Patna High Court - Orders
Pawan Kumar vs The Union Of India Through The Assistant ... on 26 September, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40593 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2024 Thana- E.C.I.R (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
District- Patna
======================================================
Pawan Kumar S/O Late Shailender Kumar Singh R/o- House No 02,
shanti Kunj, S K Vihar, P.s.- Beur, Dist- Patna, Bihar
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India through the Assistant Director, Enforcement
Directorate, Patna 1st Floor, Chandpura Place, Bank Road, West Gandhi
Maidan, Patna. ... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Suraj Samdarshi, Advocate
Mr.Avinash Shekhar, Advocate
Ms.Abhilasha Jha, Advocate
Ms.Simran Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Vijay Shankar Tiwary, Advocate
For the ED : Mr.Zohaib Hossain, Spl. counsel for ED
Mr.Tuhin Shankar, Advocate
Mr.Prabhat Kr. Singh, Spl.PP ED
Mr.Pranjal Tripathi, Advocate
Mr.Vishal Kr.Singh, LC ED
Mr.Kartik Sabharwal, Advocate
Ms.Aashi Singh, LC ED
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
C.A.V. ORDER
2 26-09-2025Heard Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Zohaib Hossai, learned Special counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate.
2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Special (PMLA) Case No. 10/2024 (arising out of ECIR No. PTZO/04/2024 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 2/25 dated 14.03.2024) for the alleged offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, pending in the Court of Learned District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge PMLA, Patna.
3. The accused/petitioner is in judicial custody since 12.11.2024 i.e. for 211 days. The petitioner is an accused in Special Vigilance Unit P.S. Case No. 05 of 2025 dated 30.04.2025 registered under section 7(A), 8, 9, 10 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 61, 318(4), 338 and 340(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, where his prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected by the learned court below.
4. The factual background of the prosecution case are as follows:
(a) Directorate of Enforcement registered ECIR No. PTZO/04/2024 dated 14.03.2024 on the basis of predicate/scheduled offences in Rupaspur P.S. Case no. 18/2023 dated 09.01.2023 and addendum ECIR dated 20.09.2024 registered on the basis of Special Vigilance Unit P.S. Case No. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 3/25 05/2024 dated 14.09.2024.
(b) After completion of the investigation, the ED has filed complaint under section 44 and 45 of the PMA 2002 vide prosecution complaint dated 16.12.2024 against Sanjeev Hans, Gulab Yadav, Praveen Choudhary, Shadab Khan, Pushpraj Bajaj, M/s Prerna Smart Solutions, M/s Genuspower Infrastructure Limited, and M/s Dhoot Infrastructure Projects Limited.
(c) Consequent thereto, the ED filed Supplementary prosecution complaint dated 09.01.2025, against Sanjeev Hans, Gulab Yadav, Praveen Choudhary, Shadab Khan, Pushpraj Bajaj, M/s Prerna Smart Solutions, M/s Genuspower Infrastructure Limited, and M/s Dhoot Infrastructure Projects Limited and additionally with respect to M/s Matriswa Infra pvt Ltd, Pawan Kumar (Petitioner), Suresh Kumar Singla@ Suresh Kumar, Varun Singla, Devinder Singh Anand, M/s Anand Trading Corporation, Vipul Bansal, M/s Mining and Engineering Corporation.
(d) The allegation in brief is that Pawan Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 4/25 Kumar in collusion with others used M/s Matriswa Infra as a conduit, facilitated Sanjeev Hans in generating proceeds of crime.
5. Adding to the aforesaid fact, it is stated that one Gayatri Kumari filed a complaint case against Sanjeev Hans and Gulab Yadav bearing Complaint Case No. 1122/2021 leveling several allegation, in which learned A.C.J.M.-1st Class, Danapur vide order dated 06.01.2023 passed an order under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for registration of FIR. Consequent upon, Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 18/2023 was registered on 09.01.2023 for alleged offences punishable under sections 323, 341, 376, 376D, 420, 313, 120B, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2020.
6. On the basis of aforesaid FIR, initially the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), Patna Zonal office instituted ECIR No.PTZO/04/2024 dated 14.03.2024 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,2002 and commenced purported investigation with respect to alleged money Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 5/25 laundering of proceeds of crime allegedly generated from scheduled offence under section 420 and 120B of the I.P.C.
7. The aforesaid case qua Sanjeev Hans was quashed by this High Court through criminal writ application bearing Cr.W.J.C. No. 310/2023 vide order dated 06.08.2024 with all its consequential proceedings arising out of said FIR including the order dated 06.01.2023 passed by learned ACJM - 1st Class, Danapur. Similarly, the case for quashing of aforesaid FIR was also filed by co-accused Gulab yadav, where further proceeding was stayed vide order dated 11.05.2023 as passed in Cr. Misc. No. 29542/2023 by this Court.
