Gujarat High Court
Shailesh Babulal Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat on 3 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/15886/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (FOR SUCCESSIVE REGULAR BAIL -
AFTER CHARGESHEET) NO.15886 of 2025
================================================================
SHAILESH BABULAL BHATT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. I.H. SYED, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR. KISHAN H. DAIYA(6929)
for the Applicant(s) No..1
MR. S.V. RAJU, ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL WITH MR ANKIT
SHAH(6371) for the Respondent(s) No.2
MR. DAHWAN JAYSWAL, APP for the Respondent(s) No.1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
Date : 03/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The applicant has filed this application under Sections 187(2) and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for enlarging the applicant on regular bail in connection with the File No.ECIR/AMZO/01 of 2019 registered with Directorate of Enforcement, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Section 3 r/w. 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been arrested in connection with the present offence on 14.08.2024. After his arrest, the applicant had approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Application No.22347 of 2024 seeking regular bail. The said application was dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 21.02.2025. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the applicant had approached the Hon'ble Apex Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 00:54:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15886/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4036 of 2025. During the course of hearing of the said proceedings before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court had noticed that the applicant had not brought the fact of the applicant having approached the Hon'ble Apex Court against the Order of this Court and the said proceedings were pending to the knowledge of this Court and had filed an application seeking temporary bail and this Court had allowed the said application seeking temporary bail filed by the applicant and the applicant was ordered to be enlarged on temporary bail for a period of 5 days. The period of temporary bail granted to the applicant was extended by this Court on couple of occasions by period of 5 days each. The Hon'ble Apex Court had also observed that no notice had been issued to the Enforcement Directorate at the time of hearing of the application for temporary bail filed by the applicant. In fact, the applicant herein had categorically mentioned in his memo of application filed before this Court seeking temporary bail that the applicant had approached the Hon'ble Apex Court against the Order of this Court dismissing the regular bail application. The memo of the said application had also been served in advance to the learned Advocate appearing for the Government of India. Similarly, the memo of application seeking extension of temporary bail was also duly served in advance upon the learned Counsel of Union of India and the learned Counsel for Enforcement Directorate had also appeared before this Court on one occasion. The respondent - Enforcement Directorate in his affidavit filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court had made a false averment in the affidavit filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court that no notice was served upon Enforcement Directorate by this Court while considering the application filed by the applicant seeking temporary bail. It was only on these grounds that the Hon'ble Apex Court had dismissed the application filed by the present applicant before the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, liberty was granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the applicant to move the High Court afresh and thus, the applicant has filed the present Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 00:54:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15886/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined application. He submitted that ECIR No.1 of 2019 was registered against the applicant on 30.09.2019. In the said ECIR, two offences being FIR Nos.03 of 2018 registered with CID Crime Surat Zone Police Station, Surat and FIR No. I-6 of 2018 registered with the same Police Station were cited as predicate offences against the present applicant for invocation of the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. He submitted that the applicant is not named as an accused in FIR No.6 of 2018. Thus, there is only one offence registered against the applicant which can be considered as a predicate offence. However, no charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant in the said offence till date. The applicant has also been ordered to be enlarged on anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said offence. He further submitted that the ECIR in question was registered against 17 persons including the present applicant and out of those 17 persons, only the present applicant has been arrested and no other accused from the said ECIR has been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate till date for the reasons best known to it. He submitted that this Court while considering the earlier application seeking regular bail filed by the present applicant had clearly observed that the amount which was extorted by the present applicant is believed to have been distributed amongst the accompanies of the applicant for playing the respective roles. Despite this clear observation made by this Court in its Order dated 21.02.2025, no investigation has been carried out into this aspect and though the other co-accused had also helped the present applicant in commission of the present offence, they have not been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate. This conduct on the part of Enforcement Directorate indicates its bias towards the present applicant. The applicant herein had lodged complaint against certain officers of the CBI and the officers of the local Police which has subsequently culminated into their conviction in the said offence and it was only because of the said FIR lodged by the applicant against them that he has been targeted by the respondent authorities. He further submitted that the predicate offence is of Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 00:54:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15886/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined the year of 2018 whereas the Cryptocurrency has been brought under the purview of the PML Act in the year of 2023. Therefore, when the predicate offence was allegedly committed by the present applicant, the Cryptocurrency was not covered under the PML Act, and therefore, no provisions of the PML Act could have been invoked against the applicant. He further submitted that it is a case of prosecution against the applicant that he has not cooperated with the investigation. On the contrary, before the arrest of the applicant, he had appeared before the respondent authorities as and when he was summoned to do so and had provided all the information which was available with him. It was only because the respondent authority could not elicit reply favorable to them from the applicant, it is alleged that the applicant had not cooperated. He further submitted that the applicant was summoned by the respondent authorities even when he was released on temporary bail by this Court and the applicant had appeared before the respondent authorities while being on temporary bail also. He further submitted that the applicant has undergone incarceration for a period more than 14 months by now. The presence is no more required in custody for the purpose of investigation. The offence alleged against the applicant is punishable with imprisonment of Seven years. The prolonged incarceration of the applicant would amount to denial of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, submitted to allow the present application and enlarge the applicant on bail subject to suitable conditions.
