Jharkhand High Court
Pramod Kumar Singh @ Pramod Singh vs Union Of India Through Its Directorate … on 20 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:24558
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.4732 of 2025
-----
Pramod Kumar Singh @ Pramod Singh, aged about 41
years, son of Aditya Narayan Singh, Resident of Sector-3,
Sahyogi Nagar, P.O. and P.S. – Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through its Directorate of Enforcement.
2. The Director, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences,
Ranchi, At Bariatu, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
... ... Opp. Parties
-------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
——-
For the Petitioner : Mr. Akhil Krishna Maggu, Advocate
Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. No.1 : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
For the O.P. No.2 : Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
——
CAV on 13.08.2025 Pronounced on 20/08/2025
Prayer
1. The instant application has been filed under
Sections 483 and 484 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 praying for
grant of bail in ECIR Case No.01 of 2025 arising out of
ECIR/RNZO/13/2021 dated 27.10.2021 registered for the
alleged offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4
of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, now
pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, P.M.L.A. at
Ranchi.
Prosecution case/Facts
2. The brief facts of the case is that an ECIR bearing
No. ECIR/RNZO/13/2021 dated 27.10.2021 registered was
1 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
based on FIR bearing no.46/2016 dated 08.06.2016 which
was registered by ACB, Dhanbad u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of
P.C. Act, another FIR bearing no. 15/2019 dated
26.08.2019 registered by ACB, Dhanbad against the
accused petitioner namely, Pramod Kumar Singh @Pramod
Singh @ Pramod Kumar, Block Account Manager at PHC,
Jharia for misappropriation of NRHM funds and the role of
persons posted at Primary Health Centre, Jharia cum
Jodapokhar, Civil Surgeon, Dhanbad and staff posted
there.
3. It is further stated that an analysis of statements of
Saving Bank Accounts of PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar at
Punjab National Bank bearing no. 0230000109221923 and
023000109233751 was done by ACB, Dhanbad and it was
found that in these two account Rs.11,28,27,111.00 was
transferred from the District Health Society between
01.03.2012 to 22.06.2016 and out of this, an amount of
Rs.6,97,43,832.29 was misappropriated and thereby
causing huge loss to the government and corresponding
gain to themselves.
4. It is further stated that since Sections 120-B, 420,
467, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of P.C. Act,
1988 mentioned in both the FIRs are schedule offences as
per Schedule ‘A’ appended to PMLA, therefore, the
investigation was taken for commission of the offence of
2 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
money laundering after recording and ECIR bearing
No.ECIR/RNZO/13/2021 dated 27.10.2021.
5. Upon investigation by the prosecuting agency, it
was found that petitioner and the then Medical Officer In-
charge, in connivance with each other, have misused the
official position and embezzled NRHM funds to the tune of
Rs. 9,39,87,952.29/- as a result of criminal activity and
related to schedule offences.
6. It is further alleged that petitioner acquired
proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 3.95 crores directly in
his bank accounts from the bank account of Primary
Health Centre, Jharia cum Jodapokhar. It is also alleged
that petitioner in connivance with Shashi Bhushan Prasad
acquired proceeds of crime to the tune of
Rs.9,39,87,952.29/-. Out of said proceeds of crime
Rs.9,39,87,952.29/-, petitioner handled the PoC of
Rs.4,45,06,962.69/- by way of concealment through
transfer of funds by deposits into the bank himself and his
family account of members and his associates and direct
cash withdrawals from the bank accounts of PHC by virtue
of investments and acquisitions of properties and project
them as untainted.
7. The Enforcement Directorate upon completion of
investigation registered ECIR Case no. 01/2025 in
E.C.I.R/RNZO/13/2021 dated 27.10.2021.
3 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
8. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested in this case
on the allegation of he being found guilty under Section 3
and punishable under Section 4 of PMLA, 2002.
9. Thereafter, the present petitioner preferred Misc.
Cri. Application No. 381 of 2025 for grant of bail which was
rejected vide order dated 12.03.2025 by learned Additional
Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi, hence, the instant bail
application.
10. It needs to refer herein that an interlocutory
application being I.A. No. 10003 of 2025 has been filed on
behalf of the petitioner to grant interim bail to the petitioner
due to medical exigency. This Court vide order dated 13th
August, 2025 has dismissed the said interlocutory
application as not pressed in the light of the submission
made by the learned counsel for the applicant as he
intended not to press the said interlocutory application.
Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner
11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
has taken the following grounds: –
(i) The petitioner is innocent, committed no offence
whatsoever as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely
implicated in this case due to some ulterior motive.
(ii) It is submitted that the petitioner was contractual
basis Block Account Manager, PHC Jharia cum
Jodapokhar and his responsibility was to maintain
4 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558accounts of the said department under instruction
and as per direction of the then Medical in-charge
(MOIC) and vide Letter No.286 dated 01.02.2012 the
Civil Surgeon Dhanbad had instructed that all the
withdrawal and cheques will be jointly signed with
the Block Account Manager (BAM), and on the
strength of that letter, Pramod Singh was introduced
at bank as joint signatory with MOIC Shashi
Bhushan Prasad for the payment of various schemes,
MMJSY, routine immunization, Child health
activities, pulse polio, anemia reduction, Sahiya
training, expenses of center etc.
