Jharkhand High Court
Shri Rony Mondal Aged About 47 Years vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 10 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:28015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 5669 of 2025
------
Shri Rony Mondal aged about 47 years, son of Shri Nandalal Mondal, resident of 7/5 Jafferpur Road, 7th Lane, PO: Nana Chandan Pukur, PS : Titagarh, Dist : North 24 Pargana, PIN:700122, Kolkata, West Bengal.
... ... Petitioner Versus Directorate of Enforcement, represented through its Assistant Director, Ranchi Zonal Office, Plot No. 1502/B, Airport Road, P.O. & P.S. Hinoo, District Ranchi, Jharkhand ([email protected]).
... ... Opp. Party
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Chandra, Advocate : Mr. Atul Rai, Advocate : Mr. Vivek Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Opp. Party-ED : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate : Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Varun Girdhar, Advocate
------
C.A.V. on 27/08/2025 Pronounced on 10/09/2025 Prayer:
1. The instant application has been filed under Section 483 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for grant of bail in connection with ECIR Case No.06 of 2024 arising out of ECIR/RNZO/17/2024 dated 18.09.2024 for offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 registered in view of the F.I.R. bearing No.188 of 2024 dated 04.06.2024 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the I.P.C., Section 12 of Passport Act, 1967 and 14A of Foreigners Act, 1946, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi.1
2025:JHHC:28015 Prosecution Case:
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as per the allegation made in the instant ECIR/complaint reads as under:
The case of the prosecution is that an ECIR/ RNZO/17/2024 has been recorded on the basis of FIR No. 188 of 2024 dated 04.06.2024 which was lodged by PS -
Bariatu, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of IPC 1860, Section 12 of Passports Act 1967; Section 14-A of Foreigners Act, 1946.
3. As per the aforesaid FIR, one Nipah Akhtar Khushi aged about 21 years hailing from Bangladesh was brought to Kolkata by a girl named Manisha with the help of another girl named Jhuma on the midnight of 31.05.2024, by illegally facilitating her crossing Bangladesh border from the jungle area, on the pretext of getting her engaged in any work in India.
4. The said Nipah Akhtar Khushi was then brought to Ranchi by car, where she was first kept at Bali Resort, Ranchi for two days with other girls. The Bangladeshi girl namely Nipah Akhtar and another girl Haasi Akhtar alias Hasi Vishwas, also hailing from Bangladesh, were kept at one Apartment with two other different Bangladeshi girls Parveen and Jhuma. Jhuma had helped Nipah Akhtar Khushi in crossing the Bangladesh border to enter into 2 2025:JHHC:28015 India. These girls were brought illegally there for prostitution.
5. On 03.06.2024, taking advantage of the opportunity, the girl Nipah Akhtar Khushi sneaked away and somehow reached to the Police and lodged the complaint.
6. After registering a complaint, on 04.06.2024 at around 15:30 hrs., the police conducted raids and three girls out of which 2 girls hailing from Bangladesh were found inside one room at Bali Resort at Ranchi.
7. It has been revealed that the rooms were booked by one Manisha Rai and her guests were accommodated there. Further upon searching the rooms, police recovered some mobiles and a fake Aadhaar card, which was meant to be used for staying fraudulently in India by one Bangladeshi national connected to the above stated person.
8. Since Sections 420, 467 & 471 IPC 1860 and Section 12 of Passports Act 1967 are scheduled offences under PMLA, 2002, the instant ECIR: RNZO/17/2024 was recorded for investigation under PMLA, 2002.
9. During the course of investigation under PMLA, 2002, the CDR analysis of mobile number used by the suspects were analysed which revealed that one SIM card is registered in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner had frequent contacts and calls with 42 different Bangladeshi 3 2025:JHHC:28015 numbers out of which several were among those with whom Manisha Rai had frequent contacts.
10. Thus, on having reasons to believe that the above stated accused persons along with others are knowingly indulged in illegal activities pertaining to facilitating illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi nationals in India and use, acquisition, and possession of proceeds of crime generated therefrom, searches were conducted on 12.11.2024 under Section 17 of PMLA, 2002 in the instant ECIR at 17 premises under the use and occupation of the above mentioned persons and premises linked to them, including the premises of the said Pinki Basu Mukherjee, Rony Mondal and Pintu Haldar.
11. During the course of investigation, it has been revealed that the accused Rony Mondal is a Bangladeshi national born on 07.07.1977 in Sologhor Village, Srinagar, Munshiganj, Bangladesh. He illegally migrated to India through the Benapole-Petrapole border in search of better livelihood opportunities. He was initially residing in Hooghly, West Bengal, thereafter, he returned to Bangladesh before migrating again to India in 2002. During his stay, he acquired fraudulent ration cards for his family and subsequently obtained various Indian citizenship documents, including a passport, PAN card, Aadhaar card, and voter ID, based on forged records. He extended this 4 2025:JHHC:28015 fraudulent activity to his family members, enabling them to open bank accounts and access services in India. Additionally, he engaged in multiple fraudulent activities, including acquiring assets, evading taxes, and accumulating wealth through undisclosed means. A search conducted on 12.11.2024 at his premises uncovered an unlicensed gun along with nine live bullets. Despite being a Bangladeshi national, this petitioner acquired substantial assets in India by posing as an Indian citizen using fake documents.
12. During his statement, Rony Mondal admitted that he did not possess a license for the gun recovered from his residence during the search conducted on 12.11.2024, along with nine live bullets, both of which were kept illegally. Additionally, cash amounting to 5 lakhs was seized during the search, including brand-new ₹500 notes in consecutive serial numbers. He also admitted of having previously obtained ration against fraudulent ration cards issued in his name and the names of his family members.
