Jharkhand High Court
Pintu Haldar vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 10 September, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:27988
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 5514 of 2025
------
Pintu Haldar, aged about 40 years, Son of Adhir Haldar, Resident of Neheru Nagar, P.O.-Bongaon, P.S.-Bongaon(M), District-North 24 Parganas/West Bengal.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, represented through its Assistant Director, Ranchi Zonal Office, Plot No. 1502/B, Air-port Road, P.O.- Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, Dist.-
Ranchi/Jharkhand
... ... Opp. Party
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. B.M.Tripathy, Sr. Advocate : Ms. Nutan Kumari Sharma, Advocate : Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate For the Opp. Party-ED : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate : Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Varun Girdhar, Advocate
------
C.A.V. on 27/08/2025 Pronounced on 10/09/2025 Prayer:
1. The instant application has been filed under Section 483 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for grant of bail in ECIR Case No.06 of 2024 arising out of ECIR No./RNZO/17/2024 dated 18.09.2024 for offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 registered in view of the F.I.R. bearing No.188 of 2024 dated 04.06.2024 registered under Sections 420, 467,468, 471` and 34 of the I.P.C., Section 12 of Passport Act, 1967 and 14A of Foreigners Act, 1946, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi.1
2025:JHHC:27988 Prosecution Case:
2. The prosecution story, in brief, as per the allegation made in the instant ECIR/complaint reads as under:
The case of the prosecution is that an ECIR/ RNZO/17/2024 has been recorded on the basis of FIR No. 188 of 2024 dated 04.06.2024 which was lodged by PS -
Bariatu, District - Ranchi, Jharkhand, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 34 of IPC 1860, Section 12 of Passports Act 1967; Section 14-A of Foreigners Act, 1946.
3. As per the aforesaid FIR, one Nipah Akhtar Khushi aged about 21 years hailing from Bangladesh was brought to Kolkata by a girl named Manisha with the help of another girl named Jhuma on the midnight of 31.05.2024, by illegally facilitating her crossing Bangladesh border from the jungle area, on the pretext of getting her engaged in any work in India.
4. The said Nipah Akhtar Khushi was then brought to Ranchi by car, where she was first kept at Bali Resort, Ranchi for two days with other girls. The Bangladeshi girl namely Nipah Akhtar and another girl Haasi Akhtar alias Hasi Vishwas, also hailing from Bangladesh, were kept at one Apartment with two other different Bangladeshi girls, Parveen and Jhuma. Jhuma had helped Nipah Akhtar Khushi in crossing the Bangladesh border to enter into 2 2025:JHHC:27988 India. These girls were brought illegally there for prostitution.
5. On 03.06.2024, taking advantage of the opportunity, the girl Nipah Akhtar Khushi sneaked away and somehow reached to the Police and lodged the complaint.
6. After registering a complaint, on 04.06.2024 at around 15:30 hrs., the police conducted raids and three girls out of which 2 girls hailing from Bangladesh were found inside one room at Bali Resort at Ranchi.
7. It has been revealed that the rooms were booked by one Manisha Rai and her guests were accommodated there. Further upon searching the rooms, police recovered some mobiles and a fake Aadhaar card, which was meant to be used for staying fraudulently in India by one Bangladeshi national connected to the above stated person.
8. Since Sections 420, 467 & 471 IPC 1860 and Section 12 of Passports Act 1967 are scheduled offences under PMLA, 2002, the instant ECIR: RNZO/17/2024 was recorded for investigation under PMLA, 2002.
9. During the course of investigation under PMLA, 2002, the CDR analysis of mobile number used by the suspects were analysed which revealed frequent contacts with various connected persons and the SIMs used by them 3 2025:JHHC:27988 were registered in the name of the accused Pinki Basu Mukherjee.
10. From the above scrutiny, it was revealed that the mobile number used by above-mentioned girls are registered in name of Pinki Basu Mukherjee who is actively involved in the above stated illegal activities after illegally infiltrating Bangladeshi nationals in India.
11. It has also been revealed that the said Jhuma and Manisha are involved in facilitating Bangladeshi nationals in illegally infiltrating India in order to carry out illegal activities and they have frequent contacts with the said Pinki Basu Mukherjee. Further, the CDR analysis of the mobile number used by the accused Pinki Basu Mukherjee reveals frequent contacts with a number of Bangladeshi numbers.
