Jharkhand High Court
Talha Khan vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 25 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:12521
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 10272 of 2024
---------------
Talha Khan, aged about 30 years, son of Salik Akhtar Khan, resident of Hill
View Road, Near Rahat Nursing Home, Bariatu, PO-Bariatu, PS-Bariatu,
District-Ranchi ........Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India represented through its Assistant
Director ...... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
For the Petitioner : Ms. Pragya Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the OP-ED : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
C.A.V. on 11.04.2025 Pronounced on 25/04/2025
Prayer
1. This is the second attempt made by the petitioner for grant of regular
bail before this Court by way of filing instant bail application.
2. The present bail application has been filed under Sections 483 and 484
of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to
the petitioner, in connection with ECIR Case No.01 of 2023 arising out of
ECIR/RNZO/18/2022, registered for alleged offence under Section 3
punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002, (herein referred as Act,2002) pending in the Court of learned AJC-I-
cum-Special Judge, P.M.L. Act, Ranchi.
Factual Matrix
3. The facts leading to filing of the present application reads as under:
(i) An ECIR bearing No. 18/2022 was recorded on 21.10.2022 based
on Bariatu P.S. Case No. 141 of 2022 dated 04.06.2022, registered
undersection 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, against Pradeep Bagchi on
the basis of complaint of Tax Collector of Ranchi Municipal
Corporation for submission of forged papers i.e. Aadhar Card,
2025:JHHC:12521
Electricity Bill and Possession letter for obtaining holding number
0210004194000A1 and 0210004031000A5. Investigation
revealed that by submitting the forged documents, a holding
number was obtained in name of Pradeep Bagchi for property at
Morabadi Mouza, Ward No. 21/19, Ranchi having an area of the
plot measuring 455.00 decimals approx. at Ranchi.
(ii) Investigation further revealed that the above property belonged
to Late B.M. Laxman Rao which was given to the Army and had
been in the possession of the Defence, in occupation of the Army
since independence. Investigation reveals that by way of creating
a fake owner (Pradeep Bagchi) of the above said property, it was
sold to one company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd for
which the consideration amount was shown Rs. 7 crores which
was highly under value and out of this amount Rs. 7 crores
payment amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs only were made into the
account of said Pradeep Bagchi and rest of the money was falsely
shown to be paid through cheques in the deed no.- 6888 of 2021.
(iii) It has come during investigation that records available at the C.O.
Bargain, Ranchi along with the office of Registrar of Assurances,
Kolkata have been altered and records have been modified. The
survey of Circle Office Bargain as well as Registrar of Assurances,
Kolkata transpires that documents have been tempered to create
fictitious onus of the above properties.
(iv) The Enforcement Directorate upon completion of investigation
filed the prosecution complaint under section 45 read with 44 of
PML Act being ECIR Case no. 01/2023 against the present
2
2025:JHHC:12521
petitioner and consequently the trial Court vide order dated
19.06.2023 has taken the cognizance of the aforesaid offence.
(v) (iv) The specific allegation against the present petitioner is like
that he in connivance with other accused persons illegally acquired
a piece of land measuring 60 decimals situated at Plot no.668,
Khata no.29, Mauja Gari, P.S. Bariatu, Ranchi frivolously
showing for an amount of Rs.4 crores. The accused person
acquired proceeds of crime through his company Confiar Projects
Pvt. Ltd. in its Axis Bank account 91802000064516549. Proceeds
of crime amounting to Rs.12,35,56,621/- were credited during
period 15.06.2019 to 07.06.2023 out of which Rs.1,28,74000 was
siphoned off in cash. The accused person used his bank accounts
for placement layering and integration of the proceeds of crime.
(vi) Accordingly, the present petitioner has been arrested under section
19 of PML, Act 2002 accordingly the petitioner had preferred the
Misc. Cri. Application No. 2533 of 2023 for grant of his bail but
the same was rejected vide order dated 25.08.2023 by the AJC-I-
Cum Special Judge, CBI-Cum- Special Judge under PMLA at
Ranchi.
(vii) Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court with a prayer for
grant of regular bail in B.A No.10296 of 2023 which was rejected
by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2024.
(viii) After rejection of prayer for bail of the petitioner by this Court
vide order dated 12.04.2024, the petitioner approached the
Hon'ble Supreme Court for grant of regular bail in Special Leave
to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).7674 of 2024 but the same was rejected
vide order dated 25.06.2024 which reads as under:
3
2025:JHHC:12521
"Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, we do not find that at this stage a case is made out for
grant of bail Hence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.
