Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Veerendra Kumar Ram Aged About 57 Years vs Union Of India Though The Directorate Of ... on 12 April, 2024

Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad

Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    B.A. No. 11948 of 2023
                               ------

Veerendra Kumar Ram aged about 57 years, son of Genda Ram, resident of E-3 Duplex, Vatika Green City, Dimna Road, P.O. & P.S. -Mango, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum. ...............Petitioner Versus Union of India though the Directorate of Enforcement ................ Opp. Party

-------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

-------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, Advocate Ms. Shabina Perween, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Amit Kumar Das, Advocate

------

C.A.V. on 15/03/2024 Pronounced on 12/04/2024 Prayer:

1. The instant application has been filed under Section 439 read with Section 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for grant of bail in ECIR Case No.2 of 2023 arising out of ECIR/RNZO/16/2020 dated 17.09.2020 for the offences under Section 3 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi.

Factual Matrix of the Case

2. ECIR bearing No. ECIR/RNSZO/16/2020 was recorded on 17.09.2020 based on the FIR bearing No. 13/2019 dated 13.11.2019, registered by ACB Jamshedpur, under section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (amended as on 2018). Subsequently, Charge-sheet dated 11.01.2020 was 1 submitted by ACB against Alok Ranjan and Suresh Prasad Verma under Section 7 (b) of P.C. Act, 2018 and under Sections 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Further, in course of search proceeding conducted in relation to the instant case at different places under Section 17 PML Act to investigate the role of the accused persons and their close associates, it is found that part of the proceeds of crime acquired in the form of commission/bribe in lieu of allotment of tenders by the present petitioner i.e. Veerendra Kumar Ram, a public servant. The said bribe money was getting routed to the bank accounts of family members of present petitioner Veerendra Kumar Ram with the help of bank accounts of Delhi based CA Mukesh Mittal's employees/relatives.

4. It is also ascertained that petitioner Veerendra Kumar Ram used to give cash to Mukesh Mittal who with the help of other entry providers used to take entries in the bank accounts of his employees and relatives and then such fund was transferred by Mukesh Mittal into the bank accounts of the co-accused Rajkumari (wife of Veerendra Kumar Ram) and Genda Ram (father of Veerendra Kumar Ram).

5. Further, it is also ascertained that some bank accounts, opened (at Delhi) on the basis of forged documents, were 2 also being used in such routing of funds. Therefore, findings related to such routing of funds were shared with the Delhi Police under Section 66(2) of the PMLA by the I.O. Further, on the basis of the information shared U/s 66(2) of PMLA, 2002, an FIR No. 22/2023, was registered by Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Delhi against (i) Veerendra Kumar Ram, (ii) Mukesh Mittal and (iii) unknown Others under Sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 473, 474, 476, 484, and 120-B of IPC, 1860 and Section 7 and 5 of Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017.

6. Consequently, in the light of additional facts emerging out of investigation, FIR No.22/2023 registered by the EOW, Delhi was merged with the investigation of ECIR No.RNSZO/16/2020.

7. The prosecution complaint shows that various records, documents, digital devices, cash, jewelry and vehicles were recovered and seized during course of search conducted on 21.02.2023 and during investigation they were found accumulated through proceeds of crime.

8. The present petitioner was arrested by the E.D. on 23.02.2023. Thereafter, the present petitioner preferred Misc. Cri. Application No. 2478 of 2023 for grant of bail but the same was rejected vide order dated 18.09.2023 by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII- 3 cum-Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi. Hence the present petition has been filed.

Argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner:

9. Mr. Jitendra S. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued inter alia on the following grounds:

I. That the petitioner is quite innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case with oblique motive and mala fide intention to harass the petitioner.

II.That the petitioner has duly cooperated with the investigation and further as and when required by the investigating agency he appeared before them, despite that he has been arrested in the present case.

III.Further, the ECIR in the present case was registered in the year 2020, and the trial is not likelihood to be be completed in near future, which is sufficient ground to grant bail in a case where the petitioner is judicial custody since 23.02.2023.

IV. It has been contended that there is no allegation said to be committed so as to attract the offence under Section under Section 3 of the PML Act since there is no allegation of laundering of money against the petitioner.

V. In alternate, submission has been made that even if the allegations leveled against petitioner is accepted 4 then also it would not constitute offence under Section 3/4 of the PML Act inasmuch as the allegations fall short of the essential ingredients for offence of money laundering.

VI. That the Enforcement Directorate has exceeded its jurisdiction in arraigning the petitioner as an accused in the present case when he cannot even be remotely linked to the predicate offence which in the present case is FIR No. 13/2019 dated 13.11.2019 registered by ACB.

VII. Further ground has been taken that the ECIR is subsequent to the FIR since the first FIR is dated 13.11.2019 and at that time no complaint was instituted against the petitioner but subsequent thereto second FIR was instituted then only the complaint has been registered. Since the petitioner is not named in the FIR dated 13.11.2019 as such the ECIR/complaint is not applicable.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that in the aforesaid view of the matter as per the ground agitated hereinabove, it is a fit case where the petitioner is to be given the benefit of privilege of bail.

Argument advanced by learned counsel for the opposite party-Enforcement Directorate:

5

11. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the opposite party-Enforcement Directorate has seriously opposed the said submission/ground both based upon the fact and the law as referred hereinabove by learned counsel for the petitioner.

I. Argument so far subsequent FIR is concerned, submission has been made that it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to take the ground that since the first FIR is dated 13.11.2019 and subsequent thereto it was found that the money was being routed in Delhi then the second FIR was instituted on 03.03.2023 and accordingly ECIR was registered. Hence, there is no illegality since as per the allegation made in the complaint the first FIR which is against Alok Ranjan who has informed to be the custodian of the money which was being illegally given by the present petitioner. While the second FIR being FIR No. 22/2023 is for investigating/the routing of the said money illegally procured by the present petitioner. Then in such circumstances, the complaint has been instituted by the Enforcement Directorate, which cannot be said to suffer from any illegality. 6 II. Further, it has been submitted by referring to the imputation as has been come in course of investigation done against the present petitioner wherein, the direct involvement of the petitioner has been found of laundering the money.

III. Learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate has referred the imputation as has come against the petitioner in the prosecution wherein it is alleged that the petitioner was actively and directly indulged in the process of acquisition, possession and concealment of proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 48,94,10,877/- was carried out by the petitioner. The petitioner arranged the bogus entries of Rs. 9.3 crores into the bank account of his wife Rajkumari, and of Rs. 4.535 into the bank account of his father Genda Ram. He also utilized the same for purchasing vehicles, living a luxurious life, foreign education of his children cash expenses etc. IV. Learned counsel for the respondent-ED has further submitted that bail and anticipatory bail application of co-accused persons have been considered by this Court and the same have been rejected looking into the gravity of offence and applying the rigours of Section 45 of PML Act, 2002. 7

V. Regular bail petitions of co-accused Tara Chand and Harish Yadav have been rejected by this Court vide order dated 01.03.2024 in B.A. No. 11095 of 2023 and BA No. 9734 of 2023 respectively and anticipatory bail petition of co-accused, Mukesh Mittal has also been rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.02.2024 in ABA No. 10671 of 2023.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent-Enforcement Directorate, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is not a fit case where the prayer for bail is to be allowed taking into consideration his involvement in directly acquiring the proceeds of crime. Discussion:

13. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone across the pleading available on record as also the finding recorded by learned court.