12. Thus, a nexus is seen between the said Jhuma, Manisha Roy, the above-named Bangladeshi nationals and several others with the accused Pinki Basu Mukherjee, who are all together involved in aiding Bangladeshis by way of providing them shelter/settlement including sim cards registered in her name.
13. Further, the CDR of the other accused persons of this case revealed frequent calls with various Bangladeshi numbers. During investigation, the CDRs of the various Indian mobile numbers, with which the above-mentioned 4 2025:JHHC:27988 Bangladeshi numbers had contacted with, were scrutinized. The scrutiny of the said mobile numbers revealed that the sim card of one mobile number 9007934310 is registered in the name of accused Rony Mondal. The accused Rony Mondal has frequent contacts and calls with 42 different Bangladeshi numbers, out of which, several were among those, with whom, Manisha Roy had frequent contacts.
14. Further, the SDR of mobile number 7908031504 revealed that the said mobile number is registered in name of the accused Pintu Haldar. It further reveals that Pintu Haldar is in frequent contacts with mobile number used by Manisha Roy as well as with various other suspicious Bangladeshi numbers.
15. Thus, on having reasons to believe that the above stated accused persons along with others are knowingly indulged in illegal activities pertaining to facilitating illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi nationals in India and use, acquisition, and possession of proceeds of crime generated therefrom, searches were conducted on 12.11.2024 under Section 17 of PMLA, 2002 in the instant ECIR at 17 premises under the use and occupation of the above mentioned persons and premises linked to them, including the premises of the said Pinki Basu Mukherjee, Rony Mondal and Pintu Haldar.
5
2025:JHHC:27988
16. During the course of searches at the residential- premises under the use and occupation of Accused No.3 i.e. Pintu Haldar a computer setup for printing/forging duplicate Aadhaar, along with printing machines, papers as well as several duplicate Aadhaar have been recovered and seized. It reveals that the said Accused No. 3. is engaged in making fake Aadhaar cards and other identities for Bangladeshi nationals for their illegal stay in India. Further, he is involved in making fake Aadhaar, voter ID cards and other identity documents for Bangladeshi nationals which is further corroborated by his frequent contacts with several Bangladeshi persons as well as with the said Manisha Roy as evident from his CDR.
17. Thus, the Accused Persons and other people are part of a bigger syndicate that operates extensively and in a discreet manner across West Bengal and parts of Jharkhand, including Ranchi. The said persons are engaged in facilitating the illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi nationals into India for the purpose of carrying out illicit activities in lieu of generating proceeds of crime. Hence, the said Accused persons are knowingly and directly involved in processes and activities connected with the generation and acquisition of proceeds of crime as well as their use which are derived out of illegal activities which are 6 2025:JHHC:27988 scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002.
18. The generation, acquisition and use of the proceeds of crime out of the above-stated activities are corroborated by the seizure of mobile phones containing various incriminating chats relating to monetary transactions in lieu of above-stated illegal activities including prostitution by these girls. During the course of searches, documents have also been recovered which contain the details/list of the payments in lieu of the prostitution racket being run by the above syndicate by the involvement of the above- mentioned Bangladeshi Nationals.
19. It is submitted that this is a serious case involving illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi nationals in India and acquiring citizenship and settlement by use of fake documents. Also, accused persons are also a threat to national security and the economy as they are deeply involved in grave and heinous activities that have cross- border implications and inter-state operations.
20. Further, there is strong apprehension that the Accused persons will evade the process of investigation and may abscond. Further, there is a possibility that the said persons may hamper the investigation by influencing the witnesses and other persons associated with the case. 7
2025:JHHC:27988
21. On having material in possession and reasons to believe recorded in writing, that the accused persons are guilty of the offence of Money Laundering for the reasons, as discussed above Accused Shri Pintu Halder was arrested on 12.11.2024 in the ongoing investigation and since the said accused was arrested outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Learned Special Court (PMLA), Ranchi and could not be produced before the Ld. Special Court (PMLA), Ranchi within 24 hours of his arrest u/s 19 of PMLA, 2002 .
22. Thereafter, the accused was produced before the Court of the Learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court at Kolkata under Section 187 of BNSS (earlier 167 of Cr.P.C) r/w Section 19 of PMLA, 2002 for issuance of order of transit remand which was given by the Ld. Court vide order dated 13.11.2024.
23. The present petitioner preferred MCA No. 547 of 2025 for grant of bail which was rejected vide order dated 29.04.2025 by learned Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi.
