Jharkhand High Court
Faiyaz Khan vs The Union Of India Through The ... on 11 April, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:11402
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.3421 of 2024
-----
Faiyaz Khan, son of Riyazuddin Khan, aged about 35 years, Resident of Millat Colony, Bariatu Basti, P.O. & P.S. Bariatu, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand-834009.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement.
...... Opp. Party
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Birendra Burman, Advocate : Mrs. Aulia Begum, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate : Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Varun Girdhar, Advocate
------
CAV on 21.03.2025 Pronounced on 11/04/2025 Prayer
1. The instant application has been filed under Section 439 and 440 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for grant of bail in ECIR Case No.01 of 2023 arising out of ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 dated 21.10.2022 [corresponding to Bariatu P.S. Case No.141 of 2020] for offences of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, pending in the Court of Special Judge, P.M.L. Act, Ranchi.
Prosecution case/Facts
2. The brief facts of the case is that an ECIR bearing No. 18/2022 was recorded on the basis of the FIR bearing 1 2025:JHHC:11402 No. 141 of 2022 [Bariatu P.S.] dated 04.06.2022, lodged at Bariatu Police Station, Ranchi Jharkhand under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against one Pradeep Bagchi on the basis of complaint of one Sri Dilip Sharma, Tax Collector, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, for submission of forged papers i.e., Aadhar Card, Electricity Bill and Possession letter for obtaining holding number 0210004194000A1 and 0210004031000A5.
3. The investigation revealed that by submitting the forged documents, a holding number was obtained in name of Pradeep Bagchi for property at Morabadi Mouza, Ward No. 21/19 at Ranchi having an area of the plot measuring 455.00 decimals approximately.
4. Investigation further revealed that the above property belonged to Late B.M. Laxman Rao which was given to the Army and had been in the possession of the Defence, in occupation of the Army since independence. Investigation also reveals that by way of creating a fake owner (Pradeep Bagchi) of the above said property, it was sold to a company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd for which the consideration amount was shown Rs. 7 crores which was highly under value and out of this amount payment amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs only were made into the account of said Pradeep Bagchi and rest of the money 2 2025:JHHC:11402 was falsely shown to be paid through cheques in the deed no. 6888 of 2021.
5. It has come during investigation that records available at the Circle Officer, Bargain, Ranchi along with the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata have been altered and records have been modified. The survey of Circle Office Bargain as well as Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata transpires that documents have been tampered to create fictitious owner of the above properties.
6. It has also come during investigation that some other properties which are non-saleable Government land, have been acquired by forging the records and creating fraudulent documents and by tampering the records available at the concerned land record authorities.
7. The Enforcement Directorate upon completion of investigation filed the prosecution complaint under Section 45 read with Section 44 of PML Act being ECIR Case no. 01/2023.
8. Pursuant thereto, on 13.04.2023 the house of the petitioner was searched in connection with investigation in ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 wherein various deed along with seals have been found. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested in this case on the allegation that he being the part of the syndicate and is involved in the activities linked 3 2025:JHHC:11402 to manufacturing and use of fake deeds to facilitate the fraudulent transfer of property in question.
9. Thereafter, the present petitioner preferred Misc. Cri. Application No. 504 of 2024 for grant of bail which was rejected vide order dated 12.02.2024 by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I cum Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi, hence, the instant bail application. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner
10. Mr. Birendra Burman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the following grounds that:-
(i) Even if the entire ECIR will be taken into consideration, no offence will be said to be committed so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 3 & 4 of the P.M.L. Act, 2002.
(ii) The petitioner neither stands as the accused party in Bariatu Police Station Case No. 141/2022 nor in Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) Case No. 18/2022, which was initiated on 21st October 2022.
(iii) The petitioner's involvement in the present case is predicated solely upon conjecture and purported admissions made by a co-accused, obtained while the co-accused was under custodial supervision. This implicating factor lacks substantial evidentiary 4 2025:JHHC:11402 support and raises concerns regarding its reliability and admissibility.
