Jharkhand High Court
Md. Afsar Ali @ Afshar Ali @ Afsu Khan vs The Union Of India Through The ... on 11 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:1141
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.3193 of 2024
-----
Md. Afsar Ali @ Afshar Ali @ Afsu Khan, aged about 55 years, son of Late Abid Khan, resident of near Millat Colony, Bariatu Basti, P.O. and P.S. Bariatu, District-
Ranchi. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Zonal Office, Ranchi.
... ... Opp. Party
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
------
CAV on 07.02.2025 Pronounced on 11/04/2025 Prayer
1. The instant application has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in connection with ECIR Case No.05 of 2023 in ECIRRNZO/10/2023, registered for alleged offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, pending in the Court of Special Judge, P.M.L. Act, Ranchi. Prosecution case/Facts
2. The brief facts of the case is that an ECIR bearing no. RNZO/10/2023 was recorded on 07.03.2023 and investigation under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) was initiated on the basis of FIR being Sadar P.S. Case no. 399 of 2022 dated 08.09.2022 registered for offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 1 2025:JHHC:1141 447, 504, 506, 341, 323 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, since offences under Section 420 and 467 of IPC are Scheduled Offences under Part A of the Schedule of PMLA, 2002.
3. It has been stated that the FIR being Sadar P.S. Case No. 399 of 2022 was registered on the directions of the learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 3111 of 2021 passed vide order dated 28.06.2022.
4. A complaint case was filed by Umesh Kumar Gope against Rajesh Rai, Imtiaz Ahmad, Bharat Prasad, Lakhan Singh, Punit Bhargav and Bishnu Kumar Agarwal for fraudulently acquiring one acre of land situated at Cheshire Home Road, Plot No 28, Khata No. 37, Mouza Gari, Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The allegations in the first information report being Sadar PS Case no. 399 of 2022 are that one Rajesh Rai illegally and fraudulently made a Power of Attorney in the name of Imtiaz Ahmad and Bharat Prasad on the strength of the said Power of Attorney they prepared a forged sale deed and sold the above-mentioned parcel of land admeasuring 1 acre to Punit Bhargav for an amount of Rs.1,78,55,800/- and Puneet Bhargav further sold the said land to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal through two Sale Deeds for a total amount of Rs.1,80,00,000/- (Two Sale deeds dated 2 2025:JHHC:1141 01.04.2021 for an amount Rs.1,02,60,000/- and Rs.77,40,000/-).
6. It has been alleged that though the consideration amount in the deed between Imtiaz Ahmed, Bharat Prasad and Puneet Bhargav is shown as Rs.1,78,55,800/-, but only an amount of Rs.25,00,000 was paid from the account of Shiva Fabcons one proprietorship firm of Punit Bhargava into the account of Rajesh Rai on 12.02.2021. Investigation further reveals that out of the said 25 lakhs an amount of Rs.18,00,000/- was immediately transferred to the Bank account of Green Traders, a partnership firm under the control of Md. Saddam Hussain.
7. Further during the investigation, surveys were conducted on 09.02.2023 and 15.02.2023 at the Circle Office, Bargain, Ranchi, and office of Registrar of assurances Kolkata respectively and original register II/volumes containing the above entry were inspected falsification of the original records were identified and the custody of original registers were taken. After obtaining permission the original registers were sent for examination by an expert to Directorate of Forensic Science, Handwriting and Forensic Bureau, Gandhinagar which confirmed the forgery and tampering in the above stated registers.
3
2025:JHHC:1141
8. It has been alleged that during further investigation it revealed that the accused persons namely, Md. Saddam Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmed, Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, Prem Prakash, Chhavi Ranjan, Rajesh Rai, Lakhan Singh, Bharat Prasad and the present petitioner i.e. Afsar Ali, are habitual offenders and they are involved in mass forgery.
9. During the course of investigation, searches were conducted at the residential premises under the use and occupation of the present petitioner on 13.04.2023 in another case pertaining to fraudulent acquisition of a defence land (ECIR: RNZO/18/2022).
10. Further, on having reasons to believe that the present petitioner namely Afshar Ali was guilty of the offence of money laundering as defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002, he was arrested on 14.04.2023 in the said ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 which pertains to illegal acquisition of a defence land.
11. Based on the above, the Prosecution Complaint was filed on 01.09.2023 in ECIR Case No. 05 of 2023 in ECIR/RNZO/10/2023 dated 07.03.2023, and accordingly vide order dated 04.09.2023 cognizance of the said offence was taken by the Special Judge PML Act Ranchi.
12. The present petitioner has been remanded in this case on 27.09.2023, accordingly, he, preferred Miscellaneous Criminal Application (MCA No. 98 of 2024) 4 2025:JHHC:1141 but the same was rejected on 30.01.2024, hence, the instant bail application.
Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner:
13. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the following grounds that:-
(i) Even if the entire ECIR will be taken into consideration, no offence will be said to be committed so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 3 & 4 of the P.M.L. Act, 2002.
(ii) Sadar P.S. Case No.399/2022, has been instituted against six named accused persons, namely, Rajesh Rai, Imtiyaz Amad, Bharat Prasad, Lakhan Singh, Punit Bhargava and Bishnu Kumar Agrawal but this petitioner has not been named in the schedule offence. No allegation has been alleged against the present petitioner even in the entire complaint case no suspicion has been raised against the petitioner with respect to his involvement. This, petitioner is having no concern at all with the entire transaction.
(iii) The complainant after thorough inspection of the records and after going through the each and every aspect of the matter with all supported documents filed complaint case No.3111/2021 but in none of the documents slightest role of the petitioner has been 5 2025:JHHC:1141 suspected.
(iv) Neither this petitioner is the power of attorney holder nor the seller or purchaser of the land in question.
(v) The aforesaid complaint was instituted in the year 2021. The same was sent u/s 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
for institution and investigation before concerned Police Station and accordingly Sadar P.S. Case No.399/22 was instituted. During investigation no material has been collected against this petitioner till 2023.
(vi) The, ECIR 5/23/RNZO/10/23 has been instituted on 07.03.2023. This petitioner was not even named in the ECIR. Even in the entire ECIR no suspicion has been raised against this petitioner and even his involvement has not been discussed.
(vii) All of a sudden without following the procedure mentioned under the Statute without application of section 19 which is the mandatory, this petitioner has been remanded in the present case on 27.09.2023 though this petitioner remained in custody since April, 2023 in relation to one another case instituted by the Enforcement Directorate itself and even in spite of the knowledge about the custody of this petitioner, he was not remanded or produced for about five months in the present case though the 6 2025:JHHC:1141 case was instituted in the month of March and this petitioner is in custody since April, 2023.
(viii) This petitioner having no concern with the entire transaction. He having no concern with the land in question. This petitioner has not received a single penny related with the present case.
(ix) This petitioner was apprehended in one another case i.e. ECIR No.1/23, and based upon the statement recorded in the said case, this petitioner has subsequently been remanded in the present case.
(x) No proceeds of crime have been recovered from the possession of this petitioner and even no proceed of crime has been connected with the petitioner.
(xi) This petitioner has never met or having any connection with the aforesaid seller or purchaser and even with the mediator as such, it cannot be said or alleged that this petitioner connived with the seller or purchaser in question.
(xii) The proceeds of crime were allegedly from the account of co-accused, Rajesh Rai transferred to one Green Traders. This petitioner is having no concern with Green Traders. Neither he is the partner nor he is the proprietor nor even Director of the aforesaid firm/company and only on vague allegation this petitioner has been implicated in the present case 7 2025:JHHC:1141 and remanded to the custody in the month of September, 2023.
(xiii) No proof or material has been collected by the Enforcement Directorate to show the specific role of this petitioner either in manufacture of the documents or in laundering of the amount in question.
(xiv) The statement of the co-accused persons, namely, Saddam Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmed have also been referred, wherefrom, it is evident in order to make out a case that the transaction in lieu of the illegal transfer of land is nowhere related with the petitioner, rather, the land has been transferred by another person in favour of the person, namely, Puneet Bhargav who had paid the consideration amount and said Puneet Bhargav subsequently transferred it to Bishnu Kumar Agarwala but without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the petitioner has been implicated in the instant case
(xv) The ground of mens rea has also been taken by making reference that there was no intention of the petitioner to commit an offence said to attract the money laundering.