24. Hence the present petition has been preferred for the grant of bail.
Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner:
25. Mr. B.M.Tripathy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner seeking relief for grant of bail has submitted that the petitioner is wholly innocent and 8 2025:JHHC:27988 has committed no offence whatsoever and he has got no criminal antecedents.
26. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case only on the basis of vague and hypothetical allegations not supported and corroborated by any material evidence.
27. He has submitted that the opposite party-E.D. is very much relying upon the call details of the petitioner that he was regularly connected with other accused persons. The opposite party-E.D. is only drawing an inference that since other accused person are involved in illegal infiltration in India, the petitioner might have been also involved in the same.
28. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that no incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. All the alleged recovery are planted with an intention to implicate the petitioner in this case and leave the actual culprit free.
29. It has been contended that the petitioner is a permanent resident of West Bengal and he had nothing to do with Jharkhand. He had never visited this place at any point of time and hence there is no question of arranging any accommodation or residence for any outsider.
30. It has further been contended that the petitioner is a very poor person and he is a worker in a small grocery 9 2025:JHHC:27988 shop and his financial status is fully apparent from his seized three bank accounts where there was only ₹8000/- in his all accounts which is his hard-earned money. The recovery from other accused person is handsome but the recovery from this petitioner itself speaks about his innocence.
31. Further, the girl's allegedly coming from Bangladesh are themselves illegal migrants on their own choice as because they are infiltrating in India to search a job over here and entering without passport and Visa but now, they are posing themselves as victims. But in fact, they are not the victim and in actual sense they are accused of illegal infiltration in India.
32. He has submitted that the petitioner is not the person who is pushing the alleged ladies from Bangladesh in immoral acts. None of the recovered ladies from Bangladesh has alleged that this petitioner has provided them fake aadhar card or any other fake documents to her for settling down in India. Neither none of the victims has also alleged that this petitioner, has provided them shelter in India.
33. It has been lastly contended that the petitioner is rustic person and doing work for his livelihood and his entire family depends upon him.
10
2025:JHHC:27988
34. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 14.11.2024.
35. Based upon the aforesaid grounds, learned senior counsel has submitted that the petitioner may kindly be allowed on regular bail.
Argument on behalf of Respondent-ED:
36. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-ED has taken the following ground in opposition:
(i) The accused petitioner Pintu Halder was knowingly involved in the illegal facilitation of Bangladeshi nationals into India. He played a key role in the syndicate by manufacturing forged Indian identity documents, primarily Aadhaar cards, using a computer, printer, and lamination machine seized from his premises. These documents were prepared on the instructions of the co-accused Monisha Roy, Juel (a Bangladeshi national), and Mona, who provided details and photographs via WhatsApp. For each Aadhaar card, he charged ₹1,200 and received payments through PhonePe and cash.
(ii) In addition to document forgery, Pintu Halder also transported trafficked Bangladeshi women from the border area in Bongaon to Ranchi, Jharkhand, where 11 2025:JHHC:27988 they were handed over to Monisha Roy. He charged around ₹15,000 per trip and admitted to delivering individuals like Hasi Biswas and Khushi Biswas in May 2024.
(iii) The communication records and seized digital evidence from his mobile phone confirmed frequent contact with Monisha Roy and several Bangladeshi numbers. A fake Aadhaar card used by arrested Bangladeshi national Anika Dutta was recovered from his phone, directly linking him to the illegal network.
(iv) It has been further submitted that during a search conducted on 12.11.2024 under Section 17 of PMLA, incriminating items were recovered from his premises, including a computer setup, lamination equipment, fake Aadhaar cards, six SIM cards (including a Bangladeshi SIM), forged documents, and a hard disk containing multiple Aadhaar templates. His mobile phone contained WhatsApp chats, photographs used in fake IDs, and the Aadhaar of Monisha Roy.
(v) Further, his call detail records revealed contact with at least 10 Bangladeshi mobile numbers.
(vi) During his statement under PMLA, Pintu Halder admitted to fabricating fake Aadhaar cards and knowingly assisting Monisha Roy and others in transporting Bangladeshi girls to Ranchi.12
2025:JHHC:27988
(vii) He confirmed receiving payments for these services, some of which were deposited in his Bank of India account. The evidence establishes that Pintu Halder was knowingly and directly involved in activities connected with the proceeds of crime and was a key operational link in the human trafficking syndicate.