(iv) The is having no involvement or connection with the entirety of the prosecution proceedings or the disputed land in question and the petitioner disclaims any association with the allegations of forgery of document pertaining to land transactions.
(v) The petitioner states that there exists no prior complaint or accusation pertaining to the manipulation or fabrication of documents against him.
(vi) The petitioner was contracted by co-accused Md.
Afsar Ali to serve as a private driver for a commercial vehicle and in this capacity, received regular monthly remuneration. Beyond this contractual arrangement, the petitioner maintains no involvement or association with any other co-accused implicated in the present case.
(vii) The petitioner has no prior criminal record.
Furthermore, the petitioner is of limited financial means, residing with his elderly mother and sister, and relying on a meager income, as evidenced by their possession of a Ration Card.
(viii) As per the prosecution's own admission, the residence of the petitioner underwent a search. 5
2025:JHHC:11402 Subsequently, all financial accounts, inclusive of those belonging to the petitioner and their entire family, were scrutinized. Despite such exhaustive examination, no inculpatory evidence was discovered. Moreover, there exists no accusation of the petitioner amassing or acquiring a significant or disproportionate sum from the proceeds, rather, the only allegation pertains to the recovery of certain rubber stamps.
(ix) There exists no tangible evidence directly implicating the petitioner in the creation or preparation of any specific document. The only purported link to such activity is an ambiguous confession made by a co- accused, which lacks evidentiary weight under legal scrutiny.
(x) The petitioner has not been accused of any scheduled offence, which is a prerequisite for implicating an individual under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
(xi) There exists no accusation against the petitioner that he has directly or indirectly engaged in, facilitated, or knowingly participated in any activity associated with the proceeds of crime, including its concealment, possession, acquisition, or utilization, and the assertion of it as untainted property.
6
2025:JHHC:11402
(xii) The sole allegation against the petitioner pertains to his purported assistance to other accused individuals in document preparation, which may not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
(xiii) There is no assertion that the petitioner attempted to commit any offence delineated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, particularly as delineated in Section 3 of the statute.
(xiv) The Bariatu Police Station Case No. 141/22 has been filed solely against one co-accused, Pradeep Bagchi, with specific allegations. Similarly, the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) 18/2022 has also been instituted solely against Pradeep Bagchi.
(xv) The petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2023. (xvi) This petitioner having no concern with the entire transaction. He having no concern with the land in question. This petitioner has not received a single penny related with the present case.
(xvii) No proceeds of crime have been recovered from the possession of this petitioner and even no proceed of crime has been connected with the petitioner.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the learned court 7 2025:JHHC:11402 while considering the prayer for bail ought to have taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter both legal and factual but having not done so, serious error has been committed.
12. Further submission has been made in the aforesaid view of the matter as per the ground agitated that it is a fit case where the petitioner is to be given the privilege of bail. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent/Directorate of Enforcement
13. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by taking the following grounds :-
(i) It has been submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner that he is innocent and having no connection with the commission of crime.
(ii) It has been contended that if the proceeds of crime are there, the same will be said to be respective of the proceeds obtained from the scheduled offence, rather, even in case of proceeds of crime if has been obtained other than the crime as under the scheduled offence, then also the ingredients of Section 3 of the P.M.L. Act, 2002 will be applicable.
(iii) The documents seized from the premises of the petitioner are mostly related with the property which was being acquired by fake deed by the syndicate.8
2025:JHHC:11402 Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner is a part of the syndicate and is involved in the activities linked to manufacturing and use of fake deeds.
(iv) During course of search, 10 number of duplicate stamps/seals of Land Registration Department were recovered from the possession of this petitioner. Several fake and forged property documents bearing the same impression as the seal have also been seized. Some of the stamps and seals were deliberately been distorted and rubbed in order to give it an impression of very old stamp, being used for several years which suggest that the petitioner has also actively participated in the aforesaid crime.
(v) The petitioner has also admitted his involvement in visit to Registrar of Assurances to bring the certified copies of such deeds for his accomplices namely Afsar Ali and others.