13. During the course of statement recorded under PMLA, it revealed that the accused/petitioner Rony has amassed significant assets in India, including immovable properties such as land in Barrackpore (purchased in 2013 jointly with his mother, Jyostana Rani Mondal), land in Mohanpur (purchased in 2016-2017, where he constructed 5 2025:JHHC:28015 Jyotsana Villa Hostel in 2020-2021) and land in Debpukur (purchased in 2020-2021 in his name). He also owns movable assets, including jewelry worth approximately 50 lakhs and Fixed Deposits (FDs) totaling ₹70 lakhs.
14. He has leased the Jyostana Villa for a monthly rent of Rs. 80,000. In addition to this, he runs a construction business, operates a clothing business and his annual income is around Rs. 15 lakhs. Further, during his statement, the accused Rony Mondal admitted to contacting brokers to obtain fake documents, paying various amounts for each document, and later acquiring a fake passport in 2008.
15. In his statement dated 20.11.2024, the accused person Rony Mondal confirmed that the documents-PAN cards, voter cards, Aadhaar cards, and ration cards- recovered during the search on 12.11.2024 belonged to his family members. He acknowledged that, while opening bank accounts in India, he declared himself an Indian citizen, using his PAN card as proof of identity. Furthermore, he stated that he had an Indian passport, while his family members held Bangladeshi passports. He also confessed to evading taxes by underreporting his income in his Income Tax Returns (ITRs) while continuing to file fraudulent ITRs for family members to maintain their accounts in India.
6
2025:JHHC:28015
16. During the course of searches at the premises under the use and occupation of Rony Mondal, several incriminating material and records/documents including passport No. K 12228139 and H 1728795 in the name of Rony Mondal cancelled by the Passport Seva Kendra, Kolkata, along with unauthorized arms and ammunition as well as cash amounting to Rs. 5 lacs were recovered along with gold jewellery.
17. Further, show cause notice issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India was recovered from the said premises. As per the letter issued by the Regional Passport Office (Kolkata) bearing ref. no. R- 612/FM5018/19/IW/2987 dated 30.08.2019 it was found that Rony Mondal is a Bangladeshi National as per immigration data and has acquired Indian citizenship fraudulently on the basis of false documentation, and made false statement to support the documents.
18. This is a serious case involving illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi nationals in India and acquiring citizenship and settlement by use of fake documents. Also, accused persons are also a threat to national security and the economy as they are deeply involved in grave and heinous activities that have cross-border implications and inter- state operations.
7
2025:JHHC:28015
19. Further, there is strong apprehension that the Accused persons will evade the process of investigation and may abscond. Further, there is a possibility that the said persons may hamper the investigation by influencing the witnesses and other persons associated with the case.
20. On having material in possession and reasons to believe recorded in writing, that the accused persons are guilty of the offence of Money Laundering for the reasons, as discussed above Accused No. 4 viz. Rony Mondal was arrested on 12.11.2024 in the ongoing investigation and since the said accused was arrested outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Learned Special Court (PMLA), Ranchi and could not be produced before the Ld. Special Court (PMLA), Ranchi within 24 hours of his arrest u/s 19 of PMLA, 2002.
21. Hence, the accused was produced before the Court of the Ld. Chief Judge, City Sessions Court at Kolkata under Section 187 of BNSS (earlier 167 of Cr.P.C) r/w Section 19 of PMLA, 2002 for issuance of order of transit remand which was given by the Ld. Court vide order dated 13.11.2024.
22. The present petitioner preferred MCA No. 222 of 2025 for grant of bail which was rejected vide order dated 22.03.2025 by learned Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi. 8
2025:JHHC:28015
23. Hence the present petition has been preferred for the grant of bail.
Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner:
24. Mr. Praveen Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeking relief for grant of bail has submitted that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of PMLA is not made out against the petitioner as the scheduled offence in Bariatu P.S. Case No.188 of 2024 is not with regard to the property confiscated from the petitioner, hence, PMLA proceedings against the petitioner cannot be sustained.
25. Learned counsel has further submitted that alleged offence of the petitioner has no connection whatsoever with FIR number 188 of 2024. In Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary Versus Union of India (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that any property can be termed as proceeds of crime under section 2(1)(u) of PMLA only when it can be said to have been derived from the scheduled offence and without the said link, the petitioner cannot be said to have been involved in money laundering.
26. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has no relation or connection with the scheduled offence. The proceeds of crime have not been connected to the schedule offence. Hence there is no property that has been derived by the petitioner from the 9 2025:JHHC:28015 scheduled offence and in the absence of any material or even and allegation that the property alleged attributed as proceeds of crime to the petitioner has been derived through the scheduled offence the offence of money laundering cannot be said to be made out against the petitioner.
27. It has been contended that the opposite party has failed to prove that the article and cash seized from the premise of the accused is a "proceeds of crime" as defined under section 2(u) of the PMLA, Act 2002, which is sine qua non in proving any accused guilty under PMLA,2002. So, it would not be appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case that innocent persons be punished behind the bars.
28. It has been contended that it is the case of the prosecution that the subject property is proceeds of crime acquired and possessed by the petitioner which has no legal or factual basis. The subject property is the hard- earned money by the petitioner which cannot be by any stretch of imagination termed as proceeds of crime.
29. Learned counsel has further contended that recovery of cash deposit and ornaments does not make out a case of money laundering against the petitioner. The opposite party-ED has not been able to show that the fixed 10 2025:JHHC:28015 deposit and the ornaments were proceeds of crime and were being depicted by the petitioner as untainted property.