(viii) It has further been submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of bail in view of the stringent provisions of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The twin conditions prescribed therein mandate that (i) the Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application, and (ii) the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These conditions have been held to be mandatory and have consistently been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of economic offences. In Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement [(2018) 11 SCC 46], bail under PMLA was explicitly denied on the ground that such offences must be dealt with strictly, keeping in mind the deterrent objective of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court underscored that economic offences are a class apart and bail cannot be granted 13 2025:JHHC:27988 mechanically or merely on the ground of personal hardship or assurances of cooperation.
(ix) In the present case, the petitioner has failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA. The allegations involve laundering of substantial proceeds of crime, and the investigation is at a crucial stage and grant of bail at this juncture would not only hamper the ongoing investigation but would also set a dangerous precedent in cases involving organized financial crime and money laundering.
37. Learned counsel for the respondent-ED based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is not a fit case for grant of regular bail in favour of the petitioner. Analysis:
38. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the argument advanced on behalf of parties and other materials available on record.
39. This Court before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to discuss herein the admitted factual aspects of the instant case.
40. An ECIR/ RNZO/17/2024 has been recorded on the basis of FIR of Bariatu P.S. Case No. 188 of 2024 dated 04.06.2024 registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 14 2025:JHHC:27988 34 of IPC 1860, Section 12 of Passports Act 1967; Section 14-A of Foreigners Act, 1946.
41. As per the aforesaid FIR, one Nipah Akhtar Khushi aged about 21 years hailing from Bangladesh was brought to Kolkata by a girl named Manisha Rai with the help of another girl named Jhuma on the midnight of 31.05.2024, by illegally facilitating her crossing Bangladesh border from the jungle area, on the pretext of getting her engaged in any work in India. The said Nipah Akhtar Khushi was then brought to Ranchi by car, where she was first kept at Bali Resort, Ranchi for two days with other girls. The Bangladeshi girl namely Nipah Akhtar and another girl Haasi Akhtar alias Hasi Vishwas, also hailing from Bangladesh, were kept at one Apartment with two other different Bangladeshi girls, Parveen and Jhuma.
42. On 03.06.2024, taking advantage of the opportunity, the girl Nipah Akhtar Khushi sneaked away and somehow reached to the Police and lodged the complaint.
43. After registering a complaint, on 04.06.2024 at around 15:30 hrs., the police conducted raids and three girls out of which 2 girls hailing from Bangladesh were found inside one room at Bali Resort in Ranchi.
44. It was revealed that the rooms were booked by one Manisha Rai and her guests were accommodated there. 15
2025:JHHC:27988 Further upon searching the rooms, police recovered some mobiles and a fake Aadhaar card, which was meant to be used for stay fraudulently in India by one Bangladeshi national connected to the above stated person.
45. Accordingly, the trial court has taken the cognizance of the aforesaid offence. Thereafter, petitioner had preferred the Misc. Cri. Application being MCA 547/2025 for his bail, which was dismissed vide Order dated 29.04.2025.
46. Hence the present application has been preferred before this Court for grant of regular bail.
47. Before appreciating the contention, of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court thinks fit to refer the provision of law as contained under the Act, 2002 with its object and intent as also the legal proposition as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments.
48. The Act 2002, was enacted to address the urgent need to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof including vesting of it in the Central Government, setting up of agencies and mechanisms for coordinating measures for combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
16
2025:JHHC:27988
49. It needs to refer herein the definition of "proceeds of crime" has been provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002 wherefrom it is evident that "proceeds of crime"
means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad.
50. 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.
51. It is, thus, evident that the reason for giving explanation under Section 2(1)(u) is by way of clarification to the effect that whether as per the substantive provision of Section 2(1)(u), the property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country but by way of explanation the proceeds of crime has been given broader implication by including property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but 17 2025:JHHC:27988 also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.
52. 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.
53. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x) which means schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It is evident that the "scheduled offence" means the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule.
54. The offence of money laundering has been defined under Section 3 of the Act, 2002, it is evident from the said provision that "offence of money-laundering" means whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, 18 2025:JHHC:27988 acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.
55. It is further evident that the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.
56. The various provisions of the Act, 2002 alongwith interpretation of the definition of "proceeds of crime" has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 wherein the Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have decided the issue by taking into consideration the object and intent of the Act, 2002.
57. 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 19 2025:JHHC:27988 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.
58. It needs to refer herein the purport of Section 45(1)(i)(ii), the aforesaid provision starts from the non- obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless -
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given a opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
59. 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.
60. The explanation is also there as under sub-section (2) thereof which is for the purpose of removal of doubts. A clarification has been inserted that the expression "Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable" shall mean and shall be deemed to have always meant that all offences under this 20 2025:JHHC:27988 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.
