Dismissed

Chhavi Ranjan v. the Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement

Jharkhand HC6 Aug 2025B.A./4992/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ECIR case alleging money laundering under the PMLA, the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's bail application. The Court held that the statutory twin conditions under Section 45 are mandatory and not satisfied given the gravity of the allegations against a public functionary. Previous bail applications were dismissed on merit with no new circumstances presented.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was dismissed. The custody of the petitioner was continued.

Chhavi Ranjan Vs the Union of India through Directorate… — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:JHHC:22342

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 4992 of 2025

¶3

------

¶4

Chhavi Ranjan, S/o. Sh. R.D. Pandit, Aged about 43 years, R/o 2/4 Senior Officers’ Colony, P.O. Morabadi, P.S. Bariatu, Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶5

…………Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement, represented by Assistant Director, Ranchi Zonal Office, Plot No. 1502/B, Airport Road, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, Ranchi, Ranchi, Jharkhand

¶8

..............Opp. Party

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶11

------For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate For the Opp. Party-ED : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate : Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate ------

¶12

C.A.V. on 25/07/2025 Pronounced on 06/08/2025

¶13

Prayer:

¶14

1. The instant application has been filed under Section 483 and 484 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for grant of bail in ECIR Case No.01 of 2023 arising out of ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 dated 21.10.2022 for offences of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 defined under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-cum-Special Judge (PMLA), Ranchi.

¶15

Prosecution Case:

¶16

2. The prosecution story, in brief, as per the allegation made in the instant ECIR/complaint reads as under:

¶17

¶18

2025:JHHC:22342

¶19

3. On 04.06.2022, FIR No. 141/2022 was registered by Bariatu P.S. based on a complaint received from Dilip Sharma, Tax Collector, Ranchi Municipal Corporation. In his complaint, the tax collector alleged that one Pradeep Bagchi had submitted an application for the allotment of a municipal holding number in respect of a flat in Lotus Garden Complex, Bariatu by relying on a forged AADHAAR Card, Possession Letter and Electricity Bill. Accordingly, the FIR was registered against Pradeep Bagchi under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC. Investigation revealed that by submitting the forged documents, a holding number was obtained in name of Pradeep Bagchi for property at Morabadi Mouza, Ward No. 21/19, Ranchi having an area of the plot measuring 455.00 decimals approx. at Ranchi.

¶20

4. On 21.10.2022, the Opposite Party registered ECIR/RNZO/18/2022, on the basis of scheduled offence being FIR No. 141/2022 (Bariatu PS). It was alleged therein that the holding number allotted by the municipal corporation was used by Pradeep Bagchi "in order to frivolously show the ownership of property measuring 4.55 acres at Plot No. MS 557, Ward No. 21/19, Morabadi Mauza". It is further stated that Pradeep Bagchi had created forged documents to sell the Morabadi property by way of a sale deed dated 01.10.2021 to M/s. Jagatbandhu

¶21

¶22

2025:JHHC:22342

¶23

Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd., which prima facie showed the commission of the offence of money-laundering.

¶24

5. Investigation further revealed that the above property belonged to Late B.M. Laxman Rao which was given to the Army and had been in the possession of the Defence, in occupation of the Army since independence. Investigation also reveals that by way of creating a fake owner (Pradeep Bagchi) of the above said property, it was sold to a company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd for which the consideration amount was shown Rs. 7 crores which was highly under value and out of this amount payment amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs only were made into the account of said Pradeep Bagchi and rest of the money was falsely shown to be paid through cheques in the deed no.- 6888 of 2021.

¶25

6. It has come during investigation that records available at the Circle Officer, Bargain, Ranchi along with the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata have been altered and records have been modified. The survey of Circle Office Bargain as well as Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata transpires that documents have been tempered to create fictitious owner of the above properties.

¶26

7. The Enforcement Directorate upon completion of investigation filed the prosecution complaint under Section

¶27

¶28

2025:JHHC:22342

¶29

45 read with Section 44 of PML Act being ECIR Case no. 01/2023.

¶30

8. On 13.04.2023, the Opposite Party, in exercise of powers under Section 17 of PMLA, undertook search operations at various locations in connection with ECIR/RNZO/18/2022. This included the official residence of the Petitioner as well as the house of his parents in Jamshedpur.

¶31

9. On 04.05.2023, the Petitioner was arrested in ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 on the strength of the allegation that he had misused his official powers as Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in order to assist the wrongful acquisition of the Morabadi property by M/s. Jagatbandhu through the claim set up by Pradeep Bagchi.

¶32

10. On 05.05.2023, the Petitioner was produced before the Ld. Special Judge (PMLA), Ranchi and was remanded into judicial custody in a case being ECIR Case No. 01 of 2023, which had earlier been instituted upon ECIR/RNZO/18/2022.

¶33

11. On the same date, the Opposite Party moved an application seeking 10 days' custodial interrogation of the Petitioner, which was listed for hearing on the following day. The order dated 05.05.2023 whereby the Petitioner was first remanded to custody recorded that the Opposite Party had filed "Grounds of Arrest" in Paragraphs 7 to 17 of

¶34

¶35

2025:JHHC:22342

¶36

the remand application, wherein it has been alleged that the Petitioner's involvement in transactions pertaining not just to the Morabadi property, but also with respect to certain other transactions.

¶37

12. Thereafter, on 12.06.2023, the Opposite Party filed a Prosecution Complaint against the Petitioner in ECIR Case No. 01/2023, alleging the commission of the offence of money-laundering under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the PMLA. In the said Prosecution Complaint, it was alleged against the Petitioner that he exercised certain powers available to him as Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi that assisted the acquisition of the Morabadi property by M/s. Jagatbandhu through the registration of a sale deed in its favour by a fictitious owner, namely Pradeep Bagchi. This acquisition, it was alleged, amounted to the acquisition of "proceeds of crime" worth approximately Rs. 20 crores and thus to the commission of the offence of money-laundering under Section 3, PMLA.

¶38

13. Pursuant to the filing of the Prosecution Complaint, the Ld. Special Judge vide Order dated 19.06.2023, took cognizance of the offence alleged in the said complaint and, in exercise of powers under Section 309(2) of Cr.P.C., remanded the Petitioner into custody pending trial.

¶39

¶40

2025:JHHC:22342

¶41

14. On 08.07.2024, a charge of money-laundering was framed against the Petitioner based on the allegations contained in the Prosecution Complaint dated 12.06.2023. 15. The present petitioner preferred Misc. Cri. Application No. 2004 of 2023 for grant of bail which was rejected vide order dated 08.08.2023 by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I cum Special Judge, Ranchi.