(vi) The present petitioner namely Faiyaz Khan knowingly assisted his other accomplices in their illegal activities of making fake deeds and acquiring properties on the basis of the fake deeds which were in fact proceeds of crime as defined under section 2 (1) (u) of PMLA, 2002.
(vii) Further, the petitioner also indulged in arranging buyers for a piece of land admeasuring 4.83 acres 9 2025:JHHC:11402 situated at Cheshire Home Road which was acquired by fake deed and was thus proceeds of crime.
(viii) The petitioner knowingly assisted Afsar Ali in arranging fake deeds which he brought from Kolkata from the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata.
(ix) During searches, 10 number of duplicate stamps/seals of Land Registration Department were recovered from his possession which were kept concealed at his residence. During the course of searches, property deeds number 4381/4369 (Plot No. 557, Morabadi property in possession of defence) and 408/348 were also recovered from his premises which proves that he was knowingly indulged in illegal activity relating to the generation of proceeds of crime and was also a party with his accomplices namely Afshar Ali, Pradip Bagchi and other accused persons in their activities linked to generation and acquisition of proceeds of crime and projecting them as untainted property.
(x) Thus, the petitioner was knowingly a party and actually involved with the other accomplices in activity connected with the proceeds of crime i.e. its acquisition, use and projecting and claiming the proceeds of crime as untainted property. Thus, the petitioner is guilty of the offence of money laundering 10 2025:JHHC:11402 as defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002, punishable under section 4 of PMLA, 2002.
(xi) Learned counsel for the Opposite Party has submitted by referring to the judgment rendered in the case of Pavana Dibbur vs. Directorate of Enforcement [Criminal Appeal No. 2779/20223], wherein it has been held that it is not necessary that the accused for the offence of money laundering to be made accused of schedule offences and it is also pertinent to mention that the offence of money laundering is an independent offence. Hence, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner on this issue is baseless and liable to be dismissed.
(xii) The instant prosecution complaint is backed by documentary evidences and incriminating seizure which are further corroborated from other accused or witnesses during their statements under Section 50 of PMLA, 2002.
(xiii) The petitioner's claims are merely an attempt to conceal his involvement in illegal activities related to assisting his accomplices in fraudulently acquiring properties.
(xiv) The petitioner is involved and dealing with properties of such nature acquired through forged documents, and is knowingly indulged in assisting his 11 2025:JHHC:11402 accomplices in the fraudulent acquisition of other landed properties. The same is corroborated by the seizure of several fake property documents and fabricated rubber stamps from his premises during a search dated 13.04.2023.
(xv) Further, from the statements of his accomplices namely Md. Saddam Hussain and Pradip Bagchi, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has knowingly indulged in such illegal activities of landed properties for long.
(xvi) Further, from the statement of the petitioner himself as well as from the statements of his accomplices recorded under section 50 of PMLA, 2002, it is established that the petitioner is directly and knowingly a party with his accomplices namely Afshar Ali, Md. Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan and others and is actually involved in processes and activities connected with the proceeds of crime.
14. Learned counsel for the Opp. Party-ED, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that it is not a fit case for grant of regular bail in favour of the petitioner. Analysis
15. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 12
2025:JHHC:11402
16. This Court before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to discuss herein some of the provision of law as contained under the PML Act, 2002 (Act 2002) with its object and intent as also the legal proposition as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments.
17. The Act 2002 was enacted to address the urgent need to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof including vesting of it in the Central Government, setting up of agencies and mechanisms for coordinating measures for combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
18. It is evident that the Act 2002 was enacted in order to answer the urgent requirement to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof for combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.
19. The objective of the PMLA is to prevent money laundering which has posed a serious threat not only to the financial systems of the country but also to its integrity and 13 2025:JHHC:11402 sovereignty. The offence of money laundering is a very serious offence which is committed by an individual with a deliberate desire and the motive to enhance his gains, disregarding the interest of the nation and the society as a whole, and such offence by no stretch of imagination can be regarded as an offence of trivial nature. The stringent provisions have been made in the Act to combat the menace of money laundering.