61. The fact about the implication of Section 45 has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra) for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs are being referred as under:
"387.............The provision post the 2018 Amendment, is in the nature of no bail in relation to the offence of money laundering unless the twin conditions are fulfilled. The twin conditions are that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of offence of money laundering and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Considering the purposes and objects of the legislation in the form of the 2002 Act and the background in which it had been enacted owing to the commitment made to the international bodies and on their recommendations, it is plainly clear that it is a special legislation to deal with the subject of money laundering activities having transnational impact on the financial systems including sovereignty and integrity of the countries. This is not an ordinary offence. To deal with such serious offence, stringent measures are provided in the 2002 Act for prevention of money laundering and combating menace of money laundering, including for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and to prosecute persons involved in the process or activity 21 2025:JHHC:27988 connected with the proceeds of crime. In view of the gravity of the fallout of money laundering activities having transnational impact, a special procedural law for prevention and regulation, including to prosecute the person involved, has been enacted, grouping the offenders involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime as a separate class from ordinary criminals. The offence of money laundering has been regarded as an aggravated form of crime "world over". It is, therefore, a separate class of offence requiring effective and stringent measures to combat the menace of money laundering.
412. As a result, we have no hesitation in observing that in whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the constitutional court, the underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 of the 2002 Act must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of money laundering."
62. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486 by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra), has laid down that since the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory, they need to be complied with. The Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It 22 2025:JHHC:27988 has further been observed that as per the statutory presumption permitted under Section 24 of the Act, the Court or the Authority is entitled to presume unless the contrary is proved, that in any proceedings relating to proceeds of crime under the Act, in the case of a person charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3, such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. Such conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PML Act will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 Cr. P.C. in view of the overriding effect given to the PML Act over the other law for the time being in force, under Section 71 of the PML Act.
63. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment has further laid down that the 'twin conditions' as to fulfil the requirement of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 before granting the benefit of bail is to be adhered to which has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra) wherein it has been observed that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
64. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through 23 2025:JHHC:27988 Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, (2015) 16 SCC 1 has been pleased to hold at paragraph - 30 that the conditions specified under Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with, which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and also Section 71 of PMLA. Section 65 requires that the provisions of Cr.P.C shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and Section 71 provides that the provisions of PMLA shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. PMLA has an overriding effect and the provisions of CrPC would apply only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.
65. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PMLA will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the accused.
66. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court recently in the case of Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109, in the 24 2025:JHHC:27988 matter of UAP Act 1967 has observed that the conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis-à-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft- quoted phrase - 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' - unless circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act and the 'exercise' of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. For ready reference, relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred as under:
"28. The conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis-à-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase - 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' - unless circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act. The 'exercise' of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. The form of the words used in proviso to Section 43D (5)- 'shall not be released' in contrast with the form of the words as found in Section 437(1) CrPC - 'may be released' - suggests the intention of the Legislature to make bail, the exception and jail, the rule.
67. The reason for making reference of this judgment is that in the Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr, (2022) 10 SCC 51 , the UAPA has also been brought under the purview of category 'c' wherein while laying observing that in the UAPA Act, it comes under the category 'c' which also includes money laundering offence wherein the bail has been directed to be granted if the investigation is 25 2025:JHHC:27988 complete but the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (supra) has taken the view by making note that the penal offences as enshrined under the provision of UAPA are also under category 'c' making reference that jail is the rule and bail is the exception.
68. Now adverting to the fact of the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation leveled against the present petitioner cannot be said to attract the ingredient of Section 3 of PMLA.
69. 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.
70. This Court, in order to appreciate the rival submission, is of the view that various paragraphs of prosecution complaint upon which the reliance has been placed on behalf of both the parties, needs to be referred herein so as to come to the conclusion as to whether the parameter as fixed under Section 45(ii) of the Act 2002, is being fulfilled in order to reach to the conclusion that it is a fit case where regular bail is to be granted or not.