30. It has been submitted that the cash seized from the petitioner is only to the tune of Rs 5 Lakh which can be answered by the fact that petitioner is having an annual income of Rs 15 Lakhs per annum and is a businessman which can be seen by the ITR Filling of the accused/petitioner for last 3 years.
31. Learned counsel has further submitted that the jewellery seized from the premise of the accused/petitioner is necessary wearing apparel and opposite party has failed to prove that the jewellery seized are in disproportional to the income of the accused/petitioner.
32. It has further been contented that the accused/petitioner shall never try to influence the investigation and co-operate with the trial and since the accused/petitioner is a respectable person of the locality hence, if released on regular bail, there is no chance of his absconding or evading the trial.
33. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 14.11.2024.
34. Based upon the aforesaid grounds, learned senior counsel has submitted that the petitioner may kindly be allowed on regular bail.
11
2025:JHHC:28015 Argument on behalf of Respondent-ED:
35. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the opp. party-ED has taken the following ground in opposition:
(i) Learned counsel for the Opp. Party-ED has submitted that the investigation revealed that the accused/petitioner Rony Mondal is a Bangladeshi national born on 07.07.1977 in Sologhor Village, Srinagar, Munshiganj, Bangladesh. He illegally migrated to India through the Benapole-Petrapole border in search of better livelihood opportunities.
Initially he was residing in Hooghly, West Bengal. Thereafter, he returned to Bangladesh before migrating again to India in 2002. During his stay, he fraudulently acquired ration cards for his family and subsequently obtained various Indian citizenship documents, including a passport, PAN card, Aadhaar card, and voter ID, based on forged records.
(ii) Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner extended this fraudulent activity to his family members, enabling them to open bank accounts and access services in India. Additionally, he engaged in multiple fraudulent activities, including 12 2025:JHHC:28015 acquiring assets, evading taxes, and accumulating wealth through undisclosed means.
(iii) It has been submitted that an unlicensed gun, along with nine live bullets was recovered from his possession during the search dated 12.11.2024.
(iv) Learned counsel has further submitted that despite being a Bangladeshi national, Rony Mondal acquired substantial assets in India by posing as an Indian citizen using fake documents.
(v) In his statement, Rony Mondal admitted that he did not possess a license for the gun recovered from his residence along with nine live bullets, both of which were kept illegally.
(vi) The cash amounting to 5 lakhs was seized during the search, including fresh ₹500 notes in consecutive serial numbers. The petitioner claimed he had a personal interest in collecting new currency and exchanging old notes for new ones, but he was unable to provide any documentary proof for this claim.
(vii) The petitioner has also admitted to having previously obtained ration against forged ration cards issued in his name and the names of his family members.
(viii) During the course of the statement recorded under PMLA, it revealed that the accused Rony has amassed significant assets in India, including immovable 13 2025:JHHC:28015 properties such as land in Barrackpore (purchased in 2013 jointly with his mother, Jyostana Rani Mondal), land in Mohanpur (purchased in 2016-2017, where he constructed Jyotsana Villa Hostel in 2020- 2021) and land in Debpukur (purchased in 2020-2021 in his name).
(ix) Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner also owns movable assets, including jewellery worth approximately 50 lakhs and Fixed Deposits (FDs) totaling ₹70 lakhs. He has leased the Jyostana Villa for a monthly rent of Rs. 80,000. In addition to this, he runs a construction business, and operates a clothing business, and his annual income is around Rs. 15 lakhs.
(x) Further, during his statement, the accused Rony Mondal admitted to contacting brokers to obtain fake documents, paying various amounts for each document, and later acquiring a fake passport in 2008.
(xi) Learned counsel for the ED has further submitted that during the course of search at the residence of the accused person Rony Mondal, a Show-cause was recovered which had been issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India, wherein, the contents of the letter issued by Regional Passport Office 14 2025:JHHC:28015 (Kolkata) bearing ref. no. R-
612/FM5018/19/IW/2987 dated 30.08.2019 was quoted as "the applicant, i.e., Sh. Rony Mondal, is a Bangladeshi National as per profiling and immigration data available with Immigration Office. It was further alleged that the applicant had acquired the Indian Passport on production of Indian documents acquired on the basis of false statements. The O/o Foreigner's Regional Registration Officer, Kolkata to substantiate this claim, had quoted the Bangladeshi passports issued in r/o applicant's parents"
(xii) Learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that from the above observations of the MEA, it is established that the said Rony Mondal is a Bangladeshi national, who acquired Indian citizenship fraudulently on the basis of false documentation and indulged in illegal activities pertaining to illegally acquiring Indian citizenship as well as aiding several other Bangladeshi in illegal infiltration in India.
(xiii) It has further been submitted that the petitioner in his statement dated 20.11.2024, has confirmed that the documents-PAN cards, voter cards, Aadhaar cards, and ration cards-recovered during the search on 12.11.2024 belonged to his family members. He acknowledged that, while opening bank accounts in 15 2025:JHHC:28015 India, he declared himself an Indian citizen, using his PAN card as proof of identity. Furthermore, he stated that he had an Indian passport, while his family members held Bangladeshi passports. Rony operates several bank accounts in India, both individually and jointly with family members. He also confessed about evading taxes by under reporting his income in his Income Tax Returns (ITRs) while continuing to file fraudulent ITRs for family members to maintain their accounts in India.