(xvi) The reliance of some of the paragraphs of the judgment of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. 8
2025:JHHC:1141 Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 has been made as under
paragraphs-235, 239, 243, 252, 253, 388, 400 and
401.
The purpose for putting reliance upon these paragraphs are that the very object and intent of the P.M.L. Act is that the twin conditions are to be fulfilled which is to be considered at the time of grant of bail from the angle as to whether the accused was possessed the requisite mens rea.
Herein, if the entire ECIR will be taken into consideration, there is no mens rea and in that view of the matter, it is a fit case for grant of bail. (xvii) The reliance has also been placed upon the judgment rendered in the case of Manish Sisodia Vrs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1393 by referring the paragraphs-27 and 29, wherein, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that as per the provision of Section 436-A, it should not be construed as a mandate that an accused should not be granted bail under P.M.L. Act till he has suffered incarceration for the specified period.
(xviii) The ground of parity has also been taken, since, one Bishnu Kumar Agarwala and Chhavi Ranjan have 9 2025:JHHC:1141 been granted bail by the coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 12.01.2024 passed in B.A. No.10166 of 2023 and vide order dated 21.08.2024 in B.A No.10833 of 2023 hence, applying the principle of parity, the petitioner of the present case is also fit to be released on bail.
(xix) Further the other co-accused namely Rajesh Rai, and Prem Prakash has also been enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 10.01.2025 and 28.08.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 2025 and Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5416 of 2024 respectively.
(xx) It has been submitted that the petitioner in the present case is in custody since 27.09.2023 and as such, taking into consideration the involvement of the petitioner even it will be considered from the ECIR, there is no ingredient of commission of any predicate offence of the schedule offence and as such, the petitioner may be granted the privilege of bail. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent/Directorate of Enforcement
14. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by taking the following grounds: - 10
2025:JHHC:1141
(i) It has been submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner that he is innocent and having no connection with the commission of crime.
(ii) Further, it has come in the ECIR that the Petitioner is a part of the syndicate involved in acquiring and disposing landed properties by way of preparing fake deeds. Further, the frequent transactions with other accused persons corroborate the fact that the accused person is a beneficiary of the proceeds of crime generated out of the illegal activities of fraudulently acquiring land parcels.
(iii) The documents used in the commission of crime are mostly fake property documents which have been used to create fictitious ownership in relation to several targeted properties. The searches were conducted at the premises of the petitioner and his close accomplices namely Md. Saddam Hussain and others has led to the recovery of 36 fake deeds which have been verified from the registration offices situated at Kolkata as well as Ranchi. Thus, the petitioner is the mastermind of this syndicate operating in the activities of acquisition of landed properties including government properties on the basis of fake documents and deeds.11
2025:JHHC:1141
(iv) Further, the investigation established the fact that the petitioner in connivance with his accomplices, is habitually indulged in illegal activities of preparing fake deeds and later executing a power of attorney in his name for disposing of properties in a fraudulent manner.
(v) The investigation conducted in the instant case revealed that the petitioner Afshar Ali was actually involved and was knowingly a party to the activities connected with proceeds of crime including its acquisition, possession, concealment, use and projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted property and he was guilty of the offence of the Money Laundering as defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002. Thus, he was made an accused in the instant case along with his accomplices.
(vi) Hence, the petitioner is knowingly involved in the activities connected with the acquisition, possession, concealment, of the proceeds of crime and claiming and projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted property. Thus, the petitioner Afshar Ali has committed the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of PMLA, 2002 and is liable to be punished under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002. 12
2025:JHHC:1141
(vii) So far, the contention as has been raised that all the scheduled offences cannot be said to be attracted under the P.M.L. Act is concerned, as has been aggrieved on behalf of the petitioner, the same at this stage, cannot be looked into, rather, the same is to be looked into at the stage of trial.
(viii) Herein, in response to the issue of parity as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Bishnu Kumar Agarwala was granted bail merely on the ground that he was purchaser of the property but herein the allegation against the petitioner is that he was instrumental in the preparation of the fake deed of the landed property, thus case of this petitioner is entirely different to the other co-accused persons particularly from the case of Bishnu Kumar Agarwala.
(ix) Further, it has also come in the inquiry that the fabricated document has been created on the behest of this petitioner, therefore, on fact the petitioner is not entitled to get the advantage of parity on the basis of the order granting bail in favour of the other co- accused namely Chavi Ranjan, and Prem Prakash, since this court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court while allowing the prayer of aforesaid co-accused for bail 13 2025:JHHC:1141 has taken into consideration the particular role of the said co-accused in the alleged commission of crime.
(x) So far parity of the present applicant with the co- accused namely Rajesh Rai is concerned the Hon'ble Apex Court while taking in to consideration the probable delay in conclusion of the trial has allowed the prayer for bail of the said co-accused. In the aforesaid context the learned counsel for respondent has submitted at bar that all possible step has been taken by the prosecution to earlier conclusion of the trial, since the present petitioner was very much instrumental in preparation of the several fake deed, therefore, the benefit of parity should not have been granted to the present applicant.
(xi) In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following judgments :-
(a) Manharibhai Mohanbhai Patel v.
Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel reported in (2012) 10 SCC 517.
(b) Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929.
(c) Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director, reported in 2023 INSC 1006.
14 2025:JHHC:1141 (d) Y. S Jagan Mohan Reddy v/s C. B. I., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439. (e) State of Gujrat v/s Mohan Lal Jitamal
Porwal and Anr., reported in (1987) 2 SCC 364.
(f) Nimgadda Prasad v/s CBI, reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 466.
(g) CBI v/s. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 452.
(h) C.R. Patil v/s. State of Gujrat & others, reported in 2005 CRLJ 1231.
(i) Gautam Kundu v/s. Assistant Director, Enforcement, Govt. of India Criminal Appeal No. 1706/2015.
(j) Ajay Kumar v/s Directorate of Enforcement through its Assistant Director, Sub Zonal Officer, Nagpur in the High Court of Bombay Bench at Nagpur. Criminal Application (BA) No. 1149 of 2021.
Analysis
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
16. This Court before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to discuss herein some of the provision of law as contained under the PML Act, 2002 (Act 2002) with its object and 15 2025:JHHC:1141 intent as also the legal proposition as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments.
17. 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.
18. It is evident that the Act 2002 was enacted in order to answer the urgent requirement to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof for combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
19. The objective of the PMLA is to prevent money laundering which has posed a serious threat not only to the financial systems of the country but also to its integrity and sovereignty. The offence of money laundering is a very serious offence which is committed by an individual with a deliberate desire and the motive to enhance his gains, disregarding the interest of the nation and the society as a 16 2025:JHHC:1141 whole, and such offence by no stretch of imagination can be regarded as an offence of trivial nature. The stringent provisions have been made in the Act to combat the menace of money laundering.
20. 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;]"
21. 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.
22. In the explanation, it has been referred that for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of 17 2025:JHHC:1141 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.
23. It is, thus, evident that the reason for giving explanation under Section 2(1)(u) is by way of clarification to the effect that whether as per the substantive provision of Section 2(1)(u), the property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such 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.
24. 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.
25. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x) which means schedule to the Prevention of Money 18 2025:JHHC:1141 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."
26. 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.
27. The offence of money laundering has been defined under Section 3 of the Act, 2002 which reads as under:-
"3. Offence of money-laundering.--Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or 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 19 2025:JHHC:1141
(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.]"
28. 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.
29. It is further evident that the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.
20
2025:JHHC:1141
30. The punishment for money laundering has been provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2002.
31. Section 50 of the Act, 2002 confers power upon the authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence.
32. The various provisions of the Act, 2002 along with interpretation of the definition of "proceeds of crime" has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 wherein the Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have decided the issue by taking into consideration the object and intent of the Act, 2002.
