Gujarat High Court
Om Pandya @ Om Rupalba Jadeja S/O. ... vs State Of Gujarat on 29 April, 2026
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/9066/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - AFTER
CHARGESHEET) NO. 9066 of 2026
==========================================================
OM PANDYA @ OM RUPALBA JADEJA S/O. RAJENDRA PANDYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MITESH AMIN, SENIOR ADVOCATE with
MR RAHUL R DHOLAKIA and
MR NEEL KANABAR for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR JK SHAH ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR RAJESH KANANI for the Respondent No.2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 29/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr Mitesh Amin with learned advocate Mr. Rahul Dholakia and learned advocate Mr. Neel Kanabar appearing on behalf of the applicant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. J.K.Shah appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Kanani for the respondent No.2.
2. Rule. Learned APP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent-State and learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Kanani waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No.2.
Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:31:33 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9066/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined
3. The applicant has filed this application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for enlarging the applicant on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being File No. ECIR/STSZO/04/2025 registered with Ahmedabad Zonal Office, Ahmedabad City for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 202 (hereinafter referred to as "PML Act")
4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Amin on behalf of the applicant would submit that the present applicant has been arraigned as a accused in connection FIR being C.R. No.11210005241151 of 2024 registered with Athwa Police Station, District: Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 338, 336(2), 336(3), 340, 318(4), 319(), 61(2) of the BNS Act and has been arrested in connection with the said offence on 17.11.2024. Learned senior advocate would submit that while the allegation in the said offence being that the accused therein, were laundering money through the medium of mule accounts, and whereas it is submitted that after filing of the FIR, respondent No.2 had filed ECIR No.4 of 2025 against the accused under the provisions of the PMLA Act and whereas such an ECIR has been registered on 26.03.2025. It is further submitted by learned senior advocate that the present applicant was not cited as an accused in both the FIR as well as ECR and whereas the present Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:31:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9066/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined applicant has been arraigned as an accused during the course of investigation in both the offences. Learned senior advocate would submit that the prosecution complaint has been filed by respondent No.2 - ED on 27.11.2025. Learned senior advocate would submit that as such, the present applicant, had thereafter, moved an application for the release on regular bail and in the scheduled offence and whereas vide and order dated 06.02.2026, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.2009 of 2026, had enlarged the present applicant on regular bail. Learned senior advocate would submit that the role attributed to the present applicant, as per the prosecution complaint being that the present applicant, was an associate, who had indulged in the activity of laundering of money on behalf of co-accused, more particularly, by converting the proceeds of crime into USDT/Cryptocurrency for the purpose of commission. Learned senior advocate would submit that since the charge-sheet has been filed in the scheduled offence and whereas the present applicant has been enlarged on bail in the scheduled offence and whereas since prosecution complaint has been filed in so far as in the present complaint is concerned, no purpose would be served by not releasing the present applicant, more particularly, by keeping the present applicant in judicial custody. Learned advocate would under such circumstances, request that this Court may release the present applicant on regular bail.
Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:31:33 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9066/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined
5. As against the same, the present application has been vehemently objected to by learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Kanani for respondent No.2. Learned advocate Mr. Kanani would at the outset, draw the attention of this Court to Section 45 of the PML Act and would submit that the said provision bars grant of bail unless the twin conditions as per Section 45 are fulfilled and whereas, learned advocate would submit that the 2 nd condition, not being fulfilled in the instance case, this Court may not enlarge the applicant on regular bail. Learned advocate would submit that this Court, as per Section 45(ii) of the PML Act, is required to come to a prima facie conclusion that the present applicant is neither guilty of having committed the offence in question nor are there reasonable ground for believing that the applicant is not likely to commit the very self same offence or any other offence during bail, which circumstance, is too difficult to observe in the present case and whereas, it is submitted that the present applicant may not be released by this Court. Learned advocate Mr. Kanani in support of his submissions would rely upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Union of India Through The Assistant Director vs. Kanhaiya Prasad reported in 2025 INSC 210 and Vijayraj Surana vs. Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Chennai I Zonal Office, passed by the High Court of Madras, vide order dated 28.08.2024. Relying upon the said decisions, learned advocate Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:31:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9066/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined would submit that this Court may not entertain the present application.