Pending application also stands disposed of.”
4. The petitioner has again renewed his prayer for bail before the learned
trial Court in MCA No.2671 of 2024 for grant of regular bail which has
been rejected by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 24.09.2024.
Thereafter, he approached before this Court for grant of regular bail by way
of filing the instant bail application.
Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner:
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the
following grounds that:-
(i) the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged
in the prosecution complaint and the petitioner has no concern with
the land in question.
(ii) The proceeds of crime are only be said to be proceeds of crime, if
it is obtained from the scheduled offence.
(iii) The petitioner is facing prosecution on the basis of the statements
of co-accused recorded under section 50 of the PMLA which as
has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Prem
Prakash v. Union of India through the Directorate of
Enforcement” in Criminal Appeal being S.L.P (Crl) No.5416 of
2024 cannot have the character of substantive evidence.
(iv) From the bare perusal of the Prosecution Complaint, it is evident
that the petitioner has no connection with the subject land being
M.S. plot no-557. Morabadi Mouza, ward no. 21/19, having an
4
2025:JHHC:12521area of 455.00 decimals at Ranchi and thus any illegal activity
connected thereto or the proceeds of crime generated therefrom.
(v) Petitioner’s work has no iota of element of illegal / suspicious
activity from which it can be inferred that the petitioner in any way
acquired used or projected as untainted or claimed any proceeds of
crime. All transactions from the account of the petitioner were
transparent and genuine and thus cannot be termed as proceeds of
crime.
(vi) All the allegations being levelled by the Directorate of
Enforcement, Ranchi Zonal Office against the petitioner are
premised on conjecture and surmises.
(vii) Further, petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2023 which amount to
long incarceration and there is no probability of conclusion of the
trial in near future.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the aforesaid grounds,
has submitted that the learned special Court while considering the prayer
for bail ought to have taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter
both legal and factual but having not done so, serious error has been
committed.
7. Further submission has been made in the aforesaid view of the matter
as per the ground agitated that it is a fit case where the petitioner is to be
given the privilege of bail.
Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the Opposite Party/ED:
8. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for
the opposite party-Enforcement Directorate has vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of regular bail by taking the following grounds:
5
2025:JHHC:12521
(i) It is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to take the ground
that the proceeds of crime are only be said to be proceeds of crime if
it is obtained from the scheduled offence.
(ii) It has been contended that if the proceeds of crime are there, the
same will be said to be respective of the proceeds obtained from the
scheduled offence, rather, even in case of proceeds of crime if has
been obtained other than the crime as under the scheduled offence,
then also the ingredients of Section 3 of the P.M.L. Act, 2002 will be
applicable.
(iii) Learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-E.D. has taken
the ground that the petitioner is having direct nexus with the other
co-accused persons namely, Amit Kumar Agarwal, Pradip Bagchi,
Afshar Ali, Mohd. Saddam Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmed, Chhavi Ranjan,
Faiyaz Ahmed, Bhanu Pratap Prasad, in the commission of crime in
facilitating the ‘proceeds of crime’.
(iv) The co-accused of this case have also confessed that the
petitioner was a part of the aforesaid racket and used to assist in
selling fraudulently acquired lands in connivance with other accused
persons.
(v) The accused person acquired proceeds of crime through his
company, Confiar Projects Pvt. Ltd., account 921020002279585
maintained in the name of Axis Bank. In his Axis Bank account,
9180200064516549, proceeds of crime amounting to Rs.
12,35,56,621 were credited during the period from June 15, 2019, to
June 7, 2023, out of which Rs. 1,28,74,000 was siphoned off in cash.
When asked about the significant cash deposits totalling Rs.
87,97,029 in his Axis Bank Bariyatu account bearing no.
6
2025:JHHC:12521
918020064516549, he stated that this was the proceeds deposited
from the sale of land by him.
(vi) The accused person used petitioner’s bank accounts for
placement, layering, and integration of the proceeds of crime. The
said amount was also transferred to other accused persons.
(vii) The petitioner, Talha Khan @ Sunny, has also transferred
Rs. 44 Lakhs into the bank account of F2R Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,
which is a company of Md. Saddam Hussain and Imtiaz Ahmed.
Thus, it reveals that Afshar Ali, Md. Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan,
and Imtiaz Ahmed are accomplices of each other.
