Pramod Kumar Singh @ Pramod Singh v. Union of India

The instant application has been filed under Sections 483 and 484 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 praying for grant of bail in ECIR Case No.01 of 2025 arising out of ECIR/RNZO/13/2021 dated 27.10.2021 registered for the alleged offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, now pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, P.M.L.A. at Ranchi. Prosecution case/Facts

The brief facts of the case is that an ECIR bearing No. ECIR/RNZO/13/2021 dated 27.10.2021 registered was 1 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 based on FIR bearing no.46/2016 dated 08.06.2016 which was registered by ACB, Dhanbad u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1) (e) of P.C. Act, another FIR bearing no. 15/2019 dated

26.08.2019 registered by ACB, Dhanbad against the accused petitioner namely, Pramod Kumar Singh @Pramod Singh @ Pramod Kumar, Block Account Manager at PHC, Jharia for misappropriation of NRHM funds and the role of persons posted at Primary Health Centre, Jharia cum Jodapokhar, Civil Surgeon, Dhanbad and staff posted there.

It is further stated that an analysis of statements of Saving Bank Accounts of PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar at Punjab National Bank bearing no. 0230000109221923 and 023000109233751 was done by ACB, Dhanbad and it was found that in these two account Rs.11,28,27,111.00 was transferred from the District Health Society between

01.03.2012 to 22.06.2016 and out of this, an amount of Rs.6,97,43,832.29 was misappropriated and thereby causing huge loss to the government and corresponding gain to themselves.

It is further stated that since Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (e) of P.C. Act, 1988 mentioned in both the FIRs are schedule offences as per Schedule ’A’ appended to PMLA, therefore, the investigation was taken for commission of the offence of 2 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 laundering after recording and ECIR bearing No.ECIR/RNZO/13/2021 dated 27.10.2021.

Upon investigation by the prosecuting agency, it was found that petitioner and the then Medical Officer In- charge, in connivance with each other, have misused the official position and embezzled NRHM funds to the tune of Rs. 9,39,87,952.29/- as a result of criminal activity and related to schedule offences.

It further alleged that petitioner acquired proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 3.95 crores directly in his bank accounts from the bank account of Primary Health Centre, Jharia cum Jodapokhar. It is also alleged that petitioner in connivance with Shashi Bhushan Prasad acquired proceeds Rs.9,39,87,952.29/-. Out of said proceeds of crime Rs.9,39,87,952.29/-, petitioner handled the PoC of Rs.4,45,06,962.69/- by way of concealment through transfer of funds by deposits into the bank himself and his family account of members and his associates and direct cash withdrawals from the bank accounts of PHC by virtue of investments and acquisitions of properties and project them as untainted.

The Enforcement Directorate upon completion of investigation registered ECIR Case no. 01/2025 E.C.I.R/RNZO/13/2021 dated 27.10.2021. 3 B.A. No.4732 of 2025

Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested in this case on the allegation of he being found guilty under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of PMLA, 2002.

Thereafter, the present petitioner preferred Misc. Cri. Application No. 381 of 2025 for grant of bail which was rejected vide order dated 12.03.2025 by learned Additional Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi, hence, the instant bail application.

It needs to refer herein that an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 10003 of 2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to grant interim bail to the petitioner due to medical exigency. This Court vide order dated 13th August, 2025 has dismissed the said interlocutory application as not pressed in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant as he intended not to press the said interlocutory application. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the following grounds: - (i) The petitioner is innocent, committed no offence

whatsoever as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case due to some ulterior motive. (ii) It is submitted that the petitioner was contractual basis Block Account Manager, PHC Jharia cum Jodapokhar and his responsibility was to maintain 4 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 accounts of the said department under instruction and as per direction of the then Medical in-charge (MOIC) and vide Letter No.286 dated 01.02.2012 the Civil Surgeon Dhanbad had instructed that all the withdrawal and cheques will be jointly signed with the Block Account Manager (BAM), and on the strength of that letter, Pramod Singh was introduced at bank as joint signatory with MOIC Shashi Bhushan Prasad for the payment of various schemes, MMJSY, routine immunization, Child health activities, pulse polio, anemia reduction, Sahiya training, expenses of center etc. (iii) It is further submitted that some amount had been transferred in Bank Account Pramod Singh(petitioner) cash payment and transaction of staff payment and other expenses being joint signatory with MOIC Shashi Bhushan Prasad and any work done in any account of C.H.C. or any payment of any head the order of payment was made by the then MOIC Shashi Bhushan Prasad, thereafter it was verified by the then BPM Pankaj Kumar and as per their order only, Pramod Singh signed on the cheques and/or released the payment after making entry in cash book.

All the payment, either through cheque or cash, were made through vouchers under the instruction of MOIC & 5 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 BPM after making proper entries in the Cash Book. The said cash book along with the vouchers and details of all the payment of Jharia cum Jorapokhar Branch was duly submitted to the District Office Dhanbad every month it was verified and tallied every payment and transaction from the vouchers and details by their officers. (iv) It is further submitted that the work of the petitioner was limited to making entry in the Books of Account and release funds as per the direction, supervision instruction of MOIC & BPM and if any misappropriation of funds had done then it would have been detected in the audit report but no any entrustment or misappropriation of funds was detected in the audit report and/or no any claim has ever been made by the Audit department against the petitioner.

