Jharkhand High Court
Talha Khan vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 25 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:12521
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 10272 of 2024
---------------
Talha Khan, aged about 30 years, son of Salik Akhtar Khan, resident of Hill
View Road, Near Rahat Nursing Home, Bariatu, PO-Bariatu, PS-Bariatu,
District-Ranchi ........Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India represented through its Assistant
Director ...... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
For the Petitioner : Ms. Pragya Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the OP-ED : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
C.A.V. on 11.04.2025 Pronounced on 25/04/2025
Prayer
1. This is the second attempt made by the petitioner for grant of regular
bail before this Court by way of filing instant bail application.
2. The present bail application has been filed under Sections 483 and 484
of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to
the petitioner, in connection with ECIR Case No.01 of 2023 arising out of
ECIR/RNZO/18/2022, registered for alleged offence under Section 3
punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002, (herein referred as Act,2002) pending in the Court of learned AJC-I-
cum-Special Judge, P.M.L. Act, Ranchi.
Factual Matrix
3. The facts leading to filing of the present application reads as under:
(i) An ECIR bearing No. 18/2022 was recorded on 21.10.2022 based
on Bariatu P.S. Case No. 141 of 2022 dated 04.06.2022, registered
undersection 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, against Pradeep Bagchi on
the basis of complaint of Tax Collector of Ranchi Municipal
Corporation for submission of forged papers i.e. Aadhar Card,
2025:JHHC:12521
Electricity Bill and Possession letter for obtaining holding number
0210004194000A1 and 0210004031000A5. Investigation
revealed that by submitting the forged documents, a holding
number was obtained in name of Pradeep Bagchi for property at
Morabadi Mouza, Ward No. 21/19, Ranchi having an area of the
plot measuring 455.00 decimals approx. at Ranchi.
(ii) Investigation further revealed that the above property belonged
to Late B.M. Laxman Rao which was given to the Army and had
been in the possession of the Defence, in occupation of the Army
since independence. Investigation reveals that by way of creating
a fake owner (Pradeep Bagchi) of the above said property, it was
sold to one company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd for
which the consideration amount was shown Rs. 7 crores which
was highly under value and out of this amount Rs. 7 crores
payment amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs only were made into the
account of said Pradeep Bagchi and rest of the money was falsely
shown to be paid through cheques in the deed no.- 6888 of 2021.
(iii) It has come during investigation that records available at the C.O.
Bargain, Ranchi along with the office of Registrar of Assurances,
Kolkata have been altered and records have been modified. The
survey of Circle Office Bargain as well as Registrar of Assurances,
Kolkata transpires that documents have been tempered to create
fictitious onus of the above properties.
(iv) The Enforcement Directorate upon completion of investigation
filed the prosecution complaint under section 45 read with 44 of
PML Act being ECIR Case no. 01/2023 against the present
2
2025:JHHC:12521
petitioner and consequently the trial Court vide order dated
19.06.2023 has taken the cognizance of the aforesaid offence.
(v) (iv) The specific allegation against the present petitioner is like
that he in connivance with other accused persons illegally acquired
a piece of land measuring 60 decimals situated at Plot no.668,
Khata no.29, Mauja Gari, P.S. Bariatu, Ranchi frivolously
showing for an amount of Rs.4 crores. The accused person
acquired proceeds of crime through his company Confiar Projects
Pvt. Ltd. in its Axis Bank account 91802000064516549. Proceeds
of crime amounting to Rs.12,35,56,621/- were credited during
period 15.06.2019 to 07.06.2023 out of which Rs.1,28,74000 was
siphoned off in cash. The accused person used his bank accounts
for placement layering and integration of the proceeds of crime.
(vi) Accordingly, the present petitioner has been arrested under section
19 of PML, Act 2002 accordingly the petitioner had preferred the
Misc. Cri. Application No. 2533 of 2023 for grant of his bail but
the same was rejected vide order dated 25.08.2023 by the AJC-I-
Cum Special Judge, CBI-Cum- Special Judge under PMLA at
Ranchi.
(vii) Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court with a prayer for
grant of regular bail in B.A No.10296 of 2023 which was rejected
by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2024.
(viii) After rejection of prayer for bail of the petitioner by this Court
vide order dated 12.04.2024, the petitioner approached the
Hon'ble Supreme Court for grant of regular bail in Special Leave
to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).7674 of 2024 but the same was rejected
vide order dated 25.06.2024 which reads as under:
3
2025:JHHC:12521
"Upon hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, we do not find that at this stage a case is made out for grant of bail Hence, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of."
4. The petitioner has again renewed his prayer for bail before the learned trial Court in MCA No.2671 of 2024 for grant of regular bail which has been rejected by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 24.09.2024. Thereafter, he approached before this Court for grant of regular bail by way of filing the instant bail application.
Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner:
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the following grounds that:-
(i) the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the prosecution complaint and the petitioner has no concern with the land in question.
(ii) The proceeds of crime are only be said to be proceeds of crime, if it is obtained from the scheduled offence.
(iii) The petitioner is facing prosecution on the basis of the statements of co-accused recorded under section 50 of the PMLA which as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Prem Prakash v. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement" in Criminal Appeal being S.L.P (Crl) No.5416 of 2024 cannot have the character of substantive evidence.
(iv) From the bare perusal of the Prosecution Complaint, it is evident that the petitioner has no connection with the subject land being M.S. plot no-557. Morabadi Mouza, ward no. 21/19, having an 4 2025:JHHC:12521 area of 455.00 decimals at Ranchi and thus any illegal activity connected thereto or the proceeds of crime generated therefrom.
(v) Petitioner's work has no iota of element of illegal / suspicious activity from which it can be inferred that the petitioner in any way acquired used or projected as untainted or claimed any proceeds of crime. All transactions from the account of the petitioner were transparent and genuine and thus cannot be termed as proceeds of crime.
(vi) All the allegations being levelled by the Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi Zonal Office against the petitioner are premised on conjecture and surmises.
(vii) Further, petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2023 which amount to long incarceration and there is no probability of conclusion of the trial in near future.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the learned special Court while considering the prayer for bail ought to have taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter both legal and factual but having not done so, serious error has been committed.
7. Further submission has been made in the aforesaid view of the matter as per the ground agitated that it is a fit case where the petitioner is to be given the privilege of bail.
Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the Opposite Party/ED:
8. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the opposite party-Enforcement Directorate has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail by taking the following grounds: 5
2025:JHHC:12521
(i) It is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to take the ground that the proceeds of crime are only be said to be proceeds of crime if it is obtained from the scheduled offence.
(ii) It has been contended that if the proceeds of crime are there, the same will be said to be respective of the proceeds obtained from the scheduled offence, rather, even in case of proceeds of crime if has been obtained other than the crime as under the scheduled offence, then also the ingredients of Section 3 of the P.M.L. Act, 2002 will be applicable.
(iii) Learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-E.D. has taken the ground that the petitioner is having direct nexus with the other co-accused persons namely, Amit Kumar Agarwal, Pradip Bagchi, Afshar Ali, Mohd. Saddam Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmed, Chhavi Ranjan, Faiyaz Ahmed, Bhanu Pratap Prasad, in the commission of crime in facilitating the 'proceeds of crime'.
(iv) The co-accused of this case have also confessed that the petitioner was a part of the aforesaid racket and used to assist in selling fraudulently acquired lands in connivance with other accused persons.
(v) The accused person acquired proceeds of crime through his company, Confiar Projects Pvt. Ltd., account 921020002279585 maintained in the name of Axis Bank. In his Axis Bank account, 9180200064516549, proceeds of crime amounting to Rs.
12,35,56,621 were credited during the period from June 15, 2019, to June 7, 2023, out of which Rs. 1,28,74,000 was siphoned off in cash. When asked about the significant cash deposits totalling Rs. 87,97,029 in his Axis Bank Bariyatu account bearing no. 6
2025:JHHC:12521 918020064516549, he stated that this was the proceeds deposited from the sale of land by him.
(vi) The accused person used petitioner's bank accounts for placement, layering, and integration of the proceeds of crime. The said amount was also transferred to other accused persons.
(vii) The petitioner, Talha Khan @ Sunny, has also transferred Rs. 44 Lakhs into the bank account of F2R Constructions Pvt. Ltd., which is a company of Md. Saddam Hussain and Imtiaz Ahmed. Thus, it reveals that Afshar Ali, Md. Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan, and Imtiaz Ahmed are accomplices of each other.
(viii) The petitioner in his statement mentioned in para 8.7 of the prosecution complaint also revealed his involvement in land dealings of 3.81 acres with Afshar Ali, where 30-40 decimals of land were sold through him despite not being documented.
(ix) The analysis of the Call Detail Records (CDR) of the accused petitioner, Talha Khan (at phone number 7xxxxx1287), as mentioned in paragraph 9.6.7, reveals his frequent communication with other co-accused.
(x) Several high-value interconnected banking transactions have been identified between the accused petitioner and other co-accused persons, as detailed in paragraph 9.6.8 of the prosecution complaint. This indicates that the accused petitioner is also a beneficiary of the proceeds of the crime and is thus involved in the racket with co- accused persons.