8. It is stated that since the FIR pertaining to predicate offence was quashed by Hon'ble Patna high Court the Directorate of Enforcement was left high and dry with respect to survival of the ECIR No. PTZO/04/2024 dated 14.03.2024 in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India and Others since reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 6/25 929 and therefore to make survive the predicate offence, immediately after quashing of FIR, send the materials collected during investigation under section 66(2) of the PMLA Act, 2002 to Special Vigilance Unit (in short the "SVU"), Patna which lodged SVU P.S. Case No. 05/2024 on 14.09.2024 under section 61 and 318(4) of the B.N.S., 2023 and section 7, 12, 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. On the basis of SVU P.S. Case No. 05/2024 as mentioned aforesaid, ED registered addendum to the ECIR on 20.09.2024. It is shown that even prior to registration of SVU P.S. Case No. 05/2024, raids were conducted at the premises of the petitioner on 16.07.2024. The detains of search and the items seized are as follows:
Sl. No. Date of Place of search Items seized search
01. 16.07.2024 Residential premises Iphone 15, of Pawan Kumar Diary, Loose sheet 1-54 MOA of Pawan Gaurav Construction Misc Deeds and agreement Pink file wrt Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 7/25 to Pawan Kumar
02. 16.07.2024 Office premise of M/s Loose sheet Matriswa Infra Pvt. 1-64 Limited located at One Mobile House No. 15, Justice Phone Narayan Path, One Pen drive Nageshwar Colony, One Hard disk Boring Road, Patna.
9. In furtherance of aforesaid raid, petitioner was summoned to appear before the ED vide summons dated 17.07.2024, 25.09.2024, 23.01.2024 and 30.10.2024, which was duly complied by the petitioner and he appeared on every date and extended his full cooperation in the investigation of ED. In fact, the petitioner was orally called to join the investigation more than ten times, and on each and every occasion, the petitioner appeared before the officer of the ED. In this context, it is submitted that petitioner suffers from acute hypermetropia and has +7 power in both his eyes, which is evident from his medical prescription dated 03.04.2024 issued by the Yogmaya Devi Eye Hospital, Patna and out of his aforesaid health condition, the petitioner was not able to read the statement recorded by the ED, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 8/25 which he signed under coercion despite raising objections.
Argument on behalf of the petitioner
10. In view of aforesaid mentioned prosecution background, Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner appeared before ED on 23.10.2024 and he clarified before ED that he had extended loan of Rs. 50 Lakhs to Kamal Kant Gupta which was refunded on 28.10.2021. The petitioner also clarified that "S Sir" mentioned in loose sheet of paper recovered from his premises refers to Suresh Singla, who is father of Varun Singla. The petitioner also clarified that he used to receive friendly loans for execution of project which was duly refunded.
11. It is submitted that despite of having cooperation with ED in its investigation and producing all relevant documents qua allegation as asked from him, the petitioner was arrested on 11.11.2024 by ignoring the provisions of section 19 of PMLA Act, 2002.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 9/25
12. It is pointed out by Mr. Samdarshi that statement of petitioner was recorded during custody by ED and thereafter immediately when he sent back to judicial custody from ED remand, vide letter dated 02.12.2024, he informed to learned Special Judge, PMLA, stating that the statement recorded during ED custody was forceful and under coercion through e-mail dated 28.10.2024.
13. Mr. Samdarshi, further submitted that for identical allegation two sets of FIR was lodged against petitioner as it is apparent from para 11 and 12 of the Special Vigilance P.S. Case No. 05/2024. It is pointed out that the factual scenario of this case clearly suggests that the mandatory provision qua arrest as available under section 19 of PMLA Act was completely ignored by ED and the "reasons to believe" and ground of arrest was completely ignored thereof and merely on the basis of "reasons to suspicion" the petitioner was arrested with the present case.
14. It is further argued that petitioner was not named in SVU P.S. Case No. 05/2024. It is Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 10/25 pointed out that petitioner is a director of M/s Matriswa Infra Private Limited which is working as a sub-contractor for some of the infrastructure projects in Bihar. The payment was made to Kamal Kant Gupta on 24.07.2020, which was duly refunded on 28.10.2021, which is evident from the bank account statement of M/s Matriswa Infra Pvt. Ltd.
