G. T. DINESH KUMAR v. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT

(iv) That the Former Commissioner of MUDA Sri D.B.Natesh has had the summons in proceedings under PMLA quashed as per the order dated 27.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.32956/2024 [GM-RES]; (v) That the proceedings against others stated to have been involved in money laundering have been stayed by orders passed in petitions filed challenging the - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR summons issued (details of the proceedings mentioned at para-24 of the memorandum of petition); (vi) That there have been procedural lapses during the procedure of arrest; (vii) That the petitioner has co-operated with the investigation by appearing on relevant dates; (viii) That the Tripod Test for grant of bail was satisfied; (ix) That the petitioner has been continuing under prolonged incarceration and there is no further necessity of continuing him in incarceration after Final Report is filed; (x) That the petitioner has been singled out, while the other alleged co-accused have not been arrested; (xi) That there is a possibility of delayed trial, as investigation is pending in respect of the predicate offence though FIR was registered on 27.09.2024; - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR (xii) That there has been no incriminatory material seized from the petitioner during search. (xiii) Though the predicate offence that was made out consequent to FIR lodged pursuant to PCR was as regards body of offenders, including petitioner's relatives, real estate agents, and private persons, however, the Prosecution Complaint was filed only vis-à-vis petitioner solely with the view to prevent the petitioner from obtaining default bail. (xiv) A contention was also raised that the petitioner was entitled for bail on medical grounds.

The respondent - 'ED', on the other hand, has taken a stand contending that the proceedings under PMLA are not necessarily tied to the predicate offence, that once an FIR is registered, the proceedings under PMLA can continue. It is contended that unless the conditions mentioned by the Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal - 11 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and Others1 [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary] are satisfied, viz., where there is acquittal on merits after trial as regards the predicate offence, when the person accused of the predicate offence is absolved from the allegations on merits, when it is established through evidence that the property in question was rightfully owned by the person and was not derived from any criminal activity and only under such enumerated circumstances it could be said that the proceedings under PMLA would come to a close. Such conditions, it is submitted, are not found in the present case.

The respondent - 'ED' has further contended that there is substantial evidence in establishing the involvement of accused, that the grounds of arrest and reasons to believe are detailed and sufficient, that in light of the statutory presumption under Section 24 of PMLA and the mandatory twin conditions under Section 45 of 1(2023) 12 SCC 1 - 12 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR PMLA, no grounds are made out to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

It is also contended that no grounds are made out for enlarging the petitioner on default bail on the ground of incomplete chargesheet and once a Final Report has been filed in the form of Prosecution Complaint (in the present case, complaint is to be taken as referring to chargesheet), the right of claiming default bail does not arise.

Various other contentions have also been raised, including that the findings of Special Court on the bail application are detailed and that the Economic Offences warrant a differential approach in case of bail. [II] TWIN CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF BAIL UNDER SECTION 45 OF THE PMLA :-

While the statutory mandate of Section 45 of PMLA lays down two essential requirements to be fulfilled for grant of bail which are referred to as twin conditions, viz., (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the - 13 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR accused is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) accused is not likely to commit an offence while on bail. However, such requirement must not be taken to require findings to be recorded based upon the burden of proof which is of a higher requirement, i.e. as may be required in the case of judgment of conviction.

The observations made in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) would be of relevance in the present context. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision is extracted hereinbelow:- "288. The successive decisions of this Court dealing with analogous provision have stated that the court at the stage of considering the application for grant of bail, is expected to consider the question from the angle as to whether the accused was possessed of the requisite mens rea. The court is not required to record a positive finding that the accused had not committed an offence under the Act. The court ought to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial. The duty of the court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. - 14 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR Further, the court is required to record a finding as to the possibility of the accused committing a crime which is an offence under the Act after grant of bail.

It is important to note that the twin conditions provided under Section 45 of the 2002 Act, though restrict the right of the accused to grant of bail, but it cannot be said that the conditions provided under Section 45 impose absolute restraint on the grant of bail. The discretion vests in the court which is not arbitrary or irrational but judicial, guided by the principles of law as provided under Section 45 of the 2002 Act. While dealing with a similar provision prescribing twin conditions in MCOCA, this Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma2, held as under : (SCC pp. 318-19, paras 44-46) “44. The wording of Section 21(4), in our opinion, does not lead to the conclusion that the court must arrive at a positive finding that the applicant for bail has not committed an offence under the Act. If such a construction is placed, the court intending to grant bail must arrive at a finding that the applicant has not committed such an offence. In such an event, it will be impossible for the prosecution to obtain a judgment of conviction of the applicant. Such cannot intention 2(2005) 5 SCC 294 - 15 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR legislature. Section 21(4) of MCOCA, therefore, must be construed reasonably. It must be so construed that the court is able to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial. Similarly, the court will be required to record a finding as to the possibility of his committing a crime after grant of bail. However, such an offence in futuro must be an offence under the Act and not any other offence. Since it is difficult to predict the future conduct of an accused, the court must necessarily consider this aspect of the matter having regard to the antecedents of the accused, his propensities and the nature and manner in which he is alleged to have committed the offence.