¶42

16. Consequent to aforesaid the petitioner had preferred a regular bail application before this Court by way of B.A. No. 9247 of 2023, which came to be dismissed vide Order dated 22.03.2024.

¶43

17. Thereafter a special leave petition being SLP (Crl) No. 13496/2024 has been preferred before the Hon’ble Apex Court against the aforesaid order of this Court but the said special leave petition has also been dismissed prior to issue of notice vide order dated 27.09.2024.

¶44

18. The present petitioner has again preferred an application for bail being MCA No. 2945 of 2024 before the Spl. Judge PMLA Cases Ranchi but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2024.

¶45

19. Hence the present petition has been preferred for the grant of bail.

¶46

Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner:

¶47

20. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeking relief for grant of bail has

¶48

¶49

2025:JHHC:22342

¶50

submitted that he will not argue much on merits. The only thing which needs to be argued on merit is that after rejection of the earlier prayer for bail by this Hon’ble Court, the matter went up to the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court has also rejected the prayer for bail and in predicate offence the chargesheet has been submitted in the month of August, 2024 in which the petitioner has not been charge-sheeted. This is the new development in the case after the order of rejection of prayer for bail.

¶51

21. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 04.05.2023 i.e., more than two years, therefore in view of the custody of the petitioner he may kindly be allowed on regular bail.

¶52

22. It has been contended that since there is 31 chargesheeted witness and out of the 31 charge-sheeted only 5 witnesses have been examined till date as such there is no probability of conclusion of trial in near future, therefore on the ground of long incarceration of the petitioner and delay in conclusion the prayer for bail of the petitioner is fit to be allowed.

¶53

23. In order to buttress, this limb of the argument the Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, Prem Prakash v. Union of India

¶54

¶55

2025:JHHC:22342

¶56

through the Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) 9 SCC 787, V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626 and Ramkripal Meena v. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2276 .

¶57

Argument on behalf of Respondent-ED:

¶58

24. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-ED has taken the following ground in opposition:

¶59

I. Petitioner is directly involved in commission of crime in facilitating in ‘proceeds of crime’ by another coaccused persons i.e., proprietor of Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., Dilip Kumar Ghosh, Amit Kumar Agarwal, Pradip Bagchi, Afshar Ali, Mohd. Saddam Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmed, Taha Khan, Faiyaz Ahmed, Bhanu Pratap Prasad, M/s Rajesh Auto Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. & M/s Aurora Studio Pvt. Ltd.

¶60

II. It has been submitted by referring to Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002 wherein the mandates provides that involvement if indirectly is there, in furtherance in commission of crime, then also Section 3 of the PML Act will be applicable. Herein, the petitioner being the Deputy Commissioner (the then DC, Ranchi) has facilitated in commission of crime through said

¶61

¶62

2025:JHHC:22342

¶63

Pradeep Bagchi to give benefit to other accused in disposal of the land in question in his favour in the name of one firm, M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., as would be evident from prosecution report, as available in the ECIR.

¶64

III. It has been submitted that the petitioner being the Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned has not only mis-utilized his official position but also he has facilitated in commission of crime by disposal of the aforesaid land in the meager rate lesser than the government notified rate and while doing so the document has been fabricated by one of the coaccused persons, Pradeep Bagchi.

¶65

IV. It has been alleged that the petitioner has also misutilized his official position by directing the Circle Officer, namely, Manoj Kumar, who even had cancelled the mutation under its competence under Section 14 of the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 [hereinafter referred to as Act, 1973] wherein the Deputy Commissioner has got no original power and he is only the appellate authority but under his influence the petitioner subsequently managed to procure favourable report for Pradeep Bagchi and the property was subsequently acquired in

¶66

¶67

2025:JHHC:22342

¶68

a dishonest manner in the name of M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd.

¶69

V. Further, it would be evident from the prosecution complaint that the present petitioner, in the capacity of Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, has also directed the Sub-Registrar, District Land Registry Office, Ranchi to get the land registered.

¶70

VI. It has been submitted that under the notification of the Government, the Deputy Commissioner is also the District Registrar but as per the delegation of power the Deputy Commissioner in the capacity of District Registrar has got no power to register the land rather the power is vested with the Sub-Registrar of the concerned district land registration office but even then, the petitioner has interfered with the affairs of Sub-registrar for the purpose of getting the land registered in favour of accused persons.

¶71

VII. The argument therefore has been made by referring to the provision of Section 3 of the PML Act that if there is any direct or indirect involvement of the person concerned, he will also be said to have committed the offence under Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002 and exactly the case of the petitioner herein.

¶72

VIII. The learned counsel has submitted that this Hon’ble

¶73

Court while earlier rejecting the prayer for bail of the

¶74

¶75

2025:JHHC:22342

¶76

petitioner has considered all the aforesaid grounds in detail and even the plea of petitioner has been rejected by the Hon’ble Apex Court and since no new ground/fresh ground is available, therefore the present application is not fit to be allowed.

¶77

IX. On the ground of custody, the petitioner is also not deserving the concession of regular bail, as the allegations against him very serious in nature and he is the main accused, who has manipulated the things. He has submitted that even Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, particularly Sub-Section (2) of the said Section will not come into aid of the petitioner because the said subsection bars the bail, where an investigation, inquiry of trial in more than one offence or in multiple cases are pending against a person.

¶78

X. So far as the period of custody as agitated by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it has been submitted that as per settled proposition of law which has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the long incarceration (herein about 27month) 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 should have

¶79

¶80

2025:JHHC:22342

¶81

been taken in to consideration by the Court concerned while enlarging the petitioner on bail.

¶82

XI. Admittedly in the charge sheets in G.R. Case Nos. 2596/2023 and 2089/2024 petitioner has not been arraigned as an accused in the scheduled offence, but the non-inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the said charge sheets in any way absolves him under the stringent framework of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). It has been submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held, including in Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586 , as well as in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 , that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA is an independent offence. The Hon'ble Court has categorically laid down that it is not necessary for a person to be shown as an accused in the scheduled offence for him to be prosecuted under the PMLA, provided there exist proceeds of crime derived from a scheduled offence and the person has indulged in or facilitated any process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime.

¶83

25. Learned counsel appearing for the ED submits that ED has taken all efforts to conclude the trial as early as

¶84

¶85

2025:JHHC:22342

¶86

possible and all the witnesses are ready, however, there are many accused in the ECIR cases and one and another accused, everyday are filing one petition and another and that is the cause of delaying the evidence to be led by the ED. He submits that the learned trial court has disposed of all these petitions, which have been preferred by the other co-accused before the learned trial court and now the ED has taken his all endeavour to examine the further witnesses and there is likelihood that witnesses will be examined and they will try to examine remaining witnesses expeditiously subject and decision is to be taken also for pruning of the list of witnesses.