(xi) So far as the period of custody as agitated by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it has been submitted that as per settled proposition of law which has been settled by the Hon'ble 7 2025:JHHC:12521 Apex Court that the long incarceration (herein about 2 years) or delay in trial alone cannot be ground to release the petitioner on bail, rather in case of scheduled offences/special offences the seriousness of the matter should have been taken in to consideration by the Court concerned while enlarging the petitioner on bail.
(xii) Further, the bail petition of another accused, i.e., Chhavi Ranjan was rejected by this Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 27.09.2024 passed in SLP (Cr) Diary No. 38676 of 2024 and directions were issued to expedite the trial.
(xiii) The issue of prayer for bail of the present petitioner has already been adjudicated by this Court on merit in B.A.No.10296 of 2023 which was rejected vide order dated 12.04.2024. In pursuance to the same, the petitioner had filed an SLP No. 7674 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.06.2024 wit direction to expedite the trial, as such neither fresh ground is available nor any change in circumstances is there, therefore it is not required to again adjudicate the prayer for bail of the petitioner a fresh.
9. Learned counsel for the opposite party-ED, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that since the nature of allegation committed by the present petitioners are serious, as such, the instant bail application is fit to be rejected.
Analysis
10. It is evident from record that an ECIR bearing No. 18/2022 was recorded on 21.10.2022 based on Bariatu P.S. Case No. 141 of 2022 dated 04.06.2022, registered undersection 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, against 8 2025:JHHC:12521 Pradeep Bagchi on the basis of complaint of Tax Collector of Ranchi Municipal Corporation for submission of forged papers i.e. Aadhar Card, Electricity Bill and Possession letter for obtaining holding number. Investigation revealed that by submitting the forged documents, a holding number was obtained in name of Pradeep Bagchi for property at Morabadi Mouza, Ward No. 21/19, Ranchi having an area of the plot measuring 455.00 decimals approx. at Ranchi.
11. Investigation further revealed that the above property belonged to Late B.M. Laxman Rao which was given to the Army by way of creating a fake owner (Pradeep Bagchi) of the above said property, it was sold to one company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd for which the consideration amount was shown Rs. 7 crores which was highly under value and out of this amount Rs. 7 crores payment amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs only were made into the account of said Pradeep Bagchi and rest of the money was falsely shown to be paid through cheques.
12. It has come during investigation that records available at the C.O. Bargain, Ranchi along with the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata have been altered and records have been modified. The survey of Circle Office Bargain as well as Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata transpires that documents have been tempered to create fictitious onus of the above properties.
13. The Enforcement Directorate upon completion of investigation filed the prosecution complaint under section 45 read with 44 of PML Act being ECIR Case no. 01/2023 against the present petitioner on the basis of specific allegation that present petitioner in connivance with other accused persons illegally acquired a piece of land measuring 60 decimals situated at Plot no.668, Khata no.29, Mauja Gari, P.S. Bariatu, Ranchi frivolously showing 9 2025:JHHC:12521 for an amount of Rs.4 crores. The accused person acquired proceeds of crime through his company Confiar Projects Pvt. Ltd. in its Axis Bank account 91802000064516549. Proceeds of crime amounting to Rs.12,35,56,621/- were credited during period 15.06.2019 to 07.06.2023 out of which Rs.1,28,74000 was siphoned off in cash. The accused person used his bank accounts for placement layering and integration of the proceeds of crime.
14. Accordingly, the present petitioner has been arrested on 14.04.2023 under section 19 of PML, Act 2002. Consequently, the trial Court vide order dated 19.06.2023 has taken the cognizance of the aforesaid offence.
15. The petitioner had preferred the Misc. Cri. Application No. 2533 of 2023 for grant of his bail but the same was rejected vide order dated 25.08.2023 by the AJC-I-Cum Special Judge, CBI-Cum- Special Judge under PMLA at Ranchi. Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court with a prayer for grant of regular bail in B.A No.10296 of 2023 which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2024.
16. After rejection of prayer for bail of the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2024, the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court for grant of regular bail in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).7674 of 2024 but the same was rejected vide order dated 25.06.2024.
17. The petitioner has again renewed his prayer for bail before the learned trial Court in MCA No.2671 of 2024 for grant of regular bail which has been rejected by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 24.09.2024. Thereafter, he approached before this Court for grant of regular bail by way of filing the instant bail application.
18. At the outset the learned counsel for the ED has contended that since the issue of prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been adjudicated by 10 2025:JHHC:12521 this Court on merit in B.A.No.10296 of 2023 and which was rejected vide order dated 12.04.2024. Further, in pursuance to the same, the petitioner filed an SLP No. 7674 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.06.2024 as such neither fresh ground is available nor any change in circumstances is there, therefore it is not required to again adjudicate the prayer for bail of the petitioner afresh.