15. Mr. Samdarshi further pointed out that the allegation that M/s Matriswa Infra Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated under the instruction of Suresh Singla is without any cogent materials and therefore, same not appears reliable and convincing. As far allegation qua petitioner that he is in collusion with Varun Singla was engaged in inflating the invoices related to refueling of his trucks deployed at the project site of de-silting of Paimar river is based upon the statement of one Gulshan Kumar, Pump Manager at Pragati Fuel Centre which was recorded under section 17 of the PMLA Act, 2002. It is submitted that according to Gulshan Kumar the petitioner entered into the agreement of inflating Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 11/25 the invoice with one Akhilesh Kumar, who was the former proprietor of Pragati Fuel Centre. The allegation was based upon the statement of Gulshan Kumar, who was merely a Manager of the said pump.
16. Arguing further, it is submitted by Mr. Samdarshi that as far recovery of loose sheets containing details of commission paid is of no evidentiary value and they are not admissible in evidence. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through C.B.I. Vs. V.C. Shukla [(1998) 3 SCC 410] and Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India [(2017) 11 SCC 731].
17. It is pointed out that except financial transactions undertaken through banking channel, which was duly explained by the petitioner, ED has no other material to connect the petitioner with the allegation in question. It is submitted that mere existence of financial transactions between two companies or individual does not necessarily imply Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 12/25 existence of any illegality. It is also submitted by learned counsel that ED has failed to establish the foundational facts required under section 19 of the PMLA to arrest the petitioner i.e. without recording "reason to believe" petitioner was arrested. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State and others [(2024) 3 SCC 51. It is submitted that the presumption under section 24 of PMLA Act arises only when ED established the foundational fact udner section 19 of the PMLA and in support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon para 239 of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary case (supra), which reads as under:
"239. Be it noted that the legal presumption under section 24(a) of the 2002 Act, would apply when the person is charged with the offence of money-laundering and his direct or indirect involvement in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, is established. The existence of proceeds of crime is, therefore, a foundational fact, to be established by the prosecution, including the involvement of the person in any process or activity connected therewith. Once these foundational facts are established by the prosecution, the onus must then shift on the person facing charge of offence of money-laundering -- to rebut the legal Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 13/25 presumption that the proceeds of crime are not involved in money-laundering, by producing evidence which is within his personal knowledge. In other words, the expression "presume" is not conclusive. It also does not follow that the legal presumption that the proceeds of crime are involved in money- laundering is to be invoked by the Authority or the Court, without providing an opportunity to the person to rebut the same by leading evidence within his personal knowledge."
18. Arguing further, Mr. Samdarshi submitted that merely on the basis of statement of co-accused, the petitioner implicated with this case which is not a substantive evidence, even the whatsapp chats is only of corroborative value. It is also pointed out that ED must consider all materials qua implication of petitioner. Highlighting the manner in which ED acted in this case, it is pointed out by Mr. Samdarshi that "ground of arrest" and "reason to believe" as available under section 19 of the PMLA, shown identical though both are of distinct legal meaning and cannot be said identical in nature.
19. In view of aforesaid factual and legal submission, it is submitted that there is no chance of tampering with evidence or influencing the witnesses for the reasons that the alleged Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 14/25 scheduled offence is pertains to 2015-2022. There is no allegation that petitioner ever made any attempt to influenced any witness or to tamper any evidence. Petitioner shall cooperate in investigation of ED as and when directed and no further judicial purpose would serve by keeping this petitioner behind the bar for any indefinite period in want of trial, particularly when not a single prosecution witnesses was examined out of 79 prosecution witnesses, where several exhibits and documents are required to be examined. In this context, it is also submitted that as the allegation is based upon bank transaction, therefore, it can be safely said that petitioner satisfies the twin conditions as available under section 45 of the PMLA Act, 2002 for granting bail.
20. In support of his submission qua speedy trial, Mr. Samdarshi, learned counsel relied upon para 19 of the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2024 SCC Online SC 1693], which reads as Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 15/25 under:
"19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime."
Argument on behalf of the ED
21. It is submitted by Mr. Zohaib Hossain, learned Special counsel for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), that this petitioner was one of the conduit of Sanjeev Hans, who acted by utilizing a firm M/s Matriswa Infra Pvt. Ltd. in generating proceeds of crime while Sanjeev Hans was the secretary of Water Resources Department (in short, the 'WRD'), Govt. of Bihar from 14.08.2019 to 06.12.2020 and 28.02.2021 to 30.12.2021.
22. It is further submitted by Mr. Hossain that during investigation it reveals that Suresh Kumar Singla is one of the close associates of Sanjeev Hans, which appears corroborated from the Whatsapp chats between Sanjeev Hans and Suresh Kumar Singla extracted from mobile phone Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 16/25 of Sanjeev Hans vide Panchanama dated 14.08.2024 and 16.08.2024.