(iii) It is further submitted that some amount had been
transferred in Bank Account of Pramod
Singh(petitioner) for the cash payment and
transaction of staff payment and other expenses
being joint signatory with MOIC Shashi Bhushan
Prasad and any work done in any account of C.H.C.
or any payment of any head the order of payment
was made by the then MOIC Shashi Bhushan
Prasad, thereafter it was verified by the then BPM
Pankaj Kumar and as per their order only, Pramod
Singh signed on the cheques and/or released the
payment after making entry in cash book. All the
payment, either through cheque or cash, were made
through vouchers under the instruction of MOIC &
5 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558BPM after making proper entries in the Cash Book.
The said cash book along with the vouchers and
details of all the payment of Jharia cum Jorapokhar
Branch was duly submitted to the District Office
Dhanbad every month it was verified and tallied every
payment and transaction from the vouchers and
details by their officers.
(iv) It is further submitted that the work of the petitioner
was limited to making entry in the Books of Account
and release funds as per the direction, supervision
and instruction of MOIC & BPM and if any
misappropriation of funds had done then it would
have been detected in the audit report but no any
entrustment or misappropriation of funds was
detected in the audit report and/or no any claim has
ever been made by the Audit department against the
petitioner.
(v) It is further submitted that sum of Rs.10 lakh as
alleged transferred from the PHC Account by joint
signature is totally wrong rather the said amount has
been transferred from the personal account.
(vi) It is further submitted that the petitioner has legally
earned Rs. 16,65,000/- by way of salary during his
employment and he was also doing business and
earned Rs.8,00,000/- per annum and he had shown
his income in Income Tax Return of about
6 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
Rs.8,00,000/-. As such the assets worth of
Rs.93,83,241/- is proportionate to his known legal
source of income.
(vii) It is further submitted that the persons who were
engaged in the PHC/CHC/HSC employee or given
services have categorically done their work or supply
and submitted the bills to the then MOIC Shashi
Bhushan Prasad which is passed by him and the
then BPM Pankaj Kumar and Pramod Singh was only
joint signatory and maintained the account which
was duly sent to District Office which was checked,
verified by the Office of the Civil Surgeon and others
and duly audited by the Auditor General Office
Ranchi and the petitioner only signed the cheques as
per the direction and instruction being second
signatory of the cheques after the cheques being
signed by MOIC, Shashi Bhushan Prasad and/or
their order and proper payment entry has been made
in the cash book which was sent to the District
Office.
(viii) It has further been submitted that there is no legally
acceptable evidence on the entire case record to
implicate the petitioner in the present case save and
except suspicion and in any view of the matter no
case as alleged is attracted against the petitioner.
7 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
12. Further submission has been made that petitioner
is languishing in Jail custody since 19.02.2025 and in the
aforesaid view of the matter also as per the ground agitated,
it is a fit case where the petitioner is to be given the
privilege of bail.
Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
respondent/Directorate of Enforcement:
13. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel
for the Enforcement Directorate, has vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail by taking the following grounds:-
(i) It has been submitted that the petitioner being
Block Account Manager at PHC, Jharia in
connivance with Shashi Bhushan Prasad (now
deceased) misused his official position and
embezzled Rs. 9,39,87,952.29/- by transferring the
NRHM funds from the bank accounts of PHC,
Jharia and PHC Management Society, Jodapokhar
into his bank accounts and bank accounts of his
family/associates and further directed them to
handover the funds after withdrawal of cash or to
make direct payments for procurement of
goods/services, which was later utilized to
construct a two-storey house in the name of his
wife.
(ii) Further, in some instances, the petitioner also
purchased vehicles in the name of his associates
8 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558and used/possessed or further changed the
ownership status in the name of his wife Smt. Priya
Singh.
(iii) The corroborative statements of the petitioner key
associate namely Basant Ram and Sannu Kumar
Singh, detailing the modus operandi of cash
withdrawals at his direction.
(iv) It has come in investigation that incriminating
documents, including forged utilization certificates
prepared under the petitioner’s supervision.
(v) Further, the clear money trail established the
diversion of public funds from government
accounts, for which the petitioner was a joint
signatory, into shell entities and for his personal
enrichment.
14. On the aforesaid ground it has been contended that
in light of overwhelming evidence which would be evident
from prosecution complaint, the petitioner’s claim of
innocence is not only unsubstantiated but is a bald
assertion directly contradicted by the record.
15. Further, the petitioner has failed to present any
material or credible ground that would dismantle the case
of the prosecution at this prima facie stage. Therefore, the
first condition of Section 45 is not met. Consequently, the
second condition-that he is not likely to commit any
offence-also cannot be presumed, especially that the
9 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
offence was committed while he held a position of trust,
therefore, the instant application, being barred by Section
45 of the PMLA, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.
16. Learned counsel for the Opp. Party-ED, based upon
the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is not a fit
case for grant of regular bail in favour of the petitioner.
Analysis
17. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the documents available on record.
18. It is evident that an ECIR was recorded on the basis
of two predicate FIRs (FIR No. 46/2016 and FIR No.