19. Per contra the learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasized that the present petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2023 and there is no probability of conclusion of trial in near future as such the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
20. In the aforesaid context this Court thinks fit that for proper appreciation of the present application it would be better to refer relevant paragraphs of the order dated 12.04.2024 passed in B.A. No. 10296 of 2023 by which the bail of the present petitioner had been rejected.
"Further, the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata, formed a four- man committee and conducted an inquiry and submitted their initial report related to the three sale deeds including the land in question and confirmed the manipulation and tampering had been identified in the said sale deeds and accordingly an FIR no. 137 of 2023 dated 10.05.2023 under section 120B, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC was registered at Hare Street P.S, Kolkata on the basis of the complaint of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata for the above temperance.
57.Further, the Investigation revealed that the accused persons, namely Afshar Ali @ Afsu Khan, Mohammad Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan @ Sunny (present petitioner), Faiyaz Khan, Pradip Bagchi, and Imtiaz Ahmed, have actively been involved in sequestering several pieces of land situated in Ranchi and its vicinity by manipulating and forging the original records available at the Circle Offices in connivance with certain government officials/record keepers, including Bhanu Pratap Prasad, Revenue Sub-Inspector, Baragai, Ranchi. The Circle Office, deeds/documents/records recovered and seized during the course of searches conducted on April 13, 2023, corroborate the 11 2025:JHHC:12521 fact that the accused persons have been running a racket involved in the illegal acquisition of lands by converting non-saleable land into saleable lands for monetary benefits. They have acquired proceeds of crime through the aforementioned criminal activities and thus committed the offence of money laundering. The properties are used to commit offences under this Act and scheduled offences and derive proceeds, further projecting their activities and acquired properties as 'untainted property'.
58.It is evident from the prosecution complaint that co-accused of this case have also confessed that the petitioner is a part of the racket and used to assist in selling acquired lands fraudulently in connivance with other accused persons. He and his accomplices, illegally acquired a piece of land measuring 60 decimals situated at Plot no. 668, Khata no. 29, Mauja Gari, P.S Bariatu, Ranchi by way of a forged sale deed from the office of the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata, falsely showing an amount of Rs. 4 crores. The accused person acquired proceeds of crime through his company, Confiar Projects Pvt. Ltd., account 921020002279585 maintained at Axis Bank. In his Axis Bank account, 9180200064516549, proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 12,35,56,621 were credited during the period from June 15, 2019, to June 7, 2023, out of which Rs. 1,28,74,000 was siphoned off in cash. When asked about the significant cash deposits totaling Rs.87,97,029 in his Axis Bank Bariyatu account bearing no. 918020064516549, he stated that this was the proceeds deposited from the sale of land by him. The accused person used his bank accounts for placement, layering, and integration of the proceeds of crime. The said amount was also transferred to other accused persons.
59.Further, the statement of Sadam Hussain mentioned in paragraph-8.4 of the prosecution complaint reveals that the petitioner was involved in money laundering. The petitioner, Talha Khan @ Sunny, has also transferred Rs. 44 Lakhs into the bank account of F2R Constructions Pvt. Ltd., which is a company of Md. Saddam Hussain and Imtiaz Ahmed. Thus, it reveals that Afshar Ali, Md. Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan, and Imtiaz Ahmed are accomplices of each other.
60.Further, the petitioner in his statement mentioned in para-8.7 of the prosecution complaint also revealed his involvement in land dealings of 3.81 acres with Afshar Ali, where 30-40 decimals of land were sold through him despite not being documented. He 12 2025:JHHC:12521 further admitted to taking several blank cheques from the HDFC Bank account of Pradip Bagchi and using the said account to accept money from buyers, which he later transferred to his account or Afshar Ali's account. A scrutiny of his bank account, 918020064516549, maintained at Axis Bank under the name of Talha Khan, reveals that during the period from June 15, 2019, to March 7, 2023, there has been a total credit of Rs.12,35,56,621-, with a significant portion, Rs.1,28,74,000/-, being withdrawn in cash.
61.Further, it is evident that the copy of deed no. 1813 of year 1943, book no. I, volume no. 48, page no. 168-171, executed at the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata, between Sheikh Jamir Ali and Prafulla Bagchi which later established as forged, a Sale Agreement dated 19.02.2022, executed between Pradip Bagchi (first party) and Talha Khan (second party) related to land measuring 60 Decimal situated at Khata no. 29, Plot no. 668, mouja Morhabadi, along with online land details, was recovered during the search conducted on 13.04.2023, at the residential premises under the use and occupation of Talha Khan. Details in this regard have been mentioned at paragraph-7.2 of the prosecution complaint.