(v) It is further submitted that sum of Rs.10 lakh as alleged transferred from the PHC Account by joint signature is totally wrong rather the said amount has been transferred from the personal account. (vi) It is further submitted that the petitioner has legally earned Rs. 16,65,000/- by way of salary during his employment and he was also doing business and earned Rs.8,00,000/- per annum and he had shown income Income Tax Return of about 6 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 Rs.8,00,000/-. As such the assets worth of Rs.93,83,241/- is proportionate to his known legal source of income. (vii) It is further submitted that the persons who were engaged in the PHC/CHC/HSC employee or given services have categorically done their work or supply and submitted the bills to the then MOIC Shashi Bhushan Prasad which is passed by him and the then BPM Pankaj Kumar and Pramod Singh was only joint signatory and maintained the account which was duly sent to District Office which was checked, verified by the Office of the Civil Surgeon and others and duly audited by the Auditor General Office Ranchi and the petitioner only signed the cheques as per the direction and instruction being second signatory of the cheques after the cheques being signed by MOIC, Shashi Bhushan Prasad and/or their order and proper payment entry has been made in the cash book which was sent to the District Office. (viii) It has further been submitted that there is no legally acceptable evidence on the entire case record to implicate the petitioner in the present case save and except suspicion and in any view of the matter no case as alleged is attracted against the petitioner. 7 B.A. No.4732 of 2025

Further submission has been made that petitioner is languishing in Jail custody since 19.02.2025 and in the aforesaid view of the matter also as per the ground agitated, it is a fit case where the petitioner is to be given the privilege of bail. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent/Directorate of Enforcement:

Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by taking the following grounds:- (i) It has been submitted that the petitioner being Block Account Manager at PHC, Jharia connivance with Shashi Bhushan Prasad (now deceased) misused his official position and embezzled Rs. 9,39,87,952.29/- by transferring the NRHM funds from the bank accounts of PHC, Jharia and PHC Management Society, Jodapokhar into his bank accounts and bank accounts of his family/associates and further directed them to handover the funds after withdrawal of cash or to make direct payments for procurement of goods/services, which was later utilized construct a two-storey house in the name of his wife. (ii) Further, in some instances, the petitioner also purchased vehicles in the name of his associates 8 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 and used/possessed or further changed ownership status in the name of his wife Smt. Priya Singh. (iii) The corroborative statements of the petitioner key associate namely Basant Ram and Sannu Kumar Singh, detailing the modus operandi of cash withdrawals at his direction. (iv) It has come in investigation that incriminating documents, including forged utilization certificates prepared under the petitioner’s supervision. (v) Further, the clear money trail established the diversion of public from government accounts, for which the petitioner was a joint signatory, into shell entities and for his personal enrichment.

On the aforesaid ground it has been contended that in light of overwhelming evidence which would be evident from prosecution complaint, the petitioner’s claim of innocence is not only unsubstantiated but is a bald assertion directly contradicted by the record.

Further, the petitioner has failed to present any material or credible ground that would dismantle the case of the prosecution at this prima facie stage. Therefore, the first condition of Section 45 is not met. Consequently, the second condition-that he is not likely to commit any offence-also cannot be presumed, especially that the 9 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 offence was committed while he held a position of trust, therefore, the instant application, being barred by Section 45 of the PMLA, deserves to be dismissed at the threshold.

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

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.

It is evident that an ECIR was recorded on the basis of two predicate FIRs (FIR No. 46/2016 and FIR No. 15/2019) registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Jharkhand, disclosing a large-scale conspiracy involving the criminal misappropriation of public funds under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). It has been alleged that the investigation has unearthed a criminal conspiracy resulting in the embezzlement and laundering of public funds to the tune of Rs 9,39,87,952.29/-which were meant for crucial public health schemes under the NRHM.

It has further been alleged that the present Petitioner is the kingpin and prime conspirator of the said criminal syndicate, who, in collusion with the then Medical Officer In-charge (MOIC), Late Dr. Shashi Bhushan Prasad, responsible the generation, layering, and integration of the aforesaid proceeds of crime. 10 B.A. No.4732 of 2025

The present petitioner was arrested under Section 19 of the PMLA on 18.02.2025, thereafter the present petitioner had moved before the Spl. Judge PML Act Ranchi for bail but vide order dated 12.03.2025, the prayer for bail of the present petitioner has been rejected.

The Directorate of Enforcement, after investigation and collection of material evidence, has filed a Prosecution Complaint dated 03.04.2025 before the Special Court, PMLA, Ranchi against the present Petitioner and other co- accused persons, for commission of the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002, thereafter, the Hon’ble Court has taken cognizance of the said complaint on

16.07.2025.

This Court before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, deems it fit and proper to discuss herein some of the provision of law as contained under the PML Act, 2002 (Act 2002) with its object and intent as also the legal proposition as settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments.