15/2019) registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB),
Jharkhand, disclosing a large-scale conspiracy involving
the criminal misappropriation of public funds under the
National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). It has been alleged
that the investigation has unearthed a criminal conspiracy
resulting in the embezzlement and laundering of public
funds to the tune of Rs 9,39,87,952.29/-which were meant
for crucial public health schemes under the NRHM.
19. It has further been alleged that the present
Petitioner is the kingpin and prime conspirator of the said
criminal syndicate, who, in collusion with the then Medical
Officer In-charge (MOIC), Late Dr. Shashi Bhushan Prasad,
was responsible for the generation, layering, and
integration of the aforesaid proceeds of crime.
10 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
20. The present petitioner was arrested under Section
19 of the PMLA on 18.02.2025, thereafter the present
petitioner had moved before the Spl. Judge PML Act Ranchi
for bail but vide order dated 12.03.2025, the prayer for bail
of the present petitioner has been rejected.
21. The Directorate of Enforcement, after investigation
and collection of material evidence, has filed a Prosecution
Complaint dated 03.04.2025 before the Special Court,
PMLA, Ranchi against the present Petitioner and other co-
accused persons, for commission of the offence of money
laundering as defined under Section 3 and punishable
under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002, thereafter, the Hon’ble
Court has taken cognizance of the said complaint on
16.07.2025.
22. 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
intent as also the legal proposition as settled by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in various judgments.
23. 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
11 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the
persons indulging in the process or activity connected with
the proceeds of crime.
24. 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.
25. 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
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.
26. 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 a12 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558result 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;]”
27. 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.
28. In the explanation, it has been referred 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.
29. 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
13 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
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.
30. Further, 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.
31. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x)
which means schedule to the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002.
32. 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.
33. 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 knowingly14 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved
in any process or activity connected with the
[proceeds of crime including its concealment,
possession, acquisition or use and projecting or
claiming] it as untainted property shall be guilty of
offence of money-laundering.
[Explanation.– For the removal of doubts, it is
hereby clarified that,–
(i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-
laundering if such person is found to have directly or
indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted
or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one
or more of the following processes or activities
connected with proceeds of crime, namely:–
(a) concealment; or
(b) possession; or
(c) acquisition; or
(d) use; or
(e) projecting as untainted property; or
(f) claiming as untainted property, in any
manner whatsoever;
(ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of
crime is a continuing activity and continues till such
time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the
proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or
acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted
property or claiming it as untainted property in any
manner whatsoever.]”
34. 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.
15 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
35. 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.
36. The punishment for money laundering has been
provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2002.
37. Section 50 of the Act, 2002 confers power upon the
authorities regarding summons, production of documents
and to give evidence.
38. 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.
39. The predicate offence has been considered in the
aforesaid judgment wherein by taking into consideration
the explanation as inserted by way of Act 23 of 2019 under
the definition of the “proceeds of crime” as contained under
Section 2(1)(u), whereby and whereunder, it has been
clarified for the purpose of removal of doubts that, the
16 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
“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.
40. So far as the purport of Section 45(1)(i)(ii) is
concerned which is very much relevant herein, 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
(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.
41. 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.
17 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
42. 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
43. 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-285,286 and 412. For ready
reference, the said paragraphs are being referred as under:-
“285………….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.
286. 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 and18 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558integrity 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.
316. 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.”
44. 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
19 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
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.
45. 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
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.
46. 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
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.
20 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
47. 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 that
the conditions specified under Section 45 of PMLA are
mandatory and need to be complied with, which is further
strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and also
Section 71 of PMLA.
48. 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.
49. 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 CrPC/BNSS, 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.
21 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
50. 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:
“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.”
51. 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
22 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
‘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.
52. Now coming to the grounds as has been raised on
behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is innocent, committed no offence whatsoever as
alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this
case due to some ulterior motive and even going through
the entire ECIR there is no element available in order to
prove the offences against the petitioner under Section 3 of
PML Act 2002. Further the custody of petitioner since
19.02.2025 i.e. about six months has also been raised.
53. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent-E.D. has
submitted that there is ample material surfaced based
upon which, the prosecution report was submitted and
hence, it cannot be said that there is no legal evidence. It
has further been contended that it is settled proposition of
law which has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that
the incarceration (herein about 06 month) or delay in trial
23 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
alone cannot be a ground to release the petitioner on bail,
rather in case of special offences the seriousness of the
matter and the societal impact should be taken into
consideration by the Court concerned while enlarging the
petitioner on bail.
54. This Court, in order to appreciate the rival
submission, is of the view that various paragraphs of
prosecution complaint need to be referred herein so as to
come to the conclusion as to whether the parameter as
fixed under Section 451(i)(ii) of the PML Act 2002 is being
fulfilled in order to reach to the conclusion that it is a fit
case where regular bail is to be granted or not. The relevant
paragraphs of prosecution complaint are being referred as
under:-
“4.2 That another FIR bearing no. 15/2019 dated
26.08.2019 was registered by ACB, Dhanbad against
Pramod Kumar for investigation of misappropriation of
National Rural Health Mission funds and the role of
persons posted at Primary Health, Centre (PHC), Jharia
cum Jodapokhar, Civil Surgeon Dhanbad and staff
posted there at. Analysis of the statements of savings
bank accounts of PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar at
Punjab National Bank (PNB) bearing numbers
0230000109221923 and 023000109233751 was done
and it was found that in these two accounts, govt. fund of
Rs. 11,28,27,111/ was transferred from District Health
Society, Dhanbad between 01.03.2012 to 22.06.2016 and
out of this total amount Rs. 6,97,43,832.29/- was
misappropriated thereby causing huge loss to the
government and corresponding gain to themselves.