6. As against the same, learned senior advocate Mr. Amin in rejoinder would rely upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V.Senthil Balanji vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2024 INSC 739, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2024 INSC 595 and decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Prakash vs. Union of India through The Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2024 (9) SCC 787. Referring to the decisions, learned senior advocate would submit that this Court has this scope an ambit of Section 45, has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decisions and whereas based upon same has requested that this Court may allow the present application.
7. I have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and perused the papers. Following aspects are considered:-
i. In so far as Section 45 of the PML Act is concerned, while learned advocate Mr. Kanani has inter alia submitted that the constitutional validity of the said provision has been upheld in Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:31:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9066/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Os. vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 and whereas it is also attempted to be submitted that since the Madras High Court has inter alia observed that PMLA case is a stand alone offence, therefore, even if an accused is enlarged on regular bail in the predicate/scheduled offence, then also he would not be entitled to be automatically released on regular bail in the PML offence unless the provision of Section 45 are fulfilled.
ii. As against the same, to this Court it would prima facie appear that the ECR (the first information, lodged by the ED under the PML Act), could not be a stand alone offence, more particularly, Section 3 of the PMLA Act itself laying down that the entire offence of Money Laundering is based upon proceeds of crime, which is acquired or as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence.
iii. Prima facie, it would appear that while the aspect of grant of regular bail, may be on various considerations, more particularly, as elaborated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions, yet, it could not be stated that an ECIR filed by the ED could be a stand alone offence and whereas even if an accused is granted regular bail in the scheduled Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:31:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9066/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined offence, yet, he would not be entitled to be granted of bail in a PMLA offence registered by the ED. In any case, decision of the Hon'ble Madra High Court, having a persuasive value, this Court refrains from observing anything further in that regard.
iv. Insofar as Section 45 of the PML Act is concerned, the twin requirements as found therein being that before enlarging an accused of the PMLA offence on bail, Court, is required to ensure that the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for release, which condition has been fulfilled here. The second condition being that the Court has to come to a prima faice conclusion that is, there being a reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence under the PML Act and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail and whereas in this regard, it would appear that the Hon'ble Apex Court, has elaborated on the parameters that would come into play, while considering an application for regular bail from the perspective of Section 45 of the PML Act.
v. It would be pertinent to note here that in case of V.Senthil Balaji (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has inter alia, at paragraph No.21 observed that existence of a scheduled offence is sine qua non for alleging the existence of proceeds Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:31:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9066/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined of a crime. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that the existence of proceeds of crime at the time of the trail of the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA can be proved only if the scheduled offence is established in the prosecution of the scheduled offence. The Hon'ble Apex Court further goes on to hold that unless the trial of the scheduled offence concludes, the PMLA trial could not finally decide whether the accused is guilty of the crime or not, more particularly, the same being dependent on the scheduled offence.
vi. This Court has also noticed observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Prakash (supra) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has inter alia explained Section 45 of the PMLA and whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has inter alia observed that Section 45 needs to be understood and applied from the perspective of Article 21 which is a higher constitutional right and whereas, all other provisions, should align themselves to the higher constitutional edict.
vii. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that while deciding a case from the perspective of Section 45, the Court is not required to dealt into the merits of the case and whereas the Court is only suppose to lay down a view based upon the available material on record.Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:31:33 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9066/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined viii. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relying on Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in (2005) 5 SCC 294 has also observed that Section 45 does not impose absolute restrain on the grant of bail and whereas an application has to be considered from the perspective of requirement of Section 45, more particularly, the Court is vested with a discretion, to ensure that the consideration which weighs with the Court is not arbitrary or irrational but judicial and guided by principles of law as provided under Section 45.