14. This Court, before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to discuss herein some of the provision of law as contained under the Act, 2002 with its object and intent.

15. The Act 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 8 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. The issues were debated threadbare in the United Nation Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Basle Statement of Principles enunciated in 1989, the FATF established at the summit of seven major industrial nations held in Paris from 14th to 16thJuly, 1989, the Political Declaration and Noble Programme of Action adopted by United Nations General Assembly vide its Resolution No. S-17/2 of 23.2.1990, the United Nations in the Special Session on countering World Drug Problem Together concluded on the 8th to the 10thJune, 1998, urging the State parties to enact a comprehensive legislation. This is evident from the introduction and Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Bill which became the 2002 Act. The same reads thus:

―INTRODUCTION Money-laundering poses a serious threat not only to the financial systems of countries, but also to their integrity and sovereignty. To obviate such threats international community has taken some initiatives. It has been felt that to prevent money-laundering and connected activities a comprehensive legislation is urgently needed. To achieve this objective the Prevention of Money-laundering Bill, 1998 was introduced in 9 the Parliament. The Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, which presented its report on 4th March, 1999 to the Lok Sabha. The Central Government broadly accepted the recommendation of the Standing Committee and incorporated them in the said Bill along with some other desired changes.

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS It is being realised, world over, that money-laundering poses a serious threat not only to the financial systems of countries, but also to their integrity and sovereignty. Some of the initiatives taken by the international community to obviate such threat are outlined below:--

(a) the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, to which India is a party, calls for prevention of laundering of proceeds of drug crimes and other connected activities and confiscation of proceeds derived from such offence.

(b) the Basle Statement of Principles, enunciated in 1989, outlined basic policies and procedures that banks should follow in order to assist the law enforcement agencies in tackling the problem of money-laundering.

(c) the Financial Action Task Force established at the summit of seven major industrial nations, held in Paris from 14th to 16th July, 1989, to examine the problem of money-laundering has made forty recommendations, which provide the foundation material forcomprehensive legislation to combat the problem of money-laundering. The recommendations were classified under various heads. Some of the important heads are--

(i) declaration of laundering of monies carried through serious crimes a criminal offence;

(ii) to work out modalities of disclosure by financial institutions regarding reportable transactions;

(iii) confiscation of the proceeds of crime;

(iv) declaring money-laundering to be an extraditable offence;

and 10

(v) promoting international co-operation in investigation of money-laundering.

(d) the Political Declaration and Global Programme of Action adopted by United Nations General Assembly by its Resolution No. S-17/2 of 23rd February, 1990, inter alia, calls upon the member States to develop mechanism to prevent financial institutions from being used for laundering of drug related money and enactment of legislation to prevent such laundering. (e) the United Nations in the Special Session on countering World Drug Problem Together concluded on the 8th to the 10th June, 1998 has made another declaration regarding the need to combat money-laundering. India is a signatory to this declaration.‖

16. It is thus evident that the Act, 2002 was enacted in order to answer the urgent requirement to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof for combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

17. 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 11 indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence;]‖

18. It is evident from the aforesaid provision 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.

19. 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. The aforesaid explanation has been inserted in the statute book by way of Act 23 of 2019.

20. 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 12 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.

21. 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.

22. 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.‖

23. 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.

24. The offence of money laundering has been defined under Section 3 of the Act, 2002 which reads as under: 13

―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.]‖

25. 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.

26. 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 14 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.

27. The punishment for money laundering has been provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2002. 30. Section 50 of the Act, 2002 confers power upon the authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence. For ready reference, Section 50 of the Act, 2002 is quoted as under:

―50. Powers of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence, etc.--(1) The Director shall, for the purposes of section 13, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:--

(a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a [reporting entity] and examining him on oath; (c) compelling the production of records; (d) receiving evidence on affidavits; (e) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses and documents; and (f) any other matter which may be prescribed. (2) The Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary whether to give evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation or proceeding under this Act. (3) All the persons so summoned shall be bound to attend in person or through authorised agents, as such officer may direct, and shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements, and produce such documents as may be required. (4) Every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (5) Subject to any rules made in this behalf by the Central Government, any officer referred to in sub-section (2) may impound and retain in his custody for such period, as he thinks 15 fit, any records produced before him in any proceedings under this Act: Provided that an Assistant Director or a Deputy Director shall not-- (a) impound any records without recording his reasons for so doing; or (b) retain in his custody any such records for a period exceeding three months, without obtaining the previous approval of the [Joint Director].‖

28. 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.

29. The interpretation of the condition which is to be fulfilled while arresting the person involved in the predicate offence has been made as would appear from paragraph265. For ready reference, relevant paragraphs are being referred as under:

―265. To put it differently, the section as it stood prior to 2019 had itself incorporated the expression ―including‖, which is indicative of reference made to the different process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Thus, the principal provision (as also the Explanation) predicates that if a person is found to be directly or indirectly involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime must be held guilty of offence of moneylaundering. If the interpretation set forth by the petitioners was to be accepted, it would follow that it is only upon projecting or claiming the property in 16 question as untainted property, the offence would be complete. This would undermine the efficacy of the legislative intent behind Section 3 of the Act and also will be in disregard of the view expressed by the FATF in connection with the occurrence of the word ―and‖ preceding the expression ―projecting or claiming‖ therein. This Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, enunciated that the international treaties, covenants and conventions although may not be a part of municipal law, the same be referred to and followed by the Courts having regard to the fact that India is a party to the said treaties. This Court went on to observe that the Constitution of India and other ongoing statutes have been read consistently with the rules of international law. It is also observed that the Constitution of India and the enactments made by Parliament must necessarily be understood in the context of the present-day scenario and having regard to the international treaties and convention as our constitution takes note of the institutions of the world community which had been created. In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, the Court observed that domestic Courts are under an obligation to give due regard to the international conventions and norms for construing the domestic laws, more so, when there is no inconsistency between them and there is a void in domestic law. This view has been restated in Githa Hariharan, as also in People's Union for Civil Liberties, and National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India.‖

30. The implication of Section 50 has also been taken into consideration. Relevant paragraph, i.e., paragraphs- 422, 424, 425, 431, 434 read as under:

―422. The validity of this provision has been challenged on the ground of being violative of Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. For, it allows the authorised officer under the 2002 Act to summon any person and record his statement during the course of investigation. Further, the provision mandates that the person should disclose true and correct facts known to his personal knowledge in connection with the 17 subject matter of investigation. The person is also obliged to sign the statement so given with the threat of being punished for the falsity or incorrectness thereof in terms of Section 63 of the 2002 Act. Before we proceed to analyse the matter further, it is apposite to reproduce Section 50 of the 2002 Act, as amended. -----:

424. By this provision, the Director has been empowered to exercise the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the 1908 Code while trying a suit in respect of matters specified in sub-section (1). This is in reference to Section 13 of the 2002 Act dealing with powers of Director to impose fine in respect of acts of commission and omission by the banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries. From the setting in which Section 50 has been placed and the expanse of empowering the Director with same powers as are vested in a civil Court for the purposes of imposing fine under Section 13, is obviously very specific and not otherwise.