8.1 MODUS OPERANDI ADOPTED BY THE ACCUSED
PERSONS24 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:245588.11 It is revealed that Pramod Kumar Singh, Block
Account Manager along with Late Shashi Bhushan
Prasad, Medical Officer- In Charge were jointly authorized
to withdraw and spend the NRHM funds. However, they
misused their official position and misappropriated Rs.
6,97,43,832.29/- from two bank accounts having a/c
0230000109221923 and 0230000109233751 held at
PNB in the name no of PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar,
Dhanbad during 01.03.2012 to 22.06.2016 Pramod
Kumar Singh in connivance with Shashi Bhushan Prasad
(now deceased) transferred funds to the tunc of Rs.
6,97,43,832.29/- from aforesaid PNB Bank accounts to
his bank accounts and also the accounts of his
associates and his relatives.
8.1.2 During the course of investigation, the report of
special audit conducted by team constituted by
Department of Health, Medical Education and Family
Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand in respect of the
embezzlement of NRHM funds to the tune of Rs. 6.97
crores (as revealed from FIR No. 15/2019 dated
26.08.2019) through aforesaid two bank accounts having
no 0230000109221923 and 0230000109233751 held at
PNB in the name of PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar,
Dhanbad during 01.03.2012 to 22.06.2016 by Pramod
Kumar Singh, the then Block Account Manager in
connivance with Shashi Bhushan Prasad (now deceased)
was obtained from the National Health Mission,
Jharkhand under section 54 of PMLA. The report was
provided vide letter dated 24.04.2024. This audit report
revealed that during the said period as mentioned in the
FIR no 15/2019, Shashi Bhushan Prasad (now deceased)
and Pramod Kumar Singh were jointly authorized
signatory in the aforesaid PNB accounts to withdraw the
NRHM funds for various expenditures on programmes
under NRHM scheme. However, they spent funds on
miscellaneous expenditures including illegal direct debit
transfers to the bank accounts of Pramod Kumar Singh,
his relatives and his associates and payments against
illegal procurement such as of Plywood, marble IRCTC,25 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558cement, woods, mobile company ete which were not
related to the heads of NRHM.—
8.13 During the course of investigation, it was revealed
that Pramod Kumar Singh got his mobile number
registered in the said two bank accounts of PNB held in
the name of PHC, Jharia Cum Jodapokhar and got
access to internet banking facilities, which was not
allowed under the NRHM Guidelines. Pramod Kumar
Singh and Shashi Bhushan Prasad (now deceased) were
jointly authorized to withdraw the funds from the bank
accounts held in the name of PHC during the period of
posting of Pramod Kumar Singh i.e. 2008 to 2016.
Pramod Kumar Singh used to withdraw cash from the
bank accounts of PHC, Jharia/PHC Management Society
through cheques jointly signed by him and Shashi
Bhushan Prasad (now deceased) He also used to directly
transfer money in an unauthorized manner directly
through banking channel from the said bank accounts to
his family members and associates. It is also revealed
that Pramod Kumar Singh authorized office employees
Sannu Kumar Singh and Basant Ram to withdraw funds
from the aforesaid bank accounts through bearer
cheques. After withdrawal of funds, Basant Ram and
Sannu Kumar Singh used to handover cash either to
Pramod Kumar Singh or Shashi Bhushan Prasad (now
deceased) as instructed by Pramod Kumar Singh. The
associates to whom the money embezzled from the bank
accounts of PHC, Jharia was transferred were also
instructed by him to handover the cash on withdrawal or
make payments to the vendors/parties on behalf of him
8.1.4 During the course of investigation, the same modus
operandi in the embezzlement of funds by Pramod Kumar
Singh in connivance with Shashi Bhushan Prasad (now
deceased) from another bank account of PHC
Management Society, Jodapokhar maintained with State
Bank of India was also detected Through the similar
modus operandi, Pramod Kumar Singh in connivance
with Shashi Bhushan Prasad (now deceased) embezzled a
total amount of Rs. 2,42,44,120/- from the bank account26 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558по. 30871450998 maintained with State Bank of India in
the name of PHC Management Society.
8.1.5 Investigation under PMLA revealed that Pramod
Kumar Singh being Block Account Manager during his
posting at PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar amassed huge
wealth in the name of his relatives, associates and in the
name of himself despite being a low salary employee on
contractual basis.
8.2.2 During analysis of bank accounts bearing no.
0230000109221923 and 0230000109233751 held in the
name of PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar, Dhanbad with
Punjab National Bank, it is revealed that Pramod Singh
in connivance with Shashi Bhushan Prasad (now
deceased) used these bank accounts for embezzlement of
NRHM funds through his associates, relatives and
through his own bank account.
Further, Pramod Kumar Singh also transferred funds to
some vendors for procurement of goods.
