Sanjeev Kumar Lal Vs the Directorate of Enforcement

2025:JHHC:23713

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 47 of 2025

------

Sanjeev Kumar Lal, aged 52 years, S/o Late Braj Kishore Lal, at present Officer’s Flat No.D/4, Booty Road, Opposite Rani Hospital, Ranchi, P.SKotwali, PO-Bariatu, District-Ranchi earlier residing at Vill-Karra Road, Nawa Toli, PO & PS-Khunti, Dis.Khunti.

¶5

…………… Petitioner Versus Directorate of Enforcement ................Opposite Party

¶6

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶8

For the Petitioner	------- : Md. Imran Kashif, Advocate
	Mr. Diwakar Sippy, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party	: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
	Mr. Varun Girdhar, Advocate

¶9

¶10

C.A.V. on 01/08/2025 Pronounced on 13/08/2025

¶11

Prayer:

¶12

1. The instant application has been filed under Sections 483 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for grant of bail in connection with ECIR Case No. 2 of 2023 arising out of ECIR/RNSZO/16/2020 dated 17.09.2020 for the offence under Section 3

¶13

of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as PML Act, 2002] punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, based on FIR bearing No. 13/2019 registered by ACB, Jamshedpur under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (amended as on 2018) [hereinafter referred to as P.C. Act, 2018] and F.I.R No.22/2023 registered by Economic Offence Wing, Delhi pending in the court of learned Special Judge CBI-cum- PML Act, Ranchi.

¶14

1

¶15

2025:JHHC:23713

¶16

Factual Matrix of the Case

¶17

2. An ECIR bearing No. ECIR/RNSZO/16/2020 was recorded on 17.09.2020 based on the FIR bearing No. 13/2019 dated 13.11.2019, registered by ACB Jamshedpur, under section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (amended as on 2018). Subsequently, Charge-sheet dated 11.01.2020 was submitted by ACB against Alok Ranjan and Suresh Prasad Verma under Section 7 (b) of P.C. Act, 2018 and under Sections 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, which are scheduled offences under Part-A, Paragraph 1 of the PML Act, 2002.

¶18

3. During the course of investigation upon co-accused Veerendra Kumar Ram and his close associates, several searches were conducted under Section 17 PML Act 2002 to investigate the role of the accused persons and their close associates, wherein it was found that part of the proceeds of crime is acquired in the form of commission/bribe in lieu of allotment of tenders by Veerendra Kumar Ram, the then Chief Engineer in Rural Works Department, Jharkhand. The said bribe money was getting routed by the Delhi based CA Mukesh Mittal to the bank accounts of family members of said Veerendra Kumar Ram with the help of bank accounts of Delhi based Mukesh Mittal’s employees/relatives.

¶19

4. It is also alleged that Veerendra Kumar Ram used to give cash to CA Mukesh Mittal who with the help of other entry providers used to take entries in the bank accounts of his employees and relatives and then such fund was transferred by Mukesh Mittal into the bank accounts of the co-

¶20

2

¶21

2025:JHHC:23713

¶22

accused Rajkumari (wife of Veerendra Kumar Ram) and Genda Ram (father of Veerendra Kumar Ram).

¶23

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

¶24

6. Consequently, in the light of additional facts emerging out of investigation, FIR No.22/2023 registered by the EOW, Delhi was merged with the investigation of ECIR No. RNSZO/16/2020 on 05.04.2023.

¶25

7. A prosecution complaint vide ECIR Case No. 02/2023 was filed before the learned Special Court, (PMLA), Ranchi on 21.04.2023 against Veerendra Kumar Ram; Alok Ranjan, Rajkumari and Genda Ram and cognizance of the same was taken by the learned Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi on 29.04.2023.

¶26

8. Further, a supplementary prosecution complaint vides ECIR Case Number 02/2023 under Section 44 (ii) r/w section 45 of PML Act, 2002 was filed before the learned Special Court (PMLA), Ranchi on 20.08.2023 against Veerendra Kumar Ram, Alok Ranjan, Rajkumari,

¶27

3

¶28

2025:JHHC:23713

¶29

Genda Ram, Mukesh Mittal, Tara Chand, Neeraj Mittal, Ram Prakash Bhatia, Harish Yadav and Hirdya Nand Tiwari and the cognizance of the same is taken on 22.08.2023.

¶30

9. During the further course of investigation searches were conducted on 06-05-2024, 07-05-2024, 08-05-2024, 09-05-2024, 10-05-2024 and 24-05-2024 under section 17 of the PML Act, 2002 in the premises of Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the petitioner herein), Jahangir Alam, Munna Singh, Kuldip Kumar Minz, Vikash Kumar, Raj Kumar Toppo, Ajay Tirkey, Rajiv Kumar Singh, Amit Kumar and Santosh Kumar at various places.

¶31

10. As a result of the search, huge cash was recovered and seized from the residential premises of Jahangir Alam situated at Flat No. 1A, 1^st Floor, Block B, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi. Further, huge cash have been recovered and seized from the residential premises of Munna Singh situated at Flat No. 1A, Kashmiri Gali, PP Compound, Ranchi. Munna Singh had stated that he used to collect cash from the engineers/contractors on the instruction of Sanjeev Lal (the petitioner herein). Thereafter, searches were also conducted at the residences of these engineers viz. Rajiv Kumar Singh, Santosh Kumar, Rajkumar Toppo, Ajay Tirkey and Amit Kumar.

¶32

11. Accordingly, on 07-05-2024 Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the petitioner herein) and co-accued-Jahangir Alam were arrested for the commission of the offence under sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act, 2002.

¶33

12. It has been alleged that the co-accused-Alamgir Alam being the minister of Department of Rural Works (RWD) and all the departments under it, he is at the top in the syndicate of commission collection.

¶34

4

¶35

2025:JHHC:23713

¶36

Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the petitioner herein) used to collect the share of 1.35 % of minister Alamgir Alam on his behalf from Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers via Chief Engineers.

¶37

13. Accordingly, Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the petitioner herein) has instructed departmental engineers to hand over the petitioner's commission to Munna Singh and/or his brother Santosh Kumar alias Rinku Singh. Further Munna Singh has stated that he has collected a total of Rs. 53 crores of commission from such engineers/contractors and handed over Rs.50 crores approx. to Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the present petitioner) through Jahangir Alam. Thus, the same amount was acquired by the co-accused-Alamgir Alam through his PS-Sanjeev Kumar Lal, out of this Rs.53 crores, an amount of Rs.35 crores approx. was seized during the search proceedings.

¶38

14. Further, it has been alleged that the petitioner assisted to acquire a commission amount of Rs. 3 crores from Veerendra Kumar Ram through one engineer of the department for giving the same to the co-accused-Alamgir Alam in September 2022.

¶39

15. It is also alleged that the petitioner is found to be directly indulged and actually involved in possession and concealment of at least Rs 35 crores of the Proceeds of Crime and he has also been found to be directly indulged and actually involved in acquisition and concealment of at least Rs. 56 crores of the Proceeds of Crime.

¶40

16. A supplementary prosecution complaint vides ECIR Case Number 02/2023 under Section 45 of PML Act, 2002 has been filed before the Learned Special Court (PMLA), Ranchi on 04.07.2024

¶41

5

¶42

2025:JHHC:23713

¶43

against Veerendra Kumar Ram, Alok Ranjan, Rajkumari, Genda Ram, Mukesh Mittal, Tara Chand, Neeraj Mittal, Ram Prakash Bhatia, Harish Yadav, Hirdya Nand Tiwari, Alamgir Alam, Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the present petitioner) and Jahangir Alam and the cognizance of the same was taken on 12.07.2024.

¶44

17. Thereafter, the present petitioner preferred Misc. Cri. Application No. 2510 of 2024 for grant of bail but the same was rejected vide order dated 13.09.2024 by the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII-cum-Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi. Hence the present petition has been filed.

¶45

Argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner:

¶46

18. Md. Imran Kashif, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued inter alia on the following grounds:

¶47

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

¶48

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

¶49

III. The petitioner’s name has been surfaced only after the allegations of Veerendra Kumar Ram on 28.02.2023 under section 50 of PML Act that the petitioner was allegedly collecting commission on behalf of co-accused-Alamgir Alam.

¶50

IV. It is admitted fact that neither the petitioner was named in the initial predicate offence [FIR No. 13/2019] nor he was named in

¶51

6

¶52

2025:JHHC:23713

¶53

the ECIR. Therefore, petitioner’s involvement cannot be made out on the ground of demand of gratification since the Enforcement Directorate has not provided any reasons connecting the petitioner to the alleged proceeds of crime.

¶54

V. The Enforcement Directorate relies heavily on the statements of co-accused Veerendra Kumar Ram and Jahangir Alam but the same need to be tested during the trial as without being scrutinized in the competent Court, its veracity cannot be confirmed.

¶55

VI. There is no evidence to support the allegation that the petitioner has received money from Munna Singh or his brother as there is no evidence that the petitioner has received cash from them. The notebook (TANEZA) seized from Munna Singh’s premises in which it was alleged that transaction of illegal gratification was mentioned, there is no mention of any amount given to this petitioner.

¶56

VII. The statement of Munna Singh that the petitioner instructed him to collect money from engineers is baseless and completely unfounded. Despite statement of Munna Singh in which he admitted that he has received substantial sums, the petitioner cannot be made an accused as there is no evidence in support of the same.

¶57

VIII. It is alleged that the co-accused-Alamgir Alam pressurized the Chief Engineer to collect commission and gave him his share of 1.35% through his PS, Sanjeev Kumar Lal (petitioner herein). But no case has been instituted of demanding commission from his

¶58

7

¶59

2025:JHHC:23713

¶60

agent by deputing the agent to collect the money by way of commission in lieu of allotting the work in favour of one or the other contractor. It has been submitted that in absence of any predicate offence no case can be said to be made out or even initiated under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002.

¶61

IX. Furthermore, from the entire complaint as well as the documents of the complainant, there is no evidence that Rs.10.05 lakhs seized from the petitioner does constitute proceeds of crime and belongs to the petitioner’s family which can be accounted for through legitimate means and the Enforcement Directorate has not provided evidence to prove that this money is related to any criminal activity.

¶62

X. Further, the credibility of the statements made either by coaccused individuals or by certain witnesses are highly questionable, particularly in the absence of any corroborative evidence, such as call records, messages, or other supporting/ linking materials to either the predicate offence or dealing with the proceed of crime. Without such corroboration, the reliability of these statements is severely undermined, and they should not be given undue weight at the time of adjudicating the present bail application.

¶63

XI. The petitioner has no antecedent and no other criminal proceeding is pending against him. The petitioner has been cooperating with the ongoing investigation inquiries conducted by the prosecution and undertakes to continue doing so.

¶64

8

¶65

2025:JHHC:23713

¶66

XII. The submission has been made that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of statement recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act of the co-accused, who was already in custody, hence, the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act of the co-accused, who were already in custody cannot be used against the present petitioner.

¶67

XIII. Learned counsel has relied upon paragraph 253 of the judgment in

¶68

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 in order to buttress his argument on the issue of statement recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act.

¶69

XIV. Raising the ground of parity, submission has been made that taking the ground of long incarceration and further there is no possibility of a trial even commencing in the near future, coaccused Veerendra Kumar Ram has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 in Cr. Appeal No. 4615 of 2024. Likewise, accused Harish Yadav was already granted bail vide order dated 30.08.2024 in Special Leave petition (Crl.) No. 6174 of 2024 on the ground that prima facie it is very difficult to attribute any direct role, and thus, the twin tests laid down under Section 45(1) of the PML Act, 2002 are satisfied and also that of long incarceration.

¶70

XV. In the case at hand, the petitioner is in custody since 07.05.2024 i.e., for more than 13 months and it is not likely that the trial would conclude in near future since only one witness has been

¶71

9

¶72

2025:JHHC:23713

¶73

examined, therefore, taking into consideration the law laid down in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920; Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713]; Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Enforcement Directorate (supra) and V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State represented by the Deputy Director & Ors. (2024) 3 SCC 51 the petitioner may be directed to be released on bail.

¶74

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

¶75

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

¶76

Argument advanced by learned counsel for the opposite partyEnforcement Directorate:

¶77

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

¶78

I. Submission has been made that the petitioner was arrested on 07.05.2024 under Section 19 of PML Act, 2002, after recording reasons to believe that the Petitioner is guilty of the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of PML Act, 2002.

¶79

10

¶80

2025:JHHC:23713

¶81

II. It has been contended by referring to Section 3(ii) of the PML Act, 2002 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.

¶82

III. That subsequently, vide order dated 07.05.2024, the Learned Spl. Judge, PMLA Court, Ranchi remanded the accused to the custody of Complainant for a period of 6 (six) days and vide order dated 13.05.2024, the custody was further extended for another 5 (five) days. Subsequently, the custody of the said accused person was then extended vide order dated 18.05.2024 for the period of 3 (three) days, following which, on 21.05.2024, the accused person was remanded to judicial custody.

¶83

IV. That the petitioner had filed a Misc. Criminal Application (Bail Petition) No. 2510/2024 before the Ld. Special Judge (PMLA), which was rejected vide order dated 13.09.2024 in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the seriousness of the charges levelled against the petitioner.

