Suresh Kumar S/O Jagdish Vs Directorate of Enforcement

[2025:RJ-JP:10333]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.6085/2024

Suresh Kumar S/o Jagdish, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ridiya Dhora Post, Gudha Hema, Tehsil Chitalvana, P.S. Jhab, District Jhalore, Rajasthan

¶5

(At Present Accused In Central Jail, Ajmer).

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Directorate Of Enforcement, Through Its Assistant Director, Directorate Of Enforcement, (The Prevention Of Money Laundering Act, 2002) Government Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue Jaipur Zonal Office, 2^nd Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-II, LIC Building Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.953/2025 Peera Ram S/o Shri Raghunatharam Vishnoi, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Hemaguda PS Jhab, District Jalore, Rajasthan 343040 (Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

Directorate Of Enforcement, (Through Assistant Director Mr Mukesh) Enforcement Directorate, Govt. Of India.

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Jain, Adv. Mr. Prashant Khandelwal, Adv. Mr. Sahajveer Bawaja, Adv. Mr. Aman Garg, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Rajdeepak Rastogi, ASG with Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Bhansali, Adv.
		Mr. Chinmay Sharma, Adv.

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

[2025:RJ-JP:10333]

[CRLMB-6085/2024]

(2 of 11)

Reserved on :: 10/02/2025 Pronounced on :: 07/03/2025

¶23

These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023, on behalf of the accused petitioners, Suresh Kumar and Peera Ram, in connection with ECIR No.JPZO/03/2023 for the offences under Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PMLA’).

¶24

The Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused petitioners, Mr. Hora presents an argument, asserting that no substantial case has been made out against the present petitioners under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( “PMLA” ). He firmly states that the petitioners have neither generated nor laundered funds through illicit activities. The petitioners have already been enlarged on bail under the predicate offence, and no recovery of any money was made from the petitioners. The predicate offence was entirely different from the case under the PMLA, and the Enforcement Directorate ( “ED” ) entirely rest its case on the evidence collected in the predicate offence. The predicate offence committed under the provision of

¶25

The Rajasthan Public Examination (Measures of Prevention

¶26

of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2022 , does not fall in the scheduled offence. The predicate offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is also not made out against the petitioners as the petitioners have not induced any person to deliver the property or to cause willful loss to anyone. It is also argued that case under PMLA is also not made out against the petitioners as, admittedly, no amount was passed on to them from

[2025:RJ-JP:10333]

[CRLMB-6085/2024]

(3 of 11)

the other co-accused and therefore, they neither generated money nor concealed, possessed, or used it.

¶31

On behalf of the accused-petitioner-Peera Ram, the learned counsel contended that petitioner-Peera Ram has neither initiated nor participated in the distribution of leak paper. He has only provided his vehicle and he was not aware that the said vehicle will be used for the purpose of tutoring the leak paper. PetitionerPeera Ram has neither generated money nor concealed, possessed or used it, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner-Peera Ram has committed offence under Section 3/4 of the PMLA Act.

¶32

It is vehemently contended that the petitioners have been behind the bars since 11.01.2024 and no witness has been examined till date. The charge sheet comprises of 200 witnesses and documentary evidence contains thousands of pages, and there is no likelihood of a conclusion of trial within a reasonable time. The maximum punishment for the offence is of seven years, and putting a person behind bars without trial amounts to deprivation of personal liberty and pretrial conviction. The learned counsel, Mr. Hora, fortifies his arguments on the strength of the judgments passed in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement , 2024 INSC 595, and Kalvakuntla Kavitha vs. Directorate of Enforcement , 2024 INSC 632.

¶33

Contrarily, the learned Senior Counsel cum ASG Mr. RD Rastogi, argues that the definition of section 3/4 of the PMLA Act is exhaustive, and it is not necessary that affirmative evidence of passing or laundering of proceeds of crime must be in existence. Even an accused who assisted the other culprits in generating the crime money is liable for prosecution under the PMLA. In the

[2025:RJ-JP:10333]

[CRLMB-6085/2024]

(4 of 11)

present case, it is prima facie established by clinching evidence that the petitioners acted in connivance with the main accused. The petitioner Suresh Kumar was arrested red handedly while tutoring the leaked papers in a moving bus to the candidates who intended to appear in the Senior Teacher 2^nd Grade Competitive Examination, 2022.