8.2.4 Upon analysis of a/c no. 30871450998 held at SBI
in the name of PHC Management Society, Jodapokhar, it
is revealed that during the period 04.12.2009 to
22.01.2013, total amount of Rs. 2,42,44,120/- was also
found to be illegally withdrawn by Pramod Kumar Singh
and his associates through either cheque withdrawals or
direct debit transfers.
8.2.5 In view of the facts discussed in the aforesaid
paragraphs, it is clearly established that Rs.
6,97,43,832.29/- was misappropriated through two PNB
accounts having no. 0230000109221923 and
0230000109233751 held in the name of PHC, Jharia
cum Jodapokhar, Dhanbad during 01.03.2012 to
22.06.2016. This amount constitutes PoC generated from
commission of scheduled offences. Additionally, Rs.
2,42,44,120/- was also misappropriated through another
bank account having no 30871450998 held at SBI in the
name of PHC Management Society, Jodapokhar during
the period 04 12.2009 to 22.01.2013 by Pramod Kumar
Singh, the then Block Account Manager, PHC, Jharia
cum Jodapokhar in connivance with Shashi Bhushan
Prasad (now deceased), the then MOIC. This amount also27 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558constitutes PoC as it was directly derived or obtained as a
result of criminal activity relating to scheduled offences.
Hence, total proceeds of crime in terms of section 2(1)(u)
of PMLA, 2002 comes at Rs. 9,39,87,952 29/- in this
case. The PoC was utilized to acquire the movable and
immovable properties in the name of Pramod Kumar
Singh, his associates and his relatives with an intent to
project them as untainted.
Specific Role of Pramod Kumar Singh :
Accused No. I was posted as Block Account Manager at
PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar, Dhanbad during 2008-
2016 on contractual basis. He joined PHC, Jharia at the
post of Block Account Manager with a monthly salary of
Rs. 17,000/-. During the period, Accused and Late
Shashi Bhushan Prasad, the then Medical Officer-In-
Charge were jointly authorized to withdraw and spend
the NRHM funds from the bank accounts having a/c no.
30871450998 at SBI in the name of PHC Management
Society, Jodapokhar and a/c no. 0230000109221923
and 0230000109233751 held at PNB in the name of
PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar, Dhanbad. They were also
authorized signatories in the aforesaid bank accounts.
NRHM funds were transferred to the said bank accounts
from District Health Society, Dhanbad for
implementation of various programmes i.e. MMJSY,
Routine Immunization, Child Health Activities, Pulse
Polio, Anemia Reduction, Sahiya Training, consolidated
salary payments of employees, etc. However, Pramod
Singh in connivance with Late Shashi Bhushan Prasad
misused the official position and embezzled NRHM funds
to the tune of Rs. 9,39,87,952.29/ as a result of criminal
activity and related to scheduled offences
➤ Accused no. 1 and late Shashi Bhushan Prasad are
directly involved in the generation of Proceeds of Crime
by misusing their official positions at PHC, Jharia cum
Jodapokhar
➤ Accused no. I acquired Proceeds of Crime to the tune
of Rs. 3.95 Crores directly in his bank accounts
maintained with Punjab National Bank and State Bank of28 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558India, from the bank accounts of PHC Jaria cum
Jodapokhar
➤ Accused no. 1 in capacity of Block Account Manager,
PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar, transferred Rs.
10,00,000/- from the bank account of PHC Management
Society through cheque bearing no. 472268 to the bank
account of his wife i.e. Priya Singh (accused no. 2) on
02.06.2012 which was further transferred to the bank
account of M/s Sahyogi Properties Pvt. Ltd. on
24.04.2012 in lieu of the purchase of a piece of land
situated at Sabalpur, Sahyogi Nagar.
During the investigation, the statements of Priya Singh
and Pramod Singh were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002
on 13.06.2024 and 14.06.2024 wherein they inter alia
claimed that Rs. 10 lakhs which were paid to
Bhuwaneshwar Yadav (director of Sahyogi Properties Pvt.
Ltd.) for land were sourced by Late Krishna Devi (Mother
of accused no. 2). Hence, Pramod Kumar Singh could not
discharge the burden of proof u/s 24 of the PMLA, 2002
and is an accused u/s 3 of the PMLA, 2002 for his active
involvement in the process and activity connected to the
proceeds of crime. Therefore, he is liable to be punished
u/s 4 of the PMLA, 2002.
Being a low salaried employee, accused no. 1 acquired
movable and immovable properties in the name of his
wife Smt. Priya Singh (Accused no. 2), his mother Smt.
Ramapati Devi as well as in the name of his associates
namely Arun Kumar Singh and Bijay Kumar Singh with
an intent to project them as untainted. Accused no. I was
using the bank accounts and respective ATM cards of
Ashwini Kumar Sharma, Arun Kumar Singh and Bijay
Kumar Singh for the purpose of acquisition, concealment,
use and projection of Proceeds of Crime as untainted.
➤ Accused no. 1 in connivance with Shashi Bhushan
Prasad acquired Proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs.
9,39,87,952.29/. Out of PoC Rs. 9,39,87,952 29/-, the
accused handled the PoC of Rs. 4,45,06,962.69/ by way
of concealment through transfer of funds by deposits into
the bank accounts of himself and his family members
and his associates and direct cash withdrawals from the
29 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
bank accounts of PHC by virtue of investments and
acquisitions of both movable and immovable properties
and project them as untainted. The Accused No. 1 is
knowingly and directly indulged himself in the process or
activity of money laundering.