¶84

V. It has been contended that during the course of the investigation on Veerendra Kumar Ram and his close associates, several searches were conducted at various places across India and it was found that part of the Proceeds of crime acquired in the form of taking commission/bribe in lieu of allotment of tenders by

¶85

11

¶86

2025:JHHC:23713

¶87

Veerendra Kumar Ram, Chief Engineer in Rural Works Department, Jharkhand was getting routed by a Delhi based CA Mukesh Mittal to the bank accounts of family members of Veerendra Kumar Ram with the help of bank accounts of Mukesh Mittal's employees/relatives.

¶88

VI. The petitioner was PS of the then Minister Alamgir Alam (Accused No. 11) and Alamgir Alam was minister of (i) Department of Rural Works the assistant engineers posted at the Rural Development Special Zone and Rural Works Department. He further stated that the share of Minister Alamgir Alam (Accused No. 11) was 1.5% of the allocated tender amount. Investigation revealed that in one of the instances Rs. 3 crores were given to Alamgir Alam by engineers of the Rural Works Department through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the petitioner) in September 2022.

¶89

VII. It was ascertained that the amount of commission on behalf of Alamgir Alam was collected by the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal (his PS). Further, it was ascertained that a person, named, Jahangir Alam (Associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal) collected such commission on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal.

¶90

VIII. That during analysis of the seized mobile phone of Veerendra Kumar Ram, contact details of Sanjeev Kumar Lal were found as 'Sanjeev Lal PA of RDD Minister', and two mobile nos. (9939121851 and 8789745592) are saved in the said contact's name. Further, SDR, CAF, and CDR of the aforesaid mobile nos.

¶91

12

¶92

2025:JHHC:23713

¶93

were sought and it was revealed that the mobile no. 9939121851 is in the name of Sanjeev Kumar Lal himself. However, another mobile no. 8789745592 was found to be in the name of Jahangir Alam S/o Ekramul Haque. Thus, it is evident that Jahangir Alam is a close associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and Jahangir acts as a close trusted aide of Sanjeev Kumar Lal.

¶94

IX. Further, analysis of the CDR and tower location of both mobile numbers, was also made and it was found that they live in very close proximity to the government accommodation and it was found during the search that they were residing in the same government residence.

¶95

X. Further, it was gathered that there is a flat at Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi in the name of Jahangir Alam which was used by Sanjeev Kumar Lal for secreting the proceeds of crime, and keys to the said flat were also found at the premise of petitioner. It was also gathered that the wife of Sanjeev Lal @ Sanjeev Kumar Lal is involved in businesses related to construction and is a director/partner/shareholder in an entity with one builder Munna Singh. It was found that the proceeds of crime in the form of cash acquired by the officials/officers of the Rural Development Department are deposited to a builder on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. Therefore, on the basis of reasons to believe, search u/s 17 of PML Act, 2002 was conducted at seven premises on 06.05.2024.

¶96

13

¶97

2025:JHHC:23713

¶98

XI. Huge cash to the tune of Rs 32.20 crores was recovered and seized on 06/07.05.2024 from the premises of Jahangir Alam (Associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, PS of Minister) i.e. Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi.

¶99

XII. Further, a huge cash amount to the tune of Rs. 2.93 Crore was recovered and seized on 06.05.2024 from the premises of Munna Singh i.e. Flat No.-1A, Kashmiri Gali, PP Compound, Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶100

XIII. Further, as a result of the search on 07.05.2024 at the Residential premises of Rajeev Kumar Singh i.e. E-4, Mecon Vatika, Kalyanpur Hatiya, Ranchi Jharkhand-834003, a huge cash amount to the tune of Rs. 2.13 Crore have been recovered and seized.

¶101

XIV. In addition to that, a huge amount of Rs.1,75,500/- has been recovered and seized from the official chamber of this petitioner, i.e, Room No.217, 2^nd Floor, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi on 08.05.2024, an amount of Rs.6,38,500/- from the residential premises of Ajay Tirkey on 07.05.2024, an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from the residential premises of Santosh Kumar, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the residential premises of Vikash Kumar and an amount of Rs.10,05,000/- from the residential premises of the petitioner situated at Flat No.D/4, Booty Road, Opposite Rani Hospital, Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶102

XV. The question of non-institution of FIR of the charge as contained in complaint against the petitioner, as has been argued

¶103

14

¶104

2025:JHHC:23713

¶105

on behalf of the petitioner will also have no aid reason being that the said offences are continuing offence of collecting money by the minister directly involve in collection of the said money which is connected with the proceeds of crime by way of continuing activity as stipulated in Section 3 (ii) of the PML Act, hence, the petitioner is deeply involved in commission of crime.

¶106

XVI. In this way, cash totaling to Rs. 37.55 Crores approx. has been recovered and seized from the various premises searched u/s 17 of the PML Act, 2002 on 06^th , 07^th and 08^th of May 2024.

¶107

XVII. It has been contended that the statement, as has been recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 is very much clear of the involvement of the present petitioner in relation to collection of money involved in the criminal case registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 and by way of continued process, the ED has filed supplementary complaint in which complicity of the present petitioner has been surfaced.

¶108

XVIII. Argument has been advanced that the petitioner being a public servant, has been found to be indulged in such type of collection of money as has been recovered from the house of the Jahangir Alam to the tune of Rs. 32,20,78,900/- and further the aforesaid fact has been corroborated by the statement as recorded under Section 50 of the different accused persons and the engineers who were not in custody during the relevant period of time.

¶109

15

¶110

2025:JHHC:23713

¶111

XIX. Submission has been made that ground which has been advanced that neither the statement of other co-accused persons is to be taken into consideration since it is recorded while they were in custody but the law is otherwise as has been held by Hon’ble

¶112

Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46 wherein the statement if recorded of the co-accused persons in custody under Section 50 of the PML Act will also have the impact in implicating a person under Section 3 of the PML Act and exactly the case herein.

¶113

XX. It has been submitted that otherwise also it is not the case where only the statement of the co-accused persons have been recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act but the statement of the engineers, who were not in custody on the date of recording of their statement, have been taken who have specifically stated in their statements under Section 50 of the PML Act that on the direction of the concerned minister as was being informed by his private secretary, Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the petitioner herein), the money was collected from the contractors by this petitioner or his agent (co-accused) for the share of the present petitioner and other co-accused.

¶114

XXI. The statement, therefore, has been made that since the cogent evidence has been collected against both of the co-accused persons, who have been remanded to the judicial custody, and the other engineers who were not the accused, hence the petitioner is

¶115

16

¶116

2025:JHHC:23713

¶117

directly involved in commission of crime of obtaining money/commission said to be ‘proceeds of crime’.

¶118

XXII. It has been submitted that twin conditions have been provided under Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 but herein the first condition is of bearing which pertains to the satisfaction of the court of the reasonable ground for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and there is no likelihood of committing any offence while on bail. It has been submitted based upon the grounds i.e., recovery of huge amount from the house of Jahangir Alam, a close associate of the co-accused-Alamgir Alam and this petitioner; the recovery of the diary having with code-word therein for the purpose of transmitting the amount as also the scripted letter head addressed to the minister have been found from the house of Jahangir Alam where huge amount of money has been recovered, hence, it is not a case to have the believe of reasonable ground that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence.

¶119

XXIII. So far as the grounds of parity is concerned, the case of the present petitioner is quite distinct to that of other co-accused persons, who have been granted bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court, not only on the long incarceration but as also on the ground that there direct involvement of the petitioner, who is none other than a public servant, therefore, submission has been made that no consideration is to be given on the issue of parity on the aforesaid distinguishable fact.

¶120

17

¶121

2025:JHHC:23713

¶122

XXIV. That several documents and records pertaining to the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal were seized from the premises of his close aide Jahangir Alam including several torn pages of a few diaries and notes. The Petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal, in his statements, recorded u/s 50 of PML Act, 2002 has inter alia stated that these torn pages and notes contain the calculations.

¶123

XXV. During the investigation, the Petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal in his statements recorded u/s 50 of PML Act, 2002 stated that he was collecting the share of Minister Alamgir Alam (Accused No. 11) from the total commission which was collected against the tenders of RWD/JSRRDA. He has further stated that records of calculations ( Hisab Kitab ) of such commission collection were being maintained by him in aforesaid torn pages of diaries. When further confronted with documents which were seized during search on 06.05.2024 u/s 17 of PML Act, 2002 from Jahangir Alam's premises at Flat No. 1A, Block No B, Sir Syed Residency, Kumahartoli, Ranchi vide Panchnama dated 06/07.05.2024, he stated that he had written the contents of these pages and they comprise the record of commission collection which were being maintained by him in aforesaid torn pages of diaries.

¶124

XXVI. The petitioner-Sanjeev Kumar Lal further revealed that he used several code words for keeping the record of cash/commission. The meaning of some of such code words are: "M" means Minister, "Sahab" and "H" means Honourable Minister, which were being used by him, and refer to the Minister

¶125

18

¶126

2025:JHHC:23713

¶127

Alamgir Alam, for keeping the records of such commission/cash. Further, the code letter/word "Apna" either in English or Hindi found on pages Nos. 18, 23, 25 and 29 of seized documents vide Panchnama dated 06/07.05.2024 (Marked as Annexure - A6) was used for the share of himself “ हिसाब में 25 अपना )" .

¶128

XXVII. The digit indicated, in the aforesaid code letter/word represents the amounts in the multiple of lakhs of rupees. The sum of such code letter/word excluding repetitiveness is 205 (40+25+100+40). In this way, the share of Sanjeev Kumar Lal in total commission has been found to be at least Rs. 2.05 Crore (205 One Lakh). Sanjeev Kumar Lal has confirmed in his statement dated 28.06.2024 recorded during judicial custody that Rs. 2.05 crores are his share.

¶129

XXVIII. During the course of the investigation, it was ascertained that the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal has utilized the Proceeds of crime in purchasing immovable properties in his name and also in his wife's name. The co-accused-Jahangir Alam has also utilized the proceeds of the crime of the petitioner to purchase immovable properties in his name. Thus, after following due process of law, four immovable properties worth Rs. 4,42,55,000/-(Including loan amount of Rs.37.53 lakhs but property to this extent has not been provisionally attached, hence the properties to the extent of Rs. 4,05,02,000/-has been attached) was attached vide Provisional Attachment Order (PAO) No. 06/2023 dated 04.07.2024. The said PAO has been prayed for confirmation before Ld. Adjudicating

¶130

19

¶131

2025:JHHC:23713

¶132

Authority vide OC No. 2375/2024, which is duly confirmed by learned Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 09.12.2024.

¶133

XXIX. That further, apart from huge cash as mentioned above, several documents including letters on official letterheads were found from the said premise of the co-accused-Jahangir Alam, which were kept there on the instructions of, and under the possession of the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal, as PS to Alamgir Alam RDD minister, which clearly establishes that the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal was using the said premise of Jahangir Alam as a safe house for keeping cash, documents/ records and other belongings related to Minister Alamgir Alam and himself.

¶134

XXX. The co-accused-Jahangir Alam was arrested on 07.05.2024 and during his ED custodial interrogation u/s 50 of PML Act, 2002, he showed complete non-cooperation, by not divulging the true facts about Rs. 32.20 crore initially, which are the Proceeds of Crime acquired by Alamgir Alam and Sanjeev Kumar Lal and other seized records and documents. He further stated that the cash amount seized from his said premises belongs to the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal, and he collected the aforesaid huge cash amount i.e. Rs. 32.20 Crore on the instructions of the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further stated that about 4 to 5 months ago Sanjeev Kumar Lal instructed him to stand near Abhinandan Marriage hall, near Rani Hospital and Deendayal Nagar, Ranchi with his Aprilia scooter, where Rinku alias Santosh Kumar (brother of Munna Singh) handed over bags filled with

¶135

20

¶136

2025:JHHC:23713

¶137

currency/note bundles, and after receiving those bags, he used to park the said bags beneath bed and almirah at his Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi safely.

¶138

XXXI. The statements of co-accused-Munna Singh were recorded u/s 50 of PML Act, 2002 wherein he inter alia stated that the huge cash amount seized from his premises i.e. Rs. 2.93 Crore is the commission amount which was yet to be handed over to the person of the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further stated that Rs. 50 Crore were collected from assistant engineers, and he sent it to Sanjeev Kumar Lal during the period of 8 to 9 months. When asked about regarding Rs. 50 Crore already sent to Sanjeev Kumar Lal but only Rs. 32.20 Crore have been recovered and seized from the premised of Jahangir Alam he stated that only Sanjeev Kumar Lal can explain the same. Further, a diary was recovered and seized from the premises of Munna Singh which contains the details of commission amount of around Rs. 50 Crore collected from the Chief and other engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD. Further, Munna Singh has stated in his statement recorded on u/s 50 of PML Act, 2002, that he has not received any share from the commission he used to collect. He did the collection and handing over of the cash only following the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. Munna Singh further stated that he showed his inability and objected against the collection of cash and he tried to know the source of funds from Sanjeev Kumar Lal, however, Sanjeev Kumar Lal never revealed him the actual source

¶139

21

¶140

2025:JHHC:23713

¶141

of the cash collected. Sanjeev Kumar Lal always told him that there would be no issue in aforesaid task.