20. It needs to refer herein the definition of "proceeds of crime" as provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002 which reads as under:-
"2(u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property 3[or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country] 4[or abroad]; [Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence;]"
21. It is evident from the aforesaid provision by which the "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or 14 2025:JHHC:11402 held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad.
22. In the explanation, it has been referred that for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.
23. It is, thus, evident that the reason for giving explanation under Section 2(1)(u) is by way of clarification to the effect that whether as per the substantive provision of Section 2(1)(u), the property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country but by way of explanation the proceeds of crime has been given broader implication by including property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.
24. Further, 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 15 2025:JHHC:11402 instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located.
25. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x) which means schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The "scheduled offence" has been defined under Section 2(1)(y) which reads as under:-
"2(y) "scheduled offence" means--
(i) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or
(ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or
(iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule."
26. It is evident that the "scheduled offence" means the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule.
27. The offence of money laundering has been defined under Section 3 of the Act, 2002 which reads as under:-
"3. Offence of money-laundering.--Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the [proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming] it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.16
2025:JHHC:11402 [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.]"
28. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that "offence of money-laundering" means whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering.
29. It is further evident that the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or 17 2025:JHHC:11402 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.
30. The punishment for money laundering has been provided under Section 4 of the Act, 2002.
31. Section 50 of the Act, 2002 confers power upon the authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence.
32. The various provisions of the Act, 2002 along with interpretation of the definition of "proceeds of crime" has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 wherein the Bench comprising of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have decided the issue by taking into consideration the object and intent of the Act, 2002.
33. The 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 18 2025:JHHC:11402 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.
34. So far as the purport of Section 45(1)(i)(ii) is concerned, the aforesaid provision starts from the non- obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and
(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.
35. Sub-section (2) thereof puts limitation on granting bail specific in sub-section (1) in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.
36. 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 19 2025:JHHC:11402 to be cognizable and non-bailable" shall mean and shall be deemed to have always meant that all offences under this Act shall be cognizable offences and non-bailable offences notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and accordingly the officers authorised under this Act are empowered to arrest an accused without warrant, subject to the fulfilment of conditions under section 19 and subject to the conditions enshrined under this section
37. The fact about the implication of Section 45 has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra) at paragraphs-387 and 412. For ready reference, the said paragraphs are being referred as under:-
"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 20 2025:JHHC:11402 attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and to prosecute persons involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. In view of the gravity of the fallout of money laundering activities having transnational impact, a special procedural law for prevention and regulation, including to prosecute the person involved, has been enacted, grouping the offenders involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime as a separate class from ordinary criminals. The offence of money laundering has been regarded as an aggravated form of crime "world over". It is, therefore, a separate class of offence requiring effective and stringent measures to combat the menace of money laundering.
412. As a result, we have no hesitation in observing that in whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the constitutional court, the underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 of the 2002 Act must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of money laundering."
38. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486 by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra), it has been laid down that since the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory, they need to be complied with. The Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds 21 2025:JHHC:11402 for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
39. It has further been observed that as per the statutory presumption permitted under Section 24 of the Act, the Court or the Authority is entitled to presume unless the contrary is proved, that in any proceedings relating to proceeds of crime under the Act, in the case of a person charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3, such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. Such conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PML Act will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 Cr. P.C. in view of the overriding effect given to the PML Act over the other law for the time being in force, under Section 71 of the PML Act. For ready reference, paragraph-17 of the said judgment reads as under:-
"17. As well settled by now, the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory. They need to be complied with. The Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is needless to say that as per the statutory presumption permitted under Section 24 of the Act, the Court or the Authority is entitled to presume unless the contrary is proved, that in any proceedings relating to proceeds of crime under the Act, in the case of a person charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3, such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. Such conditions enumerated in 22 2025:JHHC:11402 Section 45 of PML Act will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 Cr. P.C. in view of the overriding effect given to the PML Act over the other law for the time being in force, under Section 71 of the PML Act."
40. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment has further laid down that the twin conditions as to fulfil the requirement of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 before granting the benefit of bail is to be adhered to which has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra) wherein it has been observed that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
41. In the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) as under paragraph-284, it has been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute a person for offence of money-laundering only if it has reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in possession of "proceeds of crime". Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of 23 2025:JHHC:11402 crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process.
42. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 1 has been pleased to hold at paragraph -30 that the conditions specified under Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with, which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and also Section 71 of PMLA.
43. Section 65 requires that the provisions of CrPC shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and Section 71 provides that the provisions of PMLA shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. PMLA has an overriding effect and the provisions of CrPC would apply only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.
44. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PMLA will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 CrPC. That coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court 24 2025:JHHC:11402 shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the petitioner.
45. It needs to refer herein that while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act 1967, the Hon'ble Apex Court recently in the case of Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 109, has observed that the conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis-à-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase - 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' - unless circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act and the 'exercise' of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. For ready reference, relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred as under:
"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 25 2025:JHHC:11402 released' - suggests the intention of the Legislature to make bail, the exception and jail, the rule."
46. The reason for making reference of this judgment is that in the Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr., the UAPA has also been brought under the purview of category 'c' wherein while laying observing that in the UAPA Act, it comes under the category 'c' which also includes money laundering offence wherein the bail has been directed to be granted if the investigation is complete but the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (supra) has taken the view by making note that the penal offences as enshrined under the provision of UAPA are also under category 'c' making reference that jail is the rule and bail is the exception.
47. Now coming to the grounds as has been raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire ECIR will be taken into consideration, no offence will be said to be committed so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 3 & 4 of the P.M.L. Act, 2002. Further ground has been taken that the allegation against the petitioner pertains to his purported assistance to other accused individuals in document preparation.
48. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-E.D. has submitted that there is ample material surfaced in course of inquiry, based upon which, the prosecution report was 26 2025:JHHC:11402 submitted and hence, it cannot be said that there is no legal evidence.
49. 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 PML 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. The relevant paragraphs of prosecution complaint, which are being referred as under:-
Brief detail of persons examined u/s 50(2) & (3) of PMLA 8.6 Faiyaz Khan (Accused No.10)-
In his statement dated 13.04.2013 (RUD No. 72) recorded under section 50 of PMLA, 2002 has stated that he knows Afshar Ali since childhood and he drives car for her. He further stated that presently Afshar Ali has been dealing with a piece of land of 4.83 acres at Cheshire Home Road with one Samay, Küshwaha, Imtiaz and others He is also working with Afshar Ali arranging buyers of land. Further. on the directions of Afshar All, he as visited several times to Kolkata with Imtiaz Ahmed for bringing deeds of properties. Further, he has stated that. Imtiaz and Pradip Bagchi work with Afshar Ali Alsu Khan He further stated that the seals/stamps which were recovered from his possession at his residence belonged to Afshar Ali During course of investigation, 10 number of duplicate stamps/seals of Land registration Department are recovered from the possession of Faiyaz Khan. Several 27 2025:JHHC:11402 fake and forged property documents bear the same Impression as the seal which have been seized from the premises of Faiyaz Khan which were kept by Afshar Ali It is thus proved that Faiyaz Khan is also a party with Afshar All in his illegal and criminal activities of making te deeds and later selling the lands to several buyers by showing them as legal properties The statement of Faiyaz Khan recorded on 21.04.2023 (RUD No. 73) reveals that he has been maintaining an Axis bank account bearing πα. 920010047770735 in which several large value transactions with Md. Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan, Greensoil Enterprises have been made. He has stated that this account was opened on the directions of Afshar All and the transactions with the above-stated persons were done on the insistence of the accused Afshar Ali. During the course of search on 13.04.2023 (RUD No. 23), property deeds number 4381/4369 (Plot No. 557, Morabadi property in possession of defence) and 408/348 was recovered from his premises. He stated that these documents were kept the directions of Afshar Ali. Specific Roles of the Accused/Co-Accused/person abetting in the commission of offence of money laundering by directly/ indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assist or knowingly is a party or is involved in concealment/ possession/acquisition or use in projecting or claiming proceeds of crime as tainted property in terms of section 3 of PMLA Faiyaz Khan (accused no.10) The accused Faiyaz Khan knowingly assisted the other accused persons in their illegal activities of making fake deeds and of acquiring properties on the basis of the fake deeds which was infact proceeds of crime as defined under section 2 (1) (u) of PMLA, 2002. The accused person assisted other accused persons in their activities connected with proceed of crime. The accused knowingly use account 9200100477707.. to acquire 28 2025:JHHC:11402 and in placement of Proceed of crime with other accused persons. The accused person also indulged in arranging buyers for a piece of land admeasuring 4.83 acres situated at Cheshire Hom Road which was acquired by fake deed and was thus proceeds of crime. Further, the accused person also knowingly assisted Afshar Ali in arranging fake deeds which he brought from Kolkata from the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata. During searches, 10 number of duplicate stamps/seals of Land Registration Department were recovered from his possession which were concealed accused no. 6 for being used by other accused persons. Dung course of searches, property deeds number 4381/4369 (Plot No. 557, Morabadi property in possession of defence) and 408/348 was also recovered from his premises which prove that he was knowingly indulged in illegal activity relating to generation of proceeds of crime and was also a party with the accused persons namely Afshar, Pradip Bagchi and other accused persons in their activities linked to generation and acquisition of proceeds of crime and projecting them as untainted property.
50. It has come on record that the searches were conducted on 13.04.2023 and 10 numbers of manufactured stamps/seals were seized from the premises of Faiyaz Khan (petitioner). Investigation also revealed that several fake deeds recovered from the possession of the accused Afshar Ali @ Afsu Khan bears the same impression of the seals seized from the possession of this petitioner.
51. Further, the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata, formed a four man committee and conducted an inquiry and submitted their initial report related to the three sale deeds including the land in question and confirmed the 29 2025:JHHC:11402 manipulation and tampering had been identified in the said sale deeds and accordingly an FIR no. 137 of 2023 dated 10.05.2023 under section 120B, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC was registered at Hare Street P.S, Kolkata on the basis of the complaint of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata for the above temperance.
52. Further, the Investigation revealed that the accused persons, namely Afshar Ali @ Afsu Khan, Mohammad Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan @ Sunny, Faiyaz Khan (present petitioner), Pradip Bagchi, and Imtiaz Ahmed, have actively been involved in sequestering several pieces of land situated in Ranchi and its vicinity by manipulating and forging the original records available at the Circle Offices in connivance with certain government officials/record keepers, including Bhanu Pratap Prasad, Revenue Sub- Inspector, Baragai, Ranchi. The Circle Office, deeds/documents/records recovered and seized during the course of searches conducted on April 13, 2023, corroborate the fact that the accused persons have been running a racket involved in the illegal acquisition of lands by converting non-saleable land into saleable lands for monetary benefits. They have acquired proceeds of crime through the aforementioned criminal activities and thus committed the offence of money laundering. The properties are used to commit offences under this Act and scheduled 30 2025:JHHC:11402 offences and derive proceeds, further projecting their activities and acquired properties as 'untainted property'.
