criminal activity relating to
or in relation to a scheduled offence and then indulges in
process or activity connected with such proceeds of
crime. Suffice it to observe that the argument under
consideration is completely misplaced and needs to be
rejected.”
86. Further, it is required to refer herein that the Money
Laundering is an economic offence and economic offences
come under the of grave offences hence needs to be visited
with a different approach in the matter of bail as held by
the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Y. S Jagan Mohan
Reddy Vs. 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
deeprooted 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.”
87. 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 the66
2025:JHHC:1141development 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-collar crimes 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
67
2025:JHHC:1141
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
deeprooted 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.”
88. It needs to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Union of India through the Assistant
Director Vs Kanhaiya Prasad (supra) has specifically
observed that there remains no shadow of doubt that the
consideration of the two conditions mentioned in Section
45 is mandatory, and that while considering the bail
application, the said rigours of Section 45 have to be
reckoned by the court to uphold the objectives of the PMLA.
It has further been observed that merely because the
prosecution complaint had been filed and the cognizance
was taken by the court that itself would not be the ground
or consideration to release the respondent on bail, when
the mandatory requirements as contemplated in Section 45
have not been complied with.
89. In the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court
has further observed that the offence of money laundering
has been regarded as an aggravated form of crime world
over and the offenders involved in the activity connected
68
2025:JHHC:1141
with the Proceeds of Crime are treated as a separate class
from ordinary criminals and any casual or cursory
approach by the Courts while considering the bail
application of the offender involved in the offence of money
laundering and granting him bail by passing cryptic orders
without considering the seriousness of the crime and
without considering the rigours of Section 45, cannot be
vindicated. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is
being quoted as under:
20. The High Court has utterly failed to consider the
mandatory requirements of Section 45 and to record its
satisfaction whether any reasonable ground existed for
believing that the respondent was not guilty of the alleged
offence, and that he was not likely to commit any offence
while on bail. Merely because the prosecution complaint
had been filed and the cognizance was taken by the court
that itself would not be the ground or consideration to
release the respondent on bail, when the mandatory
requirements as contemplated in Section 45 have not been
complied with.
21. As well settled, the offence of money laundering is not
an ordinary offence. The PMLA has been enacted to deal
with the subject of money laundering activities having
transnational impact on financial systems including
sovereignty and integrity of the countries. The offence of
money laundering has been regarded as an aggravated form
of crime world over and the offenders involved in the activity
connected with the Proceeds of Crime are treated as a
separate class from ordinary criminals. Any casual or
cursory approach by the Courts while considering the bail
application of the offender involved in the offence of money
laundering and granting him bail by passing cryptic orders
without considering the seriousness of the crime and69
2025:JHHC:1141without considering the rigours of Section 45, cannot be
vindicated.
90. It is evident from discussion made hereinabove and
particularly taking in to consideration the aforesaid settled
position of law that so far as the case of the present
petitioner is concerned, the twin condition as provided
under Section 45(1) the prayer for privilege of bail for the
present petitioner cannot be allowed.
91. Even on the ground of parity as per the discussion
made hereinabove, the same on the basis of the
role/involvement of the present petitioner in the
commission of crime in comparison to that of the other co-
accused, is quite different.
92. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to the facts
and circumstances, as have been analyzed hereinabove as
also taking into consideration that the petitioner is a
habitual offender, who is involved in a number of illegal
land acquisitions based on fake deeds, thereby causing
tremendous loss to the government exchequer and further,
his active role also surfaced during investigation in other
land scam cases being investigated by ED, bearing ECIR-
RNZO/18/2022 a case pertaining to illegal acquisition of a
defence property, the applicant is failed to make out a
prima-facie case for exercise of power to grant bail, hence,
70
2025:JHHC:1141
this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise
its discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail.
93. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the instant
bail application is liable to be rejected.
94. Accordingly, based upon the aforesaid discussion,
this Court is of the view that the instant application is fit to
be dismissed and as such, stands dismissed.
95. The observation/finding, as recorded hereinabove,
is only for the purpose of consideration of issue of bail. The
same will not prejudice the issue on merit in course of trial.
96. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also
stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
A.F.R.
Birendra/
71
[ad_1]
Source link