425. Indeed, sub-section (2) of Section 50 enables the Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director to issue summon to any person whose attendance he considers necessary for giving evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation or proceeding under this Act. We have already highlighted the width of expression ―proceeding‖ in the earlier part of this judgment and held that it applies to proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority or the Special Court, as the case may be. Nevertheless, sub-section (2) empowers the authorised officials to issue summon to any person. We fail to understand as to how Article 20(3) would come into play in respect of process of recording statement pursuant to such summon which is only for the purpose of collecting information or evidence in respect of proceeding under this Act. Indeed, the person so summoned, is bound to attend in person or through authorised agent and to state truth upon any subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may be required by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the 2002 Act. The 18 criticism is essentially because of subsection (4) which provides that every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC. Even so, the fact remains that Article 20(3) or for that matter Section 25 of the Evidence Act, would come into play only when the person so summoned is an accused of any offence at the relevant time and is being compelled to be a witness against himself. This position is well-established. The Constitution Bench of this Court in M.P. Sharma had dealt with a similar challenge wherein warrants to obtain documents required for investigation were issued by the Magistrate being violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. This Court opined that the guarantee in Article 20(3) is against ―testimonial compulsion‖ and is not limited to oral evidence. Not only that, it gets triggered if the person is compelled to be a witness against himself, which may not happen merely because of issuance of summons for giving oral evidence or producing documents.

Further, to be a witness is nothing more than to furnish evidence and such evidence can be furnished by different modes. The Court went on to observe as follows: ―Broadly stated the guarantee in article 20(3) is against ―testimonial compulsion‖. It is suggested that this is confined to the oral evidence of a person standing his trial for an offence when called to the witness-stand. We can see no reason to confine the content of the constitutional guarantee to this barely literal import. So to limit it would be to rob the guarantee of its substantial purpose and to miss the substance for the sound as stated in certain American decisions. The phrase used in Article 20(3) is ―to be a witness‖. A person can ―be a witness‖ not merely by giving oral evidence but also by producing documents or making intelligible gestures as in the case of a dumb witness (See section 119 of the Evidence Act) or the like. ―To be a witness‖ is nothing more than ―to furnish evidence‖, and such evidence can be furnished through the lips or by production of a thing or of a document or in other modes. So far as production of documents is concerned, no doubt Section 19 139 of the Evidence Act says that a person producing a document on summons is not a witness. But that section is meant to regulate the right of cross examination. It is not a guide to the connotation of the word ―witness‖, which must be understood in its natural sense, i.e., as referring to a person who furnishes evidence. Indeed, every positive volitional act which furnishes evidence is testimony, and testimonial compulsion connotes coercion which procures the positive volitional evidentiary acts of the person, as opposed to the negative attitude of silence or submission on his part. Nor is there any reason to think that the protection in respect of the evidence so procured is confined to what transpires at the trial in the court room. The phrase used in article 20(3) is ―to be a witness‖ and not to ―appear as a witness‖. It follows that the protection afforded to an accused in so far as it is related to the phrase ―to be a witness‖ is not merely in respect of testimonial compulsion in the court room but may well extend to compelled testimony previously obtained from him. It is available therefore to a person against whom a formal accusation relating to the commission of an offence has been levelled which in the normal course may result in prosecution. Whether it is available to other persons in other situations does not call for decision in this case.‖ (emphasis supplied)

431. In the context of the 2002 Act, it must be remembered that the summon is issued by the Authority under Section 50 in connection with the inquiry regarding proceeds of crime which may have been attached and pending adjudication before the Adjudicating Authority. In respect of such action, the designated officials have been empowered to summon any person for collection of information and evidence to be presented before the Adjudicating Authority. It is not necessarily for initiating a prosecution against the noticee as such. The power entrusted to the designated officials under this Act, though couched as investigation in real sense, is to undertake inquiry to ascertain relevant facts to facilitate initiation of or pursuing with an action regarding proceeds of crime, if the situation so warrants and for being presented 20 before the Adjudicating Authority. It is a different matter that the information and evidence so collated during the inquiry made, may disclose commission of offence of money- laundering and the involvement of the person, who has been summoned for making disclosures pursuant to the summons issued by the Authority. At this stage, there would be no formal document indicative of likelihood of involvement of such person as an accused of offence of money laundering. If the statement made by him reveals the offence of money laundering or the existence of proceeds of crime, that becomes actionable under the Act itself. To put it differently, at the stage of recording of statement for the purpose of inquiring into the relevant facts in connection with the property being proceeds of crime is, in that sense, not an investigation for prosecution as such; and in any case, there would be no formal accusation against the noticee. Such summons can be issued even to witnesses in the inquiry so conducted by the authorised officials. However, after further inquiry on the basis of other material and evidence, the involvement of such person (noticee) is revealed, the authorised officials can certainly proceed against him for his acts of commission or omission. In such a situation, at the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. However, if his/her statement is recorded after a formal arrest by the ED official, the consequences of Article 20(3) or Section 25 of the Evidence Act may come into play to urge that the same being in the nature of confession, shall not be proved against him. Further, it would not preclude the prosecution from proceeding against such a person including for consequences under Section 63 of the 2002 Act on the basis of other tangible material to indicate the falsity of his claim. That would be a matter of rule of evidence.

434. It is, thus, clear that the power invested in the officials is one for conducting inquiry into the matters relevant for ascertaining existence of proceeds of crime and the involvement of persons in the process or activity connected 21 therewith so as to initiate appropriate action against such person including of seizure, attachment and confiscation of the property eventually vesting in the Central Government."

31. It is evident from the observation so made as above that the purposes and objects of the 2002 Act for which it has been enacted, is not limited to punishment for offence of money-laundering, but also to provide measures for prevention of money-laundering. It is also to provide for attachment of proceeds of crime, which are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceeding relating to confiscation of such proceeds under the 2002 Act. This Act is also to compel the banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries to maintain records of the transactions, to furnish information of such transactions within the prescribed time in terms of Chapter IV of the 2002 Act.

32. 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 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.

33. So far as the purport of Section 45(1)(i)(ii) is concerned, the aforesaid provision starts from the non- obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless -

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given 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.

34. 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.

35. 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 23 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.

36. 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-372-374.