33. The implication of Section 50 has been taken into consideration in the aforesaid judgment. Relevant paragraph, i.e., paragraphs-422, 424, 425, 431, 434 reads as under:-
"422. The validity of this provision has been challenged on the ground of being violative of Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. For, it allows the authorised officer under the 2002 Act to summon any person and record his statement during the course of investigation. Further, the provision mandates that the person should disclose true and correct facts known to his personal knowledge in connection with the subject matter of investigation. The person is also obliged to sign the statement so given with the threat of being punished for the falsity or incorrectness thereof in terms of Section 63 of the 2002 Act. Before 21 2025:JHHC:1141 we proceed to analyse the matter further, it is apposite to reproduce Section 50 of the 2002 Act, as amended. -----:-
424. By this provision, the Director has been empowered to exercise the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the 1908 Code while trying a suit in respect of matters specified in sub-section (1).
This is in reference to Section 13 of the 2002 Act dealing with powers of Director to impose fine in respect of acts of commission and omission by the banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries. From the setting in which Section 50 has been placed and the expanse of empowering the Director with same powers as are vested in a civil Court for the purposes of imposing fine under Section 13, is obviously very specific and not otherwise.
425. Indeed, sub-section (2) of Section 50 enables the Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director to issue summon to any person whose attendance he considers necessary for giving evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation or proceeding under this Act. We have already highlighted the width of expression "proceeding" in the earlier part of this judgment and held that it applies to proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority or the Special Court, as the case may be. Nevertheless, sub-section (2) empowers the authorised officials to issue summon to any person. We fail to understand as to how Article 20(3) would come into play in respect of process of recording statement pursuant to such summon which is only for the purpose of collecting information or evidence in respect of proceeding under this Act. Indeed, the person so summoned, is bound to attend in person or through authorised agent and to state truth upon any subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may be 22 2025:JHHC:1141 required by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the 2002 Act. The criticism is essentially because of subsection (4) which provides that every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC. Even so, the fact remains that Article 20(3) or for that matter Section 25 of the Evidence Act, would come into play only when the person so summoned is an accused of any offence at the relevant time and is being compelled to be a witness against himself. This position is well- established. The Constitution Bench of this Court in M.P. Sharma had dealt with a similar challenge wherein warrants to obtain documents required for investigation were issued by the Magistrate being violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. This Court opined that the guarantee in Article 20(3) is against "testimonial compulsion" and is not limited to oral evidence. Not only that, it gets triggered if the person is compelled to be a witness against himself, which may not happen merely because of issuance of summons for giving oral evidence or producing documents. Further, to be a witness is nothing more than to furnish evidence and such evidence can be furnished by different modes. The Court went on to observe as follows:
"Broadly stated the guarantee in article 20(3) is against "testimonial compulsion". It is suggested that this is confined to the oral evidence of a person standing his trial for an offence when called to the witness-stand. We can see no reason to confine the content of the constitutional guarantee to this barely literal import. So to limit it would be to rob the guarantee of its substantial purpose and to miss the substance for the sound as stated in certain American decisions. The phrase used in Article 20(3) is "to be a witness". A person can "be a witness" not merely by giving oral evidence but also by producing 23 2025:JHHC:1141 documents or making intelligible gestures as in the case of a dumb witness (See section 119 of the Evidence Act) or the like. "To be a witness" is nothing more than "to furnish evidence", and such evidence can be furnished through the lips or by production of a thing or of a document or in other modes. So far as production of documents is concerned, no doubt Section 139 of the Evidence Act says that a person producing a document on summons is not a witness. But that section is meant to regulate the right of cross-examination. It is not a guide to the connotation of the word "witness", which must be understood in its natural sense, i.e., as referring to a person who furnishes evidence. Indeed, every positive volitional act which furnishes evidence is testimony, and testimonial compulsion connotes coercion which procures the positive volitional evidentiary acts of the person, as opposed to the negative attitude of silence or submission on his part. Nor is there any reason to think that the protection in respect of the evidence so procured is confined to what transpires at the trial in the court room. The phrase used in article 20(3) is "to be a witness" and not to "appear as a witness". It follows that the protection afforded to an accused in so far as it is related to the phrase "to be a witness" is not merely in respect of testimonial compulsion in the court room but may well extend to compelled testimony previously obtained from him. It is available therefore to a person against whom a formal accusation relating to the commission of an offence has been levelled which in the normal course may result in prosecution. Whether it is available to other persons in other situations does not call for decision in this case." (emphasis supplied)
431. In the context of the 2002 Act, it must be remembered that the summon is issued by the Authority under Section 50 in connection with the inquiry regarding proceeds of crime which may have 24 2025:JHHC:1141 been attached and pending adjudication before the Adjudicating Authority. In respect of such action, the designated officials have been empowered to summon any person for collection of information and evidence to be presented before the Adjudicating Authority. It is not necessarily for initiating a prosecution against the noticee as such. The power entrusted to the designated officials under this Act, though couched as investigation in real sense, is to undertake inquiry to ascertain relevant facts to facilitate initiation of or pursuing with an action regarding proceeds of crime, if the situation so warrants and for being presented before the Adjudicating Authority. It is a different matter that the information and evidence so collated during the inquiry made, may disclose commission of offence of money-laundering and the involvement of the person, who has been summoned for making disclosures pursuant to the summons issued by the Authority. At this stage, there would be no formal document indicative of likelihood of involvement of such person as an accused of offence of money- laundering. If the statement made by him reveals the offence of money-laundering or the existence of proceeds of crime, that becomes actionable under the Act itself. To put it differently, at the stage of recording of statement for the purpose of inquiring into the relevant facts in connection with the property being proceeds of crime is, in that sense, not an investigation for prosecution as such; and in any case, there would be no formal accusation against the noticee. Such summons can be issued even to witnesses in the inquiry so conducted by the authorised officials. However, after further inquiry on the basis of other material and evidence, the involvement of such person (noticee) is revealed, the authorised officials can certainly proceed against him for his acts of commission or omission. In such a situation, at the stage of issue of summons, the 25 2025:JHHC:1141 person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. However, if his/her statement is recorded after a formal arrest by the ED official, the consequences of Article 20(3) or Section 25 of the Evidence Act may come into play to urge that the same being in the nature of confession, shall not be proved against him. Further, it would not preclude the prosecution from proceeding against such a person including for consequences under Section 63 of the 2002 Act on the basis of other tangible material to indicate the falsity of his claim. That would be a matter of rule of evidence.
434. It is, thus, clear that the power invested in the officials is one for conducting inquiry into the matters relevant for ascertaining existence of proceeds of crime and the involvement of persons in the process or activity connected therewith so as to initiate appropriate action against such person including of seizure, attachment and confiscation of the property eventually vesting in the Central Government."
34. It is evident from the observation so made as above that the purposes and objects of the 2002 Act for which it has been enacted, is not limited to punishment for offence of money-laundering, but also to provide measures for prevention of money-laundering. It is also to provide for attachment of proceeds of crime, which are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceeding relating to confiscation of such proceeds under the 2002 Act. This Act is also to compel the banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries to maintain records of the transactions, to furnish information of such transactions 26 2025:JHHC:1141 within the prescribed time in terms of Chapter IV of the 2002 Act.
35. The predicate offence has also 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.
36. 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-
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and 27 2025:JHHC:1141
(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.
37. 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-387 and 412. For ready reference, the said paragraphs are being referred as under:- 28
2025:JHHC:1141 "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 are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of offence of money laundering and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 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.29
2025:JHHC:1141
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."
38. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486 by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra), it has been laid down that since the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory, they need to be complied with. The Court is 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.
39. 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 30 2025:JHHC:1141 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. For ready reference, paragraph-17 of the said judgment reads as under:-
"17. As well settled by now, the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory. They need to be 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. It is needless to say 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."
40. 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 31 2025:JHHC:1141 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.
41. 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 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.
42. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 1 has been pleased to hold at paragraph -30 that the conditions specified under Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with, 32 2025:JHHC:1141 which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and also Section 71 of PMLA.
43. 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.
44. 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 petitioner. For ready reference, paragraph-30 of the said judgment reads as under:-
"30. 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 33 2025:JHHC:1141 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. 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."
45. It needs to refer herein that while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act 1967, the Hon'ble Apex Court recently in the case of Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 109, has observed that the conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis-à-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase - 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' - unless circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act and the 'exercise' of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. For ready reference, relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred as under:
34
2025:JHHC:1141 "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."