(viii) The petitioner in his statement mentioned in para 8.7 of the
prosecution complaint also revealed his involvement in land
dealings of 3.81 acres with Afshar Ali, where 30-40 decimals of land
were sold through him despite not being documented.
(ix) The analysis of the Call Detail Records (CDR) of the accused
petitioner, Talha Khan (at phone number 7xxxxx1287), as mentioned
in paragraph 9.6.7, reveals his frequent communication with
other co-accused.
(x) Several high-value interconnected banking transactions have
been identified between the accused petitioner and other co-accused
persons, as detailed in paragraph 9.6.8 of the prosecution complaint.
This indicates that the accused petitioner is also a beneficiary of the
proceeds of the crime and is thus involved in the racket with co-
accused persons.
(xi) So far as the period of custody as agitated by learned counsel
for the petitioner is concerned, it has been submitted that as per
settled proposition of law which has been settled by the Hon’ble
7
2025:JHHC:12521
Apex Court that the long incarceration (herein about 2 years) 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 should have been taken in to consideration by the Court
concerned while enlarging the petitioner on bail.
(xii) Further, the bail petition of another accused, i.e., Chhavi Ranjan
was rejected by this Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated
27.09.2024 passed in SLP (Cr) Diary No. 38676 of 2024 and
directions were issued to expedite the trial.
(xiii) The issue of prayer for bail of the present petitioner has
already been adjudicated by this Court on merit in B.A.No.10296 of
2023 which was rejected vide order dated 12.04.2024. In pursuance
to the same, the petitioner had filed an SLP No. 7674 of 2024 before
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed vide order dated
25.06.2024 wit direction to expedite the trial, as such neither fresh
ground is available nor any change in circumstances is there,
therefore it is not required to again adjudicate the prayer for bail of
the petitioner a fresh.
9. Learned counsel for the opposite party-ED, based upon the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that since the nature of allegation committed by the
present petitioners are serious, as such, the instant bail application is fit to
be rejected.
Analysis
10. It is evident from record that an ECIR bearing No. 18/2022 was
recorded on 21.10.2022 based on Bariatu P.S. Case No. 141 of 2022 dated
04.06.2022, registered undersection 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, against
8
2025:JHHC:12521
Pradeep Bagchi on the basis of complaint of Tax Collector of Ranchi
Municipal Corporation for submission of forged papers i.e. Aadhar Card,
Electricity Bill and Possession letter for obtaining holding number.
Investigation revealed that by submitting the forged documents, a holding
number was obtained in name of Pradeep Bagchi for property at Morabadi
Mouza, Ward No. 21/19, Ranchi having an area of the plot measuring
455.00 decimals approx. at Ranchi.
11. Investigation further revealed that the above property belonged to
Late B.M. Laxman Rao which was given to the Army by way of creating a
fake owner (Pradeep Bagchi) of the above said property, it was sold to one
company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd for which the consideration
amount was shown Rs. 7 crores which was highly under value and out of
this amount Rs. 7 crores payment amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs only were made
into the account of said Pradeep Bagchi and rest of the money was falsely
shown to be paid through cheques.
12. It has come during investigation that records available at the C.O.
Bargain, Ranchi along with the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata
have been altered and records have been modified. The survey of Circle
Office Bargain as well as Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata transpires that
documents have been tempered to create fictitious onus of the above
properties.
13. The Enforcement Directorate upon completion of investigation filed
the prosecution complaint under section 45 read with 44 of PML Act being
ECIR Case no. 01/2023 against the present petitioner on the basis of specific
allegation that present petitioner in connivance with other accused persons
illegally acquired a piece of land measuring 60 decimals situated at Plot
no.668, Khata no.29, Mauja Gari, P.S. Bariatu, Ranchi frivolously showing
9
2025:JHHC:12521
for an amount of Rs.4 crores. The accused person acquired proceeds of
crime through his company Confiar Projects Pvt. Ltd. in its Axis Bank
account 91802000064516549. Proceeds of crime amounting to
Rs.12,35,56,621/- were credited during period 15.06.2019 to 07.06.2023
out of which Rs.1,28,74000 was siphoned off in cash. The accused person
used his bank accounts for placement layering and integration of the
proceeds of crime.
14. Accordingly, the present petitioner has been arrested on 14.04.2023
under section 19 of PML, Act 2002. Consequently, the trial Court vide order
dated 19.06.2023 has taken the cognizance of the aforesaid offence.