(xiv) It has further been submitted that the digital evidence was retrieved from a seized iPhone 14 Plus belonging to Rony Mondal. The device contained images of PAN cards, Aadhaar cards, and Bangladeshi passports belonging to his family members. The passports of his mother, wife, son, and daughter were found, with issuance dates ranging from 2019 to 2021. These documents listed Rony Mondal as the emergency contact, providing an address in Tanti Bazar, Dhaka, Bangladesh, and a Bangladeshi phone number, which was saved as "Nandi Babu" in his mobile phone.
(xv) Learned counsel for the E.D. has submitted that the evidence gathered during the search revealed that Rony Mondal was part of a larger syndicate operating across West Bengal and Jharkhand, facilitating the 16 2025:JHHC:28015 illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi nationals into India.
This network was engaged in various illicit activities and generated substantial proceeds of crime. The nature of the evidence clearly established that Rony Mondal and his associates were knowingly involved in generating, acquiring, and utilizing proceeds of crime.
36. Learned counsel for the Opp. Party-ED, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is not a fit case for grant of regular bail in favour of the petitioner. Analysis:
37. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the argument advanced on behalf of parties as also the judgments relied upon by the parties and other materials available on record.
38. This Court before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to discuss herein the admitted factual aspects of the instant case.
39. The investigation under the PMLA, 2002 was initiated by recording an ECIR bearing no. ECIR/RNZO/17/2024, dated 18.09.2024 based on FIR No. 188 of 2024 dated 04.06.2024 lodged at P.S. Bariatu, Dist- Ranchi U/ss 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 IPC, section 12 of the 17 2025:JHHC:28015 Passport Act, 1967 and section 14A of the Foreigners Act, 1946.
40. As per the aforesaid FIR, one Nipah Akhtar Khushi aged about 21 years hailing from Bangladesh was brought to Kolkata by a girl named Manisha with the help of another girl named Jhuma on the midnight of 31.05.2024, by illegally facilitating her crossing Bangladesh border from the jungle area, on the pretext of getting her engaged in any work in India. The said Nipah Akhtar Khushi was then brought to Ranchi by car, where she was first kept at Bali Resort, Ranchi for two days with other girls. The Bangladeshi girl namely Nipah Akhtar and another girl Haasi Akhtar alias Hasi Vishwas, also hailing from Bangladesh, were kept at one Apartment with two other different Bangladeshi girls Parveen and Jhuma.
41. On 03.06.2024, taking advantage of the opportunity, the girl Nipah Akhtar Khushi sneaked away and somehow reached to the Police and lodged the complaint.
42. After registering a complaint, on 04.06.2024 at around 15:30 hrs., the police conducted raids and three girls out of which 2 girls hailing from Bangladesh were found inside one room at Bali Resort at Ranchi.
43. It was revealed that the rooms were booked by one Manisha Rai and her guests were accommodated there. 18
2025:JHHC:28015 Further upon searching the rooms, police recovered some mobiles and a fake Aadhaar card, which was meant to stay fraudulently in India by one Bangladeshi national connected to the above stated person.
44. Accordingly, the trial court has taken the cognizance of the aforesaid offence. Thereafter, petitioner had preferred the Misc. Cri. Application being MCA 222/2025 for his bail, which was dismissed vide Order dated 22.03.2025.
45. Hence the present application has been preferred before this Court for grant of regular bail.
46. Before appreciating to the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the parties, this Court thinks fit to refer the provision of law 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.
47. 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.
19
2025:JHHC:28015
48. It needs to refer herein the definition of "proceeds of crime" has been provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002 wherefrom it is evident that "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.
49. 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.
50. 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 20 2025:JHHC:28015 also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.
51. 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.
52. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x) which means schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 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.
53. The offence of money laundering has been defined under Section 3 of the Act, 2002, it is evident from the said 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, 21 2025:JHHC:28015 acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.
54. 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.
55. The various provisions of the Act, 2002 alongwith 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.
56. 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 22 2025:JHHC:28015 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.
57. It needs to refer herein the purport of Section 45(1)(i)(ii), 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 a 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.
58. Sub-section (2) thereof puts limitation on granting bail specific in subsection (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.
59. 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 23 2025:JHHC:28015 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.
60. 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) for ready reference, the relevant 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 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 24 2025:JHHC:28015 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."
61. 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), has 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. It 25 2025:JHHC:28015 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.
62. 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.
63. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through 26 2025:JHHC:28015 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 Cr.P.C 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.
64. 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 accused.
65. It needs to refer herein that 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 27 2025:JHHC:28015 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 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.
66. The reason for making reference of this judgment is that in the Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr, (2022) 10 SCC 51 , 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 28 2025:JHHC:28015 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.
67. Now adverting to the fact of the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation leveled against the present petitioner cannot be said to attract the ingredient of Section 3 of PMLA.
68. While on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the ED has submitted by referring to various paragraphs of prosecution complaint that the offence is very much available attracting the offence under provisions of PML Act.
69. This Court, in order to appreciate the rival submission, is of the view that various paragraphs of prosecution complaint upon which the reliance has been placed on behalf of both the parties, needs to be referred herein so as to come to the conclusion as to whether the parameter as fixed under Section 45(ii) of the Act 2002, is being fulfilled in order to reach to the conclusion that it is a fit case where regular bail is to be granted or not.