¶38

The petitioner Suresh Kumar in connivance with Suresh Kumar Dhaka, who is mastermind in the whole paper leak case and presently absconding, chalked out the whole plan and provided the leaked question paper to different candidates in a moving bus. The petitioner- Suresh Kumar was getting regular instructions from Suresh Dhaka and Bhupendra Saran, who conceptualized the whole plan of leaking the question paper of General Knowledge subject of the Senior Teacher 2^nd Grade Competitive Examination, 2022, and later on caught red handedly, while providing and tutoring the leaked question paper to candidates. It is also contended that the investigation further revealed that the petitioner Suresh Kumar is directly involved in the said paper leak case and is primary beneficiary of proceeds of crime. He handled the students in Udaipur and was continuously instructing them. The statement of petitioner Suresh Kumar Saran was recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA and he admitted his involvement in the alleged crime of leaking the paper and also admitted that he was getting instructions from Bhupendra Saran (Accused No.3 in the main PC No.1/2024) and Suresh Kumar Dhaka. The petitioner arranged the bus to commute candidates and took printouts of leaked question paper and distributed it to candidates, who were present in the bus. The petitioner in his

[2025:RJ-JP:10333]

[CRLMB-6085/2024]

(5 of 11)

statement also admitted that the deal was finalized in lieu of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from Bhupendra Saran. It is also contended that to unearth the proceeds of crime and gather evidence based on reasonable belief for offence committed under the PMLA, search under the provisions of Section 17(1) of the PMLA Act were conducted at different premises related to suspected persons and properties worth of Rs.3,11,93,597.98, was assessed and the said property has been confirmed by the adjudicating authority under the PMLA vide its order dated 19.01.2024. Thus, the above facts clearly shows that the petitioner Suresh Kumar was directly involved in the alleged offence of money laundering. The Learned Additional Solicitor General has placed reliance on Para 147 of the judgment of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India, 2023(12) SCC 1, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that even assisting in the process or activity in part of the crime of money laundering is also an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA Act. It is also contended that the petitioner-Peera Ram was also involved in the said offence as he provided his vehicle for tutoring the papers in moving bus.

¶43

It is clear that the stipulation provided under Section 45 of the PMLA are mandatory, and the court must deny bail until it determines that there is insufficient evidence against the petitioner regarding the alleged crime. The Learned ASG has referred to the judgment of Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Directorate Enforcement, 2023 INSC 1006, wherein it was held that the conditions specified under Section 45 of the PMLA are mandatory, and the Court must focus upon the role attached to the accused. The ground of parity is also misconceived. The

[2025:RJ-JP:10333]

[CRLMB-6085/2024]

(6 of 11)

apprehension that the trial will likely to take much time, and the accused would be incarcerated indefinitely, is also not well founded, as the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. 8. Heard and perused the material available on record and judgment cited by the parties.

¶48

Factual aspect:-

¶49

From the above facts, it is apparent that the petitioner Suresh Sau was involved in the alleged crime, as he was caught red handedly by the SOG while tutoring the papers to the candidates, who intended to appear in the said examination. The petitioner was in continuous connectivity with the other coaccused Suresh and Bhupendra Saran from whom possession the properties and the amount involved in the crime was recovered. The petitioner could not get the amount as the petitioner was caught red handedly as the entire plan was unearthed by the SOG before it could have taken actual shape, therefore, the analogy of the present petitioner that no recovery of any amount was made from his possession is misconceived. Section 3 of the PMLA Act in unequivocally states that even the person who is indirectly involved or assisted in generating the proceeds of crime is liable for the commission of offences. Prima-facie there is enough material available on record before the Court to demonstrate the involvement of the accused petitioner in the alleged offence committed under Section 3/4 of the PMLA Act. As far as the other accused-petitioner-Peera Ram is concerned, the only allegation against him is that he provided his vehicle to the petitioner Suresh

[2025:RJ-JP:10333]

[CRLMB-6085/2024]

(7 of 11)

Kumar for tutoring the leaked papers to the candidates in a moving bus. The Petitioner-Peera Ram is not associated with the cartel who were involved in leaking the exam paper and further providing it to various persons. The case of the petitioner Peera Ram is entirely distinguishable on facts from the case of the petitioner Suresh Kumar.

¶54

Legal Aspect:-

¶55

It is clear that stipulation of Section 45 of the PMLA are mandatory and the Court must deny the bail until it determines that there is insufficient evidence against the petitioners for the alleged offence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Madan Lal (Supra) has categorically held that the conditions provided under Section 45 are mandatory. In the case of Tarun Vs. Assistant Directorate Enforcement (Supra) once again the Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA are mandatory in nature. In the case of Manish Sisodia (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court determined that any delay in starting the trial coupled with prolonged incarceration of the accused must be considered while dealing with the condition enshrined under Section 45 of the PMLA. The Court also affirmed that while trial Court and High Court have the authority to conduct a merit based review of the allegations levelled against the applicant, they must always be mindful of the significance of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In the case of Manish Sisodia (Supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court after emphasizing upon the importance of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution on the grounds of long incarceration and unlikelihood of completion of