15. The petitioner had preferred the Misc. Cri. Application No. 2533 of
2023 for grant of his bail but the same was rejected vide order dated
25.08.2023 by the AJC-I-Cum Special Judge, CBI-Cum- Special Judge
under PMLA at Ranchi. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court
with a prayer for grant of regular bail in B.A No.10296 of 2023 which was
rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2024.
16. After rejection of prayer for bail of the petitioner by this Court vide
order dated 12.04.2024, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Supreme
Court for grant of regular bail in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).7674
of 2024 but the same was rejected vide order dated 25.06.2024.
17. The petitioner has again renewed his prayer for bail before the learned
trial Court in MCA No.2671 of 2024 for grant of regular bail which has
been rejected by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 24.09.2024.
Thereafter, he approached before this Court for grant of regular bail by way
of filing the instant bail application.
18. At the outset the learned counsel for the ED has contended that since
the issue of prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been adjudicated by
10
2025:JHHC:12521
this Court on merit in B.A.No.10296 of 2023 and which was rejected vide
order dated 12.04.2024. Further, in pursuance to the same, the petitioner
filed an SLP No. 7674 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which
was dismissed vide order dated 25.06.2024 as such neither fresh ground is
available nor any change in circumstances is there, therefore it is not
required to again adjudicate the prayer for bail of the petitioner afresh.
19. Per contra the learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized that
the present petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2023 and there is no
probability of conclusion of trial in near future as such the petitioner may
be enlarged on bail.
20. In the aforesaid context this Court thinks fit that for proper
appreciation of the present application it would be better to refer relevant
paragraphs of the order dated 12.04.2024 passed in B.A. No. 10296 of 2023
by which the bail of the present petitioner had been rejected.
“Further, the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata, formed a four-
man committee and conducted an inquiry and submitted their
initial report related to the three sale deeds including the land in
question and confirmed the manipulation and tampering had
been identified in the said sale deeds and accordingly an FIR no.
137 of 2023 dated 10.05.2023 under section 120B, 465, 467, 468
and 471 of IPC was registered at Hare Street P.S, Kolkata on the
basis of the complaint of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata for the
above temperance.
57.Further, the Investigation revealed that the accused persons,
namely Afshar Ali @ Afsu Khan, Mohammad Saddam Hussain,
Talha Khan @ Sunny (present petitioner), Faiyaz Khan, Pradip
Bagchi, and Imtiaz Ahmed, have actively been involved in
sequestering several pieces of land situated in Ranchi and its
vicinity by manipulating and forging the original records
available at the Circle Offices in connivance with certain
government officials/record keepers, including Bhanu Pratap
Prasad, Revenue Sub-Inspector, Baragai, Ranchi. The Circle
Office, deeds/documents/records recovered and seized during the
course of searches conducted on April 13, 2023, corroborate the11
2025:JHHC:12521fact that the accused persons have been running a racket involved
in the illegal acquisition of lands by converting non-saleable land
into saleable lands for monetary benefits. They have acquired
proceeds of crime through the aforementioned criminal activities
and thus committed the offence of money laundering. The
properties are used to commit offences under this Act and
scheduled offences and derive proceeds, further projecting their
activities and acquired properties as ‘untainted property’.
58.It is evident from the prosecution complaint that co-accused of
this case have also confessed that the petitioner is a part of the
racket and used to assist in selling acquired lands fraudulently in
connivance with other accused persons. He and his accomplices,
illegally acquired a piece of land measuring 60 decimals situated
at Plot no. 668, Khata no. 29, Mauja Gari, P.S Bariatu, Ranchi
by way of a forged sale deed from the office of the Registrar of
Assurances, Kolkata, falsely showing an amount of Rs. 4 crores.
The accused person acquired proceeds of crime through his
company, Confiar Projects Pvt. Ltd., account 921020002279585
maintained at Axis Bank. In his Axis Bank account,
9180200064516549, proceeds of crime amounting to Rs.
12,35,56,621 were credited during the period from June 15, 2019,
to June 7, 2023, out of which Rs. 1,28,74,000 was siphoned off in
cash. When asked about the significant cash deposits totaling
Rs.87,97,029 in his Axis Bank Bariyatu account bearing no.
918020064516549, he stated that this was the proceeds deposited
from the sale of land by him. The accused person used his bank
accounts for placement, layering, and integration of the proceeds
of crime. The said amount was also transferred to other accused
persons.