62.From the statement of Imtiaz Ahmad mentioned at paragraph- 8.5 of the prosecution complaint reveals that he made payments to the present petitioner and others, as recorded in a diary recovered from his possession during the search on 13.04.2023. Images of the diary are provided in paragraph-9.6.4 of the prosecution complaint, showing payments of Rs.17,29,100/- to Sunny @ Talha Khan. The distribution of proceeds of crime is depicted in the diary, linking the accused persons to their fraudulent activities of acquiring and disposing of land, and subsequently acquiring the proceeds of crime.
63.The statement of Faiyaz Khan mentioned at paragraph-8.5 of the prosecution complaint reveals that he has used an Axis Bank account bearing no. 920010047770735, through which several large-value transactions have been made with Md. Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan and Greensoil Enterprises.
64.The statement of Pradeep Bagchi, as mentioned in paragraph 8.6 of the prosecution complaint, reveals the involvement of Afshar Ali, Imtiaz Ahmed, Md. Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan @ Sunny (the present petitioner), and Faiyaz Khan in manipulating sale deeds of landed properties. They paid him money to stand as 13 2025:JHHC:12521 the owner property on of the forged sale deeds. Bagchi further disclosed that he had signed as approximately five sale deeds, the owner for of which he received money from the aforementioned persons. He also mentioned that, at the direction of Afshar Ali, he posed as the owner of a property and Afshar Ali arranged a fake deed dating back to year 1943, executed in the name of his deceased father, Prafulla Bagchi, son of Mohini Bagchi and on instruction of Afshar Ali, he entered into a sale agreement with present petitioner, i.e., Talha Khan @ Sunny. Pradeep Bagchi also stated that an account was opened in his name at HDFC Bank, which Afshar Ali and Talha Khan operated according to their wishes. They had also obtained his signatures on blank cheques, and its bank passbooks were also taken by them.
21. It is, thus, evident from the perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs that this Court while referring the various settled position of law and the provisions of Act 2002 had addressed contentions of the parties and found no merit in the said bail application and accordingly dismissed the same.
22. It is further apparent from the aforesaid order that the Court while passing the aforesaid order, had also taken care of the culpability of the present applicant which was mentioned in the prosecution complaint/ECIR and based upon that the Court has not found the availability of the twin condition as stipulated in the Act 2002 and accordingly dismissed the bail petition.
23. Thus, it is evident that on merit prayer for bail of the present applicant has already been adjudicated and further there is no fresh ground or change in circumstance is available, hence, at first instance the contention of learned counsel for ED that there is no need to entertain the instant application afresh, is having force but in the instant application the learned counsel for the petitioner while referring the ratio rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Prakash v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 9 SCC 787 has taken the ground that the petitioner is facing 14 2025:JHHC:12521 prosecution on the basis of the statements of co-accused recorded under section 50 of the PMLA, which cannot have the character of substantive evidence.
24. In order to fortify this limb of argument the learned counsel for the petitioner has particularly relied upon the paragraph 38 of the said Judgment. The learned counsel further stated that the aforesaid judgment was rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 28.10.2024 and since the earlier bail application of the present petitioner was dismissed on 12.04.2024, therefore, the aforesaid ratio is referred for consideration of this Court.
25. Thus, in the aforesaid context, this Court is of the considered view that it is the bounden duty of this Court to appreciate the aforesaid particular contention of the learned counsel for the applicant.
26. Before appreciating to the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court thinks fit to discuss the provision of law particularly Section 50 as contained under the Act, 2002 with its object and intent as also the legal proposition as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments.
27. The Act 2002 was enacted to address the urgent need to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof including vesting of it in the Central Government, setting up of agencies and mechanisms for coordinating measures for combating money- laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
28. It is evident that the Act 2002 was enacted in order to answer the urgent requirement to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for 15 2025:JHHC:12521 preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof for combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
29. It needs to refer herein the definition of "proceeds of crime" as provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002 which reads as under:
"2(u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property 3[or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country] 4[or abroad];
[Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence;]"
30. It is evident from the aforesaid provision by which the "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad.
31. In the explanation it has been referred that for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.
32. It is, thus, evident that the reason for giving explanation under Section 2(1)(u) is by way of clarification to the effect that whether as per the 16 2025:JHHC:12521 substantive provision of Section 2(1)(u), the property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country but by way of explanation the proceeds of crime has been given broader implication by including property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.
33. The "property" has been defined under Section 2(1)(v) which means any property or assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located.
34. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x) which means schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The "scheduled offence" has been defined under Section 2(1)(y) which reads as under:
"2(y) "scheduled offence" means--
(i) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or
(ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or
(iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule."