53. It is evident from the prosecution complaint that the accused Faiyaz Khan knowingly assisted the other accused persons in their illegal activities of making fake deeds and of acquiring properties on the basis of the fake deeds which was in fact proceeds of crime as defined under section 2 (1) (u) of PMLA, 2002. The accused person assisted other accused persons in their activities connected with proceeds of crime. The accused knowingly used his Axis bank account 920010047770735 to acquire and in placement of Proceed of crime with other accused persons. The accused person also indulged in arranging buyers for a piece of land admeasuring 4.83 acres situated at Cheshire Home Road which was acquired by fake deed and was thus proceeds of crime. Further, the accused person also knowingly assisted Afshar Ali in arranging fake deeds which he brought from Kolkata from the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata. During searches, 10 number of duplicate stamps/seals of Land Registration Department were recovered from his possession for being used by other accused persons. During course of searches, property deeds number 4381/4369 (Plot No. 557, Morabadi property in possession of defence) and 408/348 was also recovered from his premises which prove that he was knowingly indulged in 31 2025:JHHC:11402 illegal activity relating to generation of proceeds of crime and was also a party with the accused persons namely Afshar All, Pradip Bagchi and other accused persons in their activities linked to generation and acquisition of proceeds of crime and projecting them as untainted property.
54. Further, the statement of Sadam Hussain mentioned in paragraph-8.4 of the prosecution complaint reveals that that his firm Green Traders is in receipt of huge amount of money which are the result of the sale of land in which forgery was committed. It also reveals that Imtiaz Ahmed, Arvind Sahu, Faiyaz Khan (Petitioner) and Afshar Ali were directly involved in the sale of land measuring 3.81 acres by fake deed. Thus, it reveals that Imtiaz Ahmed, Arvind Sahu, Faiyaz Khan (Petitioner) and Afshar Ali are accomplices of each other.
55. Further, the petitioner in his statement mentioned in para-8.6 of the prosecution complaint also revealed that he has been maintaining an Axis bank account bearing Nо. 920010047770735 in which several high value transactions with his accomplices Md. Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan, Greensoil Enterprises have been made. This account was opened on the directions of Afshar Ali and the transactions with the above-stated persons were done on the insistence. During the course of the search on 13.04.2023, property 32 2025:JHHC:11402 deeds number 4381/4369 (Plot No. 557, Morabadi property in possession of defence) and 408/348 was recovered from his premises.
56. The statement of Pradeep Bagchi, as mentioned in paragraph 8.8 of the prosecution complaint, reveals the involvement of Afshar Ali, Imtiaz Ahmed, Md. Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan @ Sunny and Faiyaz Khan (the present petitioner) in manipulating sale deeds of landed properties. The statement also reveals that Afshar Ali, Imtiaz Ahmed, Faiyaz Khan (Petitioner), Talha Khan Sunny are experts in altering old property deeds. Faiyaz Khan (Petitioner) is the driver of Afshar Ali and works for him in creating fake documents. These persons have forged stamps/seals which they use in making fake sale deeds. They have good contacts with Land Registry offices and one of the said officers is Bhanu Pratap Prasad who works in Circle Office, Baragai, Ranchi. Bhanu Pratap Prasad assists Afshar Ali and others in acquiring properties illegally.
57. It needs to refer herein that the three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46 has held that the statements of witnesses recorded by Prosecution- ED are admissible in evidence, in view of Section 50. Such statements may make out a formidable case about the 33 2025:JHHC:11402 involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence of money laundering.
58. In the instant case, it has been found that during the course of investigation from the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 50 of the P.M.L.A that 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 projecting or claiming as untainted property.
59. Thus, it has come on record that the accused/petitioner Faiyaz Khan knowingly assisted the other accused persons in their illegal activities of making fake deeds and acquiring properties on the basis of the fake deeds. The accused persons assisted other accused persons in their activities connected with proceeds of crime. The accused knowingly used his Axis Bank account 920010047770735 to acquire and in placement of proceeds of crime with other accused persons. The accused person also indulged in arranging buyers for a piece of land admeasuring 4.83 acres situated at Cheshire Home Road which was acquired by fake deed and was thus proceeds of crime.
34
2025:JHHC:11402
60. Thus, from aforesaid imputation and discussion prima-facie it appears that the involvement of present petitioner in alleged crime cannot be denied.