70. In order to reach to conclusion regarding alleged culpability of the accused/applicant in commission and accumulation of 'proceeds of crime', this Court needs to 29 2025:JHHC:28015 refer the relevant paragraphs of the prosecution complaint, which reads as under:
MODUS ADOPTED BY RONY MONDAL 8.29 During the course of investigation, it is revealed that the accused person Rony Mondal is a Bangladeshi national born on 07.07.1977 in Sologhor Village, Srinagar, Munshiganj, Bangladesh. He illegally migrated to India through the Benapole-Petrapole border in search of better livelihood opportunities. Initially residing briefly in Hooghly, West Bengal, he returned to Bangladesh before migrating again to India in 2002. During his stay, he acquired fraudulent ration cards for his family and subsequently obtained various Indian citizenship documents, including a passport, PAN card, Aadhaar card, and voter ID, based on forged records.
He extended this fraudulent activity to his family members, enabling them to open bank accounts and access services in India. Additionally, he engaged in multiple fraudulent activities, including acquiring assets, evading taxes, and accumulating wealth through undisclosed means. A search conducted on 12.11.2024 at his premises uncovered an unlicensed gun along with nine live bullets. Despite being a Bangladeshi national, Rony acquired substantial assets in India by posing as an Indian citizen using fake documents. 8.32 During the course of statement recorded under PMLA, it revealed that the accused Rony has amassed significant assets in India, including immovable properties such as land in Barrackpore (purchased in 2013 jointly with his mother, Jyostana Rani Mondal), land in Mohanpur (purchased in 2016-2017, where he constructed Jyotsana Villa Hostel in 2020-2021), and land in Debpukur (purchased in 2020-2021 in his name). He also owns movable assets, including jewelry worth approximately 250 lakhs and Fixed Deposits (FDs) totaling 270 lakhs. He has leased the Jyostana Villa for a monthly rent of Rs. 80,000. In addition to this, he runs a construction business, operates a clothing business and his annual income is around Rs. 15 lakhs. Further, during his statement, the accused Rony Mor dal admitted to contacting 30 2025:JHHC:28015 brokers to obtain fake documents, paying various amounts for each document, and later acquiring a fake passport in 2008.
8.33 During the course of search at the residence of the accused person Rony Mondal, a Show-cause was recovered which had been issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India, wherein, the contents of the letter issued by Regional Passport Office (Kolkata) bearing ref. no. R- 612/FM5018/19/IW/2987 dated 30.08.2019 was quoted as
-
"The applicant, te., Sh. Rony Mondal, is a Bangladeshi National as per profiling and immigration data available with Immigration Office. It was further alleged that the applicant had acquired the Indian Passport on production of Indian documents acquired on the basis of false statements. The Oo Foreigner's Regional Registration Officer, Kolkata to substantiate this claim, had quoted the Bangladeshi passports issued in r/o applicant's parents"
EVIDENCE SEIZED DURING SEARCH FROM THE PREMISES UNDER THE USE AND OCCUPATION OF RONY MONDAL EVIDENCE 15 During the course of searches at the premises under the use and occupation of Accused No. 1 i.e. Rony Mondal, several incriminating material and records/documents including passport No K 12228139 and H 1728795 in the name of Rony Mondal cancelled by the Passport Seva Kendra, Kolkata, along with unauthorized arms and ammunition as well as cash amounting to Rs. 5 lacs were recovered along with gold jewellery was seized. Further, SCN issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Govt. of India was recovered from the said premises. As per the letter issued by the Regional Passport Office (Kolkata) bearing ref. no. R- 612/FM5018/19/IW/2987 dated 30.08.2019 seized from its premises during the search, it was found that Rony Mondal is a Bangladeshi National as per immigration data and has acquired Indian citizenship fraudulently on the basis of false documentation, and made false statement to support the 31 2025:JHHC:28015 documents. Further, the office of Foreigner's Regional Registration Officer, Kolkata, to substantiate this claim, had quoted the Bangladeshi passports issued in respect of Rony Mondal's parents. Hence, it is evident that Rony Mondal is a Bangladeshi national, who acquired Indian citizenship fraudulently on the basis of false documentation and was involved in illegal activities by providing aid to Bangladeshi infiltrators to enter Indian borders and also helping them in conducting illegal activities on Indian Territory. It is pertinent to mention that Rony Mondal could not provide any satisfactory explanation of the cash, jewellery and ammunition seized from his premises. It is further pertinent to mention here that Aadhar cards, PAN Cards, ration Cards and Voter IDs of the family members of Rony Mondal were also recovered during the said search.
EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE MOBILE PHONES OF RONY MONDAL During the course of search dated 12.11.2024 at the premises under the under use and occupation of Rony Mondal at 7/5, Jafferpur Road, 7th lane, P.O.- Nona Chandan Pukur, P.s.- Titagarh, Dist- North 24 Praganas, Kolkata-700122, mobile phone of Rony Mondal having the following specifications was seized.
CONCLUSION 8.36 Thus, the Accused Persons are part of a bigger syndicate that operates extensively and in a discreet manner across West Bengal and parts of Jharkhand, including Ranchi. The said persons are engaged in facilitating the illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi nationals into India for the purpose of carrying out illicit activities in lieu of generating proceeds of crime. Hence, the said Accused persons are knowingly and directly involved in processes and activities connected with the generation and acquisition of proceeds of crime as well as their use which are derived out of illegal activities which are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. The generation, acquisition and use of the proceeds of crime out of the above-stated activities are corroborated by the seizure of mobile phones 32 2025:JHHC:28015 containing various incriminating chats relating to monetary transactions in lieu of above-stated illegal activities including prostitution by these girls. During the course of searches, documents have also been recovered which contain the details/list of the payments in lieu of the prostitution racket being run by the above syndicate by the involvement of the above-mentioned Bangladeshi Nationals.