35. It is evident that the "scheduled offence" means the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule.
36. The offence of money laundering has been defined under Section 3 of the Act, 2002 which reads as under:
17
2025:JHHC:12521 "3. Offence of money-laundering.--Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the [proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming] it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.
[Explanation.-- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,--
(i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering if such person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the following processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime, namely:--
(a) concealment; or
(b) possession; or
(c) acquisition; or
(d) use; or
(e) projecting as untainted property; or
(f) claiming as untainted property, in any manner whatsoever;
(ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.]"
37. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that "offence of money- laundering" means whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.
38. It is further evident that the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its 18 2025:JHHC:12521 concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.
39. The punishment for money laundering has been provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2002.
40. The various provisions of the Act, 2002 along with interpretation of the definition of "proceeds of crime" has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 wherein the Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have decided the issue by taking into consideration the object and intent of the Act, 2002.
41. The predicate offence has been considered in the aforesaid judgment wherein by taking into consideration the explanation as inserted by way of Act 23 of 2019 under the definition of the "proceeds of crime" as contained under Section 2(1)(u), whereby and whereunder, it has been clarified for the purpose of removal of doubts that, the "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence, meaning thereby, the words "any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence" will come under the fold of the proceeds of crime.
42. So far as the purport of Section 45(1)(i)(ii) is concerned, the aforesaid provision starts from the non-obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-
19
2025:JHHC:12521
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail Sub-section (2) thereof puts limitation on granting bail specific in sub-section (1) in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.
The explanation is also there as under sub-section (2) thereof which is for the purpose of removal of doubts, a clarification has been inserted that the expression "Offences to be cognizable and non- bailable" shall mean and shall be deemed to have always meant that all offences under this Act shall be cognizable offences and non-bailable offences notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and accordingly the officers authorised under this Act are empowered to arrest an accused without warrant, subject to the fulfilment of conditions under section 19 and subject to the conditions enshrined under this section.
43. The fact about the implication of Section 45 has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra) at paragraphs-. For ready reference, the said paragraphs are being referred as under:
"387.............The provision post the 2018 Amendment, is in the nature of no bail in relation to the offence of money laundering unless the twin conditions are fulfilled. The twin conditions are that there are 20 2025:JHHC:12521 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.
412. As a result, we have no hesitation in observing that in whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the constitutional court, the underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 of the 2002 Act must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of money laundering."
44. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486 by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra), it has been laid down that since the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory, they need to be 21 2025:JHHC:12521 complied with. The Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
45. It has further been observed that as per the statutory presumption permitted under Section 24 of the Act, the Court or the Authority is entitled to presume unless the contrary is proved, that in any proceedings relating to proceeds of crime under the Act, in the case of a person charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3, such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. Such conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PML Act will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 Cr. P.C. in view of the overriding effect given to the PML Act over the other law for the time being in force, under Section 71 of the PML Act.
46. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment has further laid down that the twin conditions as to fulfil the requirement of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 before granting the benefit of bail is to be adhered to which has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra) wherein it has been observed that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
47. In the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra) as under paragraph-284, it has been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute a person for offence of money-laundering only if it has reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in possession of "proceeds of crime". Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of 22 2025:JHHC:12521 the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process.
48. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, (2015) 16 SCC 1 has been pleased to hold at paragraph -30 that the conditions specified under Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with, which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and also Section 71 of PMLA. Section 65 requires that the provisions of CrPC shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and Section 71 provides that the provisions of PMLA shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. PMLA has an overriding effect and the provisions of CrPC would apply only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.
49. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PMLA will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 CrPC. That coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the appellant.
50. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr., (2022) 10 SCC 51 has passed the order that if the investigation has been completed and if there is full cooperation of the accused persons, 23 2025:JHHC:12521 there may not be any arrest. The Hon'ble Apex Court categorised the offences in different group for purpose of bail. The reference may be taken from Paragraph -2 of the aforesaid judgment which reads as under:
"2. After allowing the application for intervention, an appropriate order was passed on 7-10-2021 [Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 153] . The same is reproduced as under : (Satender Kumar Antil case [Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 153] , SCC pp. 774-76, paras 2-11) "2. We have been provided assistance both by Mr S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel and there is broad unanimity in terms of the suggestions made by the learned ASG. In terms of the suggestions, the offences have been categorised and guidelines are sought to be laid down for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and keeping in mind the statutory provisions.
3. We are inclined to accept the guidelines and make them a part of the order of the Court for the benefit of the courts below.
The guidelines are as under:
'Categories/Types of Offences (A) Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in Categories B & D. (B) Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for more than 7 years.
(C) Offences punishable under Special Acts containing stringent provisions for bail like NDPS (Section 37), PMLA (Section 45), UAPA [Section 43-D(5)], Companies Act, [Section 212(6)], etc. (D) Economic offences not covered by Special Acts.