3. Learned Senior Advocate has sought to rely upon the following judgments in support of his submissions: -
Sr. No. Case details Reported in / passed in 1 Partha Chatterjee v. Enforcement 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3729 Directorate Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 00:54:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15886/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined 2 Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2024) 3 SCC (Cri) 450 3 Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal (2025) 1 SCC 753 Dayani 4 Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 5 Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2550 6 Ramkripal Meena v. Enforcement 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2276 Directorate 7 Kavita Dhingra v. State of Punjab 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1532 8 Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1498 9 Manish Sisodia v. CBI 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1393 10 Union of India v. Kanhaiya Prasad 2025 Online SC 306 11 V. Senthil Balaji versus Deputy Director, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626 Directorate of Enforcement 12 Arun Pati Tripathi v. Enforcement Special Leave to Appeal Directorate (Criminal) No.16219 of 2024;
13 Udhaw Singh V. Enforcement Directorate 2025 SCC OnLine SC 357
14 Ankush Bansal S/o Nareshbansal Versus Criminal Misc. Application
State of Gujarat & 1 No.14446 of 2015
15 Aman Krishanlal Sachdeva S/o Shri Krishan Criminal Misc. Application
Lal Sachdeva Versus Assistance Director & 1 No.16555 of 2015
16 Hjmayum v. Enforcement Directorate 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4280
17 Sunil Dammani V. Enforcement Directorate 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3600
4. Learned Additional Solicitor General Mr. S.V. Raju appearing with learned Advocate Mr. Ankit Shah for respondent No.2 has opposed the present application. He submitted that whatever observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in its Order dated 21.07.2025, were on the basis of Orders passed by this Court in various applications filed by the applicant for temporary bail.
No misstatements were made before the Hon'ble Apex Court on behalf of the Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 00:54:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15886/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined respondent authorities. He further submitted that though the advance copies of the applications filed by the applicant for temporary bail and its extensions were served upon the learned Counsel appearing for Union of India before this Court, no intimation in this regard was given to Enforcement Directorate, and therefore, the Enforcement Directorate was not heard before this Court when the applications for temporary bail and its extensions were considered by this Court. He further submitted that the present is a successive application filed by the present applicant seeking regular bail. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has miserably failed to show any change in circumstances after dismissal of earlier application filed by the applicant by this Court vide Order dated 21.02.2025. He further submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court while granting liberty to the applicant to approach this Court afresh, has not observed that this Court should not be guided by the observations made by it in its Order dated 21.02.2025. Therefore, the reasons given by this Court in its Order dated 21.02.2025 hold good even today. This Court while dismissing the bail application filed by the applicant earlier has considered the merits of the matter in entirety, and thereafter, this Court has recorded the conclusion that it is difficult for this Court at this stage to hold that the accused person is not guilty of an offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Section 45 of the PML Act requires the Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. This Court in its Order dated 21.02.2025 has recorded a negative finding in this regard, and therefore, the provisions of Section 45 of the PML Act debars the applicant from seeking bail. He further submitted that merely because the applicant was considered for grant of anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a predicate offence that by itself would not entitle to the applicant for being released on bail in the present offence. He also submitted that merely because the applicant has not been named as an accused in one of the predicate offences Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 00:54:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15886/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined cited in the ECIR, would also not entitle the applicant to be released on bail. He submitted that as per the settled legal position, it is not necessary for a person to be named as an accused in the predicate offence for being booked under the provisions of the PML Act. He further submitted that the statement of the accused recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act is admissible in evidence. Such statement of the present applicant was also recorded by the respondent - Enforcement Directorate and the said statement has been considered by this Court in its Order dated 21.02.2025. The perusal of the statement of the applicant recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act clearly makes out the case against the applicant for being prosecuted in the present case. He also submitted that it is true that Cryptocurrency was brought under the purview