71. In order to reach to conclusion regarding alleged culpability of the accused/applicant in commission and accumulation of 'proceeds of crime', this Court needs to 26 2025:JHHC:27988 refer the relevant paragraphs of the FIR Annexed herein as Annexure-1 which reads as under:
Further, the CDR of the other accused persons of this case revealed frequent calls with various Bangladeshi numbers. During investigation, the CDRa of the various Indian mobile numbers, with which the above mentioned Bangladeshi numbers had contacted with were scrutinized. The scrutiny of the said mobile numbers revealed the following facts-
The SDR of mobile number 7908031504 revealed that the said mobile number is registered in name of the accused Pintu Haldar. It further reveals that Pintu Haldar is in frequent contacts with mobile number used by Manisha Roy (****678) as well as with various other suspicious Bangladeshi numbers Thus, on having reasons to believe that the above stated accused persons along with others are knowingly indulged in illegal activities pertaining to facilitating illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi nationals in India and use. acquisition, and possession of proceeds of crime generated therefrom, searches were conducted on 12.11.2024 under Section 17 of PMLA, 2012 in the matant ECIR at 17 premises under the use and occupation of the above mentioned persons and premises linked to them, including the premises of the said Pinki Basu Mukherjee, Rony Mandal and Pintu Haldar.
During the course of searches at the paşidental-premises under the use an occupation of Accused No.3 Pintu Haldar a computer setup for printing/forging duplicate Aadhaar, along with printing machines, papers as well as several duplicate Aadhaar have been recovered and seized. It reveals that the said Accused No. 3. is engaged in making fake Aadhaar cards and other identities for Bangladeshi nationals for their illegal stay in India. Further, he is involved in making fake Aadhaar, voter ID cards and other Identity documents for Bangladeshi nationals which is further corroborated by his frequent contacts with several 27 2025:JHHC:27988 Bangladeshi persons an well as with the said Manisha Roy as evident from his CDR.
Thus, the Accused Persons and other people are part of a bigger syndicate that operates extensively and in a discreet manner across West Bengal and parts of Jharkhand, including Ranchi. The said persons are engaged in facilitating the illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi nationals into India for the purpose of carrying out illicit activities in lieu of generating proceeds of crime. Hence, the said Accused persons are knowingly and directly involved in processes and activities connected with the generation and acquisition of proceeds of crime as well as their use which are derived out of illegal activities which are scheduled offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. The generation, acquisition and use of the proceeds of crime out of the above-stated activities are corroborated by the seizure of mobile phones containing various incriminating chats relating to monetary transactions in lieu of above-stated illegal activities including prostitution by these girls. During the course of searches, documents have also been recovered which contain the details/list of the payments in lieu of the prostitution racket being run by the above syndicate by the involvement of the above-mentioned Bangladeshi Nationals.
72. Thus, it is evident that prima-facie the petitioner's role, has surfaced in fabrication of Aadhaar cards through a home setup of computer, printer and lamination machine, acting on the instructions of co-accused, charging per card, and receiving payments in cash and through Phone Pe.
73. It has come on record that the search conducted on 12.11.2024 under Section 17 of the PMLA at the premises of the Petitioner led to the seizure of the computer setup, 28 2025:JHHC:27988 lamination equipment, fake Aadhaar cards, multiple SIM cards (including a Bangladeshi SIM), forged documents, and digital storage devices containing Aadhaar templates and photographs. CDRs and WhatsApp chats show frequent contact with Bangladeshi numbers and co-accused, and one fake Aadhaar recovered from an arrested Bangladeshi national matched files found on the petitioner's seized device.
74. Further it appears that petitioner was involved in producing forged IDs, arranging logistics for trafficked victims, and receiving funds both in cash and digital modes, with part of the funds deposited in his bank account.
75. Further it has been stated in the counter affidavit that during investigation it has come that role of the present petitioner in creating forged identity documents and his international links create serious risks of tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and absconding, all of which militate against grant of bail. It has been further pleaded that the findings recorded at the transit stage by the Ld. Calcutta Court also remain unrebutted, as the present petition tenders no new material to dislodge them. The predicate offence narrative, as reproduced in the petitioner's own submissions, details the illegal cross-border entry, use of forged Aadhaar to remain in India, and the recovery of 29 2025:JHHC:27988 forged documents and devices from the Bali Resort and Raj Apartment.
76. Thus, prima facie it appears that the evidence available on record reveals that the petitioner was allegedly involved in fabricating forged Aadhaar cards using his home- based setup and was acting under instructions from co- accused and charging a fixed rate per forged Aadhaar, and payments were received by him both in cash and through digital channels such as PhonePe. Thus, such amounts as per the mandate of PML Act 2002 comes under the purview of proceeds of crime, being funds generated out of the illegal activity of providing false identity documents to foreign nationals.