61. Now coming to the contentions as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein, he has taken the ground that the petitioner is not accused in the predicate offence, hence, cannot be made liable for money laundering offence. But the contention of the learned counsel appears to be misplaced reason being that it is settled proposition of law that the offence of money Laundering is independent of the scheduled offence, particularly in matters related to the proceeds of crime.
62. It is evident that as per Section 3, there are six processes or activities identified therein. They are, (i) concealment; (ii) possession; (iii) acquisition; (iv) use; (v) projecting as untainted property; and (vi) claiming as untainted property. Even if a person does not retain the money generated as proceeds of crime but "uses" it, he will be guilty of the offence of money-laundering, since "use" is one of the six activities mentioned in Section 3. In the instant case the proceeds obtained from alleged activities are laundered through diverse methods, one of which involves making cash deposits in respective bank accounts. This is done in a piecemeal manner with the intention of presenting the tainted property as untainted. 35
2025:JHHC:11402
63. Keeping in mind these essential elements that make up the molecular structure of Section 3, this Court adverts in to facts of the instant case as discussed in preceding paragraph is of view that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no substance.
64. Further, the burden of proof is on the Petitioner until the contrary is proved, the same is observed in various judicial pronouncements and upheld in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra). Further in Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed that the provisions of section 24 of the PMLA provide 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.
65. 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 36 2025:JHHC:11402 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.
66. Further it is settled proposition of law 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.
67. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the ED has already filed chargesheet 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.
68. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party-ED has submitted that the mere fact that investigation is complete does not necessarily confer a right on the accused/petitioner to be released on bail. 37
2025:JHHC:11402
69. 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.
70. Further, it is settled proposition of law that the filing of chargesheet 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.
71. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Virupakshappa Gouda Vs. 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."
72. 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.
38
2025:JHHC:11402
73. Thus, from the aforesaid deduction, the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged crime, prima-facie appears to be true.
74. So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 is concerned, as has been referred hereinabove, at paragraph412 of the judgment rendered in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra), it has been held therein by making observation that whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or 439 for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the underlying 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.
75. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of P.M.L.A. will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 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. 39
2025:JHHC:11402
76. Further, it is evident from the judicial pronouncement as discussed above that in order to constitute any property as proceeds of crime, it must be derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The explanation clarifies that the proceeds of crime include property, not only derived or obtained from scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. Clause (u) also clarifies that even the value of any such property will also be the proceeds of crime and in the instant case from perusal of paragraph of the prosecution complaint it is evident that the petitioner is not only involved rather his involvement is direct in procuring the proceeds of crime by way of connivance with the other accused persons.
77. Thus, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire ECIR will be taken into consideration, no offence will be said to be committed so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 3 & 4 of the P.M.L. Act, 2002, is totally misplaced in the light of accusation as mention in prosecution complaint.
78. Further, it requires to refer herein that the Money Laundering is an economic offence and economic offences 40 2025:JHHC:11402 come under the grave offences, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y. S Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. C. B. I., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:
"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deeprooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country."
79. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Nimgadda Prasad Vs. C.B.I., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466 has reiterated the same view in paragraph-23 to 25, which reads as under:
"23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [(1987) 2 SCC 364 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 364] this Court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under: (SCC p. 371, para 5) "5. ... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest 41 2025:JHHC:11402 of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest."
24. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence"
which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deeprooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country."
80. It is, thus, evident from the discussion made hereinabove that so far as the case of the present petitioner is concerned, the twin condition as provided under Section 45(1) of the Act, 2002 is not being fulfilled so as to grant the privilege of bail to the present petitioner. 42
2025:JHHC:11402
81. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to the facts and circumstances, as have been analyzed hereinabove, the applicant/petitioner failed to make out a case for exercise of power to grant bail and considering the facts and parameters, this Court therefore does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail.
82. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be rejected.
83. Accordingly, based upon the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the instant application is fit to be dismissed and as such, stands dismissed.
84. The observation/finding, as recorded hereinabove, is only for the purpose of consideration of issue of bail. The same will not prejudice the issue on merit in course of trial.
85. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) A.F.R. Birendra/ 43