10. PROCESS AND ACTIVITY CONNECTED WITH PROCEEDS OF CRIME AND ROLE OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS IN OFFENCE OF MONEY LAUNDERING -
The processes and activities connected with the proceeds of crime in the offense of money laundering are generation of illicit financial gains through criminal activities such as cross- border human trafficking, forgery, and the smuggling of individuals. These activities include coercing victims into immoral practices, fall under scheduled offenses specified by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, such as Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 14-A of the Foreigners Act.
The modus operandi involved the use of forged documents, including Aadhaar cards and other identity proofs, to disguise trafficked individuals as legitimate residents, thereby facilitating their illegal residency and activities in India. Accused persons namely such as Pinki Basu Mukherjee and Sandip Chowdhary, played a crucial role by coordinating logistics, providing shelter, and creating false identity documents. These facilitators worked with brokers and traffickers, aiding in the transportation and exploitation of victims for financial profit.
Money laundering activities in this case included the concealment of illicit proceeds through cash transactions and digital payment methods like UPI. The funds derived from criminal activities were also deposited into bank accounts as legitimate earnings. Assets and properties have been accumulated using these proceeds as untainted properties. The proceeds acquired out of such activities were distributed among network members, which demonstrate the organized nature of the operation.33
2025:JHHC:28015 The accused persons knowingly involved and became a party of the syndicate thereby enabling the generation, acquisition and possession of proceeds of crime which constitute the offense of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA.
The detailed role of the accused persons is given below - Name of person Process and activity connected with proceeds of crime in which the accused persons are involved and their role in the offence of money laundering:
Rony Mondal (Accused No. 4) Rony Mondal is knowingly involved in the acquisition, possession, and concealment of proceeds of crime, as well as in activities that directly support illegal infiltration and fraudulent acquisition of Indian citizenship by Bangladeshi nationals. Investigation revealed that he is a Bangladeshi national and illegally infiltrated into India and obtained Aadhaar card, PAN card, an Indian passport, in fraudulent manner to pose as an Indian citizen. Proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. Rs. 7,21,19,030/-has been deposited in cash which have been identified in his bank accounts. During a search conducted on 12.11.2024 at premises of the accused person Rony Mondal, Bangladeshi passports, a fake Indian passport, unauthorized arms and ammunition, gold jewelry, and in proceeds of crime in cash amounting to 25 lakh were recovered and seized, which were beyond explanation. The accused person Rony Mondal has also acquired an immovable property in North 24 Parganas, Kolkata. He was directly a party with Bangladeshi nationals for their illegal entry into India and was part of the syndicate which operate illegally in India for generating and acquiring proceeds of crime using fake Indian identity documents. The same is also established from the transactions in the bank accounts under his use and control.
Thus, the accused person Rony Mondal is directly involved in the acquisition, possession, use, concealment, and projection of proceeds of crime as untainted property. By these acts, he 34 2025:JHHC:28015 has committed the offense of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002, and is liable to be punished under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002.
71. It is evident from prosecution complaint that during the search dated 12.11.2024 at his premises, recovery was made of cash 5,00,000/-in new 500 denomination notes, gold jewellery worth 36,41,927/-and an unlicensed firearm with 9 live rounds. Further Scrutiny of multiple bank accounts under his control revealed total cash deposits of 7,21,19,030/- besides other credits, clearly establishing laundering of proceeds of crime through layering and projection as untainted asset.
72. Further it has come during investigation that petitioner is a foreign national, illegally residing in India with forged identity papers and his deep nexus with cross-
border traffickers, fraudulent procurement of documents, and creation of assets in India has come on record. From examination of his bank accounts revealed cash deposits of 7,21,19,030/-apart from other credits, wholly disproportionate to his claimed income and without any legitimate explanation. Further, CDR analysis showed that the petitioner was in frequent contact with 42 Bangladeshi mobile numbers, directly linking him with traffickers.
73. Thus, the investigation revealed the existence of a well-organised syndicate engaged in cross-border human trafficking, creation of forged Indian identity documents, 35 2025:JHHC:28015 and laundering of proceeds of crime through layering in multiple bank accounts. Further the seizure of 5 lakhs in cash, jewellery worth 36,41,927/-, incriminating documents, fake passports, SCN from MEA confirming the petitioner's Bangladeshi nationality, and analysis of bank accounts showing unexplained deposits of 7.21 crores clearly establish the foundation for the charge of money laundering.
74. Thus, in nutshell it is evident that the petitioner is a Bangladeshi national who illegally infiltrated into India, obtained Indian documents through fraudulent means, facilitated human trafficking, and acquired, possessed, and laundered proceeds of crime in the form of cash, gold, bank deposits, and other assets. Hence, prima-facie his actions squarely attract the provisions of Section 3 of PMLA.
75. At this juncture it needs to refer herein that it is settled connotation of law that at the stage of considering bail, the duty of the Court is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities and Court should not venture into the merit of the case by analyzing that whether conviction is possible or not. Meaning thereby at this stage the Court has to see the prima facie case only. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors(supra) has observed that the Court while dealing 36 2025:JHHC:28015 with the application for grant of bail need not to delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the court based on available material on record is required.
76. From the record prima facie it appears that the petitioner is directly indulged in all the activities connected with the offence of money laundering as defined u/s 3 of PMLA, 2002.Further, the role of the petitioner in the laundering of proceeds of crime generated out of the commission of scheduled offence has been discussed in detail in the prosecution complaint as the paragraphs of the prosecution complaint abovementioned.