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 11 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

It is evident that the Act 2002 was enacted in order to answer the urgent requirement to have a comprehensive legislation inter alia for preventing money-laundering, attachment of proceeds of crime, adjudication and confiscation thereof for combating money-laundering and also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

The objective of the PMLA is to prevent money laundering which has posed a serious threat not only to the financial systems of the country but also to its integrity and sovereignty. The offence of money laundering is a very serious offence which is committed by an individual with a deliberate desire and the motive to enhance his gains, disregarding the interest of the nation and the society as a whole, and such offence by no stretch of imagination can be regarded as an offence of trivial nature. The stringent provisions have been made in the Act to combat the menace of money laundering.

It needs to refer herein the definition of “proceeds of crime” as provided under Section 2(1)(u) of the Act, 2002 which reads as under:- “2(u) “proceeds of crime” means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a 12 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property 3[or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country] 4[or abroad]; [Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence;]”

It is evident from the aforesaid provision by which the “proceeds of crime” means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad.

In the explanation, it has been referred 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.

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 13 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 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.

Further, the “property” has been defined under Section 2(1)(v) which means any property or assets of every description, whether corporeal or incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible and includes deeds and instruments evidencing title to, or interest in, such property or assets, wherever located.

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.

The offence of money laundering has been defined under Section 3 of the Act, 2002 which reads as under:-

3. Offence of money-laundering.—Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly 14 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the [proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming] it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering. [Explanation.— For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that,— (i) a person shall be guilty of offence of money- laundering if such person is found to have directly or indirectly attempted to indulge or knowingly assisted or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in one or more of the following processes or activities connected with proceeds of crime, namely:— (a) concealment; or (b) possession; or (c) acquisition; or (d) use; or (e) projecting as untainted property; or (f) claiming as untainted property, in any manner whatsoever; (ii) the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.]

It is evident from the aforesaid provision that “offence of money-laundering” means whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering. 15 B.A. No.4732 of 2025

It is further evident that the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever.

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

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

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

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 16 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 "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.

So far as the purport of Section 45(1)(i)(ii) is concerned which is very much relevant herein, the aforesaid provision starts from the non-obstante clause that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no person accused of an offence under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless- (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Sub-section (2) thereof puts limitation on granting bail specific in sub-section (1) in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. 17 B.A. No.4732 of 2025

The explanation is also there as under sub-section (2) thereof which is for the purpose of removal of doubts, a clarification has been inserted that the expression "Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable" shall mean and shall be deemed to have always meant that all offences under this Act shall be cognizable offences and non-bailable offences notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and accordingly the officers authorised under this Act are empowered to arrest an accused without warrant, subject to the fulfilment of conditions under section 19 and subject to the conditions enshrined under this section

The fact about the implication of Section 45 has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) at paragraphs-285,286 and 412. For ready reference, the said paragraphs are being referred as under:- “285………….The provision post the 2018 Amendment, is in the nature of no bail in relation to the offence of money laundering unless the twin conditions are fulfilled. The twin conditions are that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of offence of money laundering and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

286. Considering the purposes and objects of the legislation in the form of the 2002 Act and the background in which it had been enacted owing to the commitment made to the international bodies and on their recommendations, it is plainly clear that it is a special legislation to deal with the subject of money laundering activities having transnational impact on the financial systems including sovereignty and 18 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 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 the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. In view of the gravity of fallout of money laundering activities having transnational impact, a special procedural law for prevention and regulation, including to prosecute the person involved, has been enacted, grouping the offenders involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime as a separate class from ordinary criminals. The offence of money laundering has been regarded as an aggravated form of crime “world over”. It is, therefore, a separate class of offence requiring effective and stringent measures to combat the menace of money laundering.

316. As a result, we have no hesitation in observing that in whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the constitutional court, the underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 of the 2002 Act must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of money laundering.”

Subsequently, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1486 by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra), it has been laid down that since the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory, they need to be complied with. The Court is 19 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

It has further been observed that as per the statutory presumption permitted under Section 24 of the Act, the Court or the Authority is entitled to presume unless the contrary is proved, that in any proceedings relating to proceeds of crime under the Act, in the case of a person charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3, such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. Such conditions enumerated in Section 45 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.

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. 20 B.A. No.4732 of 2025

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act), Government of India through Manoj Kumar, Assistant Director, Eastern Region, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 1 has been pleased to hold 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 CrPC shall apply insofar as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and Section 71 provides that the provisions of PMLA shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. PMLA has an overriding effect and the provisions of CrPC would apply only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.

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 CrPC/BNSS, coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money- laundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the petitioner. 21 B.A. No.4732 of 2025

It needs to refer herein that while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act 1967, the Hon’ble Apex Court recently in the case of Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr., reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 109, has observed the conventional in bail jurisprudence vis-(cid:224)-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase - ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception’ - unless circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act and the ‘exercise’ of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. For ready reference, relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred as under:

28. The conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis- (cid:224)-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase - ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception’ - unless circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act. The ‘exercise’ of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. The form of the words used in proviso to Section 43D (5)- ‘shall not be released’ in contrast with the form of the words as found in Section 437(1) CrPC - ‘may be released’ - suggests the intention of the Legislature to make bail, the exception and jail, the rule.