59.Further, the statement of Sadam Hussain mentioned in
paragraph-8.4 of the prosecution complaint reveals that the
petitioner was involved in money laundering. The petitioner,
Talha Khan @ Sunny, has also transferred Rs. 44 Lakhs into the
bank account of F2R Constructions Pvt. Ltd., which is a company
of Md. Saddam Hussain and Imtiaz Ahmed. Thus, it reveals that
Afshar Ali, Md. Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan, and Imtiaz Ahmed
are accomplices of each other.
60.Further, the petitioner in his statement mentioned in para-8.7
of the prosecution complaint also revealed his involvement in
land dealings of 3.81 acres with Afshar Ali, where 30-40 decimals
of land were sold through him despite not being documented. He12
2025:JHHC:12521further admitted to taking several blank cheques from the HDFC
Bank account of Pradip Bagchi and using the said account to
accept money from buyers, which he later transferred to his
account or Afshar Ali’s account. A scrutiny of his bank account,
918020064516549, maintained at Axis Bank under the name of
Talha Khan, reveals that during the period from June 15, 2019, to
March 7, 2023, there has been a total credit of Rs.12,35,56,621-,
with a significant portion, Rs.1,28,74,000/-, being withdrawn in
cash.
61.Further, it is evident that the copy of deed no. 1813 of year
1943, book no. I, volume no. 48, page no. 168-171, executed at
the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata, between Sheikh Jamir Ali
and Prafulla Bagchi which later established as forged, a Sale
Agreement dated 19.02.2022, executed between Pradip Bagchi
(first party) and Talha Khan (second party) related to land
measuring 60 Decimal situated at Khata no. 29, Plot no. 668,
mouja Morhabadi, along with online land details, was recovered
during the search conducted on 13.04.2023, at the residential
premises under the use and occupation of Talha Khan. Details in
this regard have been mentioned at paragraph-7.2 of the
prosecution complaint.
62.From the statement of Imtiaz Ahmad mentioned at paragraph-
8.5 of the prosecution complaint reveals that he made payments
to the present petitioner and others, as recorded in a diary
recovered from his possession during the search on 13.04.2023.
Images of the diary are provided in paragraph-9.6.4 of the
prosecution complaint, showing payments of Rs.17,29,100/- to
Sunny @ Talha Khan. The distribution of proceeds of crime is
depicted in the diary, linking the accused persons to their
fraudulent activities of acquiring and disposing of land, and
subsequently acquiring the proceeds of crime.
63.The statement of Faiyaz Khan mentioned at paragraph-8.5 of
the prosecution complaint reveals that he has used an Axis Bank
account bearing no. 920010047770735, through which several
large-value transactions have been made with Md. Saddam
Hussain, Talha Khan and Greensoil Enterprises.
64.The statement of Pradeep Bagchi, as mentioned in paragraph
8.6 of the prosecution complaint, reveals the involvement of
Afshar Ali, Imtiaz Ahmed, Md. Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan @
Sunny (the present petitioner), and Faiyaz Khan in manipulating
sale deeds of landed properties. They paid him money to stand as13
2025:JHHC:12521the owner property on of the forged sale deeds. Bagchi further
disclosed that he had signed as approximately five sale deeds, the
owner for of which he received money from the aforementioned
persons. He also mentioned that, at the direction of Afshar Ali, he
posed as the owner of a property and Afshar Ali arranged a fake
deed dating back to year 1943, executed in the name of his
deceased father, Prafulla Bagchi, son of Mohini Bagchi and on
instruction of Afshar Ali, he entered into a sale agreement with
present petitioner, i.e., Talha Khan @ Sunny. Pradeep Bagchi also
stated that an account was opened in his name at HDFC Bank,
which Afshar Ali and Talha Khan operated according to their
wishes. They had also obtained his signatures on blank cheques,
and its bank passbooks were also taken by them.
21. It is, thus, evident from the perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs that
this Court while referring the various settled position of law and the
provisions of Act 2002 had addressed contentions of the parties and found
no merit in the said bail application and accordingly dismissed the same.
22. It is further apparent from the aforesaid order that the Court while
passing the aforesaid order, had also taken care of the culpability of the
present applicant which was mentioned in the prosecution complaint/ECIR
and based upon that the Court has not found the availability of the twin
condition as stipulated in the Act 2002 and accordingly dismissed the bail
petition.