46. The reason for making reference of this judgment is that in the Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr., the UAPA has also been brought under the purview of category '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.
47. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled legal position this Court is now adverting to the grounds as has been raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire ECIR will be taken into 35 2025:JHHC:1141 consideration, no offence will be said to be committed so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 3 & 4 of the P.M.L. Act, 2002. Further ground has been taken that the allegation against the petitioner is that neither this petitioner is the power of attorney holder nor the seller or purchaser of the land in question.
48. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken the ground that there is no proof or material has been collected by the Enforcement Directorate to show the specific role of this petitioner either in manufacture of the documents or in laundering of the amount in question.
49. At this juncture it is required to consider the various paragraphs of the prosecution complaint as appended to the counter affidavit by the Enforcement Directorate. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the same is being reproduced as under: -
"Brief facts of the offence/ Allegation/ Charge/Amount Involved under PMLA 3.1 An FIR bearing no. 399 of 2022, dated 08.09.2022 (RUD No. 3) was registered by Sadar Police Station, Ranchi, Jharkhand under section sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 447, 504, 506, 341, 323 & 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860. The FIR was registered on the directions of the Ld. Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in complaint case no. 3111 of 2021 passed by order dated 28.06.2022. A complaint case was filed by Umesh Kumar Gope against Rajesh Rai, Imtiyaz Ahmad, Bharat Prasad, Lakhan Singh, Punit Bhargav and Bishnu Kumar Agarwal for fraudulently acquiring one acre of land 36 2025:JHHC:1141 situated at Plot no. 28, Khata No. 37, situated at village Gari, Cheshire Home Road, PS Sadar, Ranchi. 3.2 The FIR alleged that Rajesh Rai, S/o Jagdish Rai, illegally and fraudulently made a power of attorney in the name of Imtiyaz Ahmed and Bharat Prasad. On the strength of the said power of attorney, they prepared a forged sale deed and sold the above- mentioned parcel of land admeasuring 1 acres to Punit Bhargav for an amount of Rs. 1,78,55,800/-. Punit Bhargava further sold the said land to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, vide two sale deeds for the total amount of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- (Vide two sale deeds, both dated 01.04.2021, for an amount of Rs. 1,02,60,000/- and Rs. 77,40,000/-).
3.5 Investigation reveals that Rajesh Rai in connivance with Bharat Prasad, Md. Saddam Hussain, Afshar Ali, Imtiaz Ahmed and others prepared one forged deed of 1948 was prepared by the accused persons and on the basis of that a power of attorney was given in favour of Imtiaz Ahmed and Bharat Prasad. The other accomplice namely Lakhan Singh became the confirming party in the deed and they executed sale deed dated 06.02.2021 {RUD No. 3
(i)} in favour of Punit Bhargava for an amount of Rs.
1,78,55,800/- which was registered as document no. 2021/RAN/1016/BK1/906 in book no. BK1, Vol. no. 112 from page no.369 to 506 at the office of SRO, Ranchi.
3.6 Punit Bhargava further sold the said land to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal vide two sale deeds, both dated 01.04.2021, registered as document no. 2021/RAN/2784/BK1/2483 in book no. BK1, Vol. no. 316 from page no. 405 to 532 at the office of SRO, Ranchi (for an amount of Rs. 1,02,60,000/-) and document no. 2021/RAN/2783/BK1/2482 in book no. BK1, Vol. no. 316 from page no. 261 to 404 at the office of SRO, Ranchi (for an amount of Rs. 77,40,000).
37
2025:JHHC:1141 3.7 Investigation further reveals that though the consideration amount in the deed between Imtiaz Ahmed and Bharat Prasad and Punit Bhargava is shown as Rs. 1,78,55,800/-, but only an amount of Rs. 25 lacs have been paid from the Bank of Baroda account of Shiva Fabcons, (account no 52580200000085) (RUD No. 85) one of the proprietorship firms of Punit Bhargava into the SBI Account no. 31180122501 of Rajesh Rai (RUD No.
100) on 12.02.2021. Further investigation reveals that out of the said amount of Rs. 25 lacs, an amount of Rs. 18 lacs were immediately transferred to the bank account of Green Traders (RUD No. 92] a partnership firm under the control of Md. Saddam Hussain (one of the accused arrested by this office an 14.04.2023 and presently languishing in Judicial Custody).
3.8 During Investigation, surveys were conducted on 09.02.2023 at the Circle office, Bargai, Ranchi (RUD No 6) and on 15.02.2023 (RUD No 7) at the office of Registrar of Assurances (Records), Kolkata under section 16 of PMLA, 2002 and the original register II/volumes, containing the above entry were inspected and falsification of the original records were identified in the above documents. The custody of the original registers was taken from the Orde Office as well as from the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata after the permission of Hon'ble PMLA Court, Ranchi under section 91 of Cr.PC. After sttaiming due permission, the said original register was sent for examination by an expert to Directorate of Forensic Science, Handwriting and Forensic Bureau, Gandhinagar The Directorate of Forensic Science has confirmed the rgery and tempering in the above stated registers. (RUD No. 8) 3.9 During further investigation, it revealed that the accused persons namely Afshar Ali, Md. Saddam Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmed, Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, 38 2025:JHHC:1141 Chhavi Ranjan, Prem Prakash, Rajesh Rai, Lakhan Singh and Bharat Prasad are habitual offenders and they are involved in mass forgery.---
Brief detail of person examined under section 50(2) & 3 of PMLA 8.12 Afshar Ali -
The accused Afshar Ali is a habitual offender who has manufactured several fake deeds and is one of the masterminds behind the activities of falsification of government records and planting fake deeds in the records of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata. He was arrested on 14.04.2023 after searches were conducted at his residential premises on 13.04.2023. At present, he is in Judicial custody. In his statement dated 17.04.2023, (RUD No 33) he stated that he was aware of the fact that the one acre of land situated at Plot no. 28, Khata no. 37, Village Gari, Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi was part of ten acres of land which was acquired by Birlas and later sold to Kanodias. Out of these ten acres, the above said one acre of land was unsold. Further, out of the ten acres of land, a plot of 3.51 acres was initially sold to one Gangadhar Rai, and as such, he made a fake deed wherein the said one acre of land was sold by Gangadhar Rai to Jagdish Rai, father of Rajesh Rai. He also made one more claimant of this land i.e., to Lakhan Singh by showing that the Kanodias had sold this one acre of land to Kaliram Singh, father of Lakhan Singh.
Later, he made Rajesh Rai a seller and Lakhan a confirming party in the deed by which the property was sold to Punit Bhargava, on behalf of Prem Prakash. Afshar Ali also stated that he took the help of his associate Bipin Singh to insert the name of Jagdish Rai in the records of Circle Office. For this, he paid Bipin Singh a sum of rupees fifteen lacs as a bribe to the officials of Circle Office, Baragai, Ranchi and as his commission. Later, he came to know that 39 2025:JHHC:1141 the land was under vigilance by the police as this land had certain disputes. Later, he met with Prem Prakash with one of his associates and Prem Prakash was informed about the dispute and the vigilance of the police. He further stated that Prem Prakash took the stock of the status of the land arid called the then D.C, Chhavi Ranjan and told him that the registry of the above stated Cheshire Home property was to be done after removing the vigilance observed by the police.