¶87

26. Learned counsel for the respondent-ED based upon the aforesaid grounds has submitted that it is not a fit case for grant of regular bail in favour of the petitioner.

¶88

Analysis:

¶89

27. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the argument advanced on behalf of parties as also the judgments relied upon by the parties and other materials available on record.

¶90

28. This Court before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to discuss herein the admitted factual aspects of the instant case.

¶91

¶92

2025:JHHC:22342

¶93

29. An ECIR bearing No. 18/2022 was recorded on the basis of the FIR bearing No. 141 of 2022 lodged at Bariyatu police station, Ranchi Jharkhand under sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, against Pradeep Bagchi for submission of forged papers in order to obtain holding number 0210004194000A1 and 0210004031000A5. Further, Investigation revealed that by submitting the forged documents, a holding number was obtained in name of Pradeep Bagchi for property at Morabadi Mouza, Ward No. 21/19, Ranchi having an area of the plot measuring 455.00 decimals approx.

¶94

30. Investigation further revealed that by way of creating a fake owner (Pradeep Bagchi) of the above said property, it was sold to one company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd for which the consideration amount was shown Rs. 7 crores which was highly under value and out of this amount Rs. 7 crores payment amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs only were made into the account of said Pradeep Bagchi and rest of the money was falsely shown to be paid through cheques.

¶95

31. It has come during investigation that records available at the Circle Officer Bargain, Ranchi along with the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata have been altered and records have been modified to create fictitious owner of the above properties. The Enforcement Directorate

¶96

¶97

2025:JHHC:22342

¶98

upon completion of investigation filed the prosecution complaint under section 45 read with 44 of PML Act being ECIR Case no. 01/2023 against the present petitioner by showing his alleged involvement in the said offence and consequently the present petitioner was arrested.

¶99

32. Accordingly, the trial court has taken the cognizance of the aforesaid offence. Thereafter, petitioner had preferred the Misc. Cri. Application being MCA 2004/2023 for his bail, which was dismissed vide Order dated 08.08.2023. Subsequently, the Petitioner preferred a regular bail application before this Court by filing B.A. No. 9247 of 2023, which came to be dismissed vide Order dated 22.03.2024. Consequent thereto, against the aforesaid order of this Court, a special leave petition being SLP (Crl) No. 13496/2024 was preferred before the Hon’ble Apex Court which was dismissed vide order dated 27.09.2024. 33. Thereafter, the present petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail and had preferred Misc. Cri. Application being MCA 2945/2024 by taking the ground of sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C but the said application was dismissed vide Order dated 12.12.2024 passed by Spl. Judge PMLA Cases Ranchi.

¶100

34. Hence the present application has been preferred before this Court for bail mainly on the ground of long incarceration of the petitioner i.e. about 27 month and also

¶101

¶102

2025:JHHC:22342

¶103

on the ground that he has not been charge-sheeted in the predicate offence.

¶104

35. The learned counsel for ED has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by taking reference of the ratio as rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) has submitted that offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA is an independent offence. It has further been submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically laid down that it is not necessary for a person to be shown as an accused in the scheduled offence for him to be prosecuted under the PMLA, provided there exist proceeds of crime derived from a scheduled offence and the person has indulged in or facilitated any process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime.

¶105

36. So far as the period of custody as agitated by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that as per settled proposition of law the long incarceration (herein about 27month) 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 should have been taken in to consideration by the Court concerned while enlarging the petitioner on bail.

¶106

¶107

2025:JHHC:22342

¶108

37. It needs to refer herein that the learned counsel for the respondent ED has further contended that since the prayer for bail has already been adjudicated by this Court on merit and all the issues which have been raised, has already been considered by this court while dismissing the said bail application, further no new ground is available herein, therefore it is not required to consider the prayer for bail of the petitioner a fresh. The learned counsel for the respondent ED has further contended that SLP which has preferred against the said order has also been dismissed.

¶109

38. In the aforesaid context this Court thinks fit that for proper appreciation of the present application it would be better to refer relevant paragraphs of the order dated 22.03.2024 passed in B.A. No.9247 of 2023 by which the bail of the present petitioner had been earlier rejected. The relevant paragraph of aforesaid order is being quoted as under:

¶110

51.This Court before coming to the facts of the case thinks fit to the deal with the first issue i.e., the issue of remand as has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating the same to be bad in law, and hence requires to refer herein the interpretation of word “remand’. 52. It is pertinent to refer herein that under the Code of Criminal Procedure the word “remand” has not been defined. The concept of remand is in order to achieve the object of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in view of the provision as contained under Section 154 Cr.P.C. which deals with “Information in cognizable cases’. Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. provides that person arrested not to be detained more than twenty-four hours. It is for the purpose that there may not be any illegal detention and, as such, it has been

¶111

¶112

2025:JHHC:22342

¶113

provided that no police officer shall detain in custody a person arrested without warrant for a longer period than under all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, and such period shall not, in the absence of a special order of a Magistrate under section 167, exceed twenty-four hours exclusive of the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate’s Court.

¶114

The ground has been taken that remand cannot be said to be proper since only on the basis of one allegation of facilitating in transfer of land to one Pradeep Bagchi but subsequently the other piece of lands have also been added and hence the order of remand is bad in the eyes of law.

¶115

The consequential argument has been made that the if the remand itself is bad then the custody of the petitioner is bad in the eye of law on the principle that that if the foundation will go the entire structure will collapse.

¶116

There is no dispute about the proposition of law that the if foundation will go the consequence will automatically be nullity in the eye of law. However, It needs to refer herein the settled position of law that the judgment is to be applied based upon the factual aspect governing each and every case as per the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu &Ors reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75. For ready reference the relevant of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under: “

¶117

“47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. “The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.”

¶118

This Court, after going the proposition of law as referred herein above has also gone through the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ameena Begum Vs. State of Telangana & Ors (supra).

¶119

It is settled position of law that when a person is being detained under Preventive Detention Act, 1950 the fundamental right as guaranteed under Indian constitution to freedom is to be suspended because such type of detention not in a case of pending trial.

¶120

¶121

2025:JHHC:22342

¶122

If the content of Section 19(1) will be taken into consideration then it would be evident that if the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer authorized in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material in his possession, reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under this Act, he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds of such arrest.

¶123

It is, thus, evident that Section 19 of the PML Act, 2002 confers power upon the competent authority to arrest a person if he has got reason to believe of commission of offence. The phrase „reason to believe’ is having bearing and this Court is to consider on the basis of imputation as to whether the arrest is based upon any reason to having been said to be believed by the Director in order to come to the conclusion with respect to fact as to whether the remand/arrest is legal or not.