37. For ready reference, the said paragraphs are being referred as under:

―372. Section 45 has been amended vide Act 20 of 2005, Act 13 of 2018 and Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. The provision as it obtained prior to 23.11.2017 read somewhat differently. The constitutional validity of Sub-section (1) of Section 45, as it stood then, was considered in Nikesh Tarachand Shah. This Court declared Section 45(1) of the 2002 Act, as it stood then, insofar as it imposed two further conditions for release on bail, to be unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The two conditions which have been mentioned as twin conditions are: (i) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

373. According to the petitioners, since the twin conditions have been declared to be void and unconstitutional by this Court, the same stood obliterated. To buttress this argument, reliance has been placed on the dictum in State of Manipur.

24

374. The first issue to be answered by us is: whether the twin conditions, in law, continued to remain on the statute book post decision of this Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah and if yes, in view of the amendment effected to Section 45(1) of the 2002 Act vide Act 13 of 2018, the declaration by this Court will be of no consequence. This argument need not detain us for long. We say so because the observation in State of Manipur in paragraph 29 of the judgment that owing to the declaration by a Court that the statute is unconstitutional obliterates the statute entirely as though it had never been passed, is contextual. In this case, the Court was dealing with the efficacy of the repealing Act. While doing so, the Court had adverted to the repealing Act and made the stated observation in the context of lack of legislative power.

In the process of reasoning, it did advert to the exposition in BehramKhurshidPesikaka and Deep Chand including American jurisprudence expounded in Cooley on Constitutional Limitations and Norton v. Shelby County.‖

38. Subsequently, the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486 by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Larger Bench of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Vijay MadanlalChoudhary 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.

39. It has further been observed that as per the statutory presumption permitted under Section 24 of the 25 Act, the Court or the Authority is entitled to presume unless the contrary is proved, that in any proceedings relating to proceeds of crime under the Act, in the case of a person charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3, such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. Such conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PML Act will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 Cr. P.C. in view of the overriding effect given to the PML Act over the other law for the time being in force, under Section 71 of the PML Act.

40. For ready reference, paragraph-17 of the said judgment is quoted 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 17 A.B.A. No. 10671 of 2023 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.‖

41. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the said judgment has further laid down that the twin conditions as to fulfil the 26 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.

42. In the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra) as under paragraph 284, it has been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute a person for offence of money-laundering only if it has reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in possession of "proceeds of crime". Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken to 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. So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 is concerned, as has been referred hereinabove, at paragraph- 412 of the judgment rendered in Vijay Madanlal 27 Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) it has been held therein by making observation that whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of money-laundering.

43. 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 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 28 in any other law for the time being in force. PMLA has an overriding effect and the provisions of CrPC would apply only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.

44. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PMLA will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 CrPC. That coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money- laundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the appellant. For ready reference, paragraph-30 of the said judgment reads as under:

―30. The conditions specified under Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with, which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and also Section 71 of PMLA. Section 65 requires that the provisions of CrPC shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and Section 71 provides that the provisions of PMLA shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. PMLA has an overriding effect and the provisions of CrPC would apply only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PMLA will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 CrPC. That coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of 29 crime are involved in money-laundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the appellant.‖

45. Now adverting in to fact of the instant case and the allegation leveled against the present petitioner which according to learned counsel for the petitioner is being said that the same cannot be said to attract the ingredient of Section 3 of PMLA. 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.

46. 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 451(i)(ii) of the PMLA 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. Relevant paragraphs of prosecution complaint and supplementary prosecution complaint are quoted herein :

7.1 EVIDENCES GATHERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDING U/S 17 OF THE PMLA WHICH ESTABLISHES ALOK RANJAN'S ASSOCIATION WITH VEERENDRA KUMAR RAMAND HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROCESS OF MONEY LAUNDERING 30 In fact, during the course of post search investigation under the PMLA, it is ascertained that Alok Ranjan used to go to Delhi with Veerendra Kumar Ram during the year 2019. Veerendra Kumar Ram himself in his statement dated 15.04.2023 has accepted that he used to go to Delhi during 2019 for the purpose of giving cash to one CA Mukesh Mittal who used to provide him the entries in his bank account held jointly with his wife Rajkumari and such cash was acquired by Veerendra Kumar Ram from the commission amount received by him in lieu of allotment of tenders.

It is also gathered that many train tickets of Alok Ranjan and VEERENDRA KUMAR RAM from Ranchi to Delhi, were booked by Veerendra Kumar Ram through one travel agent and the payment for which was done in cash by Veerendra Kumar Ram.

Further statement of one contractor Rajesh Kumar, director of M/s Rajesh Kumar construction Pvt Ltd and M/s Parmanand Singh Builders Private limited was also recorded u/s 50 of PMLA on 07.04.2023 wherein he stated that on the day of search i.e. on 15.11.2019 conducted by ACB Jamshedpur at the rented flat of Alok Ranjan, (house owned by Pushpa Verma, wife of S.P. Verma), Veerendra Kumar Ram called him and asked him to go to flat of Alok Ranjan and also stated that his (Veerendra Kumar Ram's) cash was kept at the flat of Alok Ranjan, but he could not enter the flat as the police were there. All such evidences, which will also be discussed in detail in paras below, proves that Rs 2.67 crores found and seized by ACB Jamshedpur from the possession of Alok Ranjan was the ill earned money of Veerendra Kumar Ram only. 7.1.1 Other evidences and findings of the investigation are discussed below The bank account statement of account no. 11008836933 in the name of Veerendra Kumar Ram (Accused no.1) maintained with state bank of India was analyzed-----

When Alok Ranjan was asked to explain the source of such cash deposited by him, he stated in his statement dated 24.02.2023, that this cash was handed over to him by 31 Veerendra Kumar Ram for depositing in the above-mentioned bank account.

When Alok Ranjan was asked how many times and how much cash has been given to him by Veerendra Kumar Ram, he stated in his statement dated 24.02.2023, that he has not received cash from Veerendra Kumar Ram apart from the cash received by him for depositing the above-mentioned account. 7.2 GENERATION OF PROCEEDS OF CRIME BY VEERENDRA KUMAR RAM 7.2.2 Veerendra Kumar Ram was arrested on 23.02.2023 u/s 19 of PMLA for the commission of the offence of money laundering as defined u/s 3 of PMLA and punishable u/s 4 of PMLA. Later he was sent to Judicial custody and currently is languishing in Hotwar Jail, Ranchi. During his custodial interrogation, he disclosed that he was taking bribes in the name of commission against the allotment of tenders from the contractors. He further disclosed in his statement dated 14.04.2023 that the commission amount taken from the contractors is 3.2% of the total tender value and that his share was 0.3% of the total tender value which at some postings was higher than 0.3%. However, given the total Proceeds of crime acquired by him, it is believed that his percentage (%) in the commission bribe must have been higher, as he himself stated in his statement dated 15.04.2023 that his commission varied from 03% to 1% of the tender value.

7.2.3 During the course of search on 21.02.2023 at the residential premises of Veerendra Kumar Ram located at 447/A, 2nd Floor, Road No. 4, Ashok Nagar, Ranchi cash amounting to Rs 7,82,500 was recovered and seized and when Veerendra Kumar Ram was asked to explain the source of the said cash, he stated in his statement dated 15.04.2023 that the said cash was the commission received by him in lieu of allotment of tenders.