After this, the consideration amount of Rs. 1.5 crores was fixed by Prem Prakash for this land. Afshar Ali accepted the offer as he was made to understand that Prem Prakash was a very influential person who could be very useful in any kind of work in Jharkhand. Afshar Ali further stated that he accepted the consideration amount and further requested Prem Prakash to arrange for unblocking two plots of land, plot no. 891 and 893 measuring 1 acre 32 decimals (approx.) which were blocked from the D.C office. The said plots were part of a property admeasuring 3.81 acres of which fake deeds were prepared by Afshar Ali. Afshar Ali further stated that after talking to Chhavi Ranjan over this issue, Prem Prakash demanded Rs. 1 crore for the above work. The said amount of Rs. 1 crore was adjusted in the above said consideration amount of Rs. 1.5 crores. Later on, the said two blocks were unblocked but the other plot no. 903 was blocked by the D.C office which was beyond their understanding and the reason of the same was not known to him. He further stated that he came in contact with Prem Prakash and one of his associates Rajdeep Kumar used to act as a mediator between these two persons. Prem Prakash asked him to do the registry of the said one acre land situated at Cheshire Home Road in the name of his associate Punit Bhargava. Further he has stated that owing to the ill-health of Rajesh Rai, the 40 2025:JHHC:1141 power of attorney was given to Bharat Prasad and Imtiaz Ahmed and subsequently as asked by Prem Prakash, the land was registered in the name of Punit Bhargava and Lakhan Singh was shown as the confirming party over the said piece of land. Moreover, he has stated that they were paid Rs.25 lacs directly into the bank accounts and they were assured to be paid the remaining amount of Rs. 25 lacs in cash. Rest of the amount of Rs. 1 crore was adjusted for unblocking the aforementioned blocked piece of plot in land measuring 3.81 acres.
Further in his statement, he has stated that while the transactions were being finalized with Prem Prakash, he had further fixed the deal of this land with Bishnu Kumar Agarwal. Bishnu Kumar Agarwal had knowledge about the disputes involved in this land for which he first asked Prem Prakash to fence the abovesaid one acres of land with boundary walls. For this, first the land was fenced with aluminum sheets and later, wick walls were constructed inside. Brief summary of result of investigation under PMLA 9.1 The investigations under the provisions of PMLA, 2002 in FIR no. 399/2022 dated 08.09.2022 revealed that there is organized group of persons who are habitually involved in making fake deeds and falsifying original land records at Circle Offices and Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata and with the help of said fake deeds, acquire and dispose properties in fraudulent manner.
9.2 Investigation reveals that such forgery is widespread and certain government officials are part of the said conspiracy. Various influential persons like Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, Prem Prakash and others in connivance with senior government officials like Chhavi Ranjan are involved in acquisition of landed properties in Ranchi.
41
2025:JHHC:1141 9.3 Investigation has revealed that Bishnu Kumar Agarwal has been assisted by Prem Prakash, Chhavi Ranjan and others in acquiring proceeds of crime in the form of landed properties the details of which are given below.
9.4 The FIR alleged that Rajesh Rai, S/o Jagdish Rai, illegally and fraudulently made a power of attorney in the name of Imtiyaz Ahmed and Bharat Prasad. On the strength of the said power of attorney, they prepared a forged sale deed and sold the above- mentioned parcel of land measuring 1 acres to Punit Bhargav for an amount of Rs. 1,78,55,800/-. Punit Bhargava further sold the said land to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, vide two sale deeds for the total amount of Rs. 1,80,00,000/-. (Vide two sale deeds, both dated 01.04.2021, for an amount of Rs. 1,02,60,000/- and Rs. 77,40,000/-).
9.5 Thus, the FIR stated that the land admeasuring 1 acres, situated at Gari, Cheshire Home Road, PS Sadar, Ranchi was acquired in a fraudulent manner by the above persons who indulged in fabricating documents and forging records, on the basis of which a power of attorney was fraudulently executed and subsequently the land was transferred to Punit Bhargava, who Immediately sold this land to Bishnu Agarwal, a businessman having interests in several avenues including real estate business. 9.6 Investigation reveals that Rajesh Rai in connivance with Bharat Prasad, Md. Saddam Hussain, Afshar Ali, Imtiaz Ahmed and others prepared one forged deed of 1948 was prepared by the accused persons and on the basis of that a power of attorney was given in favour of Imtiaz Ahmed and Bharat Prasad. The other accomplice namely Lakhan Singh became the confirming party in the deed and they executed sale deed dated 06.02.2021 in favour of Punit Bhargava for an amount of Rs.
1,78,55,800/- which was registered as document no. 42
2025:JHHC:1141 2021/RAN/1016/BK1/906 in book no. BK1, Vol. no. 112 from page no. 369 to 506 at the office of SRO, Ranchi.
9.7 Punit Bhargava further sold the said land to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal vide two sale deeds, both dated 01.04.2021, registered as document no. 2021/RAN/2784/BK1/2483 in book no. BK1, Vol. no. 316 from page no. 405 to 532 at the office of SRO, Ranchi (for an amount of Rs. 1,02,60,000/-) and document no. 2021/RAN/2783/BK1/2482 in book no. BK1, Vol. no. 316 from page no. 261 to 404 at the office of SRO, Ranchi (for an amount of Rs. 77,40,000).
9.8 Investigation further reveals that though the consideration amount in the deed between Imtiaz Ahmed and Bharat Prasad and Punit Bhargava is shown as Rs. 1,78,55,800/-, but only an amount of Rs. 25 lacs have been paid from the Bank of Baroda account of Shiva Fabcons, (account no.52580200000085) one of the proprietorship firms of Punit Bhargava into the SBI Account no. 31180122501 of Rajesh Rai on 12.02.2021. Further Investigation reveals that out of the said amount of Rs. 25 lacs, an amount of Rs. 18 lacs were immediately transferred to the bank account of Green Traders, a partnership firm under the control of Md. Saddam Hussain (one of the accused arrested by this office on 14.04.2023 and presently languishing in Judicial Custody).
9.9 During investigation, surveys were conducted on 09.02.2023 (RUD No. 06) at the Circle office, Bargai, Ranchi and on 15.02.2023 (RUD No. 07) at the office of Registrar of Assurances (Records), Kolkata under section 16 of PMLA, 2002 and the original register II/volumes, containing the above entry were inspected and falsification of the original records were identified in the above documents. The custody of the original registers was taken from the 43 2025:JHHC:1141 Circle Office as well as from the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata after the permission of Hon'ble PMIA Court Ranchi under section 91 of Cr.PC. After obtaining due permission, the said original register was sent for by an expert to Directorate of Forensic Science, Handwriting and Forensic Bureau, Gandhinagar. The Directorate of Forensic Science has confirmed the forgery and tempering in the above stated registers.
9.10 During further investigation, it revealed that the accused persons namely Afshar All, Md. Saddam Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmed, Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, Chhavi Ranjan, Prem Prakash, Rajesh Rai, Lakhan Singh and Bharat Prasad are habitual offenders and they are involved in mass forgery. It is also established that Bishnu Kumar Agarwal has acquired other lands in frivolous manner with the help of government officials.
9.11 As stated above, investigation has established that the property situated at Khata no. 93, Plot no. 543, 544, 546 and 547, total area 9.30 acres acquired by Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was a government property (Khasmahal Land). And the said property has been acquired by the accused Bishnu Kumar Agarwal by influencing the government officials including the Ex-DC Chhavi Ranjan who helped him by suppressing and shelving all the official records and documents which established that the above property acquired by Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was a government property (Khasmahal Land). Further, this property has been in possession of Nazarat Hussain & his families without any grounds and has been in their occupation. Later, this land was taken on lease by Ramchandra Mukherjee effective from the year 1985 and expired in the year 2014 after which, the lease of the above-stated was not renewed in name of any person. However, Bishnu Kumar Agarwal by concealing and suppressing the 44 2025:JHHC:1141 facts and by assistance of the accused Chhavi Ranjan and others purchased this Khasmahal land in illegal manner.
Brief facts of the FIR and the reasons of the ECIR 10.1.1 An FIR bearing no. 399 of 2022 dated 08.09.2022 (RUD No.03) was registered by Sadar Police Station, Ranchi, Jharkhand under section sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 447, 504, 506, 341, 323 & 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860. The FIR was registered on the directions of the Ld. Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in complaint case no. 3111 of 2021 passed by order dated 28.06.2022 for fraudulently grabbing one land measuring 1 acre at Plot no. 28, Khata No. 37, situated at village Gari, Cheshire Home Road, PS Sadar, Ranchi.