23. It is submitted that the bank account of the wife of Sanjeev Hans namely, Harloveleen Kaur with HDFC Bank revealed a financial transaction of Rs. 20 Lakhs with Kamal Kant Gupta (Samadhi of Suresh Singla - one of the co-accused) on 30.10.2020, which upon further analysis reveals that Kamal Kant Gupta received Rs. 50 Lakhs from the account of M/s Matriswa Infra Pvt. Ltd. which was incorporated on 29.05.2020 by this petitioner and Varun Singla, which completed a sub-contract related to WRD govt. of Bihar when Sanjeev Hans was holding the charge of Secretary of WRD, Govt. of Bihar. It is submitted that Pawan Kumar was doing a business of petty contractor in Bihar therefore he was acquainted with Suresh Kumar Singla. Varun Singla was made one of the director in M/sMatriswa Infra Pvt. Ltd. on the instruction of Suresh Kumar Singla. It also surfaced during investigation that Rs. 50 Lakhs have been transferred to the account of Kamal Kant Gupta Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 17/25 from the account of his company as per instruction of Suresh Kumar Singla. Upon search of M/s Matriswa Infra Pvt. Ltd., details of payments made to various officers of the Bihar Govt. including Sanjeev Hans as bribe and kickbacks was gathered, which was also transpired from the statement of petitioner as recorded under section 17 of PMLA dated 16.07.2024 and statement made under section 50 of the PMLA on 18.07.2024 and 27.07.2024.
24. It is submitted that while recording statement under section 50 of the PMLA Act, petitioner accepted that bribe of cash Rs. 67 Lakhs was paid to 'S. Sir' decoding it as 'Sanjeev Hans'. It is submitted that upon analyzing the seized documents, both digital and physical, from the official premises of M/s Matriswa Infra Pvt. Ltd., it was revealed that Pawan Kumar (petitioner), in collusion with Varun Singla, was engaged in inflating invoices relating to refueling of his trucks deployed at the project site of desilting of Paimar river, Biharsharif. This scheme was devised to Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 18/25 generate cash, which was then utilized for providing illicit gratification in cash to Sanjeev Hans and other government officials. Whereas, petitioner evaded this fact by saying explanation while recording his statement under section 50 of the PMLA Act that the aforesaid cash was generated was used for payment to labourers.
25. It is further submitted by Mr. Hossain that the Gulshan Kumar Kesari, Manager of Pragati Fuel Centre reveals that M/s Matriswa Infra Pvt. Ltd. generated cash amount of Rs. 55 Lakhs, Rs. 69 Lakhs, Rs. 40 Lakhs and Rs. 18 Lakhs from Rajeshwar, M/s Pragati Fuel Centre, M/s Mahavihar Fuel Station and Rajesh Jee, respectively, which is totaling of Rs. 1.82 Crores corresponds to the amount paid by M/s Matriswa Infra Pvt. Ltd. as bribe to Sanjeev Hans and other WRD officials.
26. It is pointed out that petitioner in collusion with Varun Singla and Suresh Kumar Singla orchestrated a scheme to square off the transaction of Rs. 50 Lakhs given to Kamal Kant Gupta, which is clear from the analysis of bank Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 19/25 account of M/s Matriswa Infra Pvt. Ltd. Kamal Kant Gupta and Varun Singla revealed that Varun Singla transferred Rs. 30 Lakhs and Rs. 20 Lakhs from his Axis Bank and PNB Bank to the account of Kamal Kant Gupta on 12.10.2021, and upon receiving the Rs. 50 Lakhs, Kamal Kant Gupta repaid Rs. 50 Lakhs to M/s Matriswa Infra Pvt. Ltd. on 28.10.2021. Subsequently, M/s Matriswa Infra Pvt. Ltd. transferred Rs. 50 Lakhs to Varun Singla's PNB bank account on 01.11.2020 in two transactions each of Rs. 25 Lakhs, which has further been transferred to one Jatinder Kumar Sangari, a property dealer of Panchkula, for in connection with purchasing of an Industrial Plot, admeasuring 500 sq. Yard in sector 101A, IT City, Mohali, which was purchased by Kamal Kant Gupta jointly with his son-in-law i.e. Varun Singla on 31.08.2020 for an amount of Rs. 92.50 Lakhs.
27. In this connection, it is further submitted that during investigation, it is transpired that out of Rs. 92.50 Lakhs, Rs. 10 Lakhs was paid to Jatinder Kumar Sangari by Smt. Harloveleen Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 20/25 Kaur, wife of Sanjeev Hans. All such aforesaid transactions clearly established that how this petitioner is involved in layering and laundering of proceed of crime earned by Sanjeev Hans through his Company M/s Matriswa Infra Pvt. Ltd.