¶124

Further Section 19(1) which stipulates about the power for making arrest if there is reason to believe and the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing and as soon as may be, inform the said person, the grounds for such arrest. The aforesaid provision of communicating the grounds for arrest recording its time frame as to what time the same is to be communicated has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra). Subsequent to the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244 has observed that the reason for such arrest is to be communicated henceforth to the accused.

¶125

Subsequently, in the case of Ram Kishor Arora vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1682, the same has been taken into consideration wherein the petitioner has taken the plea that the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) has not been followed since there is no written communication said to be served informing the reason for arrest prior to such arrest and as such, the prayer for bail has been sought for. But the Hon’ble Apex Court going to the facts of the said case wherein the petitioner was arrested in the month of June, 2023 while the judgment of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) has come in the month of October, 2023, hence, relying upon

¶126

¶127

2025:JHHC:22342

¶128

the law laid down by the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court since the reason was communicated to the petitioner within 24 hours and hence, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected. 67. It needs to refer herein the definition of “proceeds of crime” as provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002 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.

¶129

In the explanation of the aforesaid provision it has been referred that for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. The aforesaid explanation has been inserted in the statute book by way of Act 23 of 2019.

¶130

This Court, in order to reach to the conclusion as to whether the material has been available before the learned Special Judge for passing the order of remand, has perused the order of remand, based upon the incriminating material claimed by the ED as per reference to that effect made in paragraph 7 to 17 of the application for custody. It has been found by learned Special Judge that huge amount of proceeds of crime is involved with larger conspiracy to illegally sell the land by manipulation of official records and later acquiring the said land on meager price. Accordingly, the petitioner was remanded in the case.

¶131

It is, thus, evident that the petitioner while working as Deputy Commissioner has acted on the application of one Pradeep Bagchi, a fake owner of the property and verbally directed Mr. Manoj Kumar, the then Circle Officer, Bargai to forward the verification report of the ownership of the property. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Circle Officer submitted a report stating that the name of Pradeep Bagchi did not appear in the record and Jayant Karnard is the rightful owner of the property. The petitioner has directed the Circle Officer to visit the office of Registrar Assurance (Records) Kolkata and verify the original deeds for ascertaining the owner of the property. It was surfaced in course of investigation that original registers in the records

¶132

¶133

2025:JHHC:22342

¶134

of Registrar of Assurance, Kolkata is forged/tampered and falsified in favour of Pradeep Bagchi.

¶135

It has also come in course of investigation that one Mr. Ghasi Ram Pingua, the then District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi, had rejected the request of Pradeep Bagchi for registration of the property in the name of M/s Jagat Bandhu Tea Ltd., a company owned by accused no. 3, Amit Kumar Agarwal, as the name of Pradeep Bagchi was not reflecting in the records of the registrar, as he has knowledge that the record was illegal. It has also come that the then Circle Officer Mr. Manoj Kumar was known to the fact that the property as per the records was in possession of the Army for which he turned down the mutation of the property earlier registered by Jayant Karnard to 13 persons. The investigation discloses that Mr. Chavvi Ranjan, the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, the petitioner herein, verbally directed the Circle Officer, to visit the office of Registrar of Assurance, Kolkata. 73. Mr. Manoj Kumar, the then Circle Officer deputed Circle Inspector, Mr. Birendra Kumar Sahu and others to visit Kolkata for the said purpose.

¶136

Thereafter, they visited Kolkota and from there they have got the certified copy of deeds through one private Broker. The Circle Officer received the deed by way of private courier indicating therein that the owner of the property in the record of right of Assurance of Kolkata is Prafulla Bagchi. Accordingly, based on the said report the Circle Officer wherein he was directed by the present petitioner to mention that as per the transfer of property act, the first right of said property is of Pradeep Bagchi. It has further been surfaced that another accused persons, Afzal Ali and Saddam Hussain visited the office of present petitioner with a very close and confident of accused Prem Prakash who was acting on the instruction of accused Amit Kumar Agarwal accused no. 3 and both these persons, namely, Prem Prakash and Amit Kumar Agarwal has met with the present petitioner and the Circle Officer, Mr. Manoj Kumar was also there, who had directed the Circle Officer to get the claim of Pradeep Bagchi verify from the office of Assurance of Records Kolkata.

¶137

It is thus evident from the aforesaid imputation that the present Deputy Commissioner was aware with all the facts regarding the fabrication of the document from its rightful owner in the name of Pradeep Bagchi and as such direction was given by him to the Circle Officer and based upon said forged document, the documents

¶138

¶139

2025:JHHC:22342

¶140

pertaining to the said land was prepared in the name of Pradeep Bagchi who has subsequently sold out the land in favour of one firm, M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd, the land situated at Cheshire Home, which was owned by Amit Kumar Agarwal, the accused no. 3. 80. Herein also exactly the same is the case because it is admitted case of the petitioner as per the argument advanced that his culpability has been found with respect to facilitating in getting the land registered in favour of Pradeep Bagchi, which was subsequently transferred in the name of firm, M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd, of which the beneficial owneris Mr. Amit Kumar Agarwal.

¶141

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order of remand cannot be said to suffer from error, as the learned Court based upon the material available before it has passed the order of remand.

¶142

Coming to the second ground i.e., the arrest of the petitioner cannot be said to be in consonance with the provision of Section 19(1) of the PML Act, 2002 since at the time of arrest reference of only one allegation was placed, but as per counter affidavit the implication of the petitioner has been shown to be involved in other cases of illegal transfer of land.

¶143

The argument has been advanced that it is the legal duty of the competent authority to communicate the reason of arrest as soon as possible after the arrest i.e., the requirement of Section 19(1) of the PML Act, 2002.

¶144

This Court, in order to appreciate the argument needs to refer herein the proposition, as has been laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) wherein the Section 19(1) has been interpreted with its implication.

¶145

It is evident from the aforesaid discussion made therein that the authority under the Act, 2002 is to prosecute a person for offence of money-laundering only if it has reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in possession of “proceeds of crime”. Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process.

¶146

¶147

2025:JHHC:22342

¶148

As discussed above the provision of Section 19(1) of the Act, 2002 has subsequently been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) wherein also it has been stated that the reason of arrest is to be supplied but has been pleased to hold that by which time it is to be supplied. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that it should be “henceforth”.

¶149

It is thus evident from the imputation of allegation leveled against the petitioner that it is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to take the ground that there was no reason to believe to the competent authority for making arrest. Irrespective of the fact that subsequently the other allegations have been added. The matter would have been different if at the time of arrest there would not have been imputation and if subsequent to arrest if any imputation has been found to be there then only the believe would be taken that at the time of arrest there was no evidence then how it can be said that there was reason to believe with the competent authority but that is not the case herein since it is the admitted fact herein and as per the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner also it has been admitted that the allegation so far it relates to the transfer of land in the name of firm, M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd at at the time of arrest at least one imputation was there which led the competent authority to come to the conclusion of belief by making a reason to arrest and as such it cannot be said that there is no compliance of provision of Section 19(1) of the PML Act, 2002.