8. Brief detail of persons examined Under Section 17 & 50 of PMLA:

During the course of search and investigation, statements of several persons were recorded under the provisions of PMLA.

32

The gist of the statements relevant to this investigation is as under: -

8.1 Veerendra Kumar Ram (Accused No. 1):

Veerendra Kumar Ram (Accused No. 1) is a chief engineer in Rural Department Special Zone and also in an additional charge of Rural Works Department. In his statement recorded u/s 50 of PMLA during custodial interrogation and in judicial custody on different dates wherein he interalia accepted that commission was taken in lieu of allotment of tenders and that the total commission was 3.2% of tender value and that his share of commission was 0.3% of the total tender amount which varies from 0.3% to 1%. He admitted that he acquired two immovable properties in Delhi in the name of his wife Rajkumari and one immovable property in Delhi in the name of his father Genda Ram out of the commission amount against allotment of tenders. He and his family were also found in the possession of jewellery worth Rs. 1,51,60,982/-, expenses incurred on overseas education of his children were Rs. 1.25 crores and cash of Rs. 19,45,100/- which were also acquired from the commission amount. He was also found in the possession of three vehicles in the name of contractors/companies which were under the use of Veerendra Kumar Ram and his family about which he could not explain satisfactorily. He along with his family were having lavish lifestyle and he accepted that all the expenses have been incurred by him through commission amount received by him against allotment of tenders. Further, in his statement he accepted that the cash deposits in his bank accounts and in the bank accounts of his family members, 3 immovable properties in Delhi, 4 luxury cars, jewellery, cash seized from him and his family members during the course of search of 21.02.2023 are out of the commission received by him against allotment of tenders.

8.2 Genda Ram (Accused No. 4): Genda Ram is father of Veerendra Kumar Ram who is a retired school teacher and is aged about more than 82 years. Statement of Genda Ram was recorded u/s 17 of PMLA on 21.02.2023 wherein he stated that 33 his son could explain the transactions executed in his Canara Bank account and he was unaware of any properties purchased in his name. However, his signatures were found on all the cheques that were used to purchase the property located at E-8, SatbariAnsal, New Delhi.

8.3 Ayush Rapson: Ayush Rapson is son of Veerendra Kumar Ram and his statement was recorded u/s 50 on 31.03.2023 and 01.04.2023 wherein he stated that Rs. 56.21 lakhs cash deposit in his bank account 017101527226 since last 5 financial years was made by his father. He also has one Audi and one Fortuner in his name but he could not explain the source of such income. He has also stated that his father Veerendra Kumar Ram has arranged payment of a sum of Rs. 13,51,958/- for him.

8.4 Mukesh Mittal: Mukesh Mittal is a Delhi based Chartered Accountant of Veerendra Kumar Ram who managed to provide the fake business entries in the bank account of Genda Ram.

His statement was recorded u/s 17 on 21.02.2023 and u/s 50 on 29.03.2023 and 30.03.2023 wherein he stated that Veerendra Kumar Ram approached him around 6 months ago to route his ancestral money which was actually the commission money of about Rs. 5 crores to the account of his father Genda Ram to purchase a farm house in Delhi. Later, Mukesh Mittal later arranged the routing of the said Rs. 5 crores into the bank account of Genda Ram.

11. Role of Accused in offence of money laundering under Section 3 of PMLA, 2002 11.1 Accused No. 1-Veerendra Kumar Ram A) Shri Veerendra Kumar Ram is a Government Employee posted as Chief Engineer in Rural development Special Zone and Rural Works Department, both under Govt. of Jharkhand.

b) He acquired huge movable and immovable assets by misusing his official position. He used to take commission for every tender work allotted thereby directly involved in generation of proceeds of crime.

c) He acquired the ill-gotten funds or the proceeds of crime and arranged routing to the bank accounts of his family members 34 and further used those funds in acquiring immovable and movable properties in their name thus projecting untainted money as tainted.

d) Veerendra Kumar Ram and his family is also found to be living a luxurious lifestyle which is not possible with the salary income of Veerendra Kumar Ram who was the only the earning member of his family. Although, his father gets pension that is in no way can support even part of the lavish lifestyle their family was having. Therefore, he was directly involved in the use, possession and the acquisition of proceeds of crime generated by the commission.

e) During investigation, the claim of Veerendra Kumar Ram as his fixed commission percentage of 0.3% was found misleading and alter in his own statement he admitted that his commission varied from 0.3% to 1% of tender value. A contractor named Mahendra Gope stated that he usually had a percentage of 10%, a contractor Rajesh Kumar stated that he had paid him commission not below 3% of the tender amount and further one contractor stated that he had to pay commission of 14% to Veerendra Kumar Ram. Apart from the commission, Veerendra Kumar Ram and his wife Rajkumari also availed various facilities and vehicles from the contractors which was further proved from the three vehicles frozen registered in the name of contractors/companies. Various contractors have stated that they frequently receive calls from the Rajkumari and Veerendra Kumar Ram to provide vehicles and other facilities to her.

f) The claim of Veerendra Kumar Ram with regard to securing loan from contractors named Rajesh Kumar Megotia, MahendraGope and Ajeet Singh was also found misleading as two of these contractors have simply denied of giving loans to him and even one contractor Mahendra Gope stated that he used to safekeep the commission money on the instructions of Veerendra Kumar Ram.

g) Therefore, Accused No. 1 i.e. Veerendra Kumar Ram has directly indulged in the process of acquisition, possession, use and concealment to the tune of at least Rs 48,94,10,877/- by receiving the said Rs 48,94,10,877 crores from the 35 Commission/ bribe amount by misusing his post while working and posted in different capacity at Rural Development (Special Zone) and Rural Works Department, Government of Jharkhand. He was also found to be directly indulged in projecting the Delhi based immovable properties (mentioned at Sr no 1 of table of para 9) to the tune of Rs.38.8 crores and his 3 vehicles (mentioned at Sr no 2 of table of para 9) in the name of his wife Rajkumari and son Ayush Rapson to the tune of Rs1.27 crores approx., as untainted property by routing the same from Delhi based accounts. Further he also projected cash deposits in the bank accounts of his family members as untainted by filing ITRs and showing income from cash sales of vegetables etc. which found to be just a tool to project his tainted money as untainted.

h) Hence, Veerendra Kumar Ram had directly indulged, knowingly is as party and is actually involved in all the activities connected with the offence of money laundering, ie, use or acquisition, possession, concealment, and projecting or claiming as untainted property, as defined u/s 3 of PMLA, 2002. Therefore, Veerendra Kumar Ram is guilty of the offence of money laundering u/s 3 of PMLA, 2002 and punishable under section 4 of PMLA.