8. Having observed as above, it would be pertinent to note that the role attributed to the present applicant, was of having involved himself in the conversion of proceeds of crime from Indian currency to USDT/cryptocurrency against the commission. The present applicant is not stated to be involved in the predicate offence, more particularly, the main offence where the accused are stated to have defrauded persons through the medium of Cybercrime and laundered the proceeds through the medium of mule accounts. The role attributed to the present applicant coming later after the principal offence has been committed by allegedly principal offenders, and whereas the present applicant could be stated to be part of group of associates, which were allegedly involved in conversion of the Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:31:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9066/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined proceeds of crime to USDT/cryptocurrency from Indian rupees. It also appears to this Court that beyond the said allegation of conversion, there does not appear to be any further allegation against the present applicant. It also appears that the cryptocurrency, has been routed in multiple crypto wallets provided by a co-accused Desai who had transferred the same into the crypto wallets of co-accused Maqkbul Doctor and others. It also requires to be mentioned that the present applicant does not appear to be involved in concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming the same as untainted money, since the allegation is only with regard to conversion as explained above. Prima facie, it would appear to this Court that the present applicant, being engaged in the process of conversion, by itself it could not be said that the present applicant was involved in the offence of money laundering, more particularly, it does not appear that the present applicant was in any way beneficiary of the principal offence except for a small commission of 30 paisa per each dollar which he converts.
9. Further more, since it would appear that the role of the present applicant, is not of a stand alone offender and whereas the offence is dependent on the principal offence which had been allegedly committed by the co-accused, therefore, since the co- accused have been enlarged, this Court is of the opinion that Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:31:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9066/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined there is no requirement of the present applicant now remaining in custody any further in any PMLA Offence.
10. This Court has also considered the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia (supra), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the factor of the accused being in custody for around 17 months, i.e. Section 45 read in juxtaposition with the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and whereas, while the present applicant appears to have been arrested in connection with the present offence on 03.10.2025 yet, this Court cannot but notice the fact that the present applicant is in custody for the same period of 17 months inasmuch as, the present applicant had been arrested in connection with the scheduled offence on 17.11.2024 and whereas, while the respondent No.2 had filed an ECIR in the month of March, 2025 yet, the respondent No.2 had taken around six months to arrest the present applicant in connection with the said offence. Thus, it would appear that though the present applicant has spent around 17 months, in the scheduled offence as well as in the present PMLA offence, yet, since it is informed by learned senior advocate Mr. Amin that the trial has not commenced inasmuch as the scheduled offence as not even been transferred to the Special Court and whereas, there being around 80 witnesses in both the scheduled offence Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:31:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9066/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined and the PMLA offence, this Court comes to a prima facie conclusion that there is no possibility of the trial concluding in any time soon and whereas, the applicant would be deprived of his right to a speedy trial.
11. Considering such a situation, this Court is inclined to enlarge the present applicant on regular bail.
This Court has taken into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in [2012] 1 SCC 40.
12. Hence, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. registered as File No. ECIR/STSZO/04/2025 registered with Ahmedabad Zonal Office, Ahmedabad City, on executing a bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that he shall;
[a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty;
[b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;
[c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week;
Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:31:33 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9066/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined [d] not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Sessions Court concerned;
[e] furnish the present address of residence to the I.O. and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior intimation to the I.O.;
[f] mark presence once in a month for a period of six months before the respondent No.2.
13. The Authorities will release the applicant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Court concerned will be free to take appropriate action in the matter.
14. Bail bond to be executed before the lower court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions in accordance with law.
15. At the stage of trial, the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations of this Court which are of preliminary nature made at this stage, only for the purpose of considering the Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:31:33 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/9066/2026 ORDER DATED: 29/04/2026 undefined application of the applicant for being released on regular bail.
16. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) NAIR SMITA V./02-SB-I Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by NAIR SMITA V.(HC00186) on Thu Apr 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Apr 30 21:31:33 IST 2026