55. It has come on record that the present proceeding
arise out of ECIR No. RNZO/13/2021 dated 27.10.2021,
which was registered by the Directorate of Enforcement,
Ranchi Zonal Office, under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), based on two predicate FIRs
(1) FIR No. 46/2016 dated 08.06.2016 registered by the
Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ranchi, and (ii) FIR No.
15/2019 dated 26.08.2019 registered by ACB, Dhanbad.
The said FIRs alleged the commission of scheduled offences
punishable under Sections 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) 13(1)(e)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections
120B, 420, 467, 471, 406, 409, and 477A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860, which are scheduled offences under
Section 2(1)(y) of the PMLA.
56. Further, the Investigation revealed that the
petitioner was employed as a Block Account Manager (BAM)
at Primary Health Centre (PHC), Jharia cum Jodapokhar,
Dhanbad, on a contractual basis during the relevant period
and was a joint signatory for the official bank accounts of
the primary health Centre (PHC). It has been alleged that
during the course of his employment, the petitioner, in
conspiracy with late Dr. Shashi Bhushan Prasad, the then
30 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
Medical Officer-in-Charge (MOIC) of the said PHC,
misappropriated large sums of government money meant
for National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) schemes.
57. The preliminary investigation conducted by ACB,
Ranchi, FIR No. 46/2016 was registered after it was
revealed that the petitioner had amassed properties
disproportionate to his known sources of income in his
name and also in the names of his wife and associates.
58. Further, it has come on record that on the basis of
FIR No.15/2019 registered by ACB Dhanbad detailed
investigation was initiated regarding the large-scale
embezzlement of funds from the government account
maintained at PHC Jharia cum Jodapokhar, which received
transfers from the District Health Society, Dhanbad. It was
revealed that two bank accounts (Nos. 023000010221923
and 023/4000109233751) in the name of PHC, Jharia cum
Jodapokhar, maintained with Punjab National Bank, were
jointly operated by Pramod Kumar Singh and late Shashi
Bhushan Prasad between 01.03.2012 and 22.06.2016,
these accounts received a total sum of Rs.11,28,27,111. Out
of this, a sum of Rs.26.97.43.832.29 was fraudulently
siphoned off through direct transfers to accounts of family
members and associates, procurement from vendors
unrelated to any official purposes, and personal expenses
such as travel and purchase.
31 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
59. It has also come during investigation that a
separate account in the name of PHC Management Society,
Jodapokhar maintained with State Bank of India was
similarly misused. This account was operated during the
period 04.12.2009 to 22.01.2013, dung which an amount
of 2,42,44,120 was misappropriated using bearer cheques,
direct debt transfers, and cash Withdrawal and other
associates, namely Basant Ram and Sannu Kumar Singh,
were instrumental in this process and routinely withdrew
large sums through bearer cheques, which were
subsequently handed over to the Petitioner/accused.
Statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA from
these individuals corroborate this modus operandi.
60. It has come on record that the Directorate of
Enforcement conducted search and seizure operations
under Section 17 of the PMLA on 04.07.2024 and
19.09.2024 at multiple locations, including the residential
premises of Pramod Kumar Singh (petitioner herein), Smt.
Priya Singh, and their associates. During these operations,
the Directorate seized cash amounting to 22.17 lakhs from
the petitioner’s residence, vehicles (including the luxury
cars), documents, diaries, and multiple mobile phones.
61. It has come on record that the Directorate also
issued multiple summonses under Section 50 of PMLA to
the Petitioner/accused for recording of his statement under
Section 50 of the PMLA. Despite being served with thirteen
32 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
(13) such summonses between 2023 and 2025, the
Petitioner/accused appeared on only one occasion
(13.06.2024 and 14.06.2024). The Petitioner/accused
finally appeared before the Directorate on 17.02.2025 and
was subsequently arrested under Section 19 of PMLA on
18.02.2025.
62. Thereafter, Enforcement filed Prosecution
Directorate Complaint under Section 45 read with Section
44 of PMLA, 2002, on 03.04.2025 before the Special Judge
(CBI)-cum-Special Judge under PMLA, Ranchi, against
Petitioner and other accused including wife of the petitioner
namely Priya Singh and consequently cognizance of the
offence of money laundering under Section 3 punishable
under Section 4 of PMLA, 2002 has been taken by the Spl.
Judge PML Act, on 16.07.2025.
63. It is revealed during investigation that the Petitioner
blatantly violated the public trust by engaging in
systematic, large-scale misappropriation of public funds in
connivance with late Dr. Shashi Bhushan Prasad, the then
Medical Officer-in-Charge of the PHC. The
Petitioner/accused was joint signatory to the bank
accounts operated in the name of PHC Jharia cum
Jodapokhar and was thereby directly and authoritatively
positioned to execute unauthorised financial transactions,
bypassing official scrutiny. The transactions in this account
further substantiate the pre-meditated and habitual nature
33 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
of the money laundering operation spearheaded by the
Petitioner/accused.