¶142

XXXII. That during the course of the investigation, it was ascertained that Sanjeev Kumar Lal has utilized the Proceeds of crime in purchasing immovable properties in his name and also in his wife's name. Further, he also provided funds to co-accusedJahangir Alam to purchase immovable property. The statements of relevant persons were recorded under Section 50 of PML Act, 2002 and recorded in paragraphs No. 10.21 to 10.33 of Supplementary Prosecution Complaint which shows cash dealing between the parties in respect of purchase of immovable property. XXXIII. It is evident that Petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal is the person who was controlling the whole syndicate of collection of commission against tenders from top to bottom on behalf of the then Minister Alamgir Alam. He instructed Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh to collect commission/cash from Chief Engineers and other engineers and hand over the same to Jahangir Alam. He instructed Jahangir Alam to collect cash/commission from Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh, and store the same at his (Jahangir Alam's) premises safely. He has taken his share of around Rs. 2.05 Crore from the commission and integrated the proceeds of crime into immovable and movable properties in his name and in the name of his family members and associates.

¶143

22

¶144

2025:JHHC:23713

¶145

XXXIV. Thus, the petitioner is the mastermind and has played a vital role in this syndicate/organized structure of the illegal collection of proceeds of crime. He is found to be directly indulged and actually involved and knowingly assisted Alamgir Alam in the acquisition, possession, and concealment of the Proceeds of Crime at least to the tune of Rs. 56 crores.

¶146

XXXV. That it is submitted that the petitioner was intentionally involved in concealing the amounts and dealing with proceeds of crime for which an organized calculation sheet stating share of the parties was duly being seized. Hence, the ground that there was no mens rea on the part of petitioner is false and baseless.

¶147

XXXVI. It is submitted that the petitioner had never cooperated during the investigation and during the ED custody. He remained evasive and non-cooperative during the course of the search and entire ED custody.

¶148

XXXVII. Further, the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal is an influential person, and if enlarged on bail, he may influence the witnesses which may hamper the trial and proceedings under PML Act, 2002. Hence, the accused petitioner is not at all entitled to any relief whatsoever, and this petition is liable to be dismissed outrightly.

¶149

XXXVIII. It has been submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “ Tarun Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate”; 2023 INSC 1006 , held that to apply parity, the individual role of the accused must be seen and the accused cannot seek bail merely

¶150

23

¶151

2025:JHHC:23713

¶152

because the co-accused got bail. Hence, the averments of the petitioner are liable to be rejected.

¶153

XXXIX. It is submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are not in capacity of a public servant and hence no sanction is required. The recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Directorate of Enforcement vs. Bibhu Prasad Acharya, Criminal Appeal Nos. 4314-4316 of 2024 , does not lay down a general law that in all cases of PML Act involving a public servant there is a need to obtain sanction. It is equally well settled that Judgments have to be seen in the facts and circumstances of each case and not to be treated as Euclid's theorem. In fact, in Bibhu Prasad (supra)

¶154

the Hon'ble Court in the facts of that case had noted that:

¶155

"15... It is not even the allegation in the complaints that the two respondents were not empowered to do the acts they have done."

¶156

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

¶157

Discussion:

¶158

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

¶159

23. 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 with its object and intent.

¶160

24

¶161

2025:JHHC:23713

¶162

24. The Act was enacted to address the urgent need to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof including vesting of it in the Central Government, setting up of agencies and mechanisms for coordinating measures for combating moneylaundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

¶163

25. It is evident that the PML Act, 2002 was enacted in order to answer the urgent requirement to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for

¶164

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.

¶165

26. It is evident from the definition of “proceeds of crime” as provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002 that “proceeds of crime” means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad.

¶166

27. In the explanation part of the aforesaid Section, 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

¶167

25

¶168

2025:JHHC:23713

¶169

obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.

¶170

28. 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.

¶171

29. 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.

¶172

30. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x) which means schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

¶173

31. 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.

¶174

32. The offence of money laundering has been defined under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002 wherein it has been stipulated that whosoever directly

¶175

26

¶176

2025:JHHC:23713

¶177

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.

¶178

33. It is further 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.

¶179

34. 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.

¶180

35. The punishment for money laundering has been provided under Section 4 of the PML Act, 2002.

¶181

36. Further, Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 confers power upon the authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence.

¶182

37. It needs to refer herein that the various provisions of the Act, 2002 alongwith interpretation of the definition of “ proceeds of crime ” has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (supra) wherein the

¶183

27

¶184

2025:JHHC:23713

¶185

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, as would appear from paragraph 128, 129 and 130. For ready reference, relevant paragraph is being referred as under:

¶186

“ 128 . To put it differently, the section as it stood prior to 2019 had itself incorporated the expression “including”, which is indicative of reference made to the different process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Thus, the principal provision (as also the Explanation) predicates that if a person is found to be directly or indirectly involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime must be held guilty of offence of money laundering. If the interpretation set forth by the petitioners was to be accepted, it would follow that it is only upon projecting or claiming the property in question as untainted property, the offence would be complete. This would undermine the efficacy of the legislative intent behind Section 3 of the Act and also will be in disregard of the view expressed by the FATF in connection with the occurrence of the word “and” preceding the expression “projecting or claiming” therein.

¶187

129.This Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, enunciated that the international treaties, covenants and conventions although may not be a part of municipal law, the same be referred to and followed by the Courts having regard to the fact that India is a party to the said treaties. This Court went on to observe that the Constitution of India and other ongoing statutes have been read consistently with the rules of international law. It is also observed that the Constitution of India and the enactments made by Parliament must necessarily be understood in the context of the presentday scenario and having regard to the international treaties and convention as our constitution takes note of the institutions of the world community which had been created.

¶188

130.In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, the Court observed that domestic Courts are under an obligation to give due regard to the international conventions and norms for construing the domestic laws, more so, when there is no inconsistency between them and there is a void in domestic law. This view has been restated in Githa Hariharan, as also in People's Union for Civil Liberties, and National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India.”

¶189

28

¶190

2025:JHHC:23713

¶191

38. The implication of Section 50 has also been taken into consideration. Relevant paragraph, i.e., paragraphs-327 to 332, 338, 339, 342 are quoted as under:

¶192

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

¶193

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

¶194

331 . Indeed, sub-section (2) of Section 50 enables the Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director to issue summon to any person whose attendance he considers necessary for giving evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation or proceeding under this Act. We have already highlighted the width of expression “proceeding” in the earlier part of this judgment and held that it applies to proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority or the Special Court, as the case may be. Nevertheless, sub-section (2) empowers the authorised officials to issue summon to any person. We fail to understand as to how Article 20(3) would come into play in respect of process of recording statement pursuant to such summon which is only for the purpose of collecting information or evidence in respect of proceeding under this Act. Indeed, the person so summoned, is bound to attend in

¶195

29

¶196

2025:JHHC:23713

¶197

person or through authorised agent and to state truth upon any subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may be required by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the 2002 Act. The criticism is essentially because of subsection (4) which provides that every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC. Even so, the fact remains that Article 20(3) or for that matter Section 25 of the Evidence Act, would come into play only when the person so summoned is an accused of any offence at the relevant time and is being compelled to be a witness against himself. This position is well-established.

¶198

332 .The Constitution Bench of this Court in M.P. Sharma had dealt with a similar challenge wherein warrants to obtain documents required for investigation were issued by the Magistrate being violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. This Court opined that the guarantee in Article 20(3) is against “testimonial compulsion” and is not limited to oral evidence. Not only that, it gets triggered if the person is compelled to be a witness against himself, which may not happen merely because of issuance of summons for giving oral evidence or producing documents. Further, to be a witness is nothing more than to furnish evidence and such evidence can be furnished by different modes. The Court went on to observe as follows: “Broadly stated the guarantee in article 20(3) is against “testimonial compulsion”. It is suggested that this is confined to the oral evidence of a person standing his trial for an offence when called to the witness-stand. We can see no reason to confine the content of the constitutional guarantee to this barely literal import. So to limit it would be to rob the guarantee of its substantial purpose and to miss the substance for the sound as stated in certain American decisions. The phrase used in Article 20(3) is “to be a witness”. A person can “be a witness” not merely by giving oral evidence but also by producing documents or making intelligible gestures as in the case of a dumb witness (See section 119 of the Evidence Act) or the like. “To be a witness” is nothing more than “to furnish evidence”, and such evidence can be furnished through the lips or by production of a thing or of a document or in other modes. So far as production of documents is concerned, no doubt Section 139 of the Evidence Act says that a person producing a document on summons is not a witness. But that section is meant to regulate the right of cross examination. It is not a guide to the connotation of the word “witness”, which must be understood in its natural sense, i.e., as referring to a

¶199

30

¶200

2025:JHHC:23713

¶201

person who furnishes evidence. Indeed, every positive volitional act which furnishes evidence is testimony, and testimonial compulsion connotes coercion which procures the positive volitional evidentiary acts of the person, as opposed to the negative attitude of silence or submission on his part. Nor is there any reason to think that the protection in respect of the evidence so procured is confined to what transpires at the trial in the court room. The phrase used in article 20(3) is “to be a witness” and not to “appear as a witness”. It follows that the protection afforded to an accused in so far as it is related to the phrase “to be a witness” is not merely in respect of testimonial compulsion in the court room but may well extend to compelled testimony previously obtained from him. It is available therefore to a person against whom a formal accusation relating to the commission of an offence has been levelled which in the normal course may result in prosecution. Whether it is available to other persons in other situations does not call for decision in this case.” (emphasis supplied)

¶202

338 . In the context of the 2002 Act, it must be remembered that the summon is issued by the Authority under Section 50 in connection with the inquiry regarding proceeds of crime which may have been attached and pending adjudication before the Adjudicating Authority. In respect of such action, the designated officials have been empowered to summon any person for collection of information and evidence to be presented before the Adjudicating Authority. It is not necessarily for initiating a prosecution against the noticee as such. The power entrusted to the designated officials under this Act, though couched as investigation in real sense, is to undertake inquiry to ascertain relevant facts to facilitate initiation of or pursuing with an action regarding proceeds of crime, if the situation so warrants and for being presented before the Adjudicating Authority. It is a different matter that the information and evidence so collated during the inquiry made, may disclose commission of offence of money-laundering and the involvement of the person, who has been summoned for making disclosures pursuant to the summons issued by the Authority. At this stage, there would be no formal document indicative of likelihood of involvement of such person as an accused of offence of money laundering. If the statement made by him reveals the offence of money laundering or the existence of proceeds of crime, that becomes actionable under the Act itself.

¶203

339 .To put it differently, at the stage of recording of statement for the purpose of inquiring into the relevant facts in connection with the property

¶204

31

¶205

2025:JHHC:23713

¶206

being proceeds of crime is, in that sense, not an investigation for prosecution as such; and in any case, there would be no formal accusation against the noticee. Such summons can be issued even to witnesses in the inquiry so conducted by the authorised officials. However, after further inquiry on the basis of other material and evidence, the involvement of such person (noticee) is revealed, the authorised officials can certainly proceed against him for his acts of commission or omission. In such a situation, at the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. However, if his/her statement is recorded after a formal arrest by the ED official, the consequences of Article 20(3) or Section 25 of the Evidence Act may come into play to urge that the same being in the nature of confession, shall not be proved against him. Further, it would not preclude the prosecution from proceeding against such a person including for consequences under Section 63 of the 2002 Act on the basis of other tangible material to indicate the falsity of his claim. That would be a matter of rule of evidence.

¶207

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

¶208

39. It is evident from the observation so made as above that the

¶209

purposes and objects of the 2002 Act for which it has been enacted, is not limited to punishment for offence of money-laundering, but also to provide measures for prevention of money-laundering. It is also to provide for attachment of proceeds of crime, which are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceeding relating to confiscation of such proceeds under the 2002 Act. This Act is also to compel the banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries to maintain records of the

¶210

32

¶211

2025:JHHC:23713

¶212

transactions, to furnish information of such transactions within the prescribed time in terms of Chapter IV of the 2002 Act.

¶213

40. 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.

¶214

41. 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 –

¶215

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given a opportunity to oppose the

¶216

application for such release; and

¶217

(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.

¶218

42. Sub-section (2) thereof puts limitation on granting bail specific

¶219

in subsection (1) in addition to the limitations under the Code of

¶220

33

¶221

2025:JHHC:23713

¶222

Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.

¶223

43. 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 nonbailable" 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.

¶224

44. 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-268-270. For ready reference, the said paragraphs are being referred as under:

¶225

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

¶226

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

¶227

34

¶228

2025:JHHC:23713

¶229

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

¶230

45. Subsequently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486 by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors .(supra), has laid down that since the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory, they need to be complied with. The Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It 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

¶231

35

¶232

2025:JHHC:23713

¶233

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.

¶234

46. 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.

¶235

47. In the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) , it has been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute a person for offence of money-laundering only if it has reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in possession of “proceeds of crime”. Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken to forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process.