It is, furthermore, trite that for the purpose of considering an application for grant of bail, although detailed reasons are not necessary to be assigned, the order granting bail must demonstrate application of mind at least in serious cases as to why the applicant has been granted or denied the privilege of bail.

The duty of the court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. - 16 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR However, while dealing with a special statute like MCOCA having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, the court may have to probe into the matter deeper so as to enable it to arrive at a finding that the materials collected against the accused during the investigation may not justify a judgment of conviction. The findings recorded by the court while granting or refusing bail undoubtedly would be tentative in nature, which may not have any bearing on the merit of the case and the trial court would, thus, be free to decide the case on the basis of evidence adduced at the trial, without in any manner being prejudiced thereby.” (emphasis supplied)

We are in agreement with the observation made by the Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma3. The Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the court based on available material on record is required. The court will not weigh the evidence to find the guilt of the accused which is, of course, the work of the trial court. The court is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material 3Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra - (2005) 5 SCC 294 - 17 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR collected during investigation and the said view will not be taken into consideration by the trial court in recording its finding of the guilt or acquittal during trial which is based on the evidence adduced during the trial. As explained by this Court in Nimmagadda Prasad4, the words used in Section 45 of the 2002 Act are “reasonable grounds for believing” which means the court has to see only if there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. "

Accordingly, it is clear that the Court while considering grant of bail on the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA is to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities, while being fully conscious that the stage at which such findings are being made is on the basis of pre-trial stage investigation records and pleadings. It is also a settled position that such findings required to be made while referring to the twin tests of Section 45 of PMLA would be tentative and would not 4Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 - 18 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR prejudice the conclusive findings still to be arrived at after trial.

The nature of such findings in a factual matrix is best elucidated by referring to the findings on prima facie case vis-à-vis twin tests of Section 45 of PMLA in the case of Manish Sisodia-1 (supra) at paras-24 to 28 which would demonstrate the manner in which the Court had recorded findings as regards Section 45 of PMLA in the particular factual context.

The Prosecution Complaint is detailed and makes out a case against the petitioner herein. As regards prima facie case made out regarding the money laundering offence under Section 3 of PMLA, investigation is stated to have revealed the following:- (i) The illegal allotment of sites in the guise of allotment of sites in lieu of compensation made to the ineligible beneficiaries; - 19 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR (ii) Such allotment was made on the basis of false facts, forgery, cheating and use of undue influence; (iii) The illegally allotted sites constitute the proceeds of crime; (iv) Such proceeds layered/routed through Power of Attorney, Sale Deeds to obfuscate the true nature of proceeds of crime; (v) The criminal activities associated with the scheduled offence included gratification/bribe obtained by accused persons for making the illegal allotment; (vi) Charts are enclosed evidencing manner of commission of offences;

A reference is made to the illegal allotment of 48 sites in favour of Chamundeshwari Nagara Sarvodaya Sangha, all of which were made by G.T.Dinesh Kumar, the petitioner herein (See para-11.7 Prosecution Complaint). - 20 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR

It is stated that when G.T. Dinesh Kumar was confronted regarding such illegalities during custody, he has admitted that Government of Karnataka did not grant any permission to allot sites to the said Chamundeshwari Nagara Sarvodaya Sangha though MUDA had requested. It is specifically observed that he has not provided any "plausible answers to the fact that 03 out of 48 sites allotted in the case has been obtained by his relatives through Sale Agreements without paying any money and also the fact that huge sums of money were received by his relatives from Sri N. Manjunath, who is a major beneficiary of illegal allotment in this case. " (See para-

11.7(d) of Prosecution Complaint).

It is specifically recorded in the Prosecution Complaint that the allotment of sites to the aforesaid Chamundeshwari Nagara Sarvodaya Sangha have been obtained through GPA by real estate businessman Sri N. Manjunath and one of the allottees of site No.65 Smt.J.S.Sunanda Devi had submitted to the adjudicating - 21 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR authority that the site was obtained by Sri N. Manjunath under undue pressure [see para-11.7(f) of Prosecution Complaint].