77. At this juncture it needs to refer herein that it is settled connotation of law that at the stage of considering bail, the duty of the Court is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities and Court should not venture into the merit of the case by analyzing that whether conviction is possible or not. Meaning thereby at this stage the Court has to see the prima facie case only.
78. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) while referring the ratio of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 30 2025:JHHC:27988 294 has categorically held that the Court ought to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial. The duty of the Court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities.
79. Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors(supra) has reiterated the same view and has observed that the Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail need not to delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the court based on available material on record is required. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
303. We are in agreement with the observation made by the Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma [Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1057] . The Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the court based on available material on record is required. The court will not weigh the evidence to find the guilt of the accused which is, of course, the work of the trial court. The court is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material collected during investigation and the said view will not be taken into consideration by the trial court in recording its finding of the guilt or acquittal during trial which is based on the evidence adduced during the trial. As explained by this Court in Nimmagadda Prasad [Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 575] , the words used in 31 2025:JHHC:27988 Section 45 of the 2002 Act are "reasonable grounds for believing" which means the court has to see only if there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
80. Hence, from the record prima facie it appears that the petitioner is directly indulged in all the activities connected with the offence of money laundering. as defined u/s 3 of PMLA, 2002.Further, the role of the petitioner in the laundering of proceeds of crime generated out of the commission of scheduled offence has been discussed in detail in the prosecution complaint as the paragraphs of the prosecution complaint abovementioned.
81. It needs to refer herein that 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.
82. Further by virtue of Section 24 of the PMLA, the respondent ED is not required to conclusively establish the applicant's guilt at the pre-trial stage, rather, the applicant must demonstrate that the proceeds of crime attributed to 32 2025:JHHC:27988 him are not linked to money laundering. In the absence of any rebuttal by the applicant, the presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA stands in favor of the respondent, thereby, justifying his continued detention.
83. Be it noted that the legal presumption under Section 24(a) of the Act 2002, would apply when the person is charged with the offence of money-laundering and his direct or indirect involvement in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, is established. The existence of proceeds of crime is, therefore, a foundational fact, to be established by the prosecution, including the involvement of the person in any process or activity connected therewith. Once these foundational facts are established by the prosecution, the onus must then shift on the person facing charge of offence of money- laundering to rebut the legal presumption that the proceeds of crime are not involved in money-laundering, by producing evidence which is within his personal knowledge of the accused.
84. In other words, the expression "presume" is not conclusive. It also does not follow that the legal presumption that the proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering is to be invoked by the authority or the court, without providing an opportunity to the person to rebut the same by leading evidence within his personal knowledge. 33
2025:JHHC:27988
85. Such onus also flows from the purport of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Whereby, he must rebut the legal presumption in the manner he chooses to do and as is permissible in law, including by replying under Section 313 of the 1973 Code or even by cross-examining prosecution witnesses. The person would get enough opportunity in the proceeding before the authority or the court, as the case may be. He may be able to discharge his burden by showing that he is not involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
86. Thus, in light of the aforesaid principles and the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (Supra), this Court must determine whether the foundational facts necessary to invoke the presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA have been established by the respondent/ED.
87. It needs to refer herein that cognizance of the offence under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the PMLA was duly taken.
88. Further from the forensic examination of the petitioner's devices revealed that Aadhaar templates and photographic data corresponding to several Bangladeshi nationals. Significantly, one of the forged Aadhaar cards recovered from a Bangladeshi national already arrested in the predicate offence case was found to have originated from 34 2025:JHHC:27988 the petitioner's setup. This directly links the petitioner's fabrication activity with the infiltration and sheltering of Bangladeshi nationals in Jharkhand.
89. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances the presumption under Section 24 of the Act 2002 is available herein.
90. Now in the light of aforesaid discussion at this juncture this Court thinks it fit to revisit the scope of Section 45 of the PML Act 2002. As discussed in preceding paragraphs that Section 45 of the PML 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.
91. 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 offence while on bail.
92. Section 45(2) of the Act 2002 provides to consider the limitation for grant of bail which is in addition to the 35 2025:JHHC:27988 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 BNSS 2023 is to be taken into consideration.
93. It is, thus, evident by taking into consideration the provision of Sections 45(1) 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 statute apart from the twin conditions which has been provided under Section 45(1) of the Act, 2002.