of the PML Act in the year 2023. The offence alleged against the applicant had continued even after Cryptocurrency was brought under the purview of the PML Act, and therefore, the fact that the Cryptocurrency was brought under the purview of the PML Act only from the year 2023 would render no assistance to the applicant. He also submitted that in the memo of the present application filed by the applicant, non-compliance of the provisions of Section 41A of Cr.P.C. is alleged. However, as per the settled legal position, the provisions of Section 41A would not apply to the cases under the PML Act. He submitted that mere delay in trial is no ground for releasing the applicant on bail and having regard to the facts of the present case, this Court should not exercise discretion in favour of the applicant merely because of delay in trial. He submitted that Section 50(3) of the PML Act requires a person to attend in person or through authorized agent before the authority under the Enforcement Directorate and such person is bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which he is examined. The applicant herein had though appeared before the Enforcement Directorate, he has not cooperated with the investigation and has not disclosed correct facts as regards disposal of proceeds of crime and its possession. He, therefore, submitted to dismiss the present Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 00:54:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15886/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined application. Learned ASG has relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions: -
Sr. No. Case details Reported in / passed in 1 State of Maharashtra v. Buddhikota 1989 Supp (2) 605 Subha Rao 2 State of M.P. v. Kajad (2001) 7 SCC 673 3 Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V. Rajesh (2005) 2 SCC 42 Ranjan 4 Jamiruddin Ansari v. CBI (2009) 6 SCC 316 5 State of T.N. V. S.A. Raja (2005) 8 SCC 380 6 Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of (2017) 5 SCC 406 Karnataka 7 Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan (1987) 2 SCC 684 Khan 8 Mamta Nair v. State of Rajasthan (2021) 7 SCC 442 9 Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. Vs. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 Union of India & Ors 10 Pavan Dibbur vs. Enforcement 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586 Directorate 11 Dr. Manik Bhattacharaya vs. Ramesh 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1465 Malik & Ors.
12 Directorate of Enforcement v. Aditya 2023 SCC OnLine SC 619 Tripathi 13 Surjeet Kumar Bansal vs. Central Bureau 2024:PHHC:045226 of Investigation and another 14 Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1703 Enforcement 15 Manideep Mago v. Union of India 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3390 16 Arvind Dham v. Union of India 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8490 17 V. Senthil Balaji v. State 2023 SCC OnLine SC 934 18 Y. Balaji v. Karthik Desari 2023 SCC OnLine SC 645 19 Tarun Kumar v. Directorate of 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486 Enforcement 20 Satyendra Kumar Jain v. Enforcement (2024) 6 SCC 715 Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 00:54:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15886/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined Directorate 21 Rohit Tandon Vs. Directorate of (2018) 11 SCC 46 Enforcement 22 Amanatullah Khan v. Enforcement 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1658 Directorate 23 Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of (2023) 12 SCC 1 India 24 Union of India through Assistance 2025 SCC OnLine 306 Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad 25 State of Bihar & Anr. V. Amit Kumar (2013) 17 SCC 751 26 Tarun Kumar vs. Directorate of 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486 Enforcement 27 Satyender Kumar Jain vs. Directorate of 2024 6 SCC 715 Enforcement 28 Rajesh Ranjan Yadav alias Pappu Yadav (2007) 1 SCC 70 Vs CBI through its Director 29 Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh (2004) 7 SCC 528 Ranjan 30 Manish Sisodia vs. CBI 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1393 31 Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 Enforcement 32 V. Senathi Balaji vs. Deputy Director, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626 Directorate of Enforcement 33 Union of India vs K. A. Najeeb 2021 3 SCC 713 34 Banmeet Singh vs Enforcement First Bail Application Directorate No.1760 of 2024 35 Banmeet Singh Vs. Directorate of SLP (Cri.) No.1685 of 2025 Enforcement 36 Shahnawaz Ahmed Jeelani vs Directorate Criminal Misc. B.A. of Enforcement No.13040 of 2023 37 Shahnawaz Ahmed Jeelani vs. SLP (Crl.) No.14173 of 2024 Enforcement Directorate 38 Vipin Kumar Sharma vs. Directorate of Crl. Misc. B.A. No.11816 of Enforcement 2023 39 Krishan Kumar vs. Enforcement CrMP(M) No.1868 of 2024 Directorate 40 Rajdeep Singh vs. Enforcement CrMP(M) No.1853 of 2024 Directorate Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 00:54:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15886/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined 41 Hitesh Gandhi vs. Enforcement SLP (Crl.) No.16555 of 2024 Directorate 42 M. Ravindran v. Directorate of Revenue (2021) 2 SCC 485 Intelligence 43 Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI (1994) 5 SCC 410 44 Naser Bin Abu Bakr Yafai v. State of (2022) 6 SCC 308 Maharashtra 45 Abdul Azeez P.V. vs. National (2014) 16 SCC 543 Investigation Agency 46 Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Jain vs. (2013) 3 SCC 77 State of Maharashtra & Ors.