10.1.2 Investigation reveals that Rajesh Rai, S/o Jagdish Rai, illegally and fraudulently gave a power of attorney in respect of the above-stated property to Imtiyaz Ahmed (one of the accused arrested on 14.04.2023 in case No ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 in matter of forgery in making fake deeds of property in possession of the defence) and Bharat Prasad. Later, the abovestated persons namely Rajesh Rai, Bharat Prasad, Imtiaz Ahmed in connivance with other accomplices namely Afshar Ali, Lakhan Singh, Md. Saddam Hussain and others made a forged sale deed and sold the abovementioned parcel of land admeasuring 1 acres to one person namely Punit Bhargav. Punit Bhargava is one of the close associates of Prem Prakash (also languishing in Judicial Custody in connection with illegal stone mining case).
10.1.3 Rajesh Rai in connivance with Bharat Prasad, Md. Saddam Hussain, Afshar Ali, Imtiaz Ahmed and others created forged deed 184 of 1948 (RUD No. 07) and on the basis of that, executed power of attorney in favour of Imtiaz Ahmed and Bharat Prasad. Further, one of their accomplices namely Lakhan 45 2025:JHHC:1141 Singh became the confirming party in the deed and they executed sale deed dated 06.02.2021 in favour of Punit Bhargava for an amount of Rs.
1,78,55,800/- which was registered as document no. 2021/RAN/1016/BK1/906 in book no. BK1, Vol. no. 112 from page no. 369 to 506 at the office of SRO, Ranchi.
10.1.4 Punit Bhargava further sold the said land to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal, another suspect of the ECIR, vide two sale deeds, both dated 01.04.2021, registered as document no.
2021/RAN/2784/BK1/2483 in book no. BK1, Vol. no. 316 from page no. 405 to 532 at the office of SRO, Ranchi (for an amount of Rs. 1,02,60,000/-) and document no. 2021/RAN/2783/BK1/2482 in book no. BK1, Vol. no. 316 from page no. 261 to 404 at the office of SRO, Ranchi (for an amount of Rs. 77,40,000). (Part of RUD No. 03).
10.1.5 Thus, the land admeasuring 1 acres, situated at Gari, Cheshire Home Road, PS Sadar, Ranchi was acquired in a deceitful manner by the conspiracy and criminal activities of the above-stated persons who indulged into fabrication of documents and forging records.
10.1.6 During investigation at the office of the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata, the forgery in the original records for obtaining the above-said property was observed by the officials of the Directorate of Enforcement as well as the officials of the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata. Further, an FIR no. 137 of 2023 dated 10.05.2023 under section 120B, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPCP-M was also registered at Hare Street P.S, Kolkata on the report of the fact- finding committee of the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata. 14 Specific Roles of the Accused persons in commission of offence of Money laundering 14.5 Afshar Ali Afsu Khan, s/o Late Abid Ali (Accused no. 5) -The accused person was one of the 46 2025:JHHC:1141 main conspirators behind manufacturing fake deeds. He was a one of the parties with other accused persons namely Md. Saddam Hussain, Rajesh Rai and Imtiaz Ahmed, in manufacturing fake deeds for acquisition of proceeds of crime in form of landed property admeasuring 1 acre situated at Pict no. 28, Khata no. 37, Village Gan, Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi. The accused person knowingly indulged in the process and activity of manufacturing fake deed in name of father of Rajesh Rai namely Jagdish Rai to acquire the above property. The accused person was also involved in making fake deed of sale dated 04.01.1952 being number 31 for the year 1952 of the office of the Registrar of Calcutta, entered in book 1, volume no. 20 at pages 243-248 shown to be executed by one Tulsi Das Kanoreya in favour of Kaliram Singh, father of the accused Lakhan Singh. The accused directly indulged with the above accused persons namely Imtiaz Ahmed, Bharat Prasad, Lakhan Singh and with other accused persons namely Md. Saddam Hussain, Punit Bhargava in disposing this property to the accused person Prem Prakash which was registered in the name of Punit Bhargava. The accused person was also involved in making fake deeds of properties admeasuring 3.61 acres situated at Plat no. 891, 892 and 903, Khata no. 256, Bargai, Ranchi in name of Saraswati Devi, mother of the accused Lakhan Singh and several other properties. An amount of Rs. 25 lacs was received in the bank account of Rajesh Rai for making fake deed of the above property admeasuring 1 acre situated at Plot no. 28, Khata no. 37, Village Gart, Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi out of which Rs. 1 lac was received by the accused in his IDBI Bank account which establishes the indulgence of the accused person in the above conspiracy and knowingly being a party and getting actually involved with other accused persons in the process or 47 2025:JHHC:1141 activities connected with proceeds of crime including its acquisition, possession, and projecting and claiming the proceeds of crime as untainted property. Another fake deed no. 1219 of 1941 dated 28.04.1941 in name of Jagdish Rai, father of Rajesh Ral was recovered from the residential premises of the accused Afshar All for the property bearing Khata no. 140, Khewat no. 103, Plot no. 845, 851, 853, 514/2784, 514/2782, 514/2783, total area 5.01 acres, This proves that the accused Afshar Ali is an accomplice of Rajesh Rai and others who are involved in manufacturing fake deeds for acquiring properties in fraudulent manner. The accused has received Rs. 26,60,218 from the accused Bharat Prasad on different dates and has also transferred Rs. 1,40,000 to him on several occasions from the bank accounts linked to him.
Hence, the accused person Afshar Ali is involved in the activities connected with the acquisition, possession, concealment, of the proceeds of crime and claiming and projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted property. Thus, the accused person Afshar Ali has committed the offence of money laundering as defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002 and is accordingly liable to punished under section 4 of PMLA, 2002."
50. It is evident from the prosecution complaint that the searches were conducted at the premises of the petitioner and his close accomplices namely Md. Saddam Hussain and others has led to the recovery of 36 fake deeds which have been verified from the registration offices situated at Kolkata as well as Ranchi and same has not been found as genuine.
48
2025:JHHC:1141
51. It is evident from the aforesaid paragraph that during the course of investigation, the statement of the Petitioner, Afshar Ali was recorded under section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, in the custody of the Directorate of Enforcement in ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 as well as in the judicial custody after taking permission from the Ld. Special Court, PMLA, Ranchi. Further, the statements of his accomplices were also recorded under section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 as well as; in the custody of the Directorate of Enforcement post arrest. From the statements of the aforesaid co-accused the case of the prosecution has fully been substantiated.
52. In his statement the present applicant has admitted that out of the ten acres of land, a plot of 3.51 acres was initially sold to one Gangadhar Rai, and as such, he made a fake deed wherein the said one acre of land was sold by Gangadhar Rai to Jagdish Rai, father of Rajesh Rai.
53. Record transpires that the accused petitioner namely Afsar Ali @ Afsu Khan was a party with the other co-accused persons in acquisition of proceeds of crime in form of landed property admeasuring 1 acre situated at Plot no. 28. Khata no. 37, village Gari Chesire Home Road, Ranchi in the name of Punit Bhargav and Investigation reveals that Bishnu Kumar Agrawal has paid Rs. 49
2025:JHHC:1141 1,78,20,000/- to the accused Punit Bhargav in his firm Shiva Fabcons.
54. It has come during investigation that the petitioner has played major role behind manufacturing fake deeds. He is one of the parties with his accomplices namely Md. Saddam Hussain, and Imtiaz Ahmed in manufacturing fake deeds for acquisition of proceeds of crime in form of landed property admeasuring 1 acre situated at Plot no. 28, Khata no. 37, Village Gari, Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi. The petitioner knowingly indulged in the process and activity of manufacturing fake deed in name of father of Rajesh Rai namely Jagdish Rai to acquire the above property.
55. Further, he is also involved in making fake deed of sale dated 04.01.1952 being number 31 for the year 1952 of the office of the Registrar of Calcutta, entered in book I, volume no. 20 at pages 243-248 shown to be executed by one Tulsi Das Kanoreya in favour of Kaliram Singh, father of the accused Lakhan Singh.
56. Thus, it would be evident from the material collected that the present petitioner and his associates are party to the activities connected with the proceeds of crime in form of immoveable property Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi having deed value of Rs 1.80 crores including its acquisition, possession, concealment used and projecting and claiming the proceeds of crime as untainted property. 50
2025:JHHC:1141
57. Thus, prima-facie it appears that the present petitioner being an accomplice of a syndicate was knowingly a party in the preparation of fake deed of the above stated one acre property with other co-accused persons.