The reason for making reference of this judgment is that in the Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr., the UAPA has also been brought under the purview of category 22 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 ‘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.

Now coming to the grounds as has been raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, committed no offence whatsoever as alleged in the FIR and has been falsely implicated in this case due to some ulterior motive and even going through the entire ECIR there is no element available in order to prove the offences against the petitioner under Section 3 of PML Act 2002. Further the custody of petitioner since

19.02.2025 i.e. about six months has also been raised.

While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-E.D. has submitted that there is ample material surfaced based upon which, the prosecution report was submitted and hence, it cannot be said that there is no legal evidence. It has further been contended that it is settled proposition of law which has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the incarceration (herein about 06 month) or delay in trial 23 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 alone cannot be a ground to release the petitioner on bail, rather in case of special offences the seriousness of the matter and the societal impact should be taken into consideration by the Court concerned while enlarging the petitioner on bail.

This Court, in order to appreciate the rival submission, is of the view that various paragraphs of prosecution complaint need to be referred herein so as to come to the conclusion as to whether the parameter as fixed under Section 451(i)(ii) of the PML Act 2002 is being fulfilled in order to reach to the conclusion that it is a fit case where regular bail is to be granted or not. The relevant paragraphs of prosecution complaint are being referred as under:- “4.2 That another FIR bearing no. 15/2019 dated

26.08.2019 was registered by ACB, Dhanbad against Pramod Kumar for investigation of misappropriation of National Rural Health Mission funds and the role of persons posted at Primary Health, Centre (PHC), Jharia cum Jodapokhar, Civil Surgeon Dhanbad and staff posted there at. Analysis of the statements of savings bank accounts of PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar at Punjab National Bank (PNB) bearing numbers 0230000109221923 and 023000109233751 was done and it was found that in these two accounts, govt. fund of Rs. 11,28,27,111/ was transferred from District Health Society, Dhanbad between 01.03.2012 to 22.06.2016 and out of this total amount Rs. 6,97,43,832.29/- was misappropriated thereby causing huge loss to the government and corresponding gain to themselves.

8.1 MODUS OPERANDI ADOPTED BY THE ACCUSED PERSONS 24 B.A. No.4732 of 2025

8.11 It is revealed that Pramod Kumar Singh, Block Account Manager along with Late Shashi Bhushan Prasad, Medical Officer- In Charge were jointly authorized to withdraw and spend the NRHM funds. However, they misused their official position and misappropriated Rs. 6,97,43,832.29/- from two bank accounts having a/c 0230000109221923 and 0230000109233751 held at PNB in the name no of PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar, Dhanbad during 01.03.2012 to 22.06.2016 Pramod Kumar Singh in connivance with Shashi Bhushan Prasad (now deceased) transferred funds to the tunc of Rs. 6,97,43,832.29/- from aforesaid PNB Bank accounts to his bank accounts and also the accounts of his associates and his relatives.

8.1.2 During the course of investigation, the report of special audit conducted by team constituted by Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand respect of embezzlement of NRHM funds to the tune of Rs. 6.97 crores (as revealed from FIR No. 15/2019 dated

26.08.2019) through aforesaid two bank accounts having no 0230000109221923 and 0230000109233751 held at PNB in the name of PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar, Dhanbad during 01.03.2012 to 22.06.2016 by Pramod Kumar Singh, the then Block Account Manager in connivance with Shashi Bhushan Prasad (now deceased) was obtained the National Health Mission, Jharkhand under section 54 of PMLA. The report was provided vide letter dated 24.04.2024. This audit report revealed that during the said period as mentioned in the FIR no 15/2019, Shashi Bhushan Prasad (now deceased) and Pramod Kumar Singh were jointly authorized signatory in the aforesaid PNB accounts to withdraw the NRHM funds for various expenditures on programmes under NRHM scheme. However, they spent funds on miscellaneous expenditures including illegal direct debit transfers to the bank accounts of Pramod Kumar Singh, his relatives and his associates and payments against illegal procurement such as of Plywood, marble IRCTC, 25 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 cement, woods, mobile company ete which were not related to the heads of NRHM.---

8.13 During the course of investigation, it was revealed that Pramod Kumar Singh got his mobile number registered in the said two bank accounts of PNB held in the name of PHC, Jharia Cum Jodapokhar and got access to internet banking facilities, which was not allowed under the NRHM Guidelines. Pramod Kumar Singh and Shashi Bhushan Prasad (now deceased) were jointly authorized to withdraw the funds from the bank accounts held in the name of PHC during the period of posting of Pramod Kumar Singh i.e. 2008 to 2016. Pramod Kumar Singh used to withdraw cash from the bank accounts of PHC, Jharia/PHC Management Society through cheques jointly signed by him and Shashi Bhushan Prasad (now deceased) He also used to directly transfer money in an unauthorized manner directly through banking channel from the said bank accounts to his family members and associates. It is also revealed that Pramod Kumar Singh authorized office employees Sannu Kumar Singh and Basant Ram to withdraw funds from the aforesaid bank accounts through bearer cheques. After withdrawal of funds, Basant Ram and Sannu Kumar Singh used to handover cash either to Pramod Kumar Singh or Shashi Bhushan Prasad (now deceased) as instructed by Pramod Kumar Singh. The associates to whom the money embezzled from the bank accounts of PHC, Jharia was transferred were also instructed by him to handover the cash on withdrawal or make payments to the vendors/parties on behalf of him