77. It requires to refer herein that by virtue of Section 24 of the PMLA, the respondent ED is not required to conclusively establish the applicant's guilt at the pre-trial stage, rather, the applicant must demonstrate that the proceeds of crime attributed to him are not linked to money laundering. In the absence of any rebuttal by the applicant, the presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA stands in favor of the respondent, thereby, justifying his continued detention.
78. Be it noted that the legal presumption under Section 24(a) of the Act 2002, would apply when the person is charged with the offence of money-laundering and his direct or indirect involvement in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, is established. The 37 2025:JHHC:28015 existence of proceeds of crime is, therefore, a foundational fact, to be established by the prosecution, including the involvement of the person in any process or activity connected therewith. Once these foundational facts are established by the prosecution, the onus must then shift on the person facing charge of offence of money- laundering to rebut the legal presumption that the proceeds of crime are not involved in money-laundering, by producing evidence which is within his personal knowledge of the accused.
79. In other words, the expression "presume" is not conclusive. It also does not follow that the legal presumption that the proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering is to be invoked by the authority or the court, without providing an opportunity to the person to rebut the same by leading evidence within his personal knowledge.
80. Such onus also flows from the purport of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Whereby, he must rebut the legal presumption in the manner he chooses to do and as is permissible in law, including by replying under Section 313 of the 1973 Code or even by cross-examining prosecution witnesses. The person would get enough opportunity in the proceeding before the authority or the court, as the case may be. He may be able to discharge his burden by showing that he is not involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
38
2025:JHHC:28015
81. Thus, in light of the aforesaid principles and the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (Supra), this Court must determine whether the foundational facts necessary to invoke the presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA have been established by the respondent/ED.
82. From the record it is established that the said Rony Mondal is a Bangladeshi national, who acquired Indian citizenship fraudulently on the basis of false documentation and indulged in illegal activities pertaining to illegally acquiring Indian citizenship as well as aiding several other Bangladeshi in illegal infiltration in India. Further in his statement dated 20.11.2024, the petitioner had confirmed that the documents-PAN cards, voter cards, Aadhaar cards, and ration cards-recovered during the search on 12.11.2024 belonged to his family members. He acknowledged that, while opening bank accounts in India, he declared himself an Indian citizen, using his PAN card as proof of identity. Furthermore, he stated that he had an Indian passport, while his family members held Bangladeshi passports.
83. Further from perusal of the material available on record it is revealed that the total cash deposits in the accounts held and used by the present petitioner is Rs. 7,21,19,030/- in the bank accounts identified as on the day of investigation 39 2025:JHHC:28015
84. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances the presumption under Section 24 of the Act 2002 is available herein.
85. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the name of the petitioner is not transpired in the predicate FIR therefore, she cannot be connected with the scheduled offence.
86. In the aforesaid context it requires to refer herein that Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, (supra) as well as in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors (supra), it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA is an independent offence. The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically laid down that it is not necessary for a person to be shown as an accused in the scheduled offence for him to be prosecuted under the PMLA, provided there exist proceeds of crime derived from a scheduled offence and the person has indulged in or facilitated any process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime.
87. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pavana Dibbur vs. The Directorate of Enforcement (supra) has considered the effect of the appellant not being shown as an accused in the predicate offence by taking into consideration Section 3 of the Act, 2002. 40
2025:JHHC:28015
88. Based upon the definition Clause (u) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act 2002 which defines "proceeds of crime", the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that clause (v) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of PMLA defines "property" to mean any property or assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible.
89. 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.
90. It has further been observed by referring the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra) that the condition precedent for the existence of proceeds of crime is the existence of a scheduled offence. At paragraph-15 the finding has been given therein that on plain reading of Section 3 of the Act, 2002, an offence under Section 3 can be committed after a scheduled offence 41 2025:JHHC:28015 is committed. By giving an example, it has been clarified that if a person who is unconnected with the scheduled offence, knowingly assists the concealment of the proceeds of crime or knowingly assists the use of proceeds of crime, in that case, he can be held guilty of committing an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. Therefore, it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence. For ready reference relevant paragraphs are being quoted as under:
"15. The condition precedent for the existence of proceeds of crime is the existence of a scheduled offence. On this aspect, it is necessary to refer to the decision of this Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] . In para 109 of the said decision [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] , this Court held thus : (SCC p. 166) "109. Tersely put, it is only such property which is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence that can be regarded as proceeds of crime. The authorities under the 2002 Act cannot resort to action against any person for money laundering on an assumption that the property recovered by them must be proceeds of crime and that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless the same is registered with the jurisdictional police or pending inquiry by way of complaint before the competent forum. For, the expression "derived or obtained" is indicative of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence already accomplished. Similarly, in the event the person named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally absolved by a court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case (scheduled offence) against him/her, 42 2025:JHHC:28015 there can be no action for money laundering against such a person or person claiming through him in relation to the property linked to the stated scheduled offence. This interpretation alone can be countenanced on the basis of the provisions of the 2002 Act, in particular Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3. Taking any other view would be rewriting of these provisions and disregarding the express language of definition clause "proceeds of crime", as it obtains as of now."
(emphasis in original and supplied)
16. In paras 134 and 135, this Court held thus : (Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] , SCC p. 182) "134. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply clear that the offence of money laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. The process or activity can be in any form -- be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so. Thus, 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 scheduled offence -- except the proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a result of that crime.
135.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 have been committed before the same had been notified as scheduled offence for the purpose of the 2002 Act, but 43 2025:JHHC:28015 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 Explanation inserted in 2019 is of no consequence as it does not alter or enlarge the scope of Section 3 at all."