47. Thus, it is evident that ACB Jamshedpur registered an FIR No. 13/2019 dated 13.11.2019 registered u/s 7(a) of PC Act, 2018 against one Suresh Prasad Verma, the then Junior Engineer working in the Road Construction department and subsequently filed Final Report No. 01/2020 dated 11.01.2020 u/s 7(b) of PC Act, 2018 and u/s 120B of IPC against Suresh Prasad Verma and Alok Ranjan. During the course of the investigation by ACB, a search operation was conducted on 15.11.2019 at the rented premises of Suresh Prasad Verma which was rented 36 to Alok Ranjan and a huge cash amount of Rs. 2.67 crores were seized from the almirah of said Alok Ranjan‟s bedroom. Subsequently, Alok Ranjan was arrested on the same day since he could not give any satisfactory answer regarding the seized cash found in his possession. During the statement of Suresh Prasad Verma before ACB, he claimed that the cash amount seized belonged to Veerendra Kumar Ram, then Chief Engineer and that his wife RajKumari used to visit the rented-out premises of Alok Ranjan. After investigation, ACB Jamshedpur filed a charge sheet dated 11.01.2020 against Suresh Prasad Verma and Alok Ranjan under Section 7(b) of PC Act and under Section 120B/201 of the Indian Penal Code.

48. Pursuant thereto, an ECIR bearing No. ECIR/RNSZO/16/2020 was recorded on 17.09.2020 based on the FIR bearing No. 13/2019 dated 13.11.2019 for investigation of offence under the provisions of the PMLA, 2002 as Sections 120B of IPC, 1860 and 7 (b) of PC Act, 2018 are scheduled offences under Part-A, Paragraph 1 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

49. During the course of the investigation towards the involvement of Veerendra Kumar Ram (present petitioner) and his close associates, several searches were conducted at various places across India and it was found that part of 37 the Proceeds of the Crime acquired in the form of taking commission/bribe in lieu of allotment of tenders by Veerendra Kumar Ram, Chief Engineer in Rural work Department, Jharkhand was getting routed by a Delhi based CA Mukesh Mittal to the bank accounts of family members of Veerendra Kumar Ram with the help of bank accounts of Mukesh Mittal's employees/relatives.

50. It is also ascertained that Veerendra Kumar Ram used to give cash to Mukesh Mittal who with the help of other entry providers used to make entries in the bank accounts of his employees and relatives and then such fund was transferred by Mukesh Mittal into the bank accounts of Rajkumari (Wife of Veerendra Ram) and Shri Genda Ram (Father of Shri VK Ram/Petitioner).

51. Further, it is also ascertained that some bank accounts opened (at Delhi) on the basis of forged documents were also being used in said routing of funds. Therefore, information related to the same was shared with the Delhi Police under Section 66(2) of the PMLA and on the basis of the information shared under Section 66(2) of PMLA, 2002 to Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Police Head Quarter, on 03.03.2023 an FIR No. 22/2023, was registered by Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Delhi against (i).Veerendra Kumar Ram (present petitioner), (ii) Mukesh Mittal, and (iii) 38 unknown Others under Sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 473, 474, 476, 484, and 120 B of IPC, 1860, and Section 7 and 5 of Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017. As Section 120B, 419, 420, 471, 473,476 and 484 are scheduled offence under Part A of Schedule to the PMLA, 2002(as amended) and in light of the additional facts emerging out of the investigation, FIR No. 22/2023 registered by EOW, Delhi was merged with the investigation of ECIR No. RNSZO/16/2020. Accordingly, an addendum was issued on 05.04.2023 and vide the same addendum, FIR No. 22/2023 was merged with the investigation of ECIR No. RNSZO/16/2020.

52. It needs to refer herein that the moment the subsequent FIR has been merged with the earlier one considering the fact that the subsequent FIR is for the same transaction of money for the purpose of routing/concealment of money and as such the argument which has been advanced that the ECIR is subsequent to the FIR since the first FIR is dated 13.11.2019 and at that time no complaint was instituted against the petitioner, is not acceptable to this Court since the second FIR has been merged with first FIR which has been registered under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 471, 473, 476 and 484 are the scheduled offences and taking into consideration the 39 aforesaid fact of the same transaction of the money is involved an addendum was issued on 05.04.2023 and based upon the said addendum FIR No. 22/2023 was merged with the investigation of ECIR No. RNSZO/16/2020.

53. Considering the aforesaid fact, the argument advanced in this regard is having no substance.

54. Admittedly, the petitioner is a Government Employee posted as Chief Engineer in the Rural Development Special Zone and Rural Works Department, both under Govt. of Jharkhand. It appears that he acquired huge movable and immovable assets by misusing his official position/post. He used to take commission for every tender work allotted thereby directly involved in the generation of proceeds of crime. He acquired the ill-gotten funds or the proceeds of crime and arranged routing to the bank accounts of his family members, and further, these funds are used in acquiring immovable and movable properties in their name thus projecting tainted money as untainted. The petitioner and his family are also found to be living a luxurious lifestyle which is not possible with the salary income of the petitioner who is the only earning member of his family.

55. Investigation disclosed that apart from the commission, the petitioner and his wife Rajkumari also 40 availed various facilities including vehicles from the contractors which was further proved by the three vehicles frozen, registered in the name of contractors/companies. Various contractors have stated that they frequently receive calls from Rajkumari and the petitioner to provide vehicles and other facilities to her.

56. During the course of the investigation, it has been ascertained from the statements of contractors Anup Kumar Rai and Rajesh Kumar and several other circumstantial evidences, that the seized cash of Rs. 2.67 crores by ACB Jamshedpur are the proceeds of crime generated by petitioner, acquired through bribe/commission which Alok Ranjan was safekeeping with himself. Further, it was found that the said proceeds were only part of the larger fund that were acquired by the petitioner, which were kept at different places and placed in the bank accounts of his family members by way of providing entries through various bogus companies. During the course of the investigation, the petitioner was arrested under Section 19 of PMLA, 2002 on 23.02.2023 for offence of money laundering.

57. Investigation disclosed that huge funds which are proceeds of crime were received in the bank accounts of the wife and father of the petitioner, firstly Rs. 9.30 crores approximately during the period FY 2014-15 to FY 2018-19 41 in the joint account of Rajkumari and petitioner, secondly Rs. 4.5 crores in the account of his father Genda Ram from December 2022 to January 2023. The said amounts were transferred from the bank accounts of the employees/relatives of CA Mukesh Mittal from different account numbers to the bank account of the petitioner and his family members which were utilized for the purchase of immovable properties i.e. (i) First Floor, D-70, Saket, New Delhi having an area of 188.12 sq. Meter, purchased in the name of Rajkumari (ii) 3rd Floor, C-334, Defence Colony, New Delhi having an area of 401 sq. yard (Purchased in the name of Rajkumari) (iii) Land measuring 2 bigha, 8 biswa comprised in Khasra No. 770 Min (1-06)778 Min (1- 2) with all the amenities situated in village Satbari known as E-8, Satbari Ansal, Tehsil Saket, New Delhi (purchased in the name of Genda Ram) as well as movable properties i.e. Toyota Fortuner Reg. No. DL12CG5878 (purchased in the name of Ayush Rapson), Audi A6 Reg. No. DL8CAM2395 purchased in the name of Rajkumari), Audi A6 Reg. No. DL3CCQ0527 (purchased in the name of Ayush Rapson), Skoda Elegance Reg. No. DL11CA3685 (purchased in the name of Panamati Devi, Mother-in-law of petitioner).