8.1.4 During the course of investigation, the same modus operandi in the embezzlement of funds by Pramod Kumar Singh in connivance with Shashi Bhushan Prasad (now deceased) from another bank account of PHC Management Society, Jodapokhar maintained with State Bank of India was also detected Through the similar modus operandi, Pramod Kumar Singh in connivance with Shashi Bhushan Prasad (now deceased) embezzled a total amount of Rs. 2,42,44,120/- from the bank account 26 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 по. 30871450998 maintained with State Bank of India in the name of PHC Management Society.

8.1.5 Investigation under PMLA revealed that Pramod Kumar Singh being Block Account Manager during his posting at PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar amassed huge wealth in the name of his relatives, associates and in the name of himself despite being a low salary employee on contractual basis.

8.2.2 During analysis of bank accounts bearing no. 0230000109221923 and 0230000109233751 held in the name of PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar, Dhanbad with Punjab National Bank, it is revealed that Pramod Singh in connivance with Shashi Bhushan Prasad (now deceased) used these bank accounts for embezzlement of NRHM funds through his associates, relatives and through his own bank account. Further, Pramod Kumar Singh also transferred funds to some vendors for procurement of goods.

8.2.4 Upon analysis of a/c no. 30871450998 held at SBI in the name of PHC Management Society, Jodapokhar, it is revealed that during the period 04.12.2009 to

22.01.2013, total amount of Rs. 2,42,44,120/- was also found to be illegally withdrawn by Pramod Kumar Singh and his associates through either cheque withdrawals or direct debit transfers.

8.2.5 In view of the facts discussed in the aforesaid paragraphs, clearly established that Rs. 6,97,43,832.29/- was misappropriated through two PNB accounts having no. 0230000109221923 0230000109233751 held in the name of PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar, Dhanbad during 01.03.2012

22.06.2016. This amount constitutes PoC generated from commission of scheduled offences. Additionally, Rs. 2,42,44,120/- was also misappropriated through another bank account having no 30871450998 held at SBI in the name of PHC Management Society, Jodapokhar during the period 04 12.2009 to 22.01.2013 by Pramod Kumar Singh, the then Block Account Manager, PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar in connivance with Shashi Bhushan Prasad (now deceased), the then MOIC. This amount also 27 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 constitutes PoC as it was directly derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to scheduled offences. Hence, total proceeds of crime in terms of section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, 2002 comes at Rs. 9,39,87,952 29/- in this case. The PoC was utilized to acquire the movable and immovable properties in the name of Pramod Kumar Singh, his associates and his relatives with an intent to project them as untainted.

Specific Role of Pramod Kumar Singh : Accused No. I was posted as Block Account Manager at PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar, Dhanbad during 2008- 2016 on contractual basis. He joined PHC, Jharia at the post of Block Account Manager with a monthly salary of Rs. 17,000/-. During the period, Accused and Late Shashi Bhushan Prasad, the then Medical Officer-In- Charge were jointly authorized to withdraw and spend the NRHM funds from the bank accounts having a/c no. 30871450998 at SBI in the name of PHC Management Society, Jodapokhar and a/c no. 0230000109221923 and 0230000109233751 held at PNB in the name of PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar, Dhanbad. They were also authorized signatories in the aforesaid bank accounts. NRHM funds were transferred to the said bank accounts from District Health Society, Dhanbad implementation of various programmes i.e. MMJSY, Routine Immunization, Child Health Activities, Pulse Polio, Anemia Reduction, Sahiya Training, consolidated salary payments of employees, etc.

However, Pramod Singh in connivance with Late Shashi Bhushan Prasad misused the official position and embezzled NRHM funds to the tune of Rs. 9,39,87,952.29/ as a result of criminal activity and related to scheduled offences Accused no. 1 and late Shashi Bhushan Prasad are ➤ directly involved in the generation of Proceeds of Crime by misusing their official positions at PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar Accused no. I acquired Proceeds of Crime to the tune ➤ of Rs. 3.95 Crores directly in his bank accounts maintained with Punjab National Bank and State Bank of 28 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 India, from the bank accounts of PHC Jaria cum Jodapokhar Accused no. 1 in capacity of Block Account Manager, ➤ PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar, transferred Rs. 10,00,000/- from the bank account of PHC Management Society through cheque bearing no. 472268 to the bank account of his wife i.e. Priya Singh (accused no. 2) on

02.06.2012 which was further transferred to the bank account of M/s Sahyogi Properties Pvt. Ltd. on