REQUISITE CONDITIONS (1) Not arrested during investigation.
(2) Cooperated throughout in the investigation including appearing before investigating officer whenever called. 24
2025:JHHC:12521 (No need to forward such an accused along with the charge-sheet (Siddharth v. State of U.P. [Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 423] ) CATEGORY A After filing of charge-sheet/complaint taking of cognizance
(a) Ordinary summons at the 1st instance/including permitting appearance through lawyer.
(b) If such an accused does not appear despite service of summons, then bailable warrant for physical appearance may be issued.
(c) NBW on failure to appear despite issuance of bailable warrant.
(d) NBW may be cancelled or converted into a bailable warrant/summons without insisting physical appearance of the accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing.
(e) Bail applications of such accused on appearance may be decided without the accused being taken in physical custody or by granting interim bail till the bail application is decided.
CATEGORIES B/D On appearance of the accused in court pursuant to process issued bail application to be decided on merits.
CATEGORY C Same as Categories B and D with the additional condition of compliance of the provisions of Bail under NDPS (Section 37), Section 45 of the PMLA, Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, POSCO, etc. ..."
51. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court recently in the case of Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109, in the matter of UAP Act 1967 has observed that the conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis-à-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase - 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' - unless circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place 25 2025:JHHC:12521 while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act and the 'exercise' of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. For ready reference, relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred as under:
"28. The conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis-à-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase - 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' - unless circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act. The 'exercise' of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. The form of the words used in proviso to Section 43D (5)- 'shall not be released' in contrast with the form of the words as found in Section 437(1) CrPC - 'may be released' - suggests the intention of the Legislature to make bail, the exception and jail, the rule."
52. The reason for making reference of this judgment is that in the Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr (supra)'s judgment, the UAPA has also been brought under the purview of category 'c' wherein while laying observing that in the UAPA Act, it comes under the category 'c' which also includes money laundering offence wherein the bail has been directed to be granted if the investigation is complete but the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (supra) has taken the view by making note that the penal offences as enshrined under the provision of UAPA are also under category 'c' making reference that jail is the rule and bail is the exception.
53. In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal provisions and settled law this Court is now adverting to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is facing prosecution on the basis of the statements of co-accused recorded under section 50 of the PMLA which as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Prem Prakash 26 2025:JHHC:12521 v. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement" (supra) cannot have the character of substantive evidence.
54. For proper appreciation of the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment i.e. Prem Prakash v. Enforcement Directorate (supra) upon which reliance has been placed is being quoted as under:
38. We have no hesitation in holding that when an accused is in custody under PMLA irrespective of the case for which he is under custody, any statement under Section 50 PMLA to the same investigating agency is inadmissible against the maker. The reason being that the person in custody pursuant to the proceeding investigated by the same investigating agency is not a person who can be considered as one operating with a free mind. It will be extremely unsafe to render such statements admissible against the maker, as such a course of action would be contrary to all canons of fair play and justice.
55. After going through the ratio rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 38 which has been quoted and referred hereinabove and also relied upon by the applicant, it appears that applicant is quoting only selective observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and not quoting the context in which the said observation/ratio was rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
56. In the aforesaid case the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the circumstances that when a person is in judicial custody/custody in another case investigated by the same investigating agency, whether the statements recorded for a new case in which his arrest is not yet shown, and which are claimed to contain incriminating material against the maker, would be admissible under Section 50.
57. The Hon'ble Apex Court taking in to consideration the aforesaid situation has observed that the statement of the appellant if to be considered as incriminating against the maker, will be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence 27 2025:JHHC:12521 Act since he has given the statement whilst in judicial custody, pursuant to other proceedings instituted by the same investigating agency. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:
27. The question that arises is when a person is in judicial custody/custody in another case investigated by the same investigating agency, whether the statements recorded (in this case the statements dated 3-8-2023, 4-8-2023, 11-8-2023) for a new case in which his arrest is not yet shown, and which are claimed to contain incriminating material against the maker, would be admissible under Section 50?
33. In the facts of the present case, we hold that the statement of the appellant if to be considered as incriminating against the maker, will be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act since he has given the statement whilst in judicial custody, pursuant to another proceeding instituted by the same investigating agency. Taken as he was from the judicial custody to record the statement, it will be a travesty of justice to render the statement admissible against the appellant.
34. The appellant-accused cannot be told that after all while giving this statement:"you were wearing a hat captioned 'ECIR 5/2023' and not the hat captioned 'ECIR 4/2022' ".