¶236

48. So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 is concerned, at paragraph-412 of the judgment rendered in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) it has been

¶237

36

¶238

2025:JHHC:23713

¶239

held therein by making observation that whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of money-laundering.

¶240

49. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, (2015) 16 SCC 1 has been pleased to hold at paragraph - 30 that the conditions specified under Section 45 of PML Act, 2002are mandatory and need to be complied with, which is further strengthened by the provisions of Section 65 and also Section 71 of PML Act, 2002. Section 65 requires that the provisions of Cr.P.C shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and Section 71 provides that the provisions of PML Act, 2002 shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. PML Act, 2002 has an overriding effect and the provisions of CrPC would apply only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.

¶241

50. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PML Act, 2002 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

¶242

37

¶243

2025:JHHC:23713

¶244

Section 24 provides that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in moneylaundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the appellant.

¶245

51. Now adverting to the fact of the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation leveled against the present petitioner cannot be said to attract the ingredient of Section 3 of PML Act, 2002. While on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the ED has submitted by referring to various paragraphs of prosecution complaint that the offence is very much available attracting the offence under provisions of PML Act, 2002.

¶246

52. This Court, in order to appreciate the rival submission, is of the view that various paragraphs of prosecution complaint upon which the reliance has been placed on behalf of both the parties, needs to be referred herein so as to come to the conclusion as to whether the parameter as fixed under Section 45(ii) of the Act 2002, is being fulfilled in order to reach to the conclusion that it is a fit case where regular bail is to be granted or not.

¶247

53. In order to reach to conclusion regarding share of the accused persons in commission against allotment of tenders and accumulation of ‘proceeds of crime’, this Court needs to refer the relevant paragraph 7 of the prosecution complaint, which reads as under:

¶248

“7. INVESTIGATION LEADING TO FURTHER SEARCHES UNDER PMLA:

¶249

7.1 During the course of the investigation, Veerendra Kumar Ram was arrested u/s 19 of PMLA, 2002 on 23.02.2023 for the offence defined under Section 3 of PMLA. During his custodial interrogation, Veerendra Kumar

¶250

38

¶251

2025:JHHC:23713

¶252

Ram disclosed that he was taking commission against the allotment of tenders from the contractors. He further disclosed in his statement that the commission amount taken from the contractors is 3.2% of the total tender value and that his share was 0.3% of the total tender value which at some postings was higher than 0.3%. However, given the total Proceeds of Crime acquired by him, it is believed that the percentage (%) of commission varied from 0.3% to 1% of the tender value which is being stated by him under Section 50 of PMLA, 2002.

¶253

7.2 Veerendra Kumar Ram in his statement further stated that the whole process of collection and distribution of commission was taken care of by the assistant engineers posted at the Rural Development Special Zone and Rural Works Department. He further stated that the share of Minister Alamgir Alam was 1.5% of the allocated tender amount. Investigation revealed that Rs. 3 crores were given to Alamgir Alam by engineers of the Rural Works Department through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal in September 2022.

¶254

7.3 Further, it was ascertained that the amount of commission on behalf of Alamgir Alam was getting collected by Sanjeev Kumar Lal (his PS). Further, it was ascertained that a person named Jahangir Alam collects such commission on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal who is an associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. During investigation, it was found that Sanjeev Kumar Lal resides at Booty Road, Ranchi which is a government accommodation. During analysis of the seized mobile phone of Veerendra Kumar Ram, contact details of Sanjeev Kumar Lal was found as 'Sanjeev Lal PA of RDD Minister' and two mobile nos. (9939121851 and 8789745592) are saved in the said contact's name. Further, SDR, CAF and CDR of the aforesaid mobile nos, were sought and it was revealed that the mobile no. 9939121851 is in the name of Sanjeev Kumar Lal himself. However, another mobile no. 8789745592 was found to be in the name of Jahangir Alam, S/o- Ekramul Haque. Thus, it became evident that Jahangir Alam is a close associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and the Jahangir acts as a close trusted aid of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. Further, analysis of the CDR and tower location of both mobile nos. was also made and it was found that they live in very close proximity to the government accommodation and it was found during search that they were residing in the same government residence. Further, it was gathered that there is a flat in the name of Jahangir Alam which was used by Sanjeev Kumar Lal for secreting the proceeds of crime. It was also gathered that the wife of Sanjeev Lal @ Sanjeev Kumar Lal is involved in businesses related to construction and is a director/partner/shareholder in an entity with one builder Munna Singh. It was learnt that the proceeds of crime in the form of

¶255

39

¶256

2025:JHHC:23713

¶257

cash acquired by the officials/officers of the Rural Development Department are deposited to a builder on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. Therefore, on the basis of reasons to believe, search u/s 17 of PMLA, 2002 was conducted at seven premises on 06.05.2024.

¶258

7.4 .As a result of the search, huge cash to the tune of Rs 32.20 crores was recovered and seized on 06/07.05.2024 from the premises of Jahangir Alam i.e. Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi.

¶259

Further, huge cash amount to the tune of Rs. 2.93 Crore have been recovered and seized on 06.05.2024 from the premises of Munna Singh i.e. Flat No. 1A Kashmiri Gali, PP Compound, Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶260

7.5 On the basis of statement recorded of Munna Singh wherein he stated that he used to collect such cash from the engineers/contractors on the instruction of Sanjeev Lal, searches were also conducted at the residences of these engineers viz. Rajiv Kumar, Santosh Kumar, Rajkumar Toppo, Ajay Tirkey & Amit Kumar on 07.05.2024.

¶261

7.6 Further, as a result of the search on 07.05.2024 at the Residential premises of Rajeev Kumar Singh i.e. E-4, Mecon Vatika, Kalyanpur Hatiya, Ranchi Jharkhand-834003, a huge cash amount to the tune of Rs. 2.13 Crore have been recovered and seized.

¶262

7.7 Apart from the above, as a result of the search other cash amounts that were recovered and seized on different dates from the other premises.

¶263

In this way, Cash totalling to Rs. 37.55 Crores Approx. has been recovered and seized from the various premises searched u/s 17 of the PMLA,2002 on 06th, 07th and 08th of May 2024.

¶264

7.8 Apart from the above cash amounts several digital devices, incriminating documents and records were found and seized from the aforesaid premises during the course of searches on 06.05.2024, 07.05.2024, 08.05.2024, 10.05.2024 & 24.05.2024 under section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.........”

¶265

54. This Court has also gone through the averments made in the prosecution complaint regarding modus operandi of generation of ‘proceeds of crime’, wherein it has been stated that total 18 searches was conducted u/s 17 of PMLA in Ranchi, at the premises of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, Jahangir Alam, some Engineers and other persons on different dates.

¶266

40

¶267

2025:JHHC:23713

¶268

As a result of search, huge amount of cash to the tune of Rs. 37.55 Crore, digital devices, records and various incriminating documents were recovered which gave details with regard to the various individuals involved in the process of generation and distribution of proceeds of crime.

¶269

55. Further, statement of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD were recorded u/s 50 of PML Act, 2002 wherein they have inter alia stated that commission is collected by the engineers/officials from contractors/companies/firms against tender allocation in the RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD departments. The commission of 3% of the total amount mentioned in LOA (Letter of Acceptance) is fixed for tender allotment, the distribution of which among the Minister, bureaucrats, engineers and other officials is distributed as -(a) 1.35%- Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal; (b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials.

¶270

56. They also stated that the collection of commission for minister, Alamgir Alam, has been done by Sanjeev Kumar Lal through his person/agent and for other persons the commission has been collected by Chief Engineer, JSRRDA himself and, through his selected persons. For ready reference, the relevant portion of paragraph 8 is being quoted as under:

¶271

“8. GENERATION OF PROCEEDS OF CRIME

¶272

8.1 A total of 18 searches were conducted u/s 17 of PMLA in Ranchi, at the premises of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, Jahangir Alam, some Engineers and other persons on different dates. As a result of the search huge amount of cash to the tune of Rs. 37.55 Crore, digital devices, records and various incriminating

¶273

41

¶274

2025:JHHC:23713

¶275

documents were recovered which gave details with regard to the various individuals involved in the process of generation and distribution of proceeds of crime.

¶276

8.2 Sanjeev Kumar Lal during his ED Custody interrogation also stated that the commission in the range of 3 to 4 % of the total tender amount is collected in cash by the Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers of the respective departments. He further stated that he used to collect the share of 1.35 % of minister Alamgir Alam on his behalf from Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers via Chief Engineers . He further stated that first of all, the Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers used to inform him regarding handing over the share of Alamgir Alam and they requested Sanjeev Kumar Lal to send some person to collect cash i.e. commission.

¶277

Thereafter, Sanjeev Kumar Lal used to instruct Munna Singh who was his close friend, and/or his brother (Santosh Kumar) to collect cash from the said engineers. Sanjeev Kumar Lal further instructed Jahangir Alam to stand near Abhinandan Marriage hall, near Rani Hospital and Deendayal Nagar, Ranchi with his Aprilia scooter bearing Registration No. JH01ES8402, where Rinku alias Santosh Kumar (brother of Munna Singh) handed over bags filled with currency/note bundles, and after receiving those bags, he used to park the said bags beneath bed and almirah at his Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi safely. Thus, it is ascertained that Sanjeev Kumar Lal takes care of the collection of commission on behalf of Minister Alamgir Alam.

¶278

8.3 Statements of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 wherein they have inter alia stated that commission is collected by the engineers/officials from contractors/companies/firms against tender allocation in the RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD departments. The commission of 3% of the total amount mentioned in LOA (Letter of Acceptance) is fixed for tender allotment, the distribution of which among the Minister, bureaucrats, engineers and other officials is distributed as under:

¶279

(a) 1.35%- Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal)

¶280

(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials

¶281

They also stated that the collection of commission for minister Alamgir Alam has been done by Sanjeev Kumar Lal through his person/agent and for other persons the commission has been collected by Chief Engineer, JSRRDA himself and, through his selected persons.

¶282

8.4 Further, From the statements of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and aforesaid Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD the modus operandi of

¶283

42

¶284

2025:JHHC:23713

¶285

allocation of Tenders and collection of commission against the tenders has surfaced which is detailed as under:

¶286

(i) The modus operandi regarding collection of commission against allotment tenders starts with the floating of tenders by RWD, RDSD and JSRRDA for the construction of roads, bridges and other government buildings in Jharkhand.

¶287

Firstly, the Government takes decision to construct road/bridge, the Detailed Project Report (DPR) is prepared by Executive Engineer. Thereafter, the technical sanction is approved by the competent Authority i.e. up to 1.00 Crore by Superintendent Engineer and more than 01.00 Crore by Chief Engineer. After that sanctioned estimate is sent to the Department/Secretary and processed by the Department for Administrative Approval (AA) duly approved by the Hon'ble Minister of the department. Once the Administrative Approval (AA) sanction letter is issued by the Secretary, it is sent to Chief Engineer for Tender Process.

¶288

Further, Apart from huge cash as mentioned above, several documents including letters on official letterheads were found from the said premise of Jahangir Alam, which were kept there on the instructions of, and under the possession of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, as PS to Alamgir Alam RDD minister, which clearly establishes that Sanjeev Kumar Lal was using the said premise of Jahangir Alam as a safe house for keeping cash, documents/records and other belongings related to Minister Alamgir Alam and himself.

¶289

8.15 Further, Apart from huge cash as mentioned above, several documents including letters on official letterheads were found from the said premise of Jahangir Alam, which were kept there on the instructions of, and under the possession of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, as PS to Alamgir Alam RDD minister, which clearly establishes that Sanjeev Kumar Lal was using the said premise of Jahangir Alam as a safe house for keeping cash, documents/records and other belongings related to Minister Alamgir Alam and himself......

¶290

8.16 .That, several documents and records pertaining to Sanjeev Kumar Lal were seized from the said premise of Jahangir Alam including several torn pages of a few diaries and notes. When these torn pages of diaries were confronted with Sanjeev Kumar Lal, he in his statements recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 has inter alia stated that these torn pages and notes contain the calculations (Hisab Kitab) of cash/commission collected against the allocation of tenders of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD.........”

¶291

43

¶292

2025:JHHC:23713

¶293

57. In order to prove the allegation, statements of several persons were recorded under the provisions of PML Act, 2002 the gist of the statements is quoted as under:

¶294

"10. BRIEF DETAILS OF PERSONS EXAMINED UNDER SECTION 17 AND 50 OF PMLA, 2002.

¶295

During the course of the search and investigation, statements of several persons were recorded under the provisions of PMLA, the gist of the statements relevant to this investigation is as under:

¶296

10.1. Veerendra Kumar Ram : Veerendra Kumar Ram is a chief engineer in Rural Department Special Zone and also in additional charge of Rural Works Department. In his statement recorded u/s 50 of PMLA during custodial interrogation and in judicial custody on different dates wherein he inter alia accepted that commission was taken in lieu of allotment of tenders and that the total commission was 3.2% of tender value and that his share of commission was 0.3% of the total tender amount which varies from 0.3% to 1%. The share of Minister Alamgir Alam is around 1.5% of the allocated tender amoun t. He further stated that the whole process of collection and distribution of commission was taken care of by the assistant engineers posted at Rural Development Special Zone and Rural Works Department. He further stated that Rs. 3 crores were given to Alamgir Alam by engineers of Rural Works Department through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal in September 2022.