It is narrated that, there is a specific finding the sites allotted to Chamundeshwari Nagara Sarvodaya Sangha have been transferred to the close relatives and associates of the petitioner, G.T.Dinesh Kumar through Sale Agreements and the details are provided at para-11.7(i) of the Prosecution Complaint and the further assertion that the amount for such Agreement was paid by Sri N. Manjunath is evidenced by the Bank payments by way of Demand Draft [see para-11.7(j) of the Prosecution Complaint].

It is also stated that the said Sri N. Manjunath in his statement under Section 50 of PMLA has not given any explanation for such payments made. - 22 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR

It is made out that huge payments have been made to the relatives of G.T. Dinesh Kumar by N. Manjunath including to maternal grandfather of wife of G.T. Dinesh Kumar, brother of mother-in-law of G.T. Dinesh Kumar, maternal grandmother of wife of G.T. Dinesh Kumar and sister of mother-in-law of G.T. Dinesh Kumar and no explanation has been made as regards such payments.

Such details referred to above would make out an offence of money laundering in terms of the ingredients of the offence. The Flow Chart reflecting generation, layering, routing and integration of proceeds of crime at para-11.1 of the Prosecution Complaint is self-explanatory, which is extracted as below:- HC-KAR Criminal activities Scheduled Offence Proceeds Crime. associated with for generation of - 23 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 Illegal allotment of Sites in the form of compensation in ineligible cases by officers and officials of MUDA in collusion estate businessmen/Influential persons/private persons. Layering/routing of Proceeds of Crime Transfer of sites through General Attorney/Sale Power Deeds/Gift Agreement/Sale Deeds/Settlement Deeds Possession and use of Proceeds of Crime Possession and use of allotted MUDA sites. illegally Projection or claiming as untainted property. Sale of the sites and projecting the profits as income or projecting the sites as untainted i.e. compensation received from MUDA.

On similar lines, it is stated that offence has been made out in the case of Chamundeshwari Nagara Sarvodaya Sangha. A reference is also made to the illegal allotments to Cathedral Parish Society, JSS MVP Employees House Building Co-operative Society (EHBCS), Smt. Neelamma and Others, K. Chandra, R. Jayamma, and A. Papanna. The Prosecution Complaint contains the - 24 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR details as regards each of the said illegal allotment made and includes the aspect of proceeds of crime, undue gratification, payments made to relatives illustrated by appropriate Flow Charts and tabular depictions.

Para-13 of the Prosecution Complaint discusses the specific role of G.T.Dinesh Kumar, the petitioner herein as regards the offence of money laundering as also the aspect of proceeds of crime, there is a detailed table explaining the alleged proceeds of crime pursuant to illegal allotments made, which is extracted below:- PAO No. No. of Sites Value 17.01.2025 09.06.2025 04.10.2025 160 Rs.81.91 Crores 92 31 Rs.36.29 Crores Rs.20.60 Crores

The further details of proceeds of crime are detailed in para-13 of the Prosecution Complaint and the Table illustrating the same is extracted below:- - 25 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PoC obtained in the case Cash collected Value of Poc (in Rs.) 34,65,000 Misuse of high security bond papers 8,28,80,000 Members of Chamundeshwari Nagara Sarvodaya Sangha 5,86,80,000 Shri Abdul Waheed Cathedral Parish Society 3,62,20,000 1,70,00,000 Smt. Ningamma Hinkal Village) JSS MVP EHBCS (Sy.No.157/1 1,13,30,000 1,02,74,000 Smt. Ningamma (incentive allotment) 49,00,000 Total 22,47,49,000

The petitioner has however not specifically adverted to the factual contents of the Prosecution Complaint, while contending the Prosecution Complaint itself was filed during the pendency of the present proceedings. However, filing of Prosecution Complaint is an aspect that needs to be adverted to and taken note of, though filed subsequent to - 26 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR the petition. The Prosecution Complaint crystallises the stand of the Prosecution. [III] OTHER CONTENTIONS:-

As regards other contentions, the same are dealt with infra. As regards the contention relating to the proceedings under PMLA having overshot by investigation of the predicate offence, it could be stated that the legal requirement of a First Information Report would be sufficient for the progress of proceedings under PMLA. The proceedings under PMLA would fail only if the proceedings relating to the predicate offence vis-à-vis the accused has resulted in discharge/acquittal or quashment of the predicate offence as against the accused. In the absence of such termination of such proceedings of the predicate offence, it could be stated that there is no bar for continuance of the proceedings under PMLA.