28. It is submitted by Mr. Hossain that in view of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case (supra), and V. Senthil Balaji' case (supra), a substantive threshold test is not laid down on the 'necessity to arrest' and also that there was no need to follow section 41A of Cr.P.C. 1973 under PMLA as same would be in teeth of section 65 of PMLA Act, 2002.
29. It is further submitted by Mr. Hossain that the offence under money laundering act is of independent nature of the offence and its connection to schedule offence was explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India. Learned counsel referred para 109 & 134 of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary's case (supra), which reads as under:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 21/25 "109. Tersely put, it is only such property which is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence that can be regarded as proceeds of crime. The authorities under the 2002 Act cannot resort to action against any person for money laundering on an assumption that the property recovered by them must be proceeds of crime and that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless the same is registered with the jurisdictional police or pending inquiry by way of complaint before the competent forum. For, the expression "derived or obtained" is indicative of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence already accomplished. Similarly, in the event the person named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally absolved by a court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case (scheduled offence) against him/her, there can be no action for money laundering against such a person or person claiming through him in relation to the property linked to the stated scheduled offence. This interpretation alone can be countenanced on the basis of the provisions of the 2002 Act, in particular Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3. Taking any other view would be rewriting of these provisions and disregarding the express language of the definition clause "proceeds of crime", as it obtains as of now."
134. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply clear that the offence of money laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. The process or activity can be in any form -- be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so..... .... ... "
30. It is also submitted by Mr. Hossain that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 22/25 in case of non-cooperation, including delaying tactics, evasive reply, and refusal to provide necessary records, as it transpires from the common facts arising out of all arrested co- accused that they almost retracted their earlier version/statement recorded under section 50 of the PMLA Act and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail on this ground. In support of his submission, Mr. Hossain relied upon legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available through Gautam Navlakha Vs. National Investigation Agency [2021 SCC Online SC 382].
31. It is further argued by Mr. Hossain that the returning of illicit funds does not erase the offence under PMLA, if the original act involved the proceeds of crime and in support of his submission, Mr. Hossain relied upon legal report of Hon'ble Apex Court as available through Enforcement Directorate Vs. Kapil Wadhawan [(2021) SC
118.
32. Mr. Hossain also submitted that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 23/25 Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically held that a bribe giver can be prosecuted under the PMLA as they are considered a party to the proceed of crime. The court emphasized that by handing over money with intent to bribe, the individual assists or knowingly become a party to an activity connected with the proceed of crime. In support of his submission, Mr. Hossain relied upon the legal report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as available in the case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Padmanabhan Kishore [(2022) SLP CRL. 2668].
33. In view of aforesaid discussed factual and legal submission, it is submitted by Mr. Hossain that petitioner is not satisfying the twin conditions as available under section 45 of the PMLA Act 2002 for granting bail and as far the violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India is concerned, there are catena of judgments where even after the long incarceration the bail to an accused was refused by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
34. In view of aforesaid factual Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 24/25 submissions, prima facie it transpired that petitioner was a conduit of Sanjeev Hans and used his firm M/s Matriswa Infra Pvt. Ltd. for generating proceed of crime. Petitioner retracted his statement, as given under section 50 of PMLA Act, immediately after sending to judicial custody like other co-accused persons. Documents related with huge cash payment was seized from the office of M/s Matriswa Infra Pvt. Ltd., where involvement of petitioner get strength further from extracted whatsapp chats of co-accused Sanjeev Hans, accordingly, it cannot be said that this Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that petitioner is not guilty and would not likely to commit any offence, on enlarging bail, twin conditions, which must satisfied before granting bail under Section 45 of the PMLA Act, 2002.
But, As petitioner remained in custody for about eleven months against maximum sentence of seven years i.e. since 12.11.2024, where during Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40593 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 25/25 trial total 79 witness are required to be examined and 149 documents, which running into 26739 pages are required to be exhibited by the trial court, suggesting prima facie that trial is not likely to conclude in near future, violating the fundamental right of petitioner as available under Article 21 of the Constitution of India qua speedy trial, which yet to initiate, therefore, above-named petitioner is directed to be released on bail, furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, PMLA, Patna, in connection with Special (PMLA) Case No. 10/2024 (arising out of ECIR No. PTZO/04/2024 dated 14.03.2024), subject to the condition as laid down under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C/Section 480(3) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.S.").
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) Rajeev/-
U T