¶297

During analysis of the seized mobile phone of Veerendra Kumar Ram, contact details of Sanjeev Lal was found as 'Sanjeev Lal PA of RDD Minister' and two mobile nos. (9939121851 and 8789745592) are saved in the-said-contact's name.

¶298

10.3. Sanjeev Kumar Lal : He is PS to minister Alamgir Alam. He was arrested on 07.05.2024 and during his ED custodial interrogation u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002, he showed complete non-cooperation, by not divulging the true facts about 53 crores initially, which are the Proceeds of Crime acquired by Alamgir Alam and himself and other seized records and documents.

¶299

When he was shown the evidences, he disclosed that he was collecting the share of Minister Alamgir Alam (1.35%) from the total commission which is 3% of total tender amount that was collected against the tenders of RWD, JSRRDA, RDSD, RDSD and RDSZ . He has instructed the ChiefEngineers and other engineers to collect the commission and give him the share of Minister Alamgir Alam. He instructed Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh to collect commission/cash from Chief Engineers and other

¶300

44

¶301

2025:JHHC:23713

¶302

engineers and hand over the same to Jahangir Alam. He further instructed Jahangir Alam to collect cash/commission from Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh and store the same at his (Jahangir Alam's) premises safely. He further accepted that the cash amount recovered and seized from the premises of Munna Singh and Rajeev Kumar Singh during the search is also the commission amount of Alamgir Alam which was yet to be handed over to Jahangir Alam. He maintained the calculations (Hisab Kitab) of the collected commission of Alamgir Alam in torn pages of diaries.

¶303

He has also taken his share of around Rs. 2.05 Crore from the commission and invested the same in immovable and movable properties in his name and in the name of his family members.

¶304

Further, Sanjeev Kumar Lal stated u/s 50 of PMLA that Munna Singh and his brother were not aware that the money they were collected, was the commission amount against the tenders. They did the same on his instructions. 10.4 . Jahangir Alam : He is a close aide of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He was arrested on 07.05.2024 and during his ED custodial interrogation u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002, he showed complete non-cooperation, by not divulging the true facts about Rs. 32.20 crore initially, which are the Proceeds of Crime acquired by Alamgir Alam and Sanjeev Kumar Lal and other seized records and documents.

¶305

He further stated that the cash amount seized from his said premises belongs to Sanjeev Kumar Lal, and he collected the aforesaid huge cash amount i.e. Rs. 32.20 Crore on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal . He further stated that about 4 to 5 months ago Sanjeev Kumar Lal instructed him to stand near Abhinandan Marriage hall, near Rani Hospital and Deendayal Nagar, Ranchi with his Aprilia scooter bearing, where Rinku alias Santosh Kumar (brother of Munna Singh) handed over bags filled with currency/note bundles, and after receiving those bags, he used to park the said bags beneath bed and almirah at his Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi safely. He has also taken cash around Rs. 40.40 Lakhs from Sanjeev Kumar Lal and invested the same in immovable and movable properties in his name with the help of his friends. With respect to jewellery seized from his premises, he in his statement recorded in judicial custody, has accepted that the seized jewellery belongs to him and the said jewellery items was purchased by him in cash, however, he has no invoice in support of such purchase.

¶306

10.5. Reeta Lal : Statements of Reeta Lal W/o Sanjeev Kumar Lal were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein she inter alia stated that she is a housewife and her source of income is agriculture. She has purchased immovable properties in Khunti, Bariyatu, Kanke Road and Pundag. She further stated

¶307

45

¶308

2025:JHHC:23713

¶309

that she is a partner in Tejaswini Buildcon with Munna Singh. She transferred Rs 10 Lakhs on 22.04.2022 to the bank account of Tejaswini Buildcon as an investment. She further stated that she has invested Rs. 21-22-Lakhs in the said firm. She further stated that she has received Rs. 9,00,000/- from TEJASWINI BUILDCON as a partner against her aforesaid investment made in Tejaswini Buildcon which has been further used for purchase of aforesaid property. Further, regarding the source of funds for the purchase of the said property, she stated that it is either a loan taken from various persons or her agriculture income, but she failed to produce any documents regarding her aforesaid loans and agriculture income.

¶310

58. From the statement so recorded of the accused persons as also of the Statement of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD and witnesses recorded u/s 50 of PML Act, 2002 it is evident that they all are consistent in their statement that the commission is 3% of total LOA is for the allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed in share of 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal and rest 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials. Further the Jahangir Alam who alleged as close ally of the present petitioner has categorically stated that the cash amount seized from his said premises belongs to Sanjeev Kumar Lal, and he collected the aforesaid huge cash amount i.e. Rs. 32.20 Crore on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal (present petitioner).

¶311

59. Role of the present petitioner along with his close allied in the commission of offence of money laundering, in particular, who have been arrayed as accused in the second supplementary prosecution, as mentioned at paragraph 15.1 of the prosecution complaint has been made. For ready reference, the same is quoted as under:

¶312

“15.1 Role of the accused persons in the commission of offence of money laundering.

¶313

46

¶314

2025:JHHC:23713

¶315

1.Alamgir Alam [Accused No. 11]-

¶316

a) Alamgir Alam is Minister of (i) Department of Rural Works (RWD), (ii) Department of Panchayati Raj and (iii) Department of Rural Development (RDD). Jharkhand State Rural Road Development Authority (JSRRDA) and Rural Development Special Division (RDSD) are the part of the Department of Rural Works (RWD). RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD constructs the roads and bridges in the state of Jharkhand, for which tenders are floated by these departments, against which 3% commission has been collected. He being the minister of these departments, is all in all and at the top echelon in the syndicate of commission collection.

¶317

b) He has pressurised and compelled the Chief Engineer under his portfolio to collect commission and give him his share through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal.

¶318

c) He has instructed Sanjeev Kumar Lal to collect his 1.35% share in total commission which is 3% of total tender value (Discussed in detail in Para 8.2 88.3).

¶319

d) Accordingly, Sanjeev Kumar Lal has instructed departmental engineers to hand over the commission part of Alamgir Alam to Munna Singh and/or his brother Santosh Kumar alias Rinku Singh. Further Munna Singh has stated that he has collected a total of Rs. 53 crores of commission from such engineers/contractors and handed over Rs.50 crores approx. to Sanjeev Lal through Jahangir Alam. Thus, the same amount of PoC was acquired by Alamgir Alam through Sanjeev Kumar Lal, out of this Rs.53 crores, an amount of Rs.35 crores approx. was seized during the search proceedings.

¶320

e) Further, it is ascertained from the statement of Veerendra Kumar Ram and Sanjeev Kumar Lal that Alamgir Alam also acquired a commission amount of Rs. 3 crores from Veerendra Kumar Ram through one engineer of the department and same transaction was also assisted by Sanjeev Kumar Lal in September 2022.

¶321

f) Thus, Alamgir Alam is found to be directly indulged and actually involved in possession and concealment of atleast Rs 35 crores of the Proceeds of Crime through Sanjeev Kumar Lal and he has also found to be directly indulged and actually involved in acquisition and concealment of atleast Rs. 56 crores of the Proceeds of Crime.

¶322

2.Sanjeev Kumar Lal (Accused No.-12):

¶323

a) He is the PS to Minister Alamgir Alam, and he has misused his official position for collection of commission on behalf of Minister Alamgir Alam.

¶324

47

¶325

2025:JHHC:23713

¶326

b) He has pressurised, threatened and instructed the Chief-Engineers and other engineers to collect commission and give him the share of Minister Alamgir Alam.

¶327

c) He is the person who is controlling whole syndicate of collection of commission against tenders from top to bottom on behalf of Minister

¶328

Alamgir Alam.

¶329

d) He instructed Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh to collect commission/cash from Chief Engineers and other engineers and hand over the same to Jahangir Alam.

¶330

e) He instructed Jahangir Alam to collect cash/commission from Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh and store the same at his (Jahangir Alam's) premises safely.

¶331

f) He has taken his share of around Rs. 2.05 Crore from the commission and integrated the proceeds of crime in immovable and movable properties in his name and in the name of his family members and associates. He has purchased immovable properties, plot alongwith building at Bariyatu, which was also renovated by him and plot at Pundag, Ranchi in the name of his wife using proceeds of crime. He has also found to be involved in using PoC more than Rs 2.05 crores, for purchasing immovable properties in the name of himself, his wife and his close aid Jahangir Alam. Hence, Sanjeev Kumar Lal is directly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment, possession, utilisation and acquisition.

¶332

g) Sanjeev Kumar Lal is the mastermind and has played vital role in this syndicate/organized structure of illegal collection of proceeds of crime. h) He is found to be directly indulged and actually involved and knowingly assisted Alamgir Alam in acquisition, possession and concealment of the Proceeds of Crime at least to the tune of Rs. 56 crores.

¶333

i) He is also found to be directly indulged and actually involved in the acquisition and concealment of PoC at least to the tune of Rs. 2.05 crores and claimed the proceeds of crime as untainted.

¶334

j) He has also found to be directly indulged and actually involved in using Proceeds of crime in at least 4 (four) immovable properties which he acquired in his own name, in name of his wife and his close aide Jahangir Alam and same four properties have been attached u/s 5(1) of the PMLA, 2002 and also being prayed for confiscation.

¶335

3. Jahangir Alam (Accused No.-13)

¶336

(a) Jahangir Alam is close associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, and has collected commission on behest of Sanjeev Kumar Lal.

¶337

48

¶338

2025:JHHC:23713

¶339

(b) Following the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, he has collected

¶340

cash/commission from Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh.

¶341

(c) He has played vital role in collection of cash/commission and concealment of the proceeds of crime clandestinely at his premises.

¶342

(d) He has also taken cash around Rs. 40.40 Lakhs from Sanjeev Kumar Lal which is commission amount against tenders i.e. Proceeds of Crime and invested the same in immovable and movable properties in his name. He has purchased immovable properties, flat at Sir Syed Residency and plot at Pundag, Ranchi.

¶343

(e) Jahangir Alam is the key person who has facilitated the movement and hiding of cash/commission i.e. Proceeds of Crime.

¶344

(f) He is found to be directly indulged, actually involved and knowingly assisted Sanjeev Kumar Lal in acquisition, possession and concealment of the Proceeds of Crime at least to the tune of Rs. 50 crores approx. and jewellery worth Rs 14.50 lakhs approx.

¶345

(g) He is found to be directly indulged and actually involved and knowingly assisted Sanjeev Kumar Lal in utilisation, possession and concealment of Proceeds of Crime to the tune of Rs. 1,10,25,000/- for purchasing two immovable properties in his own name and claimed the proceeds of crime as untainted, which were attached u/s 5(1) of the PMLA, 2002 and also being prayed for confiscation vide this PC.

¶346

(h) Jahangir Alam has also found to be actually involved and knowingly assisted Sanjeev Kumar Lal in utilising Proceeds of crime in purchasing one vehicle viz. Tata Harrier having Reg. No. JH01DK-7459 which was seized u/s 17(1-A) of the Act, same vehicle was also used for commissioning of an offence under the Act, and also being prayed for confiscation .

¶347

60. Thus, Investigation revealed that Rs. 3 crores were given to Alamgir Alam by engineers of the Rural Works Department through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal in September 2022. Further, it has come in the statement of the aforesaid accused that the amount of commission on behalf of Alamgir Alam was getting collected by Sanjeev Kumar Lal (Personal Secretary of petitioner Alamgir Alam) and a person named Jahangir Alam who is an associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal collected such commission on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal.

¶348

49

¶349

2025:JHHC:23713

¶350

61. It has further come on record that analysis of the seized mobile phone of Veerendra Kumar Ram, contact details of Sanjeev Kumar Lal was found as 'Sanjeev Lal PA of RDD Minister'. It is evident from the aforesaid complaint that huge cash to the tune of Rs 32.20 crores was recovered and seized on 06/07.05.2024 from the premises of Jahangir Alam i.e. Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi.

¶351

62. It has further come on record that a total of 18 searches were conducted u/s 17 of the PML Act, 2002, in Ranchi, at the premises of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, Jahangir Alam, some Engineers and other persons on different dates. As a result of the search huge amount of cash to the tune of Rs. 37.55 Crore, digital devices, records and various incriminating documents and records were recovered which gave details with regard to the various individuals involved in the process of generation and distribution of proceeds of crime.

¶352

63. Sanjeev Kumar Lal (present petitioner) during his ED Custody interrogation also stated that the commission in the range of 3 to 4 % of the total tender amount is collected in cash by the Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers of the respective departments. He further stated that he used to collect the share of 1.35 % of minister Alamgir Alam on his behalf from Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers via Chief Engineers.

¶353

64. It has also come on record that Statements of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD were recorded u/s 50 of PML Act, 2002 wherein they have inter alia stated that commission is collected by the engineers/officials from contractors/companies/firms

¶354

50

¶355

2025:JHHC:23713

¶356

against tender allocation in the RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD departments. The commission of 3% of the total amount mentioned in LOA (Letter of Acceptance) is fixed for tender allotment, the distribution of which among the Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal (present petitioner) was 1.35%.