64. The Petitioner/accused further facilitated access to
these accounts by linking his personal mobile number to
the internet banking facility of the PHCs official accounts,
in contravention of NRHM Guidelines, thereby enabling
unauthorised control over e-transactors. It has further
come that the petitioner personally coordinated the
issuance of bearer cheques, initiated direct debits, and even
transferred money to vendors like M/s Dhanbad Plywood,
M/s Fine Marble. M/s Bharti Cement Store and others,
with whom he had no officially sanctioned procurement
relationship. He used these transactions as a mechanism to
integrate, layer, and project illicitly diverted funds as
ostensibly legitimate expenditure under government health
schemes.
65. Thus, the material collected during investigation
including detailed bank analysis, audit reports, and
voluntary statements recorded under Section 50 of the
PMLA collectively indicates that the Petitioner/accused, in
criminal conspiracy with others, knowingly indulged in the
concealment, possession, acquisition and projection of
proceeds of crime, thereby committing the offence of money
laundering.
66. It has also come on record that the accounts of
other associates were used as conduits for channelizing
34 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
proceeds of Crime and in investigation statements recorded
under Section 50 of the PMLA from several such individuals
has brought on record, confirming that they acted on
instructions of Pramod Kumar Singh (petitioner herein) and
these witnesses have also confirmed that they either
handed over the cash or facilitated transactions for or on
behalf of the Petitioner/accused.
67. Thus, it is evident from the record that the proceeds
so misappropriated were then used to acquire substantial
movable and immovable properties, and these properties
were found to be in exclusive possession and enjoyment of
Pramod Kumar Singh and his family, despite the ostensible
ownership being in the name of others, thereby indicating
clear intention to conceal and project tainted assets as
untainted.
68. It is evident from the prosecution complaint that
during searches conducted under Section 17 of PMLA on
04.07.2024, cash amounting to 22.17 lakhs was seized
from the premises of the Petitioner/accused, along with
loose sheets indicating benami ownership structures,
handwritten ledgers, diaries, cheque books, and bank
statements.
69. Further it appears from record that petitioner had
failed to provide any cogent explanation, documentary
proof, or justification as to the source of funds used for
acquiring various assets thus, the Petitioner/accused has
35 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
failed to discharge the statutory burden under Section 24 of
PMLA.
70. Further from statements of Basant Ram and Sannu
Kumar Singh recorded under Section 50 of PMLA indicates
that they made large cash withdrawals on the petitioner’s
instructions and handed over the cash to him personally.
71. It needs to refer herein that the three Judges Bench
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon vs.
Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46 has held
that the statements of witnesses recorded by Prosecution-
ED are admissible in evidence, in view of Section 50. Such
statements may make out a formidable case about the
involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence
of money laundering.
72. In the instant case, it has been found during the
course of investigation from the statements of witnesses
recorded under Section 50 of the P.M.L.A that the petitioner
had directly indulged, knowingly as the party and is
actually involved in all the activities connected with the
offence of money laundering, i.e., use or acquisition,
possession, concealment, and projecting or claiming as
untainted property.
73. Thus, from various paragraph of the ECIR prima
facie it appears that the Petitioner/accused Pramod Kumar
Singh has role in deep-rooted financial manipulation,
concealment, layering, and projection of proceeds of crime
36 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
as untainted and further he has actively conspired, and
abetted the offence of money laundering, Thus, it appears
that the petitioner was the central figure who orchestrated
and benefited from the laundering of public money.
74. It has been contended by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the charge sheets have not been filed in
the predicate offences therefore the prayer for bail of the
petitioner should be allowed.
75. But the contention of the learned counsel appears
to be misplaced reason being that it is settled proposition of
law that the offence of money Laundering is independent of
the scheduled offence, particularly in matters related to the
proceeds of crime.
76. It is evident that as per Section 3, there are six
processes or activities identified therein. They are, (i)
concealment; (ii) possession; (iii) acquisition; (iv) use; (v)
projecting as untainted property; and (vi) claiming as
untainted property. Even if a person does not retain the
money generated as proceeds of crime but “uses” it, he will
be guilty of the offence of money-laundering, since “use” is
one of the six activities mentioned in Section 3.
77. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary v. Union of India, (supra) while interpreting
the scheme of the PMLA, has categorically held that
although the offence of money laundering is linked to the
commission of a scheduled offence (i.e., it is triggered by
37 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
the generation of “proceeds of crime” arising out of a
scheduled offence), the offence under Section 3 is distinct,
independent, and standalone in its composition and penal
consequences.
78. It needs to refer herein that once the proceeds of
crime are established and it is shown that the accused has
knowingly indulged in, or is knowingly involved in, the
process or activity relating to such property, the offence of
money laundering under Section 3 stands independently
and does not depend on the outcome or pendency of
proceedings in the predicate offence. Therefore, the
petitioner’s argument regarding the status of the predicate
FIRs is legally not sustainable.
79. Further, the burden of proof is on the Petitioner
until the contrary is proved, the same is observed in
various judicial pronouncements and upheld in the case of
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra). Further in Rohit
Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement, (supra) the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that the
provisions of section 24 of the PMLA provide 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.