¶150

Accordingly, argument which has been advanced in this regard that the provision of Section 19(1) has not been followed is having no substance.

¶151

The third ground has been taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no legal evidence, and as such the very arrest is illegal.

¶152

From the aforesaid paragraphs of the prosecution complaint, it appears that the present petitioner Chhavi Ranjan influenced the officials of Circle Officer, Baragai, Ranchi and District Sub Registrar, Ranchi and managed to procure a favourable report for Pradeep Bagchi at the behest of Prem Prakash and Amit Kumar Agarwal, and the property was subsequently acquired dishonestly by M/s Jagat Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.

¶153

¶154

2025:JHHC:22342

¶155

It further appears that the petitioner i.e. Chhavi Ranjan alongwith Amit Kumar Agarwal and Prem Prakash was aware and knew that the ownership of Pradeep Bagchi was fictitious and the deed was fake yet the petitioner assisted and knowingly became a party with Amit Kumar Agarwal to acquire the above property which was proceeds of crime. The accused Chhavi Ranjan had knowledge that the above said property is disputed, as one dispute between Defence and Jayant Karnad was also pending before his disposal i.e. in the court of District Magistrate, Ranchi which he used to preside over during his tenure. Yet on receipt of the application of Pradeep Bagchi, who falsely claimed himself to be the rightful owner of the property, the accused Chhavi Ranjan knowingly and deliberately gave verbal directions to the Circle Officer to visit the office of Registrar of Assurances (Records), Kolkata and verify the records for ascertaining actual owner of the property.

¶156

Investigation has revealed that the original registers in the records of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata were already forged/tampered with and falsified in favour of Pradeep Bagchi, and direction to visit Kolkata to verify the records available with Registrar of Assurance was a well executed plan so that the property could be transferred to Amit Kumar Agarwal in a legal manner through his company Jagat Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.

¶157

It has come on record that in connivance with Prem Prakash and Amit Kumar Agarwal, Chhavi Ranjan influenced the officials of Circle Office and District Sub Registrar, Ranchi and managed to procure a favourable report for Pradeep Bagchi and the property was subsequently acquired dishonestly by M/s Jagat Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. and Chhavi Ranjan, then DC of Ranchi assisted these persons to acquire the above property by misusing his official position and overlooking the records available in his office/subordinate offices. Chhavi Ranjan had knowledge that the above said property is disputed as one dispute between Defence and was also pending before his for disposal i.e. in the court of District Magistrate, Ranchi which he used to preside during his tenure.

¶158

On perusal of record, prima facie it appears that the petitioner knowingly assisted the M/s Jagat Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., Amit Kumar Agarwal, Afsar Ali, Mohammad Saddam Hussain and other accused persons in their activities connected with acquisition, possession, concealment as well as use of proceeds of crime and

¶159

¶160

2025:JHHC:22342

¶161

projecting and claiming them as untainted property. The accused person was actually a party with the Amit Kumar Agarwal in acquiring proceeds of crime wroth Rs. 20,75,84,200/- (government value) in form of landed property, measuring 4.55 acres (455 decimals) at MS Plot no. 557, MauzaMorabadi whose present commercial value is around Rs. 41,51,68,390/-.

¶162

This Court, in view of aforesaid imputation, is of the view that the argument which has been advanced that there is no legal evidence against the petitioner is not acceptable, hence, rejected.

¶163

Fourth argument has been advanced that even accepting that there is legal evidence then also it cannot be said to be proceeds of crime, as per the definition of proceeds of crime.

¶164

In the context of aforesaid contention this Court thinks fit to discuss the ambit of the Proceeds of crime which 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 such property.

¶165

The property has been defined under Section 2 (v) of the Act, 2002 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.

¶166

Herein, specific allegation against the accused persons is that a land in question, after making forge documents, worth of Rs. about 20 crores has been transferred in a meager amount in which the petitioner in the capacity of Deputy Commissioner has acted as a facilitator by issuing command upon the subordinate officials, both the circle officer and the sub-registrar, the registration authority.

¶167

The property has also been defined, which means assets of any description i.e., 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, meaning thereby that the property will also include in terms of liquid money.

¶168

The Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002 provides that 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,

¶169

¶170

2025:JHHC:22342

¶171

acquisition or use or projecting as an untainted property or claiming as an untainted property shall be guilty of money laundering Act.

¶172

Section 3 of the 2002 Act, defines the offence of moneylaundering. The expression “money-laundering”, ordinarily, means the process or activity of placement, layering and finally integrating the tainted property in the formal economy of the country. However, 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 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.

¶173

Section 3 has been taken note by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) wherefrom it is evident the aforesaid provision plainly indicates that any (every) process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime results in offence of money-laundering. Projecting or claiming the proceeds of crime as untainted property, in itself, is an attempt to indulge in or being involved in money-laundering, just as knowingly concealing, possessing, acquiring or using of proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly.

¶174

Thus, it is evident that the penal offence under Section 3 will be attracted if a person is directly or indirectly even attempting 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, meaning thereby that it is not that it is direct involvement rather it is indirectly also even in taking attempts or by assisting in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

¶175

The question of commission of crime as per imputation, as per the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner even accepting to be correct the same will not come under the fold of proceeds of crime and hence Section 3 will not be attracted but this Court is dealing with the issue of bail and not analyzing the veracity of the imputation which is only to be done at appropriate stage and at this stage which requires consideration is parameters of Section 45 (ii) of the PML Act, 2002 as per which the twin condition is to be fulfilled.

¶176

The paramount consideration is that while considering the issue of bail, the competent Court is to be satisfied that there are reasonable

¶177

¶178

2025:JHHC:22342

¶179

grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶180

Herein the direct involvement of the petitioner in facilitating the other accused persons in getting the property transferred in their favour in a meager amount in comparison to that of government notification, as per the detail furnished hereinabove.

¶181

As would be evident from the material collected in course of enquiry the connivance of the petitioner with the Pradip Bagchi accused no. 5, Amit Agarwal, accused no. 3 Afsar Ali, accused no. 6. and other accused persons cannot be lightly brushed out. 120. It would be evident from the various paragraph of prosecution complaint as mentioned above that the petitioner although is a government functionary heading the district in the capacity of Deputy Commissioner but even then he instead of protecting the State interest has connived with these persons to facilitate in illegal transfer of land based upon the forged document which he was already knowing and that is the reason he had directed the Circle Officer, namely Manoj Kumar to have an enquiry from the office of Registrar Assurance, Kolkata.