¶357

65. Thus, from the complaint it appears that apart from huge cash as mentioned above, several documents including letters on official letterheads were found from the premise of Jahangir Alam, which were kept there on the instructions of, Sanjeev Kumar Lal, as PS to Alamgir Alam RDD minister, which indicates that Sanjeev Kumar Lal was using the said premise of Jahangir Alam as a safe house for keeping cash, documents/records and other belongings.

¶358

66. At this juncture it needs to refer herein that it is settled connotation of law that at the stage of considering bail, the duty of the Court is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities and Court should not venture into the merit of the case by analyzing that whether conviction is possible or not. Meaning thereby at this stage the Court has to see the prima facie case only.

¶359

67. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) while referring the ratio of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 294 has categorically held that the Court ought to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial. The duty of the Court

¶360

51

¶361

2025:JHHC:23713

¶362

at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities.

¶363

68. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors(supra) has reiterated the same view and has observed that the Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail need not to delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the court based on available material on record is required. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:

¶364

303. We are in agreement with the observation made by the Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma [Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1057] . The Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the court based on available material on record is required. The court will not weigh the evidence to find the guilt of the accused which is, of course, the work of the trial court. The court is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material collected during investigation and the said view will not be taken into consideration by the trial court in recording its finding of the guilt or acquittal during trial which is based on the evidence adduced during the trial. As explained by this Court in Nimmagadda Prasad [Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 575] , the words used in Section 45 of the 2002 Act are “reasonable grounds for believing” which means the court has to see only if there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt .

¶365

69. Further on perusal of the Paragraphs- 8.16, 8.18, 8.19, 8.20 & 8.26 of

¶366

the prosecution complaint where the images of the hand written notes etc. have been mentioned/displayed, which depicts that the accounting of the collections and distributions of the commission were being maintained in the diaries or note books seized by the agency from the locations related

¶367

52

¶368

2025:JHHC:23713

¶369

to the Personal secretary of the present petitioner, where the code name the petitioner with his specific share in that commission is also mentioned. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that prosecuting agency has arrested the present petitioner not only on basis of the statement of the persons recorded u/s 50 PML Act, 2002 rather there is other evidence also available on record.

¶370

70. Thus, prima-facie on the basis of the material available in prosecution complaint the role of the present petitioner in the alleged money laundering cannot be negated.

¶371

71. So far, the issue of non-availability of money trail as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned it has come on the record that a huge cash of Rs.32.20 crore was recovered and seized from the premises of Jahangir Alam an associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal who was personal Secretary to the Minister, i.e., the petitioner herein. It is also pertinent to note that several incriminating notes and pages of diaries were also found during search and seizure which was maintained by Sanjeev Kumar Lal (present petitioner) recording the share of the minister Alamgir Alam from the total commission collected from the tenders. It has come in the investigation that Sanjeev Kumar Lal, the personal Secretary to the Minister/applicant, has admitted the contents of seized pages and the fact that he was collecting commission on behalf of the applicant/minister as recorded in the ‘ Hisab-Kitab’ seized by ED corroborates the factum of recovery.

¶372

72. Thus, this Court is of prima facie view that the contention of the petitioner that the prosecution has failed to establish the entire money

¶373

53

¶374

2025:JHHC:23713

¶375

trail, is without any factual basis and moreover section 3 of PML Act, 2002 nowhere requires the entire money trail or where the money eventually went.

¶376

73. It needs to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

¶377

Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement) (2023) 4 SCC 357 observed as follows:

¶378

"19. The word "money-laundering" is defined in Section 2(1)(p) of the Act to have the same meaning as assigned to it in Section 3. Section 3 of the Act makes a person guilty of the offence of money laundering, if he (1) directly or indirectly attempts to indulge, or (n) knowingly assists or, (im) knowingly is a party, or (iv) is actually involved in any process or activity. Such process or activity should be connected to "proceeds of crime " including its concealment or possession or acquisition or use. In addition, a person involved in such process or activity connected to proceeds of crime, should be projecting or claiming it as untainted property. The Explanation under Section 3 makes it clear that even if the involvement is in one or more of the following activities or processes, namely: (i) concealment; (ii) possession; (im) acquisition; (iv) use; (o) projecting it as untainted property, or (vi) claiming it as untainted property, the offence of money-laundering will be made out.

¶379

20. Thus, Section 3 comprises of two essential limbs, namely: (i) involvement in any process or activity, and (ii) connection of such process or activity to the proceeds of crime. The expression "proceeds of crime" is defined in Section 2(1)(u) to mean 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 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."

¶380

74. In the light of the aforesaid statutory definitions, it can safely be inferred that it is enough if the prosecution establishes that there was generation of proceeds of crime and the accused was involved in any process or activity in connection with the proceeds of crime. Therefore, it is considered view of this Court that since concealment of the proceeds of

¶381

54

¶382

2025:JHHC:23713

¶383

crime is itself an offence it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish the money trail.

¶384

75. Further, in view of above, prima facie it appears that there is direct complicity of the petitioner in collecting money for giving a share of the said amount to the co-accused-Alamgir Alam which has come in evidence in the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act and the diary making reference of the said fact showing the complicity of the present petitioner in collecting commission in lieu of tender.

¶385

76. So far, the contention as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the ‘reason to believe’ has not been furnished to the petitioner is concerned, it has been argued that the judgment in the case of Arvind Kejriwal(supra) was pronounced on 12.07.2024 while the present petitioner has been taken into custody on 07.05.2024 hence whatever has been laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arvind Kejriwal will have no retrospective application.

¶386

77. The learned counsel for ED in order to buttress his argument has relied upon the judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of Arvind Dham vs. Union of India [2024 SCC OnLIne Del 8490], in which, the Delhi High Court has taken into consideration the aforesaid fact and on the principle of retrospectively the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arvind Kejriwal(supra) has not been followed.

¶387

78. It has been contended that the said order passed by the Delhi High Court has been questioned before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP(Cr.) No. 017357 of 2024 and the order passed by the Delhi High

¶388

55

¶389

2025:JHHC:23713

¶390

Court in Arvind Dham (supra) has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶391

79. It needs to refer herein that from the record it is evident that during the arrest of the petitioner the directions of the Hon’ble Court given in the cases of Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India 2023 SCC Online SC 1244 and Ram Kishore Arora vs Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC Online SC 1682 have been fully complied as the grounds mentioned explicitly in a separate memo handed over to the petitioner in writing before his arrest u/s 19 of PML Act, 2002.

¶392

80. Argument has been advanced by referring to provision of Section 22 of the PML Act, 2002 wherein it has been provided of presumption as to records or property in certain cases, in which it is provided that where any records or property are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a survey or a search, [or where any record or property is produced by any person or has been resumed or seized from the custody or control of any person or has been frozen under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, it shall be presumed that (i) such records or property belong or belongs to such person;(ii) the contents of such records are true; and (iii) the signature and every other part of such records which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that persons’ handwriting, and in the case of a record, stamped, executed or attested, that it was executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so stamped, executed or attested.

¶393

56

¶394

2025:JHHC:23713

¶395

81. From perusal of section 22 of the PML Act, 2002 it is evident that if any books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewellery, or other valuable article or thing are found in possession or control of any person during a search under this Act, then it may be presumed that such items belong to such person and the contents of the books or documents are true, and the signature and handwriting in such documents are of the person to whom they are attributed.

¶396

82. Hence, it appears that the petitioner is directly indulged 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, as defined u/s 3 of PML Act, 2002.

¶397

83. Further, the role of the petitioner in the laundering of proceeds of crime generated out of the commission of scheduled offence has been discussed in detail in the prosecution complaint and supplementary prosecution complaint as well as the paragraphs abovementioned.

¶398

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

¶399

85. In this context it is pertinent to mention here that the provisions of the PML Act, 2002 is an independent offence and the investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate under the PML Act, 2002 is triggered after committing, the commission of a scheduled offence, out of which proceeds have been generated. During the investigation, there is the active involvement of the petitioner in the layering, transfer and use as well as

¶400

57

¶401

2025:JHHC:23713

¶402

the petitioner entering into transactions to launder the proceeds of crime generated out of such scheduled offence.

¶403

86. Thus, prima-facie , it appears that the petitioner has involved himself in accumulating proceeds of crime and the aforesaid plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner doesn’t hold water. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pavna Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal No. 2779/2023 ) held that the who could commit an offence under the PML Act, 2002 maybe not be named in the scheduled offence.

¶404

87. Further the offence of money laundering as contemplated in Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002 has been elaborately dealt with by the three Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), in which it has been observed that Section 3 has a wider reach. The offence as defined captures every process and activity in dealing with the proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly, and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy to constitute an act of money laundering. Of course, the authority of the Authorised Officer under the Act to prosecute any person for the offence of money laundering gets triggered only if there exist proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the Act and further it is involved in any process or activity. Not even in case of existence of undisclosed income and irrespective of its volume, the definition of “Proceeds of Crime” under Section 2(1)(u) will get attracted, unless the property has been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The property must qualify the definition of “Proceeds of Crime” under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act. As observed, in all or whole of the crime

¶405

58

¶406

2025:JHHC:23713

¶407

property linked to scheduled offence need not be regarded as proceeds of crime, but all properties qualifying the definition of “Proceeds of Crime” under Section 2(1)(u) will necessarily be the crime properties.

¶408

88. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pavana Dibbur vs. The Directorate of Enforcement (supra) has considered the effect of the appellant not being shown as an accused in the predicate offence by taking into consideration Section 3 of the Act, 2002.

¶409

89. Based upon the definition Clause (u) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the PML Act, 2002 which defines "proceeds of crime", the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that clause (v) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of PML Act, 2002 defines "property" to mean any property or assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible.

¶410

90. 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.

¶411

91. 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

¶412

59

¶413

2025:JHHC:23713

¶414

the finding has been given therein that on plain reading of Section 3 of the PML 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 PML Act, 2002. Therefore, it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002 is alleged must have been shown as the accused in

¶415

the scheduled offence. For ready reference relevant paragraphs are being quoted as under:

¶416

15. The condition precedent for the existence of proceeds of crime is the existence of a scheduled offence. On this aspect, it is necessary to refer to the decision of this Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] . In para 109 of the said decision [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] , this Court held thus : (SCC p. 166)

¶417

“109. Tersely put, it is only such property which is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence that can be regarded as proceeds of crime. The authorities under the 2002 Act cannot resort to action against any person for money laundering on an assumption that the property recovered by them must be proceeds of crime and that a scheduled offence has been committed, unless the same is registered with the jurisdictional police or pending inquiry by way of complaint before the competent forum. For, the expression “derived or obtained” is indicative of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence already accomplished. Similarly, in the event the person named in the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence is finally absolved by a court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case (scheduled offence) against him/her, there can be no action for money laundering against such a person or person claiming through him in relation to the property linked to the stated scheduled offence. This interpretation alone can be countenanced on the basis of the provisions of the 2002 Act, in

¶418

60

¶419

2025:JHHC:23713

¶420

particular Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3. Taking any other view would be rewriting of these provisions and disregarding the express language of definition clause “proceeds of crime”, as it obtains as of now.” (emphasis in original and supplied)

¶421

16. In paras 134 and 135, this Court held thus : (Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] , SCC p. 182)

¶422

“134. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply clear that the offence of money laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. The process or activity can be in any form — be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so. Thus, involvement in any one of such process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime would constitute offence of money laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence — except the proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a result of that crime.

¶423

135.Needless to mention that such process or activity can be indulged in only after the property is derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity (a scheduled offence). It would be an offence of money-laundering to indulge in or to assist or being party to the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime; and such process or activity in a given fact situation may be a continuing offence, irrespective of the date and time of commission of the scheduled offence. In other words, the criminal activity may have been committed before the same had been notified as scheduled offence for the purpose of the 2002 Act, but if a person has indulged in or continues to indulge directly or indirectly in dealing with proceeds of crime, derived or obtained from such criminal activity even after it has been notified as scheduled offence, may be liable to be prosecuted for offence of money laundering under the 2002 Act — for continuing to possess or conceal the proceeds of crime (fully or in part) or retaining possession thereof or uses it in trenches until fully exhausted. The offence of money-laundering is not dependent on or linked to the date on which the scheduled offence, or if we may say so, the predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date is the date on which the person indulges in the process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime. These ingredients are intrinsic in the original provision (Section 3, as amended until 2013 and were in force till 31-7-2019); and the same has been merely explained and clarified by way of Explanation vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019.

¶424

61

¶425

2025:JHHC:23713

¶426

Thus understood, inclusion of clause (ii) in Explanation inserted in 2019 is of no consequence as it does not alter or enlarge the scope of Section 3 at all.” (emphasis supplied)

¶427

17. Coming back to Section 3 PMLA, on its plain reading, an offence under Section 3 can be committed after a scheduled offence is committed. For example, let us take the case of a person who is unconnected with the scheduled offence, knowingly assists the concealment of the proceeds of crime or knowingly assists the use of proceeds of crime. In that case, he can be held guilty of committing an offence under Section 3 PMLA. To give a concrete example, the offences under Sections 384 to 389IPC relating to “extortion” are scheduled offences included in Para 1 of the Schedule to PMLA. An accused may commit a crime of extortion covered by Sections 384 to 389IPC and extort money. Subsequently, a person unconnected with the offence of extortion may assist the said accused in the concealment of the proceeds of extortion. In such a case, the person who assists the accused in the scheduled offence for concealing the proceeds of the crime of extortion can be guilty of the offence of money-laundering. Therefore, it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence. What is held in para 135 of the decision of this Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] supports the above conclusion. The conditions precedent for attracting the offence under Section 3 PMLA are that there must be a scheduled offence and that there must be proceeds of crime in relation to the scheduled offence as defined in clause (u) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 PMLA..