47 Central Bureau of Investigation vs. R.S. (2002) 5 SCC 82 Pai & Ors.
48 Dinesh Dalmia vs. CBI (2007) 8 SCC 770 49 Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal vs. State of (2013) 1 SCC 197 Gujarat & Anr.
50 Narendra Kumar Amin vs. CBI & Ors (2015) 3 SCC 417 51 Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 Union of India and Others 52 CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan (2024) 4 SCC 253 53 Alemla Jamir v. NIA 2023 SCC Del 2490 54 Mohmed Iqbal Madar Sheik v. State of (1996) 1 SCC 722 Maharashtra
5. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the applicant had earlier preferred CRMA No.22347 of 2024 before this Court seeking regular bail. The said application was dismissed by this Court vide Order dated 21.02.2025. While dismissing the said application, this Court had made the following observations: -
"7. From the material collected during the course of investigation it appears that the applicant herein had invested the amount of Rs.1.7 Crores in M/s. Bit Connect Ltd. which was owned and controlled by one Satish Kumbhani. The applicant was promised to receive return @ 0.5%
- 2% daily over the amount invested by him. However, after investment of the aforesaid amount by the present applicant, the lending platform of Bit Connect Coin was closed by the said Satish Kumbhani which had Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 00:54:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15886/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined resulted into loss to the present applicant of the amount which he had invested. It is the case of the prosecution that to overcome the said loss, the applicant and the other co-accused had made a plan for induction of one Piyush Savaliya and Dhaval Mavani who were employees of M/s. Bit Connect Ltd. at the relevant time and accordingly, these two persons were abducted on 30.01.2018 and 01.02.2018 respectively. The applicant with the help of the other co-accused got 2091 Bitcoins, 11,000 Litecoins and Cash worth Rs.14.5 Crores extorted from the said Dhaval Mavani and thereafter, they were released. The amount which was extorted by the present applicant is believed to have been distributed amongst the accomplices of the applicant for playing the respective roles. The record also indicates that several statements of applicant came to be recorded under Section 50 of PML Act and details as regards the utilisation, parking, concealment and possession of proceeds of crime were sought from the applicant and the applicant had given evasive replies to the investigating authorities in this regard. Thus, the applicant is alleged to have withheld the material information as regards the disposal of proceeds of crime and its possession. The record also indicates that the Investigating Agency has recorded the statement of various persons under Section 50 of the PML Act. The material collected during the course of investigation indicates that the applicant had further transferred Bit Coins and the cash to the other co-accused through various modes.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment in the case of Union of India through the Assistant Director vs. Kanhaiya Prasad has held in Para - 12 thus:-
"12. It is well settled position of law that Section 45 of the PMLA starting with a non-obstante clause has an overriding effect on the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case of conflict between them. Section 45 imposes two conditions for the grant of bail to any person, accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than 3 years under Part A of the Schedule. The two conditions are that (i) the prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application for bail; and (ii) the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused person is not guilty of such offence and that he is not liable to commit any offence while on bail. As well settled, these two conditions are mandatory in nature and they need to be complied with before the accused person is released on bail."
9. Having regard to the facts discussed herein above, it is difficult for this Court, at this stage, to hold that the accused person is not guilty Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 00:54:35 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/15886/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/10/2025 undefined of such an offence and that he is not liable to commit any offence while on bail."
6. The aforesaid observations made by this Court while dismissing the earlier application filed by the applicant clearly make out the strong prima-facie case against the applicant for commission of the present offence. It is also required to be noted that the said order had been carried by the applicant to the Hon'ble Apex Court by filing a Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4036 of 2025 and the aforesaid observations made by this Court have not been disturbed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thereafter, the present successive application filed by the applicant seeking regular bail. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant is not in a position to show any change in circumstances after dismissal of the aforesaid application by this Court vide order dated 21.02.2025. The main ground which is canvassed on behalf of the applicant in the present application is delay in trial. From the record, it does not appear that the trial of the offence has been delayed on account of prosecution. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant is not in a position to dislodge the findings recorded by this Court in its Order dated 21.02.2025. Under the circumstances, the present application being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed.
(M. R. MENGDEY,J) RAVI OZA Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI SATISHKUMAR OZA(HCW0111) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 07 00:54:35 IST 2025