Jharkhand High Court
Imtiaz Ahmad vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 13 August, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:23725
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.3721 of 2025
-----
Imtiaz Ahmad, aged about 48 years, son of Abul Barkat Mallick, resident of Manitola, Mashooque Manzil, Doranda, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi-834002, Jharkhand. .... .... Petitioner Versus Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India represented through its Assistant Director.
...... Opp. Party
-------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
-------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate : Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Varun Girdhar, Advocate
------
C.A.V. on 01.08.2025 Pronounced on 13/08/2025 Prayer
1. The instant application has been filed under Sections 483 and 484 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 praying for grant of bail in ECIR Case No.01 of 2023 arising out of ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 dated 21.10.2022 registered for the alleged offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, now pending in the Court of learned A.J.C.-I-cum-Special Judge, P.M.L.A. at 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 No. 141 of 2022 [Bariatu P.S.] dated 04.06.2022, lodged at 1 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 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 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 was falsely shown to be paid through cheques in the deed no. 6888 of 2021.
2 B.A. No.3721/2025
2025:JHHC:23725
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 registered ECIR Case no. 01/2023 in E.C.I.R/RNZO/18/2022 dated 21.10.22.
8. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested in this case on the allegation that he, being the party with the other accused persons in the acquisition of the proceeds of crime by way of fraudulent acquisition and sale of land in question.
9. Thereafter, the present petitioner preferred Misc. Cri. Application No. 3157 of 2023 for grant of bail which was rejected vide order dated 02.11.2023 by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I cum Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi, hence, the instant bail application. 3 B.A. No.3721/2025
2025:JHHC:23725 Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner
10. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, 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.
(iii) The petitioner's involvement in the present case is predicated solely upon conjecture and purported admissions made by co-accused. This implicating factor lacks substantial evidentiary support and raises concerns regarding its reliability and admissibility.
(iv) He is having no involvement or connection with the entirety of the prosecution proceedings or the disputed land in question.
(v) From the bare perusal of the Prosecution Complaint and the statement recorded under section 50 of the PMLA, it is evident that the petitioner has acted only under the instruction of the accused no.6-Afsar Ali.4 B.A. No.3721/2025
2025:JHHC:23725
(vi) The petitioner has no prior criminal record. the petitioner has neither committed any fraud/cheating or forged any documents, thus, no offences under the aforementioned sections have been committed by the petitioner.
(vii) The role of the petitioner was confined/defined only for the instructions given by the accused no.6 Afsar Ali.
(viii) 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.
(ix) 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.
(x) The petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2023.
(xi) This petitioner having no concern with the entire transaction. He is having no concern with the land in question. This petitioner has not received a single penny related with the present case.
(xii) 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. 5 B.A. No.3721/2025
2025:JHHC:23725
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the learned court while considering the prayer for bail ought to have taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter both legal and factual but having not done so, serious error has been committed.
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 it 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.6 B.A. No.3721/2025
2025:JHHC:23725
(iii) It has been contended that Imtiyaz Ahmad, the present petitioner, in his statement u/s 50 of the PMLA recorded at para-8.5 of the prosecution complaint, has stated that on the direction of Afsar Ali, he obtained a Power of Attorney of a land admeasuring 60 khatas at Bariatu, Ranchi in his name and in the name of Bharat Prasad from one Rajesh Rai.
(iv) The obtained Power of Attorney of one land of nearly 96 decimals at Mauza-Kanke, Ranchi and sold this land to several persons. The Power of Attorney was taken on the direction of Afsar Ali. He has also accepted that he has obtained the Power of Attorney of a plot of land at Khata no. 4, Plot no. 1967 and Khata no. 25, Plot no. 1989 from Lakhan Singh on the direction of Afsar Ali.
(v) The present petitioner 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.
(vi) 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 7 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 proceeds of crime as untainted property. Thus, the petitioner is guilty of the offence of money laundering as defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002, punishable under section 4 of PMLA, 2002.
(vii) 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.
(viii) The petitioner's claims are merely an attempt to conceal his involvement in illegal activities related to assisting his accomplices in fraudulently acquiring properties.
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.
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.
8 B.A. No.3721/2025
2025:JHHC:23725
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 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 9 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 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 [or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country] [or abroad]; [Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence;]"
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 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 10 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 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 then the property equivalent in value held within 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 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.
11 B.A. No.3721/2025
2025:JHHC:23725
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.
[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 12 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 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 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 13 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 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 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 14 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 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 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 15 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725
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-285, 286 and 316. For ready reference, the said paragraphs are being referred as under:-
"285.............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.