¶428

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

¶429

ED has placed heavy reliance on the statements of witnesses and the documents produced by them under Section 50 of the said Act, to prima facie show the involvement of petitioner in the alleged offence of money laundering under Section 3 thereof.

¶430

93. The three Judge Bench the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) held that the statements of witnesses recorded by Prosecution – ED are admissible in evidence in view of Section 50. Such statements may make out a formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence of

¶431

62

¶432

2025:JHHC:23713

¶433

money laundering. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being

¶434

quoted as under:

¶435

31. Suffice it to observe that the appellant has not succeeded in persuading us about the inapplicability of the threshold stipulation under Section 45 of the Act. In the facts of the present case, we are in agreement with the view taken by the Sessions Court and by the High Court. We have independently examined the materials relied upon by the prosecution and also noted the inexplicable silence or reluctance of the appellant in disclosing the source from where such huge value of demonetised currency and also new currency has been acquired by him. The prosecution is relying on statements of 26 witnesses/accused already recorded, out of which 7 were considered by the Delhi High Court. These statements are admissible in evidence, in view of Section 50 of the 2002 Act. The same makes out a formidable case about the involvement of the appellant in commission of a serious offence of money laundering. It is, therefore, not possible for us to record satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant is not guilty of such offence. Further, the courts below have justly adverted to the antecedents of the appellant for considering the prayer for bail and concluded that it is not possible to hold that the appellant is not likely to commit any offence ascribable to the 2002 Act while on bail. Since the threshold stipulation predicated in Section 45 has not been overcome, the question of considering the efficacy of other points urged by the appellant to persuade the Court to favour the appellant with the relief of regular bail will be of no avail. In other words, the fact that the investigation in the predicate offence instituted in terms of FIR No. 205/2016 or that the investigation qua the appellant in the complaint CC No. 700 of 2017 is completed; and that the proceeds of crime are already in possession of the investigating agency and provisional attachment order in relation thereto passed on 13-2-2017 has been confirmed; or that charge-sheet has been filed in FIR No. 205/2016 against the appellant without his arrest; that the appellant has been lodged in judicial custody since 2-1-2017 and has not been interrogated or examined by the Enforcement Directorate thereafter; all these will be of no consequence.

¶436

94. In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ Abhishek

¶437

Banerjee & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement” , (2024) 9 SCC 22 has

¶438

again made similar observations:

¶439

63

¶440

2025:JHHC:23713

¶441

"21. ...Section 160 which falls under Ch. XII empowers the police officer making an investigation under the said chapter to require any person to attend within the limits of his own or adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, whereas, the process envisaged by Section 50 PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not "investigation" in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution; and the authorities referred to in Section 48 PMLA are not the police officers as held in Vijay Madanlal [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] .

¶442

22. It has been specifically laid down in the said decision that the statements recorded by the authorities under Section 50 PMLA are not hit by Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution, rather such statements recorded by the authority in the course of inquiry are deemed to be the judicial proceedings in terms of Section 50(4), and are admissible in evidence, whereas the statements made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under Ch. XII of the Code could not be used for any purpose, except for the purpose stated in the proviso to Section 162 of the Code. In view of such glaring inconsistencies between Section 50 PMLA and Sections 160/161CrPC, the provisions of Section 50 PMLA would prevail in terms of Section 71 read with Section 65 thereof."

¶443

95. In light of the foregoing judicial pronouncements, it is evident that statements recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 hold evidentiary value and are admissible in legal proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while emphasizing the legal sanctity of such statements, observed that they constitute valid material upon which reliance can be placed to sustain allegations under the PML Act, 2002.

¶444

96. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also reaffirmed the admissibility of Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 distinguishing them from statements recorded under the Cr.PC. The Court underscored that such statements, being recorded during an inquiry rather than an investigation, are not subject to the restrictions under Article 20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution. Instead, they are deemed to be

¶445

64

¶446

2025:JHHC:23713

¶447

judicial proceedings under Section 50(4) of the PML Act, 2002 and, therefore, admissible as evidence in proceedings under the PML Act, 2002. The Hon’ble Apex Court further clarified that the provisions of Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 having an overriding effect by virtue of Sections 65 and 71 of the PML Act, 2002 prevail over the procedural safeguards under the CrPC.

¶448

97. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that statements recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 are admissible in evidence and can be relied upon to establish culpability in money laundering cases.

¶449

98. In the instant case, it has been found that during the course of investigation statement so recorded of the accused persons as also of the statement of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD and the witnesses were recorded u/s 50 of PML Act, 2002, who all are consistent in their statement that the commission is 3% of total LOA, for the allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed in share of 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal and rest 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials.

¶450

99. Thus, the petitioner 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.

¶451

100. Having examined the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002, this Court shall now proceed to

¶452

65

¶453

2025:JHHC:23713

¶454

analyze the statutory framework governing the burden of proof under

¶455

Section 24 in proceedings related to proceeds of crime.

¶456

"24. Burden of proof. --In any proceeding relating to proceeds of crime under this Act, -- (a) in the case of a person charged with the offence of moneylaundering under section 3, the Authority or Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in moneylaundering; and

¶457

(b) in the case of any other person the Authority or Court, may presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering."

¶458

101. From the bare perusal of Section 24 of the PML Act, 2002, it is evident that once a person is charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002, the law presumes that the proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering unless the contrary is proven by the accused.

¶459

102. In the present case, the investigating agency has relied not only on the statement of co-accused under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 but also other evidences which indicate the applicant's active role in the alleged money laundering activities.

¶460

103. By virtue of Section 24 of the PML Act, 2002, the respondent ED is not required to conclusively establish the applicant's guilt at the pretrial stage, rather, the applicant must demonstrate that the proceeds of crime attributed to him are not linked to money laundering. In the absence of any rebuttal by the applicant, the presumption under Section 24 of the PML Act, 2002 stands in favor of the respondent, thereby, justifying his continued detention.

¶461

104. With regard to the above, this Court has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Prakash v. Union of

¶462

66

¶463

2025:JHHC:23713

¶464

India through Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) 9 SCC 787 , wherein, the following observations were made:

¶465

" 18.In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] dealing with Section 24 PMLA, the three-Judge Bench held as under : (SCC pp. 229-31, paras 237 & 239-40)

¶466

"237. Be that as it may, we may now proceed to decipher the purport of Section 24 of the 2002 Act. In the first place, it must be noticed that the legal presumption in either case is about the involvement of proceeds of crime in money-laundering. This fact becomes relevant, only if, the prosecution or the authorities have succeeded in establishing at least three basic or foundational facts. First, that the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence has been committed. Second, that the property in question has been derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of that criminal activity. Third, the person concerned is, directly or indirectly, involved in any process or activity connected with the said property being proceeds of crime. On establishing the fact that there existed proceeds of crime and the person concerned was involved in any process or activity connected therewith, itself, constitutes offence of money-laundering. The nature of process or activity has now been elaborated in the form of Explanation inserted vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. On establishing these foundational facts in terms of Section 24 of the 2002 Act, a legal presumption would arise that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering. The fact that the person concerned had no causal connection with such proceeds of crime and he is able to disprove the fact about his involvement in any process or activity connected therewith, by producing evidence in that regard, the legal presumption would stand rebutted. 105. Be it noted that the legal presumption under Section 24(a) of

¶467

the Act 2002, would apply when the person is charged with the offence of money-laundering and his direct or indirect involvement in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, is established. The existence of proceeds of crime is, therefore, a foundational fact, to be established by the prosecution, including the involvement of the person in any process or activity connected therewith. Once these foundational facts are established by the prosecution, the onus must then shift on the person

¶468

67

¶469

2025:JHHC:23713

¶470

facing charge of offence of money- laundering to rebut the legal presumption that the proceeds of crime are not involved in moneylaundering, by producing evidence which is within his personal knowledge of the accused.

¶471

106. In other words, the expression "presume" is not conclusive. It also does not follow that the legal presumption that the proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering is to be invoked by the authority or the court, without providing an opportunity to the person to rebut the same by leading evidence within his personal knowledge.

¶472

107. Such onus also flows from the purport of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Whereby, he must rebut the legal presumption in the manner he chooses to do and as is permissible in law, including by replying under Section 313 of the 1973 Code or even by cross-examining prosecution witnesses. The person would get enough opportunity in the proceeding before the authority or the court, as the case may be. He may be able to discharge his burden by showing that he is not involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

¶473

108. In the case of “ Collector of Customs, Madras & Ors. v. D. Bhoormall”, (1974) 2 SCC 544 proceedings were initiated under Section 167(8)(c) of the Customs Act for confiscation of contraband or smuggled goods and it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that on the principle underlying Section 106, Evidence Act, the burden to establish those facts is cast on the person concerned; and, if he fails to establish or explain those facts, an adverse inference of facts may arise against him.

¶474

68

¶475

2025:JHHC:23713

¶476

The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid Judgment is being quoted as under:

¶477

“Since it is exceedingly difficult, if not absolutely impossible, for the prosecution to prove facts which are especially within the knowledge of the opponent or the accused, it is not obliged to prove them as part of its primary burden.

¶478

… On the principle underlying Section 106, Evidence Act, the burden to establish those facts is cast on the person concerned; and, if he fails to establish or explain those facts, an adverse inference of facts may arise against him, which coupled with the presumptive evidence adduced by the prosecution or the Department would rebut the initial presumption of innocence in favour of that person, and in the result, prove him guilty.”

¶479

109. Thus, in light of the aforesaid principles and the law enunciated

¶480

by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (Supra) , this Court must determine whether the foundational facts necessary to invoke the presumption under Section 24 of the PML Act, 2002 have been established by the respondent/ED.

¶481

110. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the prosecution must satisfy three essential ingredients. First, the commission of a scheduled offence must be established. Second, the property in question must be shown to have been derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of such criminal activity and third, the accused must be linked, directly or indirectly, to any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

¶482

111. Thus, from the entire discussion it is evident that the evidence collected during investigation by the agency broadly speaks that the coaccused Veerandra Kumar Ram used to collect commission in terms of allocation of tender and execution of work and the said commission/fixed share of 1.35% was distributed among his seniors and politicians and the

¶483

69

¶484

2025:JHHC:23713

¶485

said commission is also collected by the present petitioner Sanjeev Kumar Lal, P.S. of the then minister Aalamgir Alam through certain persons. It has also been submitted that during the investigation, it has been ascertained that the entire collection and distribution of commission was taken care of by the assistant engineers posted at the Rural Development Special Division and Rural Works Department.

¶486

112. Further during statement made under Section 50 of PML Act, 2002 and in one of the instances Veerendra Kumar Ram disclosed that crores of the commission were handed over to the petitioner-Sanjeev Kumar Lal, Personal Secretary of the co-accused-Alamgir Alam, in September 2022. It has also come that co-accused-Jahangir Alam was assisting Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the present petitioner) and was hoarding the said commission on the instruction of the petitioner and he takes care of the collection of commission, and Jahangir Alam collected the same at the instruction of the petitioner, who in turn was doing so on behalf of the coaccused-Alamgir Alam.

¶487

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

¶488

114. Sub-section (1)(ii) of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002, provides that if the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is

¶489

70

¶490

2025:JHHC:23713

¶491

satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, meaning thereby, the parameter which is to be followed by the concerned court that satisfaction is required to be there for believing that such accused person is not guilty of such offence and is not likely to commit offence while on bail.

¶492

115. Section 45(2) of the Act 2002 provides to consider the limitation for grant of bail which is in addition to the limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, i.e., limitation which is to be considered while granting the benefit either in exercise of jurisdiction conferred to this Court under BNSS 2023 is to be taken into consideration.

¶493

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

¶494

117. Thus, Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 turns the principle of bail is the rule and jail is the exception on its head. The power of the Court to grant bail is further conditioned upon the satisfaction of the twin conditions prescribed under Section 45(1) (i) and (ii) PML Act, 2002. While undertaking this exercise, the Court is required to take a prima facie view on the basis of materials collected during investigation. The expression used in Section 45 of PML Act, 2002 are “reasonable grounds for believing” which means that the Court has to find, from a prima facie

¶495

71

¶496

2025:JHHC:23713

¶497

view of the materials collected during investigation that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed the offence and that there is no likelihood of him committing an offence while on bail. Recently, in Tarun Kumar v Assistant Directorate of

¶498

Enforcement, (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶499

“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 .”