¶182

Therefore, the ground which has been taken that even accepting that there is legal evidence then also it cannot be said to be proceeds of crime, as per the definition of proceeds of crime, has no substance. 125. It appears from the record, as has been surfaced in course of investigation, that the Circle officer has informed the Deputy Commissioner that the mutation of the said case was already rejected but even then it is alleged that the Circle Officer was coerced to favour Pradeep Bagchi, under which jurisdiction such direction was given is best known to the present petitioner.

¶183

It has also come that the land which has been transferred was alleged to be owned by Defense Estate Danapur claiming the said land was owned by defence while later on the claim of ownership of the land was made by accused Pradeep Bagchi, but very surprisingly the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has not conducted enquiry regarding the grievance of Defense Estate Danapur rather directed the Circle Officer, Bargai to conduct enquiry on the grievances of co-accused persons, while said Pradeep Bagchi has made claim subsequent to the claim of the Defence Estate Officer, Danapur.

¶184

This Court has gone through the said judgment along with the factual aspects involved herein. There is no dispute about the law laid

¶185

¶186

2025:JHHC:22342

¶187

down therein that that all the crimes cannot be said to come under the fold of “proceeds of crime‟. This Court is not disputing the aforesaid proposition of law but at the same time this Court is required to look into the basis of involvement of one or the other accused in the touchstone of PML Act, 2002, which has elaborately been dealt with by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) wherein the PML Act has been dealt with along with the reason and object for enactment of the said Act.

¶188

Furthermore, at this stage, this Court is to look into the fulfillment of twin condition under Section 45 as has been dealt with herein above and on consideration of such condition this Court has reached to the conclusion based upon the material that it cannot be said that there is no reason to believe of involvement of the petitioner in commission of crime.

¶189

From the aforesaid judgment which is of United Kingdom, it appears that there is no reference of pari materia provision to that of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002. Hence, the judgment rendered in Regina Vs. GH is not applicable in the case at hand.

¶190

After perusal of the record of the instant case it appears that the holding number was issued to show that the possession of the said land is in the name of Pradeep Bagchi and based upon which title of the said land was established with the help of present petitioner by relying upon the report which is based upon a forged deed planted in the Registrar Kolkata Assurance Office and petitioner used his official position to give legal colour to the transaction when he himself was aware that the title to the said land is in dispute and possession belongs to Defence and from the various paragraph of prosecution complaint it is evident that in the said act proceeds of crime is generated wherein forged deed is relied upon and transaction was entered into a miniscule rate wherein no actual amount of payment was done.

¶191

From record it also appears that the petitioner has involvement in facilitating brokers and private entities to acquire the properties which had been in possession of the Defence before independence. The deliberate act of the petitioner is not only restricted in extending benefits to the private entities but it also amounts to cheating and forgery and the petitioner who had a responsibility of ensuring

¶192

¶193

2025:JHHC:22342

¶194

fairness and securing government properties himself misused his official position and influenced his subordinate officials.

¶195

39. It is, thus, evident from the perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs that this Court while referring the various settled position of law and the provisions of Act 2002 had addressed contentions of the parties and found no merit in the said bail application and accordingly dismissed the same.

¶196

40. It is further apparent from the aforesaid order that the Court while passing the aforesaid order, had also taken care of the culpability of the present applicant which was mentioned in the prosecution complaint/ECIR and based upon the same, the Court has not found the availability of the twin condition as stipulated in the Act 2002 and accordingly dismissed the bail petition.

¶197

41. It is further evident from the aforesaid quoted paragraph of the said order, that order of remand and order of arrest along with non-availability of element of predicate offence has been raised and after due consideration of the same, this Court has dismissed the said grounds and accordingly prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected by this Court.

¶198

42. It is further admitted fact that the petitioner has moved to the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP (Cr.) No. 13496 of 2024, making the prayer for bail by invoking the

¶199

¶200

2025:JHHC:22342

¶201

jurisdiction conferred under the Constitution of India, but the same was dismissed as withdrawn. For ready reference,

¶202

the relevant part of the order is quoted as under:

¶203

Delay condoned.

¶204

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner(s). We do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The special leave petition(s) stands dismissed at this stage.

¶205

However, the Special Court is directed to proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible.

¶206

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.”

¶207

43. Thus, from the aforesaid it is evident that on merit

¶208

prayer for bail of the present applicant has already been adjudicated and further there is no cogent fresh ground or change in circumstance is available herein, hence, at first instance the contention of learned counsel for ED that there is no need to entertain the instant application afresh, is having force but in the instant application the learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments has mainly emphasized on two grounds:

¶209

(i) In predicate offence the chargesheet has been submitted in the month of August, 2024 i.e after earlier rejection of the prayer for bail by this Court, in which the petitioner has not been charge-sheeted.

¶210

(ii) Petitioner is in custody since 04.05.2023 i.e., more than two years.

¶211

¶212

2025:JHHC:22342

¶213

44. Thus, in the aforesaid context, this Court is of the considered view that it is the bounden duty of this Court to appreciate the aforesaid particular contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶214

45. Before appreciating to the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel for the parties, this Court thinks fit to refer the provision of law as contained under the Act, 2002 with its object and intent as also the legal proposition as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments.

¶215

46. The Act 2002, was enacted to address the urgent need to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof including vesting of it in the Central Government, setting up of agencies and mechanisms for coordinating measures for combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

¶216

47. It needs to refer herein the definition of “proceeds of crime” has been provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002 wherefrom it is evident that “proceeds of crime” means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside

¶217

¶218

2025:JHHC:22342

¶219

the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad.

¶220

48. In the explanation it has been referred that for the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence.

¶221

49. 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.

¶222

50. 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

¶223

¶224

2025:JHHC:22342

¶225

instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located.

¶226

51. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x) which means schedule to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It is evident that the “scheduled offence” means the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule.

¶227

52. The offence of money laundering has been defined under Section 3 of the Act, 2002, it is evident from the said provision that “offence of money-laundering” means whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of moneylaundering.

¶228

53. 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

¶229

¶230

2025:JHHC:22342

¶231

untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.

¶232

54. The various provisions of the Act, 2002 alongwith interpretation of the definition of “ proceeds of crime ” has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929 wherein the Bench comprising of three Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have decided the issue by taking into consideration the object and intent of the Act, 2002.

¶233

55. 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.

¶234

¶235

2025:JHHC:22342

¶236

56. It needs to refer herein the purport of Section 45(1)(i)(ii), the aforesaid provision starts from the nonobstante 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 –

¶237

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given a opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶238

57. Sub-section (2) thereof puts limitation on granting bail specific in subsection (1) in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.