58. Investigation disclosed that the aforesaid properties were purchased using Proceeds of Crime in the name of 42 family members of the petitioner in connivance with others and the same were projected as untainted properties. Further petitioner also projected cash deposits in the bank accounts of his family members as untainted by filing ITRs and showing income from cash sales of vegetables etc. which was found to be just a tool to project his tainted money as untainted.

59. During the course of the investigation movable and immovable properties of the petitioner and his family members amounting to a total of Rs. 39,28,82,578 (Thirty- Nine Crore Twenty-Eight Lakhs Eighty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Seventy-Eight) were attached under Section 5 of PMLA vide Provisional Attachment Order No. 02/2023 dated 18.04.2023. The said Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) has duly been confirmed by the learned Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 09.10.2023, and the same is prayed for confiscation before learned Special Court (PMLA), Ranchi. Investigation disclosed that the petitioner contacted CA Mukesh Mittal in June 2022 to take the entries in the bank accounts of his father Genda Ram. Henceforth, the services of hawala through a network of entry providers were utilized by Mukesh Mittal to transfer an amount of Rs. 5 crores in cash from Jamshedpur to Delhi, the source of 43 the said Rs. 5 crores cash was the commission received by the petitioner.

60. It was further established that Mukesh Mittal got Rs. 36 lakhs of proceeds of crime from the petitioner, which he received for providing his services of arranging entries through entry operators in the bank accounts of family members of the petitioner.

61. Hence, assets worth Rs. 35,77,117.94/- of Mukesh Mittal were attached by this Directorate vide Provisional Attachment Order Number 04/2023 dated 03.08.2023. The said Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) has also duly been confirmed by the learned Adjudicating Authority vide its order dated 29.12.2023 and the same is prayed for confiscation before Learned Special Court (PMLA), Ranchi.

62. That the activity of directly indulging in the process of acquisition, possession and concealment of proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 48,94,10,877/- was carried out by the petitioner.

63. The petitioner arranged the bogus entries of Rs. 9.3 crores into the bank account of his wife Rajkumari, and of Rs. 4.525 into the bank account of his father Genda Ram. He also utilized the same for purchasing vehicles, living a luxurious life, foreign education of his children cash expenses etc. 44

64. Thus, in nutshell it is evident from the various paragraphs of prosecution complaint which have been referred and discussed herein above that the present petitioner has directly indulged in the process of acquisition, possession, use, and concealment of huge money by receiving the said money from the commission/ bribe amount misusing his post while working and posted in a different capacity at Rural Development (Special Zone) and Rural Works Department, Government of Jharkhand. He was also found to be directly indulged in projecting the immovable properties worth of Rs. 38.8 crores at Delhi and 03 vehicles in the name of his wife Rajkumari and son Ayush Rapson to the tune of Rs. 1.27 crores approx., as untainted property by routing the same from Delhi based accounts.

65. Further, he also projected cash deposits in the bank accounts of his family members as untainted by filing ITRs and showing income from cash sales of vegetables etc. which was found to be just a tool to project his tainted money as untainted.

66. Hence, the petitioner had directly indulged, knowingly is as the party and is actually involved in all the activities connected with the offence of money laundering. i.e. use or acquisition, possession, concealment, and 45 projecting or claiming as untainted property, as defined u/s 3 of PMLA, 2002.

67. 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 and supplementary prosecution complaint as well as the paragraphs abovementioned.

68. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not the named accused in the first FIR and as such his culpability in alleged crime cannot be fully established.

69. In this context it is pertinent to mention here that the provisions of the PMLA is an independent offence as the PMLA is a different special statute. The investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA, 2002 is triggered after committing, the commission of a scheduled offence, out of which proceeds have been generated. During the investigation, there is the active involvement of the petitioner in the layering, transfer and use as well as the petitioner entering into transactions to launder the proceeds of crime generated out of such scheduled offence.

70. Thus, prima-facie, it appears that the petitioner has involved himself in accumulating proceeds of crime and the 46 aforesaid plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner doesn‟t hold water.

71. Further the offence of money laundering as contemplated in Section 3 of the PMLA has been elaborately dealt with by the three Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), in which it has been observed that Section 3 has a wider reach. The offence as defined captures every process and activity in dealing with the proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly, and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy to constitute an act of money laundering. Of course, the authority of the Authorised Officer under the Act to prosecute any person for the offence of money laundering gets triggered only if there exist proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the Act and further it is involved in any process or activity. Not even in case of existence of undisclosed income and irrespective of its volume, the definition of "Proceeds of Crime" under Section 2(1)(u) will get attracted, unless the property has been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The property must qualify the definition of "Proceeds of Crime"

under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act. As observed, in all or whole of the crime property linked to scheduled offence need not 47 be regarded as proceeds of crime, but all properties qualifying the definition of "Proceeds of Crime" under Section 2(1)(u) will necessarily be the crime properties.

72. It is required to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pavana Dibbur vs. The Directorate of Enforcement [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586] 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. The Hon'ble Apex Court by interpreting the provision of Section 3 of the Act, 2002 has come out with the finding that on a plain reading of Section 3, unless proceeds of crime exist, there cannot be any money laundering offence.

73. 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 at paragraph-12 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.

74. For ready reference, paragraph 12 of the said judgment is quoted as under:

"12. On a plain reading of Section 3, unless proceeds of crime exist, there cannot be any money laundering offence. Clause (u) of 48 sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the PMLA defines ―proceeds of crime‖, which reads thus:

"2. Definition - (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

(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 or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country 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.‖

75. 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.

76. At paragraph-15 of the aforesaid judgment, it has observed by referring the decision rendered by the Hon'ble 49 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-16 the finding has been given therein that on plain reading of Section 3 of the Act, 2002, an offence under Section 3 can be said to be committed after a scheduled offence 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.

77. For ready reference, paragraph 15 and 16 of the said judgment is 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 the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary1. In paragraph 253 of the said decision, this Court held thus:

"253. 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 can be regarded as proceeds of crime. The authorities under 50 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, 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.‖ (underline supplied)

16. In paragraphs 269 and 270, this Court held thus:

"269. 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 51 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.