¶500

118. This Court, based upon the imputation as has been discovered

¶501

in course of investigation, is of the view that what has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that proceeds cannot be said to be proceeds of crime is not fit to be acceptable because as would appear from the preceding paragraphs, money which has been alleged to be obtained by the co-accused-Alamgir Alam has been routed through his Private Secretary, Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the present petitioner).

¶502

119. If there is a prima facie material to show that the amount has been received by misusing the position of the co-accused the then cabinet minister and that by itself will be construed as proceeds of crime and it is not necessary for the respondent to further establish that such proceeds of

¶503

72

¶504

2025:JHHC:23713

¶505

crime was projected as untainted money subsequently. This is in view of the amendment that was made to Section 3 of PML Act, 2002 through Act 23 of 2019. This position was also made clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Directorate of Enforcement.V. Padmanabhan Kishore reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1490 . For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted as under:

¶506

“12. The definition of “proceeds of crime” in the PML Act, inter alia, means any property derived or obtained by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13 are scheduled offences, as is evident from Para 8 of Part-A of the Schedule to the PML Act. Any property thus derived as a result of criminal activity relating to offence mentioned in said Para 8 of Part-A of the Schedule would certainly be “proceeds of crime”.

¶507

14. The said Section 3 states, inter alia, that whoever knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering (emphasis added by us).”

¶508

120. Further, at the stage of recording statements during enquiry, it

¶509

cannot be construed as an investigation for prosecution. The process envisaged under Section 50 of PML Act, 2002 is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and it is not an investigation and the authorities who are recording the statements are not police officers and therefore, these statements can be relied upon as admissible piece of evidence before the Court. The summons proceedings and recording of statements under PML Act, 2002 are given the status of judicial proceedings under Section 50(4) of PML Act, 2002. When such is the sweep of Section 50 of PML Act, 2002, the statements that have been

¶510

73

¶511

2025:JHHC:23713

¶512

recorded by the respondent and which have been relied upon in the complaint must be taken to be an important material implicating the petitioner. The co-accused or the suspected persons in the predicate offence cannot automatically be brought within the same status in the PML Act, 2002 proceedings and it is always left open to the authorities to deal with them as witnesses.

¶513

121. The statements that were recorded from the witnesses during the investigation have been dealt with in prosecution complaint and many of the statements clearly implicate the petitioner. Therefore, the statements that have been recorded from the witnesses and which has been relied upon, is also a strong material that prima facie establishes the offence of money laundering against the present petitioner.

¶514

122. 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 PML Act, 2002, is totally misplaced in the light of accusation as mentioned in prosecution complaint.

¶515

123. Further, contention has been raised that a prosecution complaint against the petitioner has already been filed and, thus, investigation is complete and therefore, no purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner in judicial custody.

¶516

124. In the aforesaid context, it is settled position of law that the mere fact that investigation is complete does not necessarily confer a right on the accused/petitioner to be released on bail.

¶517

74

¶518

2025:JHHC:23713

¶519

125. In the context of aforesaid contention, it would be relevant to note here that in the instant case mere completion of the investigation does not cause material change in circumstances.

¶520

126. 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.

¶521

127. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of “ Virupakshappa Gouda

¶522

& Anr. vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.”, (2017) 5 SCC 406 , wherein, at paragraph-12, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed which reads as under :

¶523

“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 chargesheet 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.”

¶524

128. Thus, this Court, after taking note of the settled legal proposition, is of view that the aforesaid contention is not tenable in the eye of law.

¶525

129. It requires to refer herein that It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court recently in the case of “ Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr.”, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 109 , in the matter of UAP Act 1967 has observed that the conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis-à-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft quoted phrase - ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception’

¶526

75

¶527

2025:JHHC:23713

¶528

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:

¶529

“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 40 2025:JHHC:22342 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.

¶530

130. The reason for making reference of this judgment is that in the

¶531

“ Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.”, (2022) 10 SCC 51 , the UAPA has also been brought under the purview of category ‘c’ wherein while laying observing that in the UAPA Act, it comes under the category ‘c’ which also includes money laundering offence wherein the bail has been directed to be granted if the investigation is 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.

¶532

131. So far as the issue of period of custody as agitated by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is settled proposition of law which has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the long

¶533

76

¶534

2025:JHHC:23713

¶535

incarceration (herein about 15 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.

¶536

132. At this juncture, the learned counsel for ED has submitted at Bar that all endeavour will be taken to expedite the trial 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.

¶537

133. This Court is conscious with the fact that personal liberty is utmost requirement to maintain the individuality of the person concerned but at the same time it is equally settled that the balance between personal liberty and societal impact of the alleged offence should be taken care of by the Court concerned.

¶538

134. 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:

¶539

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

¶540

77

¶541

2025:JHHC:23713

¶542

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.”

¶543

135. 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.

¶544

136. Admittedly, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 07.05.2024 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 PML Act, 2002.

¶545

137. Similarly, in “ Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement”, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 317 , the Hon’ble Apex Court refused bail despite protracted proceedings, noting that the complexity inherent in economic offences often necessitates lengthy trials. It is also pertinent that delays frequently arise from procedural applications and litigations pursued by accused themselves.

¶546

138. Thus, given the grave nature of the allegations, the sophisticated modus operandi employed to project tainted property as

¶547

78

¶548

2025:JHHC:23713

¶549

untainted, and the strict statutory framework governing bail under the PML Act, 2002, 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 justify the petitioner's custody under the strict rigours of Section 45 of the Act 2002.

¶550

On the issue of Parity:

¶551

139. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the ground of parity with respect to co-accused person, namely, Veerendra Kumar Ram who has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 4615 of 2024. Likewise, accused Harish Yadav was already granted bail vide order dated 30.08.2024 in Special Leave petition (Crl.) No. 6174 of 2024. Further, accused Tara Chand has also been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25.11.2024 in Cr. Appeal No. 4760 of 2024. Furthermore, other accused persons, namely, Rajkumari, Genda Ram, Mukesh Mittal, Neeraj Mittal, Ram Prakash Baitha and Harish Yadav have also been granted regular bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

¶552

140. Now coming to the ground of parity as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the law is well settled that the principle of parity is to be applied if the case on fact is exactly similar then only the principle of parity in the matter of passing order is to be passed but if there is difference in between the facts then the principle of parity is not to be applied.

¶553

79

¶554

2025:JHHC:23713

¶555

141. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail and by only simple saying that another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to determine whether a case for grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “ Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana & Anr.”, (2021) 6 SCC 230 , wherein, it has been held as under:

¶556

“ 25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 :] , this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed : (SCC p. 515, para 17)

¶557

“17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the second respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] clearly exposes the non-application of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second respondent has been charge-sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside.

¶558

26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of parity. By its two orders both dated 21-12-2020 [Pravinbhai Hirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2986] , [Khetabhai Parbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat,

¶559

80

¶560

2025:JHHC:23713

¶561

2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22-10-2020 [Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was “assigned similar role of armed with stick (sic)”. Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A-16) on the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law.”

¶562

142. The Hon’ble Apex Court in “ Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement” (supra) wherein at paragraph-18, it has been held that parity is not the law and while applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration.

¶563

143. This Court, in order to verify the issue of principle of parity, has gone through the order by which, co-accused have been enlarged on the bail and found that there is allegation upon the said co-accused persons that they have worked as a pawn in their individual capacity in the alleged commission of crime and further the Hon’ble Apex Court prima-facie has not found their direct involvement in the alleged offence but herein the petitioner who was personal secretary of the then minister Aalamgir Aalam has taken the tainted money fixed as percentage or as

¶564

‘ cut’ in lieu of the award of contract in the department concerned.

¶565

81

¶566

2025:JHHC:23713

¶567

144. It is evident from record that the petitioner being the PS to the then Minister of (i) Department of Rural Works (RWD), (ii) Department of Panchayati Raj and (iii) Department of Rural Development (RDD). Jharkhand State Rural Road Development Authority (JSRRDA) and Rural Development Special Division (RDSD) are part of the Department of Rural Works (RWD). It has been alleged that the petitioner being the PS of the then Minister of these departments, was all in all and at the top echelon in the syndicate of commission collection. The co-accusedAlamgir Alam compelled the Chief Engineer to collect commission and give him his share through his Personal Secretary-Sanjeev Kumar Lal (the petitioner herein).

¶568

145. It has been alleged against the petitioner in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has misused his official position and acquired proceeds of crime by collecting bribes as a commission/bribe from the contractors in lieu of allotments of tenders on the influence of the coaccused-Alamgir Alam, the then Minister of the concerned departments. Further the present petitioner being public functionary and being a government servant and holding the post of public responsibility, is having more accountability being the custodian of the public faith and money, therefore, the fact of the case of the petitioner is different to that of the fact of the other accused against whom parity has been claimed.

¶569

146. Further, there is substantial documentary evidence that reveals the role of the petitioner in detail as already discussed in Supplementary Prosecution Complaints as above.

¶570

82

¶571

2025:JHHC:23713

¶572

147. Applying the principle of parity, this Court is of the view as per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in “ Tarun Kumar” (Supra) that the benefit of parity is to be given if the facts/involvement of the petitioner is identical to the persons with whom parity is being claimed but that is not the case herein.

¶573

148. This Court, on the basis of the discussion with respect to the involvement of the petitioner, vis-à-vis, the other co-accused person, is of the view that the case of the petitioner is quite distinguishable to that of the case of the co-accused persons, therefore, is of the considered view that it is not a fit case for applying the principle of parity.

¶574

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

¶575

“21.The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail:

¶576

(i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution;

¶577

(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses;

¶578

(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence;

¶579

(iv) character, behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused;

¶580

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

¶581

83

¶582

2025:JHHC:23713

¶583

150. This Court, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, factual aspect as also the legal position, is of the prima-facie view that there is no ‘reason to believe’ by this Court that the petitioner is not involved in managing the money said to be proceeds of crime.

¶584

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

¶585

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

¶586

153. Further, it is required to refer herein that the Money Laundering is an economic offence and economic offences comes under the of grave offences hence needs to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail as held by the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of “ Y. S Jagan Mohan Reddy v/s Central Bureau of Investigation” , reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 . For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgments are being quoted as under:

¶587

“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

¶588

84

¶589

2025:JHHC:23713

¶590

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.”

¶591

154. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of “ Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation”, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466 has reiterated the same view in paragraphs-23 to 25 which reads as

¶592

under:

¶593

“ 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)

¶594

“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 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.”

¶595

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

¶596

85

¶597

2025:JHHC:23713

¶598

this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

¶599

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.”

¶600

155. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Santosh Karnani and Another”, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 427 has observed that corruption poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid

¶601

judgment is being referred as under:-

¶602

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

¶603

156. It requires to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted 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.

¶604

157. The Hon’ble Apex Court has further observed that with the advancement of technology and Artificial Intelligence, the economic

¶605

86

¶606

2025:JHHC:23713

¶607

offences like money laundering have become a real threat to the functioning of the financial system of the country and have become a great challenge for the investigating agencies to detect and comprehend the intricate nature of transactions, as also the role of the persons involved therein. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ Tarun Kumar vs.

¶608

Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement” (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid Judgment are being quoted as under:

¶609

“22. Lastly, it may be noted that as held in catena of decisions, the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted 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. Undoubtedly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. To cite a few judgments in this regard are Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra), State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai. This court taking a serious note with regard to the economic offences had observed as back as in 1987 in case of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal as under:—

¶610

“5… The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to books. 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 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…”

¶611

23. With the advancement of technology and Artificial Intelligence, the economic offences like money laundering have become a real threat to the

¶612

87

¶613

2025:JHHC:23713

¶614

functioning of the financial system of the country and have become a great challenge for the investigating agencies to detect and comprehend the intricate nature of transactions, as also the role of the persons involved therein. Lot of minute exercise is expected to be undertaken by the Investigating Agency to see that no innocent person is wrongly booked and that no culprit escapes from the clutches of the law. When the detention of the accused is continued by the Court, the courts are also expected to conclude the trials within a reasonable time, further ensuring the right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

¶615

24. With the afore-stated observations, the appeal is dismissed.”

¶616

158. This Court, considering the aforesaid material available against

¶617

the petitioner in such a grave nature of offence and applying the principle of grant of bail wherein the principle of having prima facie case is to be followed, is of the view that it is not a fit case of grant of bail.

¶618

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

¶619

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

¶620

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

¶621

88

¶622

2025:JHHC:23713

¶623

162. It is made clear that any observations made herein are primafacie for consideration of matter of bail only and the view expressed herein shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 163. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court and shall decide the case strictly in accordance with law.

¶624

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶625

Sudhir Dated: 13/08/2025 Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi AFR

¶626

89

Sanjeev Kumar Lal v. the Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev Kumar Lal v. the Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Keshri Industries through Its Partner Satya Prakash, Vs the State of Jharkhand

M/S Khemka Food Products Pvt.Ltd.,through Its Director Sri Sanjay Kumar Khemka Vs I.S.D.S Private Limited, Respresented through Its Director Birendra Kumar Singh Yadav

Deo Narayan Mehta Alias Chhotan Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented through the Commissioner

Imtiaz Ahmad Vs Directorate of Enforcement , Govt of India Represented Thro Its Assistant Director

Sheikh Maneer Alias S K Maneer Vs the State of Jharkhand