23. Thus, it is evident that on merit prayer for bail of the present applicant
has already been adjudicated and further there is no fresh ground or change
in circumstance is available, hence, at first instance the contention of
learned counsel for ED that there is no need to entertain the instant
application afresh, is having force but in the instant application the learned
counsel for the petitioner while referring the ratio rendered by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Prem Prakash v. Enforcement Directorate,
(2024) 9 SCC 787 has taken the ground that the petitioner is facing
14
2025:JHHC:12521
prosecution on the basis of the statements of co-accused recorded under
section 50 of the PMLA, which cannot have the character of substantive
evidence.
24. In order to fortify this limb of argument the learned counsel for the
petitioner has particularly relied upon the paragraph 38 of the said
Judgment. The learned counsel further stated that the aforesaid judgment
was rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 28.10.2024 and since the
earlier bail application of the present petitioner was dismissed on
12.04.2024, therefore, the aforesaid ratio is referred for consideration of this
Court.
25. Thus, in the aforesaid context, this Court is of the considered view
that it is the bounden duty of this Court to appreciate the aforesaid particular
contention of the learned counsel for the applicant.
26. Before appreciating to the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner, this Court thinks fit to discuss the provision of law
particularly Section 50 as contained under the Act, 2002 with its object and
intent as also the legal proposition as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
various judgments.
27. 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.
28. It is evident that the Act 2002 was enacted in order to answer the
urgent requirement to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for
15
2025:JHHC:12521
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.
29. 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;]”
30. 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.
31. In the explanation it has been referred that for the removal of doubts,
it is hereby clarified that “proceeds of crime” include property not only
derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which
may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal
activity relatable to the scheduled offence.
32. 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
16
2025:JHHC:12521
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.
33. 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.
34. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x) which means
schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The “scheduled
offence” has been defined under Section 2(1)(y) which reads as under:
“2(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.”
35. 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.
36. The offence of money laundering has been defined under Section 3 of
the Act, 2002 which reads as under:
17
2025:JHHC:12521
“3. Offence of money-laundering.–Whosoever directly or indirectly
attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is
actually involved in any process or activity connected with the [proceeds
of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and
projecting or claiming] it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence
of money-laundering.
[Explanation.– For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,–
(i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering if such person
is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly
assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or more of
the following processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime,
namely:–
(a) concealment; or
(b) possession; or
(c) acquisition; or
(d) use; or
(e) projecting as untainted property; or
(f) claiming as untainted property,
in any manner whatsoever;
(ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a
continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or
indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or
possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or
claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.]”
37. 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.
38. 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
18
2025:JHHC:12521
concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted
property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.
39. The punishment for money laundering has been provided under
Section 4 of the Act, 2002.
40. 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., (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.
41. The predicate offence has been considered in the aforesaid judgment
wherein by taking into consideration the explanation as inserted by way of
Act 23 of 2019 under the definition of the “proceeds of crime” as contained
under Section 2(1)(u), whereby and whereunder, it has been clarified for the
purpose of removal of doubts that, the “proceeds of crime” include property
not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any
property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a 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.
42. 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-
19
2025:JHHC:12521
(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
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.
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-. For ready reference, the said
paragraphs are being referred as under:
“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 are20
2025:JHHC:12521reasonable 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.
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.”
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
21
2025:JHHC:12521
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.
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.
47. 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
22
2025:JHHC:12521
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.
48. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam Kundu vs.
Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act),
Government of India through Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern
Region, (2015) 16 SCC 1 has been pleased to hold at paragraph -30 that the
conditions specified under Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to
be complied with, which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section
65 and also Section 71 of PMLA. Section 65 requires that the provisions
of 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 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.
50. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI
and Anr., (2022) 10 SCC 51 has passed the order that if the investigation
has been completed and if there is full cooperation of the accused persons,
23
2025:JHHC:12521
there may not be any arrest. The Hon’ble Apex Court categorised the
offences in different group for purpose of bail. The reference may be taken
from Paragraph -2 of the aforesaid judgment which reads as under:
“2. After allowing the application for intervention, an appropriate
order was passed on 7-10-2021 [Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI,
(2021) 10 SCC 773 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 153] . The same is
reproduced as under : (Satender Kumar Antil case [Satender
Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 153]
, SCC pp. 774-76, paras 2-11)“2. We have been provided assistance both by Mr S.V. Raju,
learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr Sidharth Luthra,
learned Senior Counsel and there is broad unanimity in terms of
the suggestions made by the learned ASG. In terms of the
suggestions, the offences have been categorised and guidelines are
sought to be laid down for grant of bail, without fettering the
discretion of the courts concerned and keeping in mind the
statutory provisions.