270. Needless to mention that such process or activity can be indulged in only after the property is derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity (a scheduled offence). It would be an offence of money-laundering to indulge in or to assist or being party to the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime; and such process or activity in a given fact situation may be a continuing offence, irrespective of the date and time of commission of the scheduled offence. In other words, the criminal activity may have been committed before the same had been notified as scheduled offence for the purpose of the 2002 Act, but if a person has indulged in or continues to indulge directly or indirectly in dealing with proceeds of crime, derived or obtained from such criminal activity even after it has been notified as scheduled offence, may be liable to be prosecuted for offence of money-laundering under the 2002 Act -- for continuing to possess or conceal the proceeds of crime (fully or in part) or retaining possession thereof or uses it in trenches until fully exhausted. The offence of money-laundering is not dependent on or linked to the date on which the scheduled offence or if we may say so the predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date is the date on which the person indulges in the process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime. These ingredients are intrinsic in the original provision (Section 3, as amended until 2013 and were in force till 31.7.2019); and the same has been merely explained and clarified by way of Explanation vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. Thus understood, inclusion of Clause (ii) in Explanation inserted in 2019 is of no 52 consequence as it does not alter or enlarge the scope of Section 3 at all.‖ (underline supplied)

78. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, 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.

79. The three Judge Bench 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

80. 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 Veerendra Ram had directly indulged, knowingly is as the party and is actually involved in all the activities connected with the offence of money laundering. i.e., use or acquisition, possession, concealment, and projecting or claiming as untainted property 53

81. Now in the light of aforesaid discussion at this juncture this Court thinks fit to revisit the scope of section 45 of the PML Act 2002. As discussed in preceding paragraphs that Section 45 of the PMLA Act, 2002 provides twin test. First „reason to believe' is to be there for the purpose of reaching to the conclusion that there is no prima facie case and second condition is that the accused is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

82. Sub-section (1)(ii) of Section 45 of the Act, 2002, provides that if 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, meaning thereby, the parameter which is to be followed by the concerned court that satisfaction is required to be there for believing that such accused person is not guilty of such offence and is not likely to commit of offence while on bail.

83. Section 45(2) provides to consider the limitation for grant of bail which is in addition the limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, i.e., limitation which is to be considered while granting the benefit either in exercise of jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Section 438 or 439 of Cr.P.C. is to be taken into consideration. 54

84. It is, thus, evident by taking into consideration the provision of Sections 19(1), 45(1) and 45(2) of PML Act that the conditions provided therein are required to be considered while granting the benefit of regular bail in exercise of power conferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., apart from the twin conditions which has been provided under Section 45(1) of the Act, 2002.

85. This Court, based upon the imputation as has been discovered in course of investigation, is of the view that what has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that proceeds cannot be said to be proceeds of crime but as would appear from the preceding paragraphs, money which has been obtained by the accused person Veerendra Kumar Ram has been routed by this petitioner and he has also withdrawn the money from different fake accounts and transferred it into the account of the accused persons.

86. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent-ED has already filed a supplementary prosecution complaint against the petitioner and, thus, investigation insofar as the petitioner is concerned is complete and, therefore, no purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner in judicial custody.

87. Per contra the learned counsel for respondent-ED has submitted that the mere fact that investigation is 55 complete does not necessarily confer a right on the accused/petitioner to be released on bail.

88. In the context of aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioner it would be relevant to note here that in the instant case mere filing of the charge-sheet does not cause material change in circumstances.

89. Further, it is settled proposition of law that the filing of charge-sheet is not a circumstance that tilts the scales in favour of the accused for grant of bail and needless to say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution

90. At this juncture it would be apposite to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 5 SCC 406 wherein at paragraph 12 the Hon‟ble Apex Court has observed as under

"12. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the factum that when a charge-sheet is filed it amounts to change of circumstance. Needless to say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge-sheet for trial of the accused persons. -― 56

91. Thus this court after taking note of the settled legal proposition is of view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in the eye of law.

92. Further, Section 45 of the PMLA turns the principle of bail is the rule and jail are the exception on its head. Under the PMLA regime jail is the rule and bail are the exception. 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 Kumar v Assistant Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC Online SC 1486, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held as under:

―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 57 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."

93. If there is a prima facie material to show that the amount has been received by misusing the position of the petitioner who was the then chief engineer, that by itself will be construed as proceeds of crime and it is not necessary for the respondent to further establish that such proceeds of crime was projected as untainted money subsequently. This is in view of the amendment that was made to Section 3 of PMLA through Act 23 of 2019.

94. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the process envisaged under Section 50 of PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and it is not an investigation and the authorities who are recording the statements are not police officers and therefore, these statements can be relied upon as admissible piece of evidence before the Court. The summons proceedings and recording of statements under PMLA are given the status of judicial proceedings under Section 50(4) of PMLA. When 58 such is the sweep of Section 50 of PMLA, the statements that have been recorded and which has been relied upon in the complaint must be taken to be an important material implicating the petitioner. The statements that were recorded during the investigation has been dealt with in prosecution complaint and many of the statements clearly implicate the petitioner. Therefore, the statements that have been recorded and which has been relied upon, is also a strong material that prima facie establishes the offence of money laundering against the petitioner.

95. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau Investigation reported in 2020 13 SCC 337 has come up with triple test under Section 439 of Cr.PC, while dealing with cases involving economic offences. The principles that were summarized in this judgment is extracted hereunder:

―21.The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character, behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;

59

(v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations.‖

96. This Court on the basis of aforesaid discussion factual aspect as also the legal position is of the view that there is no reason to believe by this Court that the petitioner is not involved managing the money said to be proceeds of crime.

97. This Court while considering the prayer for regular bail has taken into consideration that though the Court is not sitting in appeal on the order passed by learned court since this Court is exercising the power of Section 439 Cr.P.C but only for the purpose of considering the view which has been taken by learned court while rejecting the prayer for bail, this Court is also in agreement with the said view based upon the material surfaced in course of investigation, as referred hereinabove.

98. This Court is conscious of this fact that while deciding the issue of grant bail in grave economic offences it is utmost duty of this Court that the nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have been kept in mind because corruption poses a serious threat to our society should be dealt with by iron hand.

99. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Santosh Krnani and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 427 has observed that 60 corruption poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being referred as under:-

―31. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have been kept in mind by the High Court. Corruption poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. It not only leads to abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also tramples good governance. The common man stands deprived of the benefits percolating under social welfare schemes and is the worst hit. It is aptly said, ―Corruption is a tree whose branches are of an unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere; and the dew that drops from thence, Hath infected some chairs and stools of authority.‖ Hence, the need to be extra conscious.‖

100. This Court, in view of the aforesaid material available against the petitioner, is of the view, that in such a grave nature of offence, which is available on the face of the material, applying the principle of grant of bail wherein the principle of having prima facie case is to be followed, the nature of allegation since is grave and as such, it is not a fit case of grant of bail.

101. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has miserably failed to satisfy this Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the alleged offences. On the contrary, there is sufficient material collected by the respondent-ED to show that he is prima facie guilty of the alleged offences. 61

102. Therefore, this Court, based upon the reasons herein above, is of the view that the grounds upon which the prayer for bail has been sought for, is having no substance.

103. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to facts and circumstances, as have been analysed hereinabove, since the petitioner has failed to make out a special case to exercise the power to grant bail and considering the facts and parameters, necessary to be considered for adjudication of bail, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail.

104. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a case where the prayer for bail is to be granted, as such the instant application stands dismissed.

105. 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.) Alankar/-

A.F.R. 62