58. Herein the present petitioner has been arrested on 14.04.2023 and as per para 8.7. of the prosecution complaint he has given his statement on 13.04.2023 (RUD No.68 and 69) which was recorded under Section 50 of Act 2002 wherein he accepted his involvement in land dealings of 3.81 acres with Afshar Ali, where 30-40 decimals of land were sold through him despite not being documented. Further his statement was recorded on 22.04.2023. Therefore, the circumstances which were dealt with Apex Court in the Prem Prakash v. Enforcement Directorate, (supra) is not available herein.
59. Further, the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, 2002 is credible evidence and admissible in evidence in view of Section 50 of the Act.
28
2025:JHHC:12521
60. Further, the respondent ED has placed heavy reliance on the statements of witnesses recorded and the documents produced by them under Section 50 of the said Act to prima facie show the involvement of petitioner in the alleged offence of money laundering under Section 3 thereof.
61. The three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46 has held that the statements of witnesses recorded by Prosecution-ED are admissible in evidence in view of Section 50. Such statements may make out a formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence of money laundering.
62. In the instant case, it has been found that during the course of investigation from the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 50 that the petitioner had indulged, knowingly as the party and is actually involved in all the activities connected with the offence of money laundering.
63. It needs to refer herein that as per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director (supra) the statements of witnesses/accused are admissible in evidence in view of Section 50 of the said Act and such statements may make out a formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the commission of a serious offence of money laundering. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:
14. The first and foremost contention raised by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Luthra would be that the appellant was not named in the FIR nor in first three prosecution/supplementary complaints and has been implicated only on the basis of the statements of witnesses 29 2025:JHHC:12521 recorded pursuant to the summons issued under Section 50 of the PML Act, without there being any material in support thereof.
15. In our opinion, there is hardly any merit in the said submission of Mr. Luthra. In Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement7, a three Judge Bench has categorically observed that the statements of witnesses/accused are admissible in evidence in view of Section 50 of the said Act and such statements may make out a formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the commission of a serious offence of money laundering. Further, as held in Vijay Madanlal (supra), the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Act is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. The offence of money laundering is not dependent or linked to the date on which the scheduled offence or predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date is the date on which the person indulges in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Thus, the involvement of the person in any of the criminal activities like concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so, would constitute the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Act.
64. So far as the issue of period of custody as agitated by learned counsel is concerned, it is settled proposition of law which has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the long incarceration (herein about 24 month) or delay in trial alone cannot be ground to release the petitioner on bail, rather in case of scheduled offences/special offences the seriousness of the matter and the societal impact should be taken in to consideration by the Court concerned while enlarging the petitioner on bail.
65. At this juncture, the learned counsel for ED has submitted at Bar that all endeavour will be taken to expedite the trial.
66. This Court is conscious with the fact that personal liberty is utmost requirement to maintain the individuality of the person concerned but at the same time it is equally settled that the balance between personal liberty and 30 2025:JHHC:12521 societal impact of the alleged offence should be taken care of by the Court concerned.
67. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the offences under UAP Act 1967, in the case of Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109 and taking in to consideration the ratio of judgment of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb 2021) 3 SCC 713 has observed that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail, for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
46. As already discussed, the material available on record indicates the involvement of the appellant in furtherance of terrorist activities backed by members of banned terrorist organisation involving exchange of large quantum of money through different channels which needs to be deciphered and therefore in such a scenario if the appellant is released on bail there is every likelihood that he will influence the key witnesses of the case which might hamper the process of justice. Therefore, mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail.
Hence, the aforesaid argument on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted..
68. It needs to refer herein that bail of other co-accused namely Md. Afsar Ali @ Afsu Khan, Md. Saddam Hussain and Chhavi Ranjan who were also involved in alleged offence, have been rejected by this Court vide order dated 10.2.2025 and 22.03.2024 in B.A. No. 499 of 2025, B.A. No. 1095 of 2025 and B.A. No. 9247 of 2023, respectively.
69. Further the co-accused namely Chhavi Ranjan had preferred Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s). 38676/2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but vide order dated 27.09.2024 the said SLP has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court with direction to respondent ED to expedite the trial.
31
2025:JHHC:12521
70. It is evident that since the earlier bail application of this petitioner has been rejected on merit, therefore, facts of the case need no reiteration. The main question for consideration is if there is any change of circumstance (factual or legal) which requires re-consideration of the bail application of the petitioner and this Court, based upon the discussion made hereinabove, is of the considered view that there is no change of circumstance (factual or legal) is available herein, therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a case where the prayer for bail of the petitioners is to be granted.
71. Accordingly, the instant application stands dismissed.
72. It is made clear that the views expressed in this order are prima-facie for consideration of matter of bail only.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Sudhir Dated:25/04/2025 Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi AFR 32