3. We are inclined to accept the guidelines and make them a
part of the order of the Court for the benefit of the courts below.
The guidelines are as under:
‘Categories/Types of Offences
(A) Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less
not falling in Categories B & D.(B) Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or
imprisonment for more than 7 years.
(C) Offences punishable under Special Acts containing
stringent provisions for bail like NDPS (Section 37), PMLA
(Section 45), UAPA [Section 43-D(5)], Companies Act, [Section
212(6)], etc.(D) Economic offences not covered by Special Acts.
REQUISITE CONDITIONS
(1) Not arrested during investigation.
(2) Cooperated throughout in the investigation including
appearing before investigating officer whenever called.
24
2025:JHHC:12521
(No need to forward such an accused along with the charge-sheet
(Siddharth v. State of U.P. [Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2022) 1
SCC 676 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 423] )
CATEGORY A
After filing of charge-sheet/complaint taking of cognizance
(a) Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting
appearance through lawyer.
(b) If such an accused does not appear despite service of
summons, then bailable warrant for physical appearance may be
issued.
(c) NBW on failure to appear despite issuance of bailable
warrant.
(d) NBW may be cancelled or converted into a bailable
warrant/summons without insisting physical appearance of the
accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused
before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to
appear physically on the next date/s of hearing.
(e) Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be
decided without the accused being taken in physical custody or by
granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.
CATEGORIES B/D
On appearance of the accused in court pursuant to process
issued bail application to be decided on merits.
CATEGORY C
Same as Categories B and D with the additional condition of
compliance of the provisions of Bail under NDPS (Section 37),
Section 45 of the PMLA, Section 212(6) of the Companies Act,
Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, POSCO, etc.
…”
51. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court recently in the case of Gurwinder
Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109, in the
matter of UAP Act 1967 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
25
2025:JHHC:12521
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.”
52. The reason for making reference of this judgment is that in the
Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr (supra)’s judgment, 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.
53. In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal provisions and settled law this
Court is now adverting to the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner is facing prosecution on the basis of the
statements of co-accused recorded under section 50 of the PMLA which as
has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Prem Prakash
26
2025:JHHC:12521
v. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement” (supra) cannot
have the character of substantive evidence.
54. For proper appreciation of the aforesaid contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment
i.e. Prem Prakash v. Enforcement Directorate (supra) upon which
reliance has been placed is being quoted as under:
38. We have no hesitation in holding that when an accused is in
custody under PMLA irrespective of the case for which he is under
custody, any statement under Section 50 PMLA to the same
investigating agency is inadmissible against the maker. The reason
being that the person in custody pursuant to the proceeding
investigated by the same investigating agency is not a person who
can be considered as one operating with a free mind. It will be
extremely unsafe to render such statements admissible against the
maker, as such a course of action would be contrary to all canons of
fair play and justice.
55. After going through the ratio rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
para 38 which has been quoted and referred hereinabove and also relied
upon by the applicant, it appears that applicant is quoting only selective
observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and not quoting the context in
which the said observation/ratio was rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
56. In the aforesaid case the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering
the circumstances that when a person is in judicial custody/custody in
another case investigated by the same investigating agency, whether the
statements recorded for a new case in which his arrest is not yet shown, and
which are claimed to contain incriminating material against the maker,
would be admissible under Section 50.
57. The Hon’ble Apex Court taking in to consideration the aforesaid
situation has observed that the statement of the appellant if to be considered
as incriminating against the maker, will be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence
27
2025:JHHC:12521
Act since he has given the statement whilst in judicial custody, pursuant to
other proceedings instituted by the same investigating agency. For ready
reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted
as under:
27. The question that arises is when a person is in judicial
custody/custody in another case investigated by the same
investigating agency, whether the statements recorded (in this case
the statements dated 3-8-2023, 4-8-2023, 11-8-2023) for a new case
in which his arrest is not yet shown, and which are claimed to contain
incriminating material against the maker, would be admissible under
Section 50?
33. In the facts of the present case, we hold that the statement of the
appellant if to be considered as incriminating against the maker, will
be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act since he has given the
statement whilst in judicial custody, pursuant to another proceeding
instituted by the same investigating agency. Taken as he was from
the judicial custody to record the statement, it will be a travesty of
justice to render the statement admissible against the appellant.