58. It has further come during the investigation that an amount of Rs. 25 lacs was received in the bank account of associate of present petitioner for making fake deed of the above property admeasuring 1 acre situated at Plot no. 28, Khata no. 37, Village Gari, Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi out of which Rs. 1 lac was received by the petitioner in his IDBI Bank account which establishes his indulgence in the above conspiracy and knowingly being a party and getting, actually involved with other accomplices in the process or activities connected with proceeds of crime including its acquisition, possession, and projecting, and claiming the proceeds of crime as untainted property.
59. It is, thus, evident on the basis of the aforesaid material collected that prima-facie the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged offence said to be committed under the provisions of the Act, 2002, cannot be denied.
60. It appears from record that the petitioner is a habitual offender, who is involved in a number of illegal land acquisitions based on fake deeds, thereby causing 51 2025:JHHC:1141 tremendous loss to the government exchequer. Further, his active role also surfaced during investigation in other land scam cases being investigated by this office, bearing ECIR RNZO/18/2022 and the petitioner was arrested in ECIR/RNZO/18/2022, a case pertaining to illegal acquisition of a defence property on having reasons to believe that he is guilty of the offence of money laundering, after following the compliances under section 19 of PMLA, 2002.
61. It needs to refer herein that the petitioner was arrested under section 19 of PMLA, 2002 in ECIR:RNZO/18/2022 (case pertaining to fraudulent acquisition of a defence land) on having reasons to believe that he is guilty of the offence of money laundering as defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002. Further, the petitioner was given an opportunity to appear before the Directorate of Enforcement to give his statement under section 50 of P'MLA, 2002 in light of summons issued to him. Moreover, in the instant case too, the statement of the petitioner was recorded in the judicial custody after permission of the Ld. Special Court, PMLA, Ranchi .
62. It needs to refer herein that the the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) as under paragraph-284, has been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to 52 2025:JHHC:1141 prosecute a person for offence of money-laundering only if it has "reason to believe", which is required to be recorded 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 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.
63. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion this court has "reason to believe" that prima-facie the involvement of the present petitioner is fully substantiated by the tangible and credible evidences which is indicative of involvement of the present petitioner in activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
64. So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 is concerned, as has been referred hereinabove, at paragraph 412 of the judgment rendered in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra), it has been held therein by making observation that whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or 439 for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the underlying 53 2025:JHHC:1141 principles and rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of money-laundering.
65. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of P.M.L.A. will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 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 accused/petitioner.
66. As discussed above, the "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 and 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 54 2025:JHHC:1141 or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.
67. Further, it is evident from the judicial pronouncement as discussed above that in order to constitute any property as proceeds of crime, it must be derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The explanation clarifies that the proceeds of crime include property, not only derived or obtained from scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. Clause (u) also clarifies that even the value of any such property will also be the proceeds of crime and in the instant case from perusal of paragraph of the prosecution complaint it is evident that the petitioner is not only involved rather his involvement is direct in procuring the proceeds of crime by way of connivance with the other accused persons.
68. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that a person accused of the offence of money Laundering need not to be accused in predicate offence and this position has been cleared in the judgement in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others (supra) as well as in the case of Pavna Dibbur Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 55 2025:JHHC:1141 in Criminal Appeal No. 2779/2023, wherein, it is categorically held that the person accused of PMLA offence need not be an accused in scheduled offence.
69. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire ECIR will be taken into consideration, no offence will be said to be committed so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 3 & 4 of the P.M.L. Act, 2002, is totally misplaced in the light of accusation as mention in prosecution complaint.
Ground of Parity
70. Now coming to the ground of parity. Law is well settled that the principle of parity is to be applied if the case of the fact is exactly to be similar then only the principle of parity in the matter of passing order is to be passed but if there is difference in between the facts then the principle of parity is not to be applied.
71. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail and by only simple saying that another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 56 2025:JHHC:1141 Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230, wherein, it has been held as under:-
"25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508:], this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed: (SCC p. 515, para 17) "17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the second respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] clearly exposes the non-application of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second respondent has been charge-sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside.
26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of parity. By its two orders both dated 57 2025:JHHC:1141 21-12- 2020 [Pravinbhai Hirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2986], [Khetabhai Parbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988], the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22-10-2020 [Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was "assigned similar role of armed with stick (sic)". Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A-16) on the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A13) who were armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law."
72. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement (supra) wherein at paragraph-18, it has been held that parity is not the law and while applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration. 58
2025:JHHC:1141
73. This Court in order to come to the conclusion as to whether the case of the petitioner is at par with Bishnu Kumar Agarwala and Chhavi Ranjan who has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, needs to consider the allegation as has been surfaced in course of interrogation of the witness as accused persons as available in the ECIR for the purpose of clarification regarding the commission of the Act by Bishnu Kumar Agarwala, Chavi Ranjan and the petitioner.
74. This Court deems it fit and proper to go through the paragraphs of the said orders by which Bishnu Kumar Agarwala and Chavi Ranjan has been granted bail, so as to come to the conclusion that whether the accountability of Bishnu Kumar Agarwala and Chavi Ranjan in commission of predicate offence attracting the ingredient of Section 3 of the Act, 2002 is at par with the case of present petitioner/applicant herein. The aforesaid orders granting bail are available on record.
75. On comparative assessment of the allegation as per the material available on record it is evident that against the said Bishnu Kumar Agarwala, the allegation of purchase of the land in question has been alleged and further allegation against him is that he is involved in the activities connected with the acquisition, possession, 59 2025:JHHC:1141 concealment and use of the proceeds of crime and claiming and projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted property.
76. Further on comparative assessment of the allegation as per the material available on record, it is evident that against the said co-accused Chavi Ranjan the use of state machinery in felicitating the commission of the said offence has been alleged.
77. So far parity of the present applicant with the co- accused namely Prem Prakash is concerned the Hon'ble Apex Court while enlarging him has observed that independently, the statement of Afshar Ali does not prima facie indicate anything about the role of the appellant (Prem Prakash) in the forgery of sale deed and other documents or being involved in the offence of money laundering. But in the instant case as per discussion in preceding paragraph it has come in the investigation that the present petitioner was very much active and instrumental in preparation of the various fake deeds of land situated in Ranchi.
78. So far parity of the present applicant with the co- accused namely Rajesh Rai is concerned the Hon'ble Apex Court while taking in to consideration the probable delay in conclusion of the trial has allowed the prayer for bail of the said co-accused.
79. But, against the present petitioner, the allegation has been leveled as would appear from various paragraphs 60 2025:JHHC:1141 of the complaint that he has been instrumental behind manufacturing of fake deeds and he is one of the parties with his accomplices namely Md. Saddam Hussain, and Imtiaz Ahmed in manufacturing fake deeds for acquisition of proceeds of crime in form of landed property admeasuring 1 acre situated at Plot no. 28, Khata no. 37, Village Gari, Cheshire Home Road, Ranchi. Further The petitioner was indulged in the process and activity of manufacturing of various fake deed.
80. Further during the investigation, it has come against the petitioner Afsar Ali that accused persons connived among themselves for preparation of fake deed of the property in question and thereafter property was registered in the name of Punit Bhargava, co-accused persons and the investigation further reveals that though the consideration amount in the deed between Imtiyaz Ahmed and Bharat Prasad and Punit Bhargava was shown as Rs. 1,78,55,800/-, but only an amount of Ra. 25 lacs was paid into the SBI Account no. 31100122501 of the dummy owner/accused Rajesh Rai on 12.02.2021.
81. Further, in the counter affidavit it has been submitted that the accused/petitioner is a habitual offender who is also involved in making fake deeds of properties admeasuring 3.81 acres situated at Plot no. 891, 892 and 903, Khata no. 256, Bargai, Ranchi in name of 61 2025:JHHC:1141 Saraswati Devi, mother of the accused Lakhan Singh and several other properties. This fact indicates the present petitioner Afshar Ali an accomplice of syndicate who is involved in manufacturing fake deeds for acquiring properties in fraudulent manner.
82. Hence, the petitioner Afshar Ali is involved in the activities connected with the acquisition, possession, concealment, of the proceeds of crime and claiming and projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted property. Thus, the petitioner Afshar Ali has committed the offence of money laundering as defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002.