24.04.2012 in lieu of the purchase of a piece of land situated at Sabalpur, Sahyogi Nagar. During the investigation, the statements of Priya Singh and Pramod Singh were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 on 13.06.2024 and 14.06.2024 wherein they inter alia claimed that Rs. 10 lakhs which were paid Bhuwaneshwar Yadav (director of Sahyogi Properties Pvt. Ltd.) for land were sourced by Late Krishna Devi (Mother of accused no. 2). Hence, Pramod Kumar Singh could not discharge the burden of proof u/s 24 of the PMLA, 2002 and is an accused u/s 3 of the PMLA, 2002 for his active involvement in the process and activity connected to the proceeds of crime. Therefore, he is liable to be punished u/s 4 of the PMLA, 2002. Being a low salaried employee, accused no. 1 acquired movable and immovable properties in the name of his wife Smt. Priya Singh (Accused no. 2), his mother Smt. Ramapati Devi as well as in the name of his associates namely Arun Kumar Singh and Bijay Kumar Singh with an intent to project them as untainted. Accused no. I was using the bank accounts and respective ATM cards of Ashwini Kumar Sharma, Arun Kumar Singh and Bijay Kumar Singh for the purpose of acquisition, concealment, use and projection of Proceeds of Crime as untainted. Accused no. 1 in connivance with Shashi Bhushan ➤ Prasad acquired Proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 9,39,87,952.29/. Out of PoC Rs. 9,39,87,952 29/-, the accused handled the PoC of Rs. 4,45,06,962.69/ by way of concealment through transfer of funds by deposits into the bank accounts of himself and his family members and his associates and direct cash withdrawals from the 29 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 bank accounts of PHC by virtue of investments and acquisitions of both movable and immovable properties and project them as untainted. The Accused No. 1 is knowingly and directly indulged himself in the process or activity of money laundering.

It has come on record that the present proceeding arise out of ECIR No. RNZO/13/2021 dated 27.10.2021, which was registered by the Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi Zonal Office, under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), based on two predicate FIRs (1) FIR No. 46/2016 dated 08.06.2016 registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Ranchi, and (ii) FIR No. 15/2019 dated 26.08.2019 registered by ACB, Dhanbad. The said FIRs alleged the commission of scheduled offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(a) read with 13(2) 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 120B, 420, 467, 471, 406, 409, and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which are scheduled offences under Section 2(1)(y) of the PMLA.

Further, Investigation revealed petitioner was employed as a Block Account Manager (BAM) at Primary Health Centre (PHC), Jharia cum Jodapokhar, Dhanbad, on a contractual basis during the relevant period and was a joint signatory for the official bank accounts of the primary health Centre (PHC). It has been alleged that during the course of his employment, the petitioner, in conspiracy with late Dr. Shashi Bhushan Prasad, the then 30 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 Medical Officer-in-Charge (MOIC) of the said PHC, misappropriated large sums of government money meant for National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) schemes.

The preliminary investigation conducted by ACB, Ranchi, FIR No. 46/2016 was registered after it was revealed that the petitioner had amassed properties disproportionate to his known sources of income in his name and also in the names of his wife and associates.

Further, it has come on record that on the basis of FIR No.15/2019 registered by ACB Dhanbad detailed investigation was initiated regarding large-scale embezzlement of funds from the government account maintained at PHC Jharia cum Jodapokhar, which received transfers from the District Health Society, Dhanbad. It was revealed that two bank accounts (Nos. 023000010221923 and 023/4000109233751) in the name of PHC, Jharia cum Jodapokhar, maintained with Punjab National Bank, were jointly operated by Pramod Kumar Singh and late Shashi Bhushan Prasad between 01.03.2012 and 22.06.2016, these accounts received a total sum of Rs.11,28,27,111. Out of this, a sum of Rs.26.97.43.832.29 was fraudulently siphoned off through direct transfers to accounts of family members and associates, procurement from vendors unrelated to any official purposes, and personal expenses such as travel and purchase. 31 B.A. No.4732 of 2025

It has also come during investigation that a separate account in the name of PHC Management Society, Jodapokhar maintained with State Bank of India was similarly misused. This account was operated during the period 04.12.2009 to 22.01.2013, dung which an amount of 2,42,44,120 was misappropriated using bearer cheques, direct debt transfers, and cash Withdrawal and other associates, namely Basant Ram and Sannu Kumar Singh, were instrumental in this process and routinely withdrew large sums through bearer cheques, which were subsequently handed over to the Petitioner/accused. Statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA from these individuals corroborate this modus operandi.

It has come on record that the Directorate of Enforcement conducted search and seizure operations under Section 17 of the PMLA on 04.07.2024 and

19.09.2024 at multiple locations, including the residential premises of Pramod Kumar Singh (petitioner herein), Smt. Priya Singh, and their associates. During these operations, the Directorate seized cash amounting to 22.17 lakhs from the petitioner’s residence, vehicles (including the luxury cars), documents, diaries, and multiple mobile phones.