34. The appellant-accused cannot be told that after all while giving
this statement:”you were wearing a hat captioned ‘ECIR 5/2023’ and
not the hat captioned ‘ECIR 4/2022’ “.
58. Herein the present petitioner has been arrested on 14.04.2023 and as
per para 8.7. of the prosecution complaint he has given his statement on
13.04.2023 (RUD No.68 and 69) which was recorded under Section 50 of
Act 2002 wherein he accepted his involvement in land dealings of 3.81
acres with Afshar Ali, where 30-40 decimals of land were sold through him
despite not being documented. Further his statement was recorded on
22.04.2023. Therefore, the circumstances which were dealt with Apex
Court in the Prem Prakash v. Enforcement Directorate, (supra) is not
available herein.
59. Further, the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 50 of
PMLA, 2002 is credible evidence and admissible in evidence in view of
Section 50 of the Act.
28
2025:JHHC:12521
60. Further, the respondent ED has placed heavy reliance on the
statements of witnesses recorded and the documents produced by them
under Section 50 of the said Act to prima facie show the involvement of
petitioner in the alleged offence of money laundering under Section 3
thereof.
61. 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.
62. In the instant case, it has been found that during the course of
investigation from the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 50
that the petitioner had indulged, knowingly as the party and is actually
involved in all the activities connected with the offence of money
laundering.
63. It needs to refer herein that as per the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director
(supra) the statements of witnesses/accused are admissible in evidence in
view of Section 50 of the said Act and such statements may make out a
formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the commission of
a serious offence of money laundering. For ready reference the relevant
paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:
14. The first and foremost contention raised by learned Senior
Counsel Mr. Luthra would be that the appellant was not named in
the FIR nor in first three prosecution/supplementary complaints and
has been implicated only on the basis of the statements of witnesses29
2025:JHHC:12521recorded pursuant to the summons issued under Section 50 of the
PML Act, without there being any material in support thereof.
15. In our opinion, there is hardly any merit in the said submission
of Mr. Luthra. In Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement7, a
three Judge Bench has categorically observed that the statements of
witnesses/accused are admissible in evidence in view of Section 50
of the said Act and such statements may make out a formidable case
about the involvement of the accused in the commission of a serious
offence of money laundering. Further, as held in Vijay
Madanlal (supra), the offence of money laundering under Section 3
of the Act 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 scheduled offence. The offence of money laundering is not
dependent or linked to the date on which the scheduled offence or
predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date is the date
on which the person indulges in the process or activity connected
with the proceeds of crime. Thus, the involvement of the person in
any of the criminal activities like concealment, possession,
acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as
untainted property or claiming it to be so, would constitute the
offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Act.
64. So far as the issue of period of custody as agitated by learned counsel
is concerned, it is settled proposition of law which has been settled by the
Hon’ble Apex Court that the long incarceration (herein about 24 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.
65. At this juncture, the learned counsel for ED has submitted at Bar that
all endeavour will be taken to expedite the trial.
66. 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
30
2025:JHHC:12521
societal impact of the alleged offence should be taken care of by the Court
concerned.
67. 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,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 109 and taking in to consideration the ratio of
judgment of Union of India vs. 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..
68. It needs to refer herein that bail of other co-accused namely Md. Afsar
Ali @ Afsu Khan, Md. Saddam Hussain and Chhavi Ranjan who were also
involved in alleged offence, have been rejected by this Court vide order
dated 10.2.2025 and 22.03.2024 in B.A. No. 499 of 2025, B.A. No. 1095 of
2025 and B.A. No. 9247 of 2023, respectively.
69. Further the co-accused namely Chhavi Ranjan had preferred Special
Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 38676/2024 before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court but vide order dated 27.09.2024 the said SLP has also been
dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court with direction to respondent ED to
expedite the trial.
31
2025:JHHC:12521
70. It is evident that since the earlier bail application of this petitioner has
been rejected on merit, therefore, facts of the case need no reiteration. The
main question for consideration is if there is any change of circumstance
(factual or legal) which requires re-consideration of the bail application of
the petitioner and this Court, based upon the discussion made hereinabove,
is of the considered view that there is no change of circumstance (factual or
legal) is available herein, therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a
case where the prayer for bail of the petitioners is to be granted.
71. Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed.
72. It is made clear that the views expressed in this order are prima-facie
for consideration of matter of bail only.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Sudhir
Dated:25/04/2025
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
AFR
32