¶239

58. The explanation is also there as under sub-section (2) thereof which is for the purpose of removal of doubts. A clarification has been inserted that the expression "Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable" shall mean and shall be deemed to have always meant that all offences under this Act shall be cognizable offences and nonbailable 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

¶240

¶241

2025:JHHC:22342

¶242

to the fulfilment of conditions under section 19 and subject to the conditions enshrined under this section.

¶243

59. The fact about the implication of Section 45 has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors .(supra) for ready reference, the relevant paragraphs are being referred as under:

¶244

“387………….The provision post the 2018 Amendment, is in the nature of no bail in relation to the offence of money laundering unless the twin conditions are fulfilled. The twin conditions are that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of offence of money laundering and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Considering the purposes and objects of the legislation in the form of the 2002 Act and the background in which it had been enacted owing to the commitment made to the international bodies and on their recommendations, it is plainly clear that it is a special legislation to deal with the subject of money laundering activities having transnational impact on the financial systems including sovereignty and integrity of the countries. This is not an ordinary offence. To deal with such serious offence, stringent measures are provided in the 2002 Act for prevention of money laundering and combating menace of money laundering, including for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and to prosecute persons involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. In view of the gravity of the fallout of money laundering activities having transnational impact, a special procedural law for prevention and regulation, including to prosecute the person involved, has been enacted, grouping the offenders involved in the process or

¶245

¶246

2025:JHHC:22342

¶247

activity connected with the proceeds of crime as a separate class from ordinary criminals. The offence of money laundering has been regarded as an aggravated form of crime “world over”. It is, therefore, a separate class of offence requiring effective and stringent measures to combat the menace of money laundering. 412. As a result, we have no hesitation in observing that in whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the constitutional court, the underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 of the 2002 Act must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of money laundering.”

¶248

60. 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

¶249

¶250

2025:JHHC:22342

¶251

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.

¶252

61. 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.

¶253

62. 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 also 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

¶254

¶255

2025:JHHC:22342

¶256

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.

¶257

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

¶258

¶259

2025:JHHC:22342

¶260

64. Therefore, the conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PMLA will have to be complied with even in respect of an application for bail made under Section 439 CrPC. That coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the accused.

¶261

65. 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 oftquoted phrase - ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception’ - unless circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act and the ‘exercise’ of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. For ready reference, relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred as under:

¶262

“28. The conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis-àvis 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

¶263

¶264

2025:JHHC:22342

¶265

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. 66. The reason for making reference of this judgment is that in the Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr, (2022) 10 SCC 51 , the UAPA has also been brought under the purview of category ‘c’ wherein while laying observing that in the UAPA Act, it comes under the category ‘c’ which also includes money laundering offence wherein the bail has been directed to be granted if the investigation is 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.

¶266

67. In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal provisions and settled law this Court is now adverting to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶267

68. It is evident from order dated 22.03.2024 passed by this Court in B.A. No. 9247 of 2023 that this Court while rejecting the aforesaid bail application has taken into consideration the specific culpability of the petitioner as alleged in prosecution complaint. From the various

¶268

¶269

2025:JHHC:22342

¶270

paragraphs of the prosecution complaint, it appears that the present petitioner namely Chhavi Ranjan influenced the officials of Circle Officer, Baragai, Ranchi and District Sub Registrar, Ranchi and managed to procure a favourable report for Pradeep Bagchi at the behest of other accused persons and the property was subsequently acquired dishonestly by M/s Jagat Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.

¶271

69. It further appears that the petitioner was aware and knew that the ownership of Pradeep Bagchi was fictitious and the deed was fake yet the petitioner assisted and knowingly became a party with accused persons to acquire the above property which was proceeds of crime. He had knowledge that the above said property is disputed, as one dispute between Defence and Jayant Karnad was also pending before his disposal i.e. in the court of District Magistrate, Ranchi which he used to preside over during his tenure. Yet on receipt of the application of Pradeep Bagchi, who falsely claimed himself to be the rightful owner of the property, the accused Chhavi Ranjan knowingly and deliberately gave verbal directions to the Circle Officer to visit the office of Registrar of Assurances (Records), Kolkata and verify the records for ascertaining actual owner of the property.

¶272

70. Investigation has revealed that the original registers in the records of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata were

¶273

¶274

2025:JHHC:22342

¶275

already forged/tampered with and falsified in favour of Pradeep Bagchi, and direction to visit Kolkata to verify the records available with Registrar of Assurance was a wellexecuted plan so that the property could be transferred in a legal manner to the accused Amit Kumar Agarwal through company Jagat Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd.

¶276

71. Thus, the petitioner in the capacity of DC of Ranchi assisted other accused persons to acquire the above property by misusing his official position and overlooking the records available in his office/subordinate offices. 72. This Court vide order dated 22.03.2024 has found that the petitioner knowingly assisted the M/s Jagat Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd., Amit Kumar Agarwal, Afsar Ali, Mohammad Saddam Hussain and other accused persons in their activities connected with acquisition, possession, concealment as well as use of proceeds of crime and projecting and claiming them as untainted property. The accused person was actually a party with the Amit Kumar Agarwal in acquiring proceeds of crime wroth Rs. 20,75,84,200/- (government value) in form of landed property, measuring 4.55 acres (455 decimals) at MS Plot no. 557, Mauza Morabadi whose present commercial value is around Rs. 41,51,68,390/-.

¶277

73. It is evident from the order dated 22.03.2024 passed in B.A. No. 9247 of 2023 that this Court has also

¶278

¶279

2025:JHHC:22342

¶280

considered the issue of parity therein and categorically held that the present petitioner being public functionary and holding the post of public responsibility, is having more accountability being the custodian of the public money and public land, 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.

¶281

74. Since the imputation against the present petitioner has already been dealt with by this Court vide order dated 22.03.2024, therefore it is not required herein to reiterate the same factual aspects and further this Court is dealing with the issue of bail and not analyzing the veracity of the imputation which is only to be done at appropriate stage and at this stage which requires consideration is parameters of Section 45 (ii) of the PML Act, 2002 as per which the twin condition is to be fulfilled .

¶282

75. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the present petitioner in predicate offence the chargesheet has been submitted in the month of August, 2024 in which the petitioner has not been charge-sheeted.

¶283

76. In the aforesaid context it requires to refer herein that Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, (supra) as well as in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors (supra) , it has been observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the offence of money laundering

¶284

¶285

2025:JHHC:22342

¶286

under Section 3 of the PMLA is an independent offence. The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically laid down that it is not necessary for a person to be shown as an accused in the scheduled offence for him to be prosecuted under the PMLA, provided there exist proceeds of crime derived from a scheduled offence and the person has indulged in or facilitated any process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime.