286. Considering the purposes and objects of the legislation in the form of the 2002 Act and the background in which it had been enacted owing to the commitment made to the international bodies and on their recommendations, it is plainly clear that it is a special legislation to deal with the subject of money laundering activities having transnational impact on the financial systems including sovereignty and integrity of the countries. This is not an ordinary offence. To deal with such serious offence, stringent measures are provided in the 2002 Act for prevention of money laundering and combating menace of money laundering, including for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and to prosecute persons involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. In view of the gravity of the fallout of money laundering activities having transnational impact, a special procedural law for prevention and regulation, including to prosecute the person involved, has been enacted, grouping the offenders involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime as a separate class from ordinary criminals. The offence of money laundering has been regarded as an aggravated form of crime "world over". It is, therefore, a separate class of offence requiring effective and stringent measures to combat the menace of money laundering.16 B.A. No.3721/2025
2025:JHHC:23725
316. 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 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 17 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 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 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) 18 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 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 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, 19 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 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 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 20 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 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."
46. The reason for making reference of this judgment is that in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr., the UAPA has also been brought under the purview of category 'c' wherein while 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 21 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 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. Further the prolong custody of petitioner since 14.04.2023 and delay in conclusion of the trial has also been raised.
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 submitted and hence, it cannot be said that there is no legal evidence. It has further been contended that it is settled proposition of law which has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the long incarceration (herein about 27 month) or delay in trial alone cannot be ground to release the petitioner on bail, rather in case of scheduled offences/special offences the seriousness of the matter and 22 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 the societal impact should be taken into consideration by the Court concerned while enlarging the petitioner on bail.
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 8.5 Imtiaz Ahmed (Accused No.8)-
In his statement dated 13.04.2023 recorded under section 50 of PMLA, 2002, (RUD No. 65) the accused person Imtiaz Ahmed has stated that in the year 2020, on the directions of Afshar Ali, he obtained a power of attorney of a land admeasuring 60 kathas at Bariyatu, Ranchi in his name and in the name of Bharat Prasad from one Rajesh Rai. He further stated that the amount of Rs. 15 lacs which he received from Pradip Bagchi was on the directions of Afshar Ali (the said amount of Rs. 15 lacs was out of Rs. 25 lacs given by Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. to Pradip Bagchi as commission).
Several documents have been seized from his premises during searches including one diary containing details of cash. In his statement dated 19.04.2023 (RUD No.
66), he stated that payments to the persons namely Sunny (Talha Khan), Faiyaz Khan, Saddam Hussain, 23 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 Afsu Khan and others appearing in the diary have been made by him. During his statement dated 19.04.2023, it is found that he obtained power of attorney of one land of nearly 96 decimals at Mauja Kanke, Ranchi and sold this land to several persons. The power of attorney was taken on the directions of Afshar Ali. He has also accepted that he has obtained the power of attorney of a plot of land at Khata no. 4, Plot no. 1967, and Khata no. 25, Plot no. 1989 from Lakhan Singh on the directions of Afshar Ali. He has also accepted that on the directions of Afshar Ali, land was acquired in frivolous manner which was situated at Plot no. 1965 admeasuring 1.79 acres and plot no. 1966 admeasuring 1.93 acres in which the power of attorney was given to Bharat Prasad on directions of Afshar Ali. Similarly, he has stated that on directions of Afshar Ali, he obtained a power of attorney for a land admeasuring 13.98 acres situated at Plot no. 1942, Khata no. 197.
During searches on 13.04.2023, the property documents were recovered from his residence (RUD No.
22). It is evident that the accused person was dealt with several landed properties in a fake and frivolous manner with his associate Afshar All and his accomplices namely Bharat Prasad, Lakhan Singh, Rajesh Rai and others. These properties have been sold to different persons in which the cash amount has been distributed between Afshar Ali, Md. Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan @ Sunny, and other associates which prove that these persons are a part of the racket which are habitually involved in forging documents and falsifying records for acquiring proceeds of crime and later using them and projecting them as untainted property.
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 24 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 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 Imtiaz Ahmed (accused no.8) The accused Imtiaz Ahmed was actually a party with the other accused persons in the acquisition of the proceeds of crime by way of fraudulent acquisition and sale of land and claiming the said proceeds of crime as untainted property. The accused of person knowingly indulged in acquisition of proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 15 lacs in his bank account from Pradip Bagchi of which was the sale proceed of the defence land situated at M.S Plot No 557 at Mouza Morabadi Ranchi worth Rs 20,75,84,200. The accused was also a party in the forgery committed in preparation of fake deed and later disposing the said land measuring 3.81 acres at Bariyatu, Ranchi. The accused Imtiaz Ahmed in connivance with Afshar Ali accused no. also obtained the power of attorney of another land admeasuring 60 kathas situated in Bariyatu, Ranchi in his name and in the name of Bharat Prasad from one Rajesh Rai. Later, by exercising the power of attorney, he sold this property at a consideration amount of Rs. 1.8 crores. The accused person is a habitual offender has dealt with several landed properties in a fake and frivolous manner with his associate Afshar Ali and with his other accused persons.