80. Further, the offence of money laundering as
contemplated in Section 3 of the PMLA has been elaborately
38 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
dealt with by the three Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary (supra), in which it has been observed that
Section 3 has a wider reach. The offence as defined
captures every process and activity in dealing with the
proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly, and is not limited
to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted
property in the formal economy to constitute an act of
money laundering. Of course, the authority of the
Authorised Officer under the Act to prosecute any person
for the offence of money laundering gets triggered only if
there exist proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section
2(1)(u) of the Act and further it is involved in any process or
activity.
81. 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
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
39 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for
combating the menace of money-laundering.
82. 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 Cr.P.C.
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.
83. 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.
40 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
84. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made
hereinabove the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that even if the entire ECIR will be taken into
consideration, no offence will be said to be committed so as
to attract the ingredients of Sections 3 & 4 of the P.M.L.
Act, 2002, is totally misplaced in the light of accusation as
mentioned in prosecution complaint.
85. So far as the issue of period of custody as agitated
by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is
settled proposition of law which has been settled by the
Hon’ble Apex Court that the period incarceration (herein
about 06 month) or delay in trial alone cannot be ground to
release the petitioner on bail, rather in case of scheduled
offences/special offences the seriousness of the matter and
the societal impact should be taken in to consideration by
the Court concerned while enlarging the petitioner on bail.
86. This Court is conscious with the fact that personal
liberty is utmost requirement to maintain the individuality
of the person concerned but at the same time it is equally
settled that the balance between personal liberty and
societal impact of the alleged offence should be taken care
of by the Court concerned.
87. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with
the offences under UAP Act 1967, in the case of Gurwinder
Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) and taking in to
consideration the ratio of judgment of Union of India vs.
41 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 has observed that mere
delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in
the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail,
for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted
as under:
46. As already discussed, the material available on
record indicates the involvement of the appellant in
furtherance of terrorist activities backed by members
of banned terrorist organisation involving exchange
of large quantum of money through different
channels which needs to be deciphered and
therefore in such a scenario if the appellant is
released on bail there is every likelihood that he will
influence the key witnesses of the case which might
hamper the process of justice. Therefore, mere delay
in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved
in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to
grant bail. Hence, the aforesaid argument on behalf
of the appellant cannot be accepted.”
88. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled position
of law it is evident that mere delay in trial pertaining to
grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be
used as a ground to grant bail.
89. Admittedly, the petitioner has been in judicial
custody since 19.02.2025 but delay, under the aforesaid
circumstances, does not entitle the petitioner to bail. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tarun Kumar v. Directorate of
Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486, has
authoritatively held that while the period of custody may be
a relevant factor, it cannot by itself override the gravity of
42 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
the offence, the seriousness of allegations or the statutory
twin conditions under Section 45 of the Act 2002.
90. Similarly, in Satyendar Kumar Jain v.
Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 6 SCC 715, the Hon’ble
Apex Court refused bail despite protracted proceedings,
noting that the complexity inherent in economic offences.
91. Further, it is also pertinent to note herein that
delays frequently arise from procedural applications and
litigations pursued by accused themselves. Thus, given the
grave nature of the allegations, the sophisticated modus
operandi employed to project tainted property as untainted,
and the strict statutory framework governing bail under the
PMLA, no ground exists for the petitioner to claim the
benefit of bail either on merits or on account of delay.
92. It requires to refer herein that the Money
Laundering is an economic offence and economic offences
come under the grave offences, as has been 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 paragraph of the aforesaid
judgment is 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.”
43 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
93. 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 paragraph-23 to 25,
which reads as under:
“23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has
been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which
has affected the fibre of the country’s economic structure.
Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious
repercussions on the development of the country as a
whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal
[(1987) 2 SCC 364 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 364] this Court, while
considering a request of the prosecution for adducing
additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under: (SCC p.
371, para 5)
“5. … The entire community is aggrieved if the economic
offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not
brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of
moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence
is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design
with an eye on personal profit regardless of the
consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest
of the community can be manifested only at the cost of
forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system
to administer justice in an even-handed manner without
fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-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”
44 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can
only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case
against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to
produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is
not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.
25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to
be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.
The economic offence having 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.”
94. It is, thus, evident from the discussion made
hereinabove that so far as the case of the present petitioner
is concerned, the twin condition as provided under Section
45(1) of the Act, 2002 is not being fulfilled so as to grant
the privilege of bail to the present petitioner.
95. Having regard to the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that
the petitioner has miserably failed to satisfy this Court that
there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of the alleged offences. On the contrary, there is
sufficient material collected by the respondent ED to show
that he is prima facie guilty of the alleged offences.
96. The material on record, prima facie, indicates that
the petitioner knowingly and intentionally participated in
the processes and activities connected with the
concealment, possession, acquisition, and use of proceeds
45 B.A. No.4732 of 2025
2025:JHHC:24558
of crime, thereby satisfying all ingredients of the offence of
money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA.
97. Further the rigours of Section 45 of the PML Act,
2002 squarely apply to the present case and the Petitioner
has failed to satisfy the twin conditions required for grant of
bail. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, facts
brought on record, and material unearthed during the
course of investigation, the present application for bail is
devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
98. 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.
99. 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.
100. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also
stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
A.F.R.
Saurabh/
46 B.A. No.4732 of 2025