It has come on record that the Directorate also issued multiple summonses under Section 50 of PMLA to the Petitioner/accused for recording of his statement under Section 50 of the PMLA. Despite being served with thirteen 32 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 (13) such summonses between 2023 and 2025, the Petitioner/accused appeared on only one occasion (13.06.2024 and 14.06.2024). The Petitioner/accused finally appeared before the Directorate on 17.02.2025 and was subsequently arrested under Section 19 of PMLA on

18.02.2025.

Thereafter, Enforcement Prosecution Directorate Complaint under Section 45 read with Section 44 of PMLA, 2002, on 03.04.2025 before the Special Judge (CBI)-cum-Special Judge under PMLA, Ranchi, against Petitioner and other accused including wife of the petitioner namely Priya Singh and consequently cognizance of the offence of money laundering under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of PMLA, 2002 has been taken by the Spl. Judge PML Act, on 16.07.2025.

It is revealed during investigation that the Petitioner blatantly violated the public trust by engaging systematic, large-scale misappropriation of public funds in connivance with late Dr. Shashi Bhushan Prasad, the then Medical Officer-in-Charge PHC. The Petitioner/accused was joint signatory the bank accounts operated in the name of PHC Jharia cum Jodapokhar and was thereby directly and authoritatively positioned to execute unauthorised financial transactions, bypassing official scrutiny. The transactions in this account further substantiate the pre-meditated and habitual nature 33 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 of the money laundering operation spearheaded by the Petitioner/accused.

The Petitioner/accused further facilitated access to these accounts by linking his personal mobile number to the internet banking facility of the PHCs official accounts, in contravention of NRHM Guidelines, thereby enabling unauthorised control over e-transactors. It has further come that the petitioner personally coordinated the issuance of bearer cheques, initiated direct debits, and even transferred money to vendors like M/s Dhanbad Plywood, M/s Fine Marble. M/s Bharti Cement Store and others, with whom he had no officially sanctioned procurement relationship. He used these transactions as a mechanism to integrate, layer, and project illicitly diverted funds as ostensibly legitimate expenditure under government health schemes.

Thus, the material collected during investigation including detailed bank analysis, audit reports, and voluntary statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA collectively indicates that the Petitioner/accused, in criminal conspiracy with others, knowingly indulged in the concealment, possession, acquisition and projection of proceeds of crime, thereby committing the offence of money laundering.

It has also come on record that the accounts of other associates were used as conduits for channelizing 34 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 proceeds of Crime and in investigation statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA from several such individuals has brought on record, confirming that they acted on instructions of Pramod Kumar Singh (petitioner herein) and these witnesses have also confirmed that they either handed over the cash or facilitated transactions for or on behalf of the Petitioner/accused.

Thus, it is evident from the record that the proceeds so misappropriated were then used to acquire substantial movable and immovable properties, and these properties were found to be in exclusive possession and enjoyment of Pramod Kumar Singh and his family, despite the ostensible ownership being in the name of others, thereby indicating clear intention to conceal and project tainted assets as untainted.

It is evident from the prosecution complaint that during searches conducted under Section 17 of PMLA on

04.07.2024, cash amounting to 22.17 lakhs was seized from the premises of the Petitioner/accused, along with loose sheets indicating benami ownership structures, handwritten ledgers, diaries, cheque books, and bank statements.

Further it appears from record that petitioner had failed to provide any cogent explanation, documentary proof, or justification as to the source of funds used for acquiring various assets thus, the Petitioner/accused has 35 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 failed to discharge the statutory burden under Section 24 of PMLA.

Further from statements of Basant Ram and Sannu Kumar Singh recorded under Section 50 of PMLA indicates that they made large cash withdrawals on the petitioner’s instructions and handed over the cash to him personally.

It needs to refer herein that the three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46 has held that the statements of witnesses recorded by Prosecution- ED are admissible in evidence, in view of Section 50. Such statements may make out a formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence of money laundering.

In the instant case, it has been found during the course of investigation from the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 50 of the P.M.L.A that the petitioner had directly indulged, knowingly as the party and is actually involved in all the activities connected with the offence of money laundering, i.e., use or acquisition, possession, concealment, and projecting or claiming as untainted property.

Thus, from various paragraph of the ECIR prima facie it appears that the Petitioner/accused Pramod Kumar Singh has role in deep-rooted financial manipulation, concealment, layering, and projection of proceeds of crime 36 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 as untainted and further he has actively conspired, and abetted the offence of money laundering, Thus, it appears that the petitioner was the central figure who orchestrated and benefited from the laundering of public money.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge sheets have not been filed in the predicate offences therefore the prayer for bail of the petitioner should be allowed.

But the contention of the learned counsel appears to be misplaced reason being that it is settled proposition of law that the offence of money Laundering is independent of the scheduled offence, particularly in matters related to the proceeds of crime.

It is evident that as per Section 3, there are six processes or activities identified therein. They are, (i) concealment; (ii) possession; (iii) acquisition; (iv) use; (v) projecting as untainted property; and (vi) claiming as untainted property. Even if a person does not retain the money generated as proceeds of crime but “uses” it, he will be guilty of the offence of money-laundering, since “use” is one of the six activities mentioned in Section 3.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (supra) while interpreting the scheme of the PMLA, has categorically held that although the offence of money laundering is linked to the commission of a scheduled offence (i.e., it is triggered by 37 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 the generation of "proceeds of crime" arising out of a scheduled offence), the offence under Section 3 is distinct, independent, and standalone in its composition and penal consequences.