94. Thus, Section 45 of the PMLA turns the principle of bail is the rule and jail is the exception on its head. The power of the Court to grant bail is further conditioned upon the satisfaction of the twin conditions prescribed under Section 45(1) (i) and (ii) PMLA. While undertaking this exercise, the Court is required to take a prima facie view on the basis of materials collected during investigation. The expression used in Section 45 of PMLA are "reasonable grounds for believing" which means that the Court has to find, from a prima facie view of the materials collected during investigation that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed the offence and that there is no likelihood of him committing an offence while on bail. Recently, in Tarun Kumar v Assistant 36 2025:JHHC:27988 Directorate of Enforcement, (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"17.As well settled by now, the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory. They need to be complied with. The Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is needless to say that as per the statutory presumption permitted under Section 24 of the Act, the Court or the Authority is entitled to presume unless the contrary is proved, that in any proceedings relating to proceeds of crime under the Act, in the case of a person charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3, such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. Such conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PML Act will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 Cr. P.C. in view of the overriding effect given to the PML Act over the other law for the time being in force, under Section 71 of the PML Act."
95. 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 is not fit to be acceptable.
96. Further, if there is a prima facie material to show that the amount has been received while taking part in the scheduled offence as stipulated in the Act 2002, then it 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 37 2025:JHHC:27988 3 of PMLA through Act 23 of 2019. This position was also made clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Directorate of Enforcement. V. Padmanabhan Kishore reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1490. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted as under:
"12. The definition of "proceeds of crime" in the PML Act, inter alia, means any property derived or obtained by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13 are scheduled offences, as is evident from Para 8 of Part-A of the Schedule to the PML Act. Any property thus derived as a result of criminal activity relating to offence mentioned in said Para 8 of Part-A of the Schedule would certainly be "proceeds of crime".
14. The said Section 3 states, inter alia, that whoever knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use shall be guilty of offence of money- laundering (emphasis added by us)."
97. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire ECIR will be taken into consideration, no offence will be said to be committed so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 3 & 4 of the P.M.L. Act, 2002, is totally misplaced in the light of accusation as mentioned in prosecution complaint.
98. Thus, taking into consideration the grave nature of the allegations, the sophisticated modus operandi and the 38 2025:JHHC:27988 strict statutory framework governing bail under the PMLA particularly under Section 45 of the Act 2002, no ground exists for the petitioner to claim the benefit of bail on merits and the serious allegations of laundering of proceeds of crime continue to justify the petitioner's custody under the strict rigours of Section 45 of the Act 2002.
99. This Court, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, factual aspect as also the legal position, is of the prima-facie view that there is no 'reason to believe' by this Court that the petitioner is not involved in the alleged offence under Section 3 of the PML Act 2002.
100. It requires to refer herein that with the advancement of technology and Artificial Intelligence, the economic offences like money laundering have become a real threat to the functioning of the financial system of a country and have become a great challenge for the investigating agencies to detect and comprehend the intricate nature of transactions, as also the role of the persons involved therein. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid Judgment are being quoted as under: 39
2025:JHHC:27988
23. With the advancement of technology and Artificial Intelligence, the economic offences like money laundering have become a real threat to the functioning of the financial system of the country and have become a great challenge for the investigating agencies to detect and comprehend the intricate nature of transactions, as also the role of the persons involved therein. Lot of minute exercise is expected to be undertaken by the Investigating Agency to see that no innocent person is wrongly booked and that no culprit escapes from the clutches of the law. When the detention of the accused is continued by the Court, the courts are also expected to conclude the trials within a reasonable time, further ensuring the right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
24. With the afore-stated observations, the appeal is dismissed."
101. Thus, it appears from the prosecution complaint that in the alleged offence the petitioner's role is twofold:
(i) to manufacture forged Indian identity documents for Bangladeshi nationals using the seized computerized setup, and (ii) to arrange transportation and logistical support for trafficked Bangladeshi women from border areas to Jharkhand. Both sets of activities are directly connected with the generation, acquisition, possession and use of proceeds of crime, thereby constituting the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA. Hence, prima facie it appears that the petitioner acted as a key facilitator in the syndicate's operations, enabling illegal migrants to enter, settle and operate in India under the cover of forged identity documents, while simultaneously profiting from the payments made to him for such unlawful services.40
2025:JHHC:27988
102. This Court, considering the aforesaid material available against the petitioner in such a grave nature of offence and applying the principle of grant of bail wherein the principle of having prima facie case is to be followed, is of the view that it is not a fit case of grant of bail.
103. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner 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.
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 any observations made herein are prima-facie for consideration of matter of bail only and the view expressed herein shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
106. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court and shall decide the case strictly in accordance with law.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Birendra/-A.F.R. 41