(emphasis supplied)
17. Coming back to Section 3 PMLA, on its plain reading, an offence under Section 3 can be committed after a scheduled offence is committed. For example, let us take the case of a person who is unconnected with the scheduled offence, knowingly assists the concealment of the proceeds of crime or knowingly assists the use of proceeds of crime. In that case, he can be held guilty of committing an offence under Section 3 PMLA. To give a concrete example, the offences under Sections 384 to 389IPC relating to "extortion" are scheduled offences included in Para 1 of the Schedule to PMLA. An accused may commit a crime of extortion covered by Sections 384 to 389IPC and extort money. Subsequently, a person unconnected with the offence of extortion may assist the said accused in the concealment of the proceeds of extortion. In such a case, the person who assists the accused in the scheduled offence for concealing the proceeds of the crime of extortion can be guilty of the offence of money-laundering. Therefore, it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 PMLA is 44 2025:JHHC:28015 alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence. What is held in para 135 of the decision of this Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] supports the above conclusion. The conditions precedent for attracting the offence under Section 3 PMLA are that there must be a scheduled offence and that there must be proceeds of crime in relation to the scheduled offence as defined in clause (u) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 PMLA.
91. Admittedly the petitioner has not been arraigned as an accused in the Schedule offence but the non-inclusion of the petitioner's name in any way absolves him under the stringent framework of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Further, when a scheduled offence is registered as in FIR No. 188/2024 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC, Section 12 of the Passports Act, and Section 14A of the Foreigners Act, the Enforcement Directorate is empowered to trace the proceeds of crime and identify all persons involved, regardless of whether they were specifically named in the FIR.
92. From the preceding paragraphs it is evident that the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that an accused under PMLA need not necessarily be named in the scheduled offence if they are involved in laundering proceeds of crime. The Hon'ble Court clarified that the offence of money laundering is independent of the predicate offence. An accused need not be part of the initial crime to be held liable for laundering the proceeds; the focus of the law is on the 45 2025:JHHC:28015 act of concealing, possessing, or converting the proceeds of crime. Thus, even those who facilitate this process, without being involved in the original criminal activity, are liable for prosecution under PMLA.
93. Therefore, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is not fit to be accepted.
94. 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 societal impact of the alleged offence should be taken care of by the Court concerned.
95. 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 (supra) 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 46 2025:JHHC:28015 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."
96. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled position of law it is evident that mere delay in trial and custody of few months (9 months herein) pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail.
97. Further it needs to refer herein that the Section 45 of the PMLA turns the principle of bail is the rule and jail is the exception on its head. The power of the Court to grant bail is further conditioned upon the satisfaction of the twin conditions prescribed under Section 45(1) (i) and (ii) PMLA. While undertaking this exercise, the Court is required to take a prima facie view on the basis of materials collected during investigation. The expression used in Section 45 of PMLA are "reasonable grounds for believing" which means that the Court has to find, from a prima facie view of the materials collected during investigation that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed the offence and that there is no likelihood of him committing an offence while on bail. Recently, in Tarun 47 2025:JHHC:28015 Kumar v Assistant Directorate of Enforcement, (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held 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."
98. Herein The allegation against this accused/petitioner is that accused/petitioner Rony Mondal is knowingly involved in the acquisition, possession, and concealment of proceeds of crime, as well as in activities that directly support illegal infiltration and fraudulent acquisition of Indian citizenship by Bangladeshi nationals. Investigation revealed that he is a Bangladeshi national and illegally infiltrated into India and obtained Aadhar card, PAN card, 48 2025:JHHC:28015 an Indian passport, in fraudulent manner to pose as an Indian citizen. Proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 7,21,19,030/- has been deposited in cash which have been identified in his bank accounts. During a search conducted on 12.11.2024 at premises of the accused person Rony Mondal, Bangladeshi passports, a fake Indian passport, unauthorized arms and ammunition, gold jewelry, and in proceeds of crime in cash amounting to 5 lakhs were recovered and seized, which were beyond explanation. The petitioner has also acquired an immovable property in North 24 Parganas, Kolkata.
99. Further it has come on record that the petitioner was directly a party with Bangladeshi nationals for their illegal entry into India and was part of the syndicate which operate illegally in India facilitating the illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi nationals into India and through that illegal activity, thus he has been involved in generating and acquiring proceeds of crime using fake Indian identity documents.
100. Herein there is sufficient material to prima-facie show that the petitioner has committed the offence of money laundering as defined u/s 3 of PMLA, 2002 and is liable to be punished u/s 4 of PMLA, 2002.
101. This Court, based upon the imputation as has been discovered in course of investigation, is of the view that what 49 2025:JHHC:28015 has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that proceeds cannot be said to be proceeds of crime is not fit to be acceptable.
102. Thus, taking into consideration the grave nature of the allegations, the sophisticated modus operandi and the strict statutory framework governing bail under the PMLA particularly under Section 45 of the Act 2002, no ground exists for the petitioner to claim the benefit of bail on merits and the serious allegations of laundering of proceeds of crime continue to justify the petitioner's custody under the strict rigours of Section 45 of the Act 2002.
103. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to facts and circumstances, as have been analyzed hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the applicant has failed to make out a case for exercise of power to grant bail and considering the facts and parameters, necessary to be considered for adjudication of bail, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be rejected.
104. Accordingly, based upon the aforesaid discussion, the instant application stands dismissed.
105. It is made clear that the observations/findings, as recorded hereinabove, is only for the purpose of issue of 50 2025:JHHC:28015 consideration of bail. The same will not prejudice the issue on merit in course of trial.
106. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Birendra/-A.F.R. 51