¶287

77. 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.

¶288

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

¶289

79. 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

¶290

¶291

2025:JHHC:22342

¶292

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.

¶293

80. It has further been observed by referring the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.(supra) that the condition precedent for the existence of proceeds of crime is the existence of a scheduled offence. At paragraph-15 the finding has been given therein that on plain reading of Section 3 of the Act, 2002, an offence under Section 3 can be committed after a scheduled offence is committed. By giving an example, it has been clarified that if a person who is unconnected with the scheduled offence, knowingly assists the concealment of the proceeds of crime or knowingly assists the use of proceeds of crime, in that case, he can be held guilty of committing an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. Therefore, it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence. For ready reference relevant paragraphs are being quoted as under:

¶294

¶295

2025:JHHC:22342

¶296

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)

¶297

“ 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 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.”

¶298

(emphasis in original and supplied)

¶299

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)

¶300

“ 134. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply clear that the offence of money laundering is an

¶301

¶302

2025:JHHC:22342

¶303

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 .

¶304

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. Thus understood, inclusion of clause

¶305

¶306

2025:JHHC:22342

¶307

( ii ) in Explanation inserted in 2019 is of no consequence as it does not alter or enlarge the scope of Section 3 at all.”

¶308

(emphasis supplied)

¶309

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.

¶310

81. Admittedly in the charge sheets in G.R. Case Nos. 2596/2023 and 2089/2024 petitioner has not been arraigned as an accused in the scheduled offence, but the non-inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the said charge sheets in any way absolves him under the stringent

¶311

¶312

2025:JHHC:22342

¶313

framework of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) reason being that he in capacity of D.C. Ranchi has knowingly connived with the other accused and had assisted them in procuring of forged document related to property in question which ultimately lead to generation of proceeds of crime.

¶314

82. 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 incarceration (herein about 27 month) or delay in trial alone cannot be ground to release the petitioner on bail, rather in case of scheduled offences/special offences the seriousness of the matter and the societal impact should be taken in to consideration by the Court concerned while enlarging the petitioner on bail. 83. At this juncture, the learned counsel for ED has submitted at Bar that all endeavour will be taken to expedite the trial. It has further been submitted that there are many accused in the ECIR cases and one and another accused, everyday are filing one petition and another and that is the cause of delaying the evidence to be led by the ED. He further submits that the learned trial court has disposed of all these petitions, which have been preferred by the other co-accused before the learned trial court and now the ED has taken his all endeavour to examine the

¶315

¶316

2025:JHHC:22342

¶317

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.

¶318

84. 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.

¶319

85. 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:

¶320

As already discussed, the material available on record indicates the involvement of the appellant in furtherance of terrorist activities backed by members of banned terrorist organisation involving exchange of large quantum of money through different channels which needs to be deciphered and therefore in such a scenario if the appellant is released on bail there is every likelihood that he will influence the key witnesses of the case which

¶321

¶322

2025:JHHC:22342

¶323

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.”

¶324

86. 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.

¶325

87. Accordingly, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that present bail application is being preferred on account of alleged changes in factual and legal circumstances since the dismissal of the earlier bail application is misconceived.

¶326

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

¶327

89. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Santosh Krnani and Another,

¶328

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 judgment is being referred as under: -

¶329

¶330

2025:JHHC:22342

¶331

"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."

¶332

90. Herein, as also considered by this Court in the earlier bail application that there is ample material on record, including official files, directions issued by the petitioner in his capacity as Deputy Commissioner, statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA and corroborative documents, clearly demonstrating the petitioner's active facilitation in the acquisition and layering of proceeds of crime by M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estates Pvt. Ltd. and other co-accused persons.

¶333

91. Further, the filing of final form in the predicate offence by the police merely concludes the investigation under the IPC provisions which does not dilute the robust prima facie case made out under the PMLA against the petitioner.

¶334

92. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India, (supra) and

¶335

¶336

2025:JHHC:22342

¶337

consistently thereafter, has affirmed that proceedings under the PMLA are distinct and the fate of the scheduled offence does not control or restrict prosecution under the Act. Hence, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the supplementary chargesheet is of no assistance and cannot justify grant of bail in the present case.

¶338

93. Admittedly, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 04.05.2023 but delay, under the aforesaid circumstances, does not entitle the petitioner to bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarun Kumar v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486 , has authoritatively held that while the period of custody may be a relevant factor, it cannot by itself override the gravity of the offence, the seriousness of allegations or the statutory twin conditions under Section 45 of the Act 2002.

¶339

94. Similarly, in Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 306, the Hon’ble Apex Court refused bail despite protracted proceedings, noting that the complexity inherent in economic offences often necessitates lengthy trials. It is also pertinent that delays frequently arise from procedural applications and litigations pursued by accused themselves. Thus, given the grave nature of the allegations, the sophisticated modus operandi employed to project tainted property as untainted,

¶340

¶341

2025:JHHC:22342

¶342

and the strict statutory framework governing bail under the PMLA, no ground exists for the petitioner to claim the benefit of bail either on merits or on account of delay. The gravity of the offence, misuse of a high public office, and the serious allegations of facilitating the laundering of proceeds of crime continue to justify the petitioner's custody under the strict rigours of Section 45 of the Act 2002.

¶343

95. Thus, it is evident from the discussion as made herein above that since the earlier bail application of this petitioner has been rejected on merit, and herein the main question for consideration is if there is any change of circumstance (factual or legal) which requires reconsideration of the bail application of the petitioner and this Court, based upon the discussion made hereinabove, is of the considered view that there is no relevant change of circumstance (factual or legal) is available herein, therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a case where the prayer for bail of the petitioner is to be granted.

¶344

96. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to facts and circumstances, as have been analyzed hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the applicant has failed to make out a case for exercise of power to grant bail and considering the facts and parameters, necessary to be

¶345

¶346

2025:JHHC:22342

¶347

considered for adjudication of bail, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the bail application is liable to be rejected.

¶348

97. Accordingly, based upon the aforesaid discussion, the instant application stands dismissed.

¶349

98. It is made clear that the observations/findings, as recorded hereinabove, is only for the purpose of issue of consideration of bail. The same will not prejudice the issue on merit in course of trial.

¶350

99. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶351

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶352

Birendra/- A.F.R.

¶353

Chhavi Ranjan v. the Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhavi Ranjan v. the Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Shukla Vs Personnel and Adminis Reform

Ram Krishna Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kunwar Yuvraj Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kumar Maharathi Alias Guddu Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Narayan Varnwal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Golam Rasul Vs Mustafizur Rahman