[2025:RJ-JP:10333]

[CRLMB-6085/2024]

(8 of 11)

trial in near future, granted indulgence of bail to applicant Manish Sisodia. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the subsequent judgment of Kalvakuntia Kavitha Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Supra) , reiterated the observations made in the case of Manish Sisodia (supra) regarding the strict requirement provided under Section 45 of PMLA while observing the need to ensure the protection of personal life and liberty provided under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In the present case, the involvement of the accused petitioner Suresh Kumar is apparent and the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 11.01.2024. The Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner and the trial is yet to be commenced. The very foundational principle of our criminal laws underscores essential balance between justice and individual rights. The authority granting power to arrest and the bail is critical component of punitive laws, emphasizing the necessity for fair judicial process. The procedure outline in BNSS and special statuses concerning the bail and non-bailable cases are fundamentally discretionary. These process hinged on key factors including the particulars of the case, essential implication of accused conduct, potential of evidence tempering, and that of the deliberate nature of economic crime must be given it’s due consideration. Section 480(6) BNSS does not impose mandatory requirements but empowers the Court to grant bail if a trial is not concluded within the period of 60 days. Nevertheless the Court retrains it’s the authority to deny bail as per specific cases. These procedures stem directly from the fundamental principal enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and have consistently withstood the judicial scrutiny. Moreover, Section 479 of BNSS also

[2025:RJ-JP:10333]

[CRLMB-6085/2024]

(9 of 11)

specifies that if a person is a first time offender and has undergone detention for the period of 1/3^rd of the punishment maximum provided for that offence, he shall be released on bail. This provision thus stipulates that the first time offender may be detained lawfully up to the period of 1/3^rd of imprisonment provided under the offence committed. These procedures are intended to be inserted by the legislature and they fundamentally flow from Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and this established procedure, firmly reinforces the principle that the right to bail is contingent upon the just discretion of the Court.

¶64

The court is of the conscious that while bail is generally the rule and jail is the exception, the decision rests firmly on objective criteria and judicial discretion, ensuring that the Court applies the principles governing the grant or refusal of bail as per case to case basis.

¶65

Conclusion:-

¶66

Though it is correct that the trial of the case may take considerable time, but that cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioner-Suresh Kumar on bail as his role in the crime is evident from the facts of the case.

¶67

In Rajasthan, the persistent issue of paper leaks has reached alarming levels that demand immediate and decisive action. The nakal mafia and paper leak syndicates have significantly bolstered their operations over the years, allowing them to persist in their criminal activities unchallenged. This situation calls for urgent measures to dismantle these networks and restore the integrity of our examination systems. On the one hand, we face rising

[2025:RJ-JP:10333]

[CRLMB-6085/2024]

(10 of 11)

unemployment rates; on the other, notifications for filling vacant positions have been delayed for years. After enduring this lengthy process, hard-working youth prepare rigorously for exams, only to fall victim to the paper leak mafia. In many instances, candidates leave examination centres only to discover that the paper has been leaked elsewhere. It is the students—often from underprivileged backgrounds—whose hard work and their families’ sacrifices are wasted. The emotional toll and shattered hopes they experience are profound and unacceptable. To combat the escalating menace of paper leakage, we must act with unwavering resolve. It is high time to confront these offenders with an iron fist and protect the future of our youth and the integrity of our examination systems.

¶72

Therefore, as far as accused-petitioner Suresh Kumar is concerned his bail application is devoid of any merit. Whereas, the instant bail application of the petitioner - Peera Ram is concerned, this Court finds it appropriate to allow his bail application, considering the limited role of the petitioner in the alleged crime, hence, bail application of the petitioner-Peera Ram is hereby allowed.

¶73

Therefore, the instant bail application No.6085/2024 of the petitioner-Suresh Kumar is hereby dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.953/2025 of the petitioner-Peera Ram filed under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Peera Ram son of Shri Raghunatharam Vishnoi, in connection with ECIR No.JPZO/03/2023, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two

¶74

[2025:RJ-JP:10333] (11 of 11)

¶75

[CRLMB-6085/2024]

¶76

sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶77

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶78

Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-15-16

Suresh Kumar S/O Jagdish v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar S/O Jagdish v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun @ Baba S/O Shri Purushottam Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh S/O Shri Shambhu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Banshidhar Yogi S/O Late Shri Nanagram Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishvendrasingh S/O Makkhansingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Vishnoi S/O Shri Hariram Jaani, Vs State of Rajasthan

Balram Mahnta S/O Beerendra Nath Vs State of Rajasthan