Thus, the accused person was knowingly a party and actually involved with the other accused persons and was indulged in activity connected with the proceeds of crime i.e. its acquisition, use and projected and claiming the proceeds of crime as untainted property. Thus, the accused person has committed the offence of money laundering under section 3 of PMLA, 2002 and is liable to be punished under section 4 of PMLA, 2002.
50. It has come on record that during searches on 13.04.2023, the property documents were recovered from 25 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 his residence (RUD No. 22). It is evident therefrom that the accused person has dealt with several landed properties in a fake and frivolous manner with his associate Afshar Ali and his accomplices namely Bharat Prasad, Lakhan Singh, Rajesh Rai and others. These properties have been sold to different persons in which the cash amount has been distributed between Afshar Ali, Md. Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan @ Sunny, and other associates which prove that these persons are a part of the racket which are habitually involved in forging documents and falsifying records for acquiring proceeds of crime and later using them and projecting them as untainted property.
51. Further, it appears from record that several documents have been seized from his premises during searches including one diary containing details of cash.
52. Further, the Investigation revealed that the accused persons, namely Afshar Ali @ Afsu Khan, Mohammad Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan @ Sunny, Faiyaz Khan, Pradip Bagchi, and Imtiaz Ahmed(present petitioner), 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, 26 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 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 offences and derive proceeds, further projecting their activities and acquired properties as 'untainted property'.
53. It is evident from the prosecution complaint that accused/petitioner was actually a party with the other accused persons in the acquisition of the proceeds of crime by way of fraudulent acquisition and sale of land and claiming the said proceeds of crime as untainted property. The petitioner knowingly indulged in acquisition of proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 15 lacs in his bank account from the account of Pradeep Bagchi which was the sale proceeds of the defence land situated at MS Plot no. 557 at Mauza Morabadi, Ranchi worth Rs. 20,75,84,200/- and the commercial value of amount Rs. 41,51, 68,390/-. The petitioner was also a party in the forgery committed in preparation of fake deed and later disposing the said land measuring 3.81 acres at Bariatu, Ranchi. The 27 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 accused/petitioner Imtiyaz Ahmad in connivance with co- accused Afsar Ali obtaining the Power of Attorney of another land admeasuring 60 Khatas situated in Bariatu, Ranchi in his name and name of Bharat Prasad from one Rajesh Rai. Later by exercising the Power of Attorney, he sold this property at a consideration amount of Rs. 1.8 crores. The accused/petitioner is a habitual offender has dealt with several landed properties in a fake and frivolous manner with his associate Afsar Ali and with his other accused persons.
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 (Petitioner), Arvind Sahu, Faiyaz Khan and Afshar Ali were directly involved in the sale of land measuring 3.81 acres by fake deed. Thus, it reveals that Imtiaz Ahmed (Petitioner), Arvind Sahu, Faiyaz Khan and Afshar Ali are accomplices of each other.
55. Further, the petitioner in his statement dated 13.04.2023 recorded under section 50 of PMLA, 2002, (RUD No. 65) has stated that in the year 2020, on the directions of Afshar Ali, he obtained a power of attorney of a land admeasuring 60 kathas at Bariyatu, Ranchi in his 28 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 name and in the name of Bharat Prasad from one Rajesh Rai. He further stated that the amount of Rs. 15 lacs which he received from Pradip Bagchi was on the directions of Afshar Ali (the said amount of Rs. 15 lacs were out of Rs. 25 lacs given by Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. to Pradip Bagchi as commission).
56. The statement of Pradeep Bagchi, as mentioned in paragraph 8.8 of the prosecution complaint, reveals the involvement of Afshar Ali, Imtiaz Ahmed (the present petitioner), Md. Saddam Hussain, Talha Khan @ Sunny and Faiyaz Khan in manipulating sale deeds of landed properties. The statement also reveals that Afshar Ali, Imtiaz Ahmed (Petitioner), Faiyaz Khan Talha Khan Sunny are experts in altering old property deeds. 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 29 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 statements may make out a formidable case about the 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 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.
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 30 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 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.
63. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held, including in Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586, as well as in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA is an independent offence. The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically laid down that it is not necessary for a person 31 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 to be shown as an accused in the scheduled offence for him to be prosecuted under the PMLA, provided there exist proceeds of crime derived from a scheduled offence and the person has indulged in or facilitated any process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime.