It needs to refer herein that once the proceeds of crime are established and it is shown that the accused has knowingly indulged in, or is knowingly involved in, the process or activity relating to such property, the offence of money laundering under Section 3 stands independently and does not depend on the outcome or pendency of proceedings in the predicate offence. Therefore, the petitioner’s argument regarding the status of the predicate FIRs is legally not sustainable.

Further, the burden of proof is on the Petitioner until the contrary is proved, the same is observed in various judicial pronouncements and upheld in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra). Further in Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement, (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that the provisions of section 24 of the PMLA provide that unless the contrary is proved, the authority or the Court shall presume that proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering and the burden to prove that the proceeds of crime are not involved, lies on the appellant.

Further, the offence of money laundering as contemplated in Section 3 of the PMLA has been elaborately 38 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 dealt with by the three Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), in which it has been observed that Section 3 has a wider reach. The offence as defined captures every process and activity in dealing with the proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly, and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy to constitute an act of laundering. Of course, the authority of the Authorised Officer under the Act to prosecute any person for the offence of money laundering gets triggered only if there exist proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of the Act and further it is involved in any process or activity.

So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 is concerned, as has been referred hereinabove, at paragraph 412 of the judgment rendered in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra), it has been held therein by making observation that whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or 439 for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special 39 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of money-laundering.

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

Further, evident judicial pronouncement as discussed above that in order to constitute any property as proceeds of crime, it must be derived or obtained directly or indirectly by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. The explanation clarifies that the proceeds of crime include property, not only derived or obtained from scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence. Clause (u) also clarifies that even the value of any such property will also be the proceeds of crime and in the instant case from perusal of paragraph of the prosecution complaint it is evident that the petitioner is not only involved rather his involvement is direct in procuring the proceeds of crime by way of connivance with the other accused persons. 40 B.A. No.4732 of 2025

Thus, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire ECIR will be taken into consideration, no offence will be said to be committed so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 3 & 4 of the P.M.L. Act, 2002, is totally misplaced in the light of accusation as mentioned in prosecution complaint.

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 period incarceration (herein about 06 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.

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.

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. 41 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 has observed that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail, for ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:

46. As already discussed, the material available on record indicates the involvement of the appellant in furtherance of terrorist activities backed by members of banned terrorist organisation involving exchange large quantum of money through different channels which needs to be deciphered and therefore in such a scenario if the appellant is released on bail there is every likelihood that he will influence the key witnesses of the case which might hamper the process of justice. Therefore, mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail. Hence, the aforesaid argument on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted.”

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.

Admittedly, the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 19.02.2025 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 42 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 the offence, the seriousness of allegations or the statutory twin conditions under Section 45 of the Act 2002.

Similarly, in Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 6 SCC 715, the Hon’ble Apex Court refused bail despite protracted proceedings, noting that the complexity inherent in economic offences.

Further, it is also pertinent to note herein that delays frequently arise from procedural applications and litigations pursued by accused themselves. Thus, given the grave nature of the allegations, the sophisticated modus operandi employed to project tainted property as untainted, and the strict statutory framework governing bail under the PMLA, no ground exists for the petitioner to claim the benefit of bail either on merits or on account of delay.

It requires to refer herein the Money Laundering is an economic offence and economic offences come under the grave offences, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Y. S Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. C. B. I., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:

34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deeprooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

43 B.A. No.4732 of 2025

Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Nimgadda Prasad Vs. C.B.I., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466 has reiterated the same view in paragraph-23 to 25, which reads as under: “23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country’s economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal [(1987) 2 SCC 364 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 364] this Court, while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing additional evidence, inter alia, observed as under: (SCC p. 371, para 5)

5. … The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white-collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest.

24. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” 44 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy itself as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deeprooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.”

It is, thus, evident from the discussion made hereinabove that so far as the case of the present petitioner is concerned, the twin condition as provided under Section 45(1) of the Act, 2002 is not being fulfilled so as to grant the privilege of bail to the present petitioner.

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

The material on record, prima facie, indicates that the petitioner knowingly and intentionally participated in the processes and activities connected with concealment, possession, acquisition, and use of proceeds 45 B.A. No.4732 of 2025 of crime, thereby satisfying all ingredients of the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA.

Further the rigours of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 squarely apply to the present case and the Petitioner has failed to satisfy the twin conditions required for grant of bail. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, facts brought on record, and material unearthed during the course of investigation, the present application for bail is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, based upon the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the instant application is fit to be dismissed and as such, stands dismissed.

The observation/finding, as recorded hereinabove, is only for the purpose of consideration of issue of bail. The same will not prejudice the issue on merit in course of trial.

Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Saurabh/A.F.R. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) 46 B.A. No.4732 of 2025