83. Further, the learned counsel for respondent has submitted at bar that all possible step would be taken by the prosecution to earlier conclusion of the trial.
84. Therefore, it is evident from the discussion as made above as per the allegation the case of the petitioner is different to that of the said co-accused persons against whom the parity is claimed.
85. At this juncture, it needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in very recent judgment in the case of Union of India through the Assistant Director Vs Kanhaiya Prasad reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 306 has categorically held that the person summoned under Section 50(2) is bound to attend in person or through 62 2025:JHHC:1141 authorized agents before the authority and to state truth upon any subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statements and to produce the documents as may be required by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 50. It has been further observed that Article 20(3) of the Constitution would not come into play in respect of the process of recording statement pursuant to such summon issued under sub-section (2) of Section 50. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed that It is no more res integra 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 schedule offence. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:
18. Though it was sought to be submitted by learned senior Advocate Mr. Ranjit Kumar for the respondent that the appellant had relied upon the statements of the respondent recorded under Section 50 of the Act which were inadmissible in evidence, the said submission cannot be accepted in view of the position of law settled by this Court in Vijay Madanlal (supra) in which it has been held inter alia that the person summoned under Section 50(2) is bound to attend in person or through authorized agents before the authority and to state truth upon any subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statements and to produce the documents as may be required by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 50. It has been further observed that Article 20(3) of 63 2025:JHHC:1141 the Constitution would not come into play in respect of the process of recording statement pursuant to such summon issued under sub-section (2) of Section 50. The phrase used in Article 20(3) is "to be a witness" and not to "appear as a witness". It follows that the protection afforded to an accused insofar as it is related to the phrase "to be a witness" is in respect of testimonial compulsion in the court room, and it may also extend to compelled testimony previously obtained from him. It is available therefore to a person against whom a formal accusation relating to the commission of an offence has been levelled, which in the normal course may result in a prosecution.
19. We also do not find any substance in the submission made by learned Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar for the respondent that the respondent has not been shown as an accused in the predicate offence. It is no more res integra 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 schedule offence. Hence, involvement in any one of such process or activity connected with the Proceeds of Crime would constitute offence of money laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do with the criminal activity relating to a schedule offence, except the Proceeds of Crime derived or obtained as a result of that crime. The precise observations made in Vijay Madanlal (supra) in this regard may be reproduced hereunder:--
"270. Needless to mention that such process or activity can be indulged in only after the property is derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity (a scheduled offence). It would be an offence of money laundering to indulge in or to assist or being party to the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime; and such process or activity in a given fact situation may be a continuing offence, irrespective of the date and time of commission of the scheduled offence. In other words, the criminal activity may 64 2025:JHHC:1141 have been committed before the same had been notified as scheduled offence for the purpose of the 2002 Act, but if a person has indulged in or continues to indulge directly or indirectly in dealing with proceeds of crime, derived or obtained from such criminal activity even after it has been notified as scheduled offence, may be liable to be prosecuted for offence of money laundering under the 2002 Act -- for continuing to possess or conceal the proceeds of crime (fully or in part) or retaining possession thereof or uses it in trenches until fully exhausted. The offence of money laundering is not dependent on or linked to the date on which the scheduled offence, or if we may say so, the predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date is the date on which the person indulges in the process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime. These ingredients are intrinsic in the original provision (Section 3, as amended until 2013 and were in force till 31-7-2019); and the same has been merely explained and clarified by way of Explanation vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. Thus understood, inclusion of clause (ii) in the Explanation inserted in 2019 is of no consequence as it does not alter or enlarge the scope of Section 3 at all.
271 to 405...............
406. It was urged that the scheduled offence in a given case may be a non-cognizable offence and yet rigours of Section 45 of the 2002 Act would result in denial of bail even to such accused. This argument is founded on clear misunderstanding of the scheme of the 2002 Act. As we have repeatedly mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment that the offence of money laundering is one wherein a person, 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. The fact that the proceeds of crime have been generated as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, which incidentally happens to be a non- cognizable offence, would make no difference. The person is not prosecuted for the scheduled offence by invoking 65 2025:JHHC:1141 provisions of the 2002 Act, but only when he has derived or obtained property as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence and then indulges in process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime. Suffice it to observe that the argument under consideration is completely misplaced and needs to be rejected."
86. Further, it is required to refer herein that the Money Laundering is an economic offence and economic offences come under the of grave offences hence needs to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail as held by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Y. S Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. C. B. I., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgments are being quoted as under:-
"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deeprooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country."
87. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Nimgadda Prasad Vs. C.B.I., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466 has reiterated the same view in paragraphs-23 to 25 which reads as under:-
"23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the 66 2025:JHHC:1141 development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [(1987) 2 SCC 364 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 364] this Court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under:
(SCC p. 371, para 5) "5. ... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest."
24. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie 67 2025:JHHC:1141 evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deeprooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country."
88. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India through the Assistant Director Vs Kanhaiya Prasad (supra) has specifically observed that there remains no shadow of doubt that the consideration of the two conditions mentioned in Section 45 is mandatory, and that while considering the bail application, the said rigours of Section 45 have to be reckoned by the court to uphold the objectives of the PMLA. It has further been observed that merely because the prosecution complaint had been filed and the cognizance was taken by the court that itself would not be the ground or consideration to release the respondent on bail, when the mandatory requirements as contemplated in Section 45 have not been complied with.
89. In the aforesaid judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed that the offence of money laundering has been regarded as an aggravated form of crime world over and the offenders involved in the activity connected 68 2025:JHHC:1141 with the Proceeds of Crime are treated as a separate class from ordinary criminals and any casual or cursory approach by the Courts while considering the bail application of the offender involved in the offence of money laundering and granting him bail by passing cryptic orders without considering the seriousness of the crime and without considering the rigours of Section 45, cannot be vindicated. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
20. The High Court has utterly failed to consider the mandatory requirements of Section 45 and to record its satisfaction whether any reasonable ground existed for believing that the respondent was not guilty of the alleged offence, and that he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Merely because the prosecution complaint had been filed and the cognizance was taken by the court that itself would not be the ground or consideration to release the respondent on bail, when the mandatory requirements as contemplated in Section 45 have not been complied with.
21. As well settled, the offence of money laundering is not an ordinary offence. The PMLA has been enacted to deal with the subject of money laundering activities having transnational impact on financial systems including sovereignty and integrity of the countries. The offence of money laundering has been regarded as an aggravated form of crime world over and the offenders involved in the activity connected with the Proceeds of Crime are treated as a separate class from ordinary criminals. Any casual or cursory approach by the Courts while considering the bail application of the offender involved in the offence of money laundering and granting him bail by passing cryptic orders without considering the seriousness of the crime and 69 2025:JHHC:1141 without considering the rigours of Section 45, cannot be vindicated.
90. It is evident from discussion made hereinabove and particularly taking in to consideration the aforesaid settled position of law that so far as the case of the present petitioner is concerned, the twin condition as provided under Section 45(1) the prayer for privilege of bail for the present petitioner cannot be allowed.
91. Even on the ground of parity as per the discussion made hereinabove, the same on the basis of the role/involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of crime in comparison to that of the other co- accused, is quite different.
92. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to the facts and circumstances, as have been analyzed hereinabove as also taking into consideration that the petitioner is a habitual offender, who is involved in a number of illegal land acquisitions based on fake deeds, thereby causing tremendous loss to the government exchequer and further, his active role also surfaced during investigation in other land scam cases being investigated by ED, bearing ECIR- RNZO/18/2022 a case pertaining to illegal acquisition of a defence property, the applicant is failed to make out a prima-facie case for exercise of power to grant bail, hence, 70 2025:JHHC:1141 this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail.
93. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the instant bail application is liable to be rejected.
94. Accordingly, based upon the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the instant application is fit to be dismissed and as such, stands dismissed.
95. The observation/finding, as recorded hereinabove, is only for the purpose of consideration of issue of bail. The same will not prejudice the issue on merit in course of trial.
96. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) A.F.R. Birendra/ 71