64. In the aforesaid case i.e. Pawana Dibbur (supra) it has further been observed by referring the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) that the condition precedent for the existence of proceeds of crime is the existence of a scheduled offence. At paragraph- 15 the finding has been given therein that on plain reading of Section 3 of the Act, 2002, an offence under Section 3 can be committed after a scheduled offence is committed. By giving an example, it has been clarified that if a person who is unconnected with the scheduled offence, knowingly assists the concealment of the proceeds of crime or knowingly assists the use of proceeds of crime, in that case, he can be held guilty of committing an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. Therefore, it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence.
65. Keeping in mind these essential elements that make up the molecular structure of Section 3, this Court adverts 32 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 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.
66. 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.
67. Further, the offence of money laundering as contemplated in Section 3 of the PMLA has been elaborately dealt with by the three Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), in which it has been observed that Section 3 has a wider reach. The offence as defined captures every process and activity in dealing with the proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly, and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy to constitute an act of money laundering. Of course, the authority of the Authorised Officer under the Act to prosecute any person 33 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 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.
68. 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.
69. 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.
70. 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.
71. In the context of aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be relevant to note here 34 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 that in the instant case mere filing of the charge-sheet does not cause material change in circumstances.
72. 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.
73. 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."
74. 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.
35 B.A. No.3721/2025
2025:JHHC:23725
75. Thus, from the aforesaid deduction, the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged crime, prima-facie appears to be true.
76. 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.
77. 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. 36 B.A. No.3721/2025
2025:JHHC:23725
78. 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 2(1)(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.
79. 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.
80. So far as the issue of period of custody as agitated by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is 37 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 settled proposition of law which has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the long incarceration (herein about 28 month) or delay in trial alone cannot be ground to release the petitioner on bail, rather in case of scheduled offences/special offences the seriousness of the matter and the societal impact should be taken in to consideration by the Court concerned while enlarging the petitioner on bail.
81. At this juncture, the learned counsel for ED has submitted at Bar that all endeavour will be taken to expedite the trial. It has further been submitted that there are many accused in the ECIR cases and one and another accused, everyday are filing one petition and another and that is the cause of delaying the evidence to be led by the ED. He further submits that the learned trial court has disposed of all these petitions, which have been preferred by the other co-accused before the learned trial court and now the ED has taken his all endeavour to examine the further witnesses and there is likelihood that witnesses will be examined and they will try to examine remaining witnesses expeditiously subject and decision is to be taken also for pruning of the list of witnesses.
82. This Court is conscious with the fact that personal liberty is utmost requirement to maintain the individuality of the person concerned but at the same time it is equally settled that the balance between personal liberty and 38 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 societal impact of the alleged offence should be taken care of by the Court concerned.
83. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the offences under UAP Act 1967, in the case of Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) and taking in to consideration the ratio of judgment of Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 has observed that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail, for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
"46. As already discussed, the material available on record indicates the involvement of the appellant in furtherance of terrorist activities backed by members of banned terrorist organisation involving exchange of large quantum of money through different channels which needs to be deciphered and therefore in such a scenario if the appellant is released on bail there is every likelihood that he will influence the key witnesses of the case which might hamper the process of justice. Therefore, mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail. Hence, the aforesaid argument on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted."
84. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled position of law it is evident that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail.
39B.A. No.3721/2025
2025:JHHC:23725
85. Admittedly, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 14.04.2023 but delay, under the aforesaid circumstances, does not entitle the petitioner to bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarun Kumar v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486, has authoritatively held that while the period of custody may be a relevant factor, it cannot by itself override the gravity of the offence, the seriousness of allegations or the statutory twin conditions under Section 45 of the Act 2002.
86. Similarly, in Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 306, the Hon'ble Apex Court refused bail despite protracted proceedings, noting that the complexity inherent in economic offences often necessitates lengthy trials.
87. It is also pertinent that delays frequently arise from procedural applications and litigations pursued by accused themselves. Thus, given the grave nature of the allegations, the sophisticated modus operandi employed to project tainted property as untainted, and the strict statutory framework governing bail under the PMLA, no ground exists for the petitioner to claim the benefit of bail either on merits or on account of delay. The gravity of the offence, misuse of a high public office, and the serious allegations of facilitating the laundering of proceeds of crime continue to 40 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 justify the petitioner's custody under the strict rigours of Section 45 of the Act 2002.
88. Further, it requires to refer herein that the Money Laundering is an economic offence and economic offences 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."
89. 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 41 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 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 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."
90. 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.
91. 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 42 B.A. No.3721/2025 2025:JHHC:23725 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.
92. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be rejected.
93. 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.
94. 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.
95. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) A.F.R. Rohit/ 43 B.A. No.3721/2025