It would also be necessary to notice that the present proceedings being limited to grant of bail, the - 27 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR finding regarding prima facie case as regards the offence of money laundering cannot result in conversion of present petition to one under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. / Section 528 of BNSS or petition to discharge and accordingly, a detailed consideration of the ingredients of the offence of laundering, including adjudication relating to criminal activity in relation to scheduled offence need not be entertained.

Insofar as the contention that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity, it must be noticed that the orders relied on by the petitioner are the orders passed in exercise of Section 482 of Cr.P.C. quashing the summons and proceedings. The ground of parity must rest on bail to a co-accused and cannot be permissible to take note of the orders passed quashing the proceedings against other co-accused.

The mere stay of proceedings against other accused would be no ground to seek for enlargement of bail and considerations for enlargement of bail are distinct. - 28 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR

At this stage of pre-trial proceedings looking into the detailed narration made regarding the offence of laundering, criminal activity relation scheduled offence, proceeds of crime, the Court is not in a position to record a finding that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of such offence. Though various contentions have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for accused, suffice it to state that the contents of Prosecution Complaint could not permit negativing the prima facie role of the petitioner in the commission of offence. [IV] LEGALITY REGARDING PROCEDURE FOLLOWED DURING ARREST:-

The petitioner has also raised contentions regarding the validity of arrest on various grounds and had submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. - 29 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR

The identical contentions raised before the trial Court has been rejected by a well reasoned order and relevant findings are made at paras-13 to 25 of the order rejecting bail. No doubt, the present proceedings are in the nature of concurrent jurisdiction requiring fresh consideration. However, the elaborate discussion and sound reasoning appeals to the Court and this Court is in broad agreement with the observations made.

As regards the contention that the satisfaction of the Officer that he has reasons to believe that the accused is guilty of an offence punishable under the Act and only there upon power of arrest could be exercised, the trial Court after having perused the records has stated that the remand application and grounds of arrest when perused would make out a case for exercise of power of arrest. This Court has no reason to disagree with such finding and endorses such conclusion. - 30 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR

The trial Court has also recorded a finding after consideration that grounds of arrest are communicated, that reasons for arrest are also communicated.

Further, the trial Court at para-21 has referred to the grounds of arrest and in para-22 regarding reasons to believe. A finding has been recorded as regards non- circumvention of Section 19 of PMLA.

The remand applications are detailed and record that grounds of arrest have been communicated and acknowledged by him.

At paragraphs-14 to 18 of the order of the trial Court, there is detailed analysis of adherence to the factual guidelines of Apex Court in D.K. Basu v. State of W.B.5 and such factual finding also requires endorsement and petitioner has failed to make out a case for a divergent view. 5 (1997) 1 SCC 416 - 31 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR [V] DEFAULT BAIL:-

The petitioner has filed an application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. [Section 187(3) of BNSS] read with Section 45 of PMLA. It is the case made out by the petitioner that the arrest was on 16.09.2025 and the sixty day period for completion of investigation had expired on

15.11.2025, while 'ED' though had Prosecution Complaint on 14.11.2025, the same was incomplete and defective and accordingly, have sought for release of the petitioner on statutory/default bail.

45. It is contended that the incomplete chargesheet is no chargesheet at all and that the investigation as regards the other accused as on the relevant date was still to be completed and accordingly, the mere filing of Prosecution Complaint against the petitioner has been made only to defeat the indefeasible right of the petitioner. - 32 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR

46. The statement of objections has been filed by the respondent and it is contended that the Prosecution Complaint has been filed within the stipulated period of sixty days.

It is further submitted that the observations made in the office note by the Registry cannot form the basis to come to a conclusion that incomplete complaint has been filed. It is submitted that the clarifications and compliances pointed out by the Pending Section of the Court relate to minor discrepancies, including pagination of relied upon documents and description in Index, which office objections have been duly complied with. It is submitted that such observations made by the Registry cannot form the basis for the petitioner to claim default bail.

It is further submitted that the technical defects do not have the effect of overruling the substantive contents of the chargesheet. - 33 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR

The defects that were noticed by the Registry have been complied and the Court has noticed that the discrepancies noted as regards the relied upon documents have been rectified by the Investigating Officer as on

27.11.2025. It is further observed that the learned SPP had submitted that they had not been intimated regarding the discrepancies in time.

It is to be noticed that the nature of defects appear to be formal in nature, including as regards the corrections in the Index Sheet of the Prosecution Complaint.

In the present case, the chargesheet has always continued to remain as a part of the Court record and there has been rectification of defects, and in the absence of any defect which the Court feels is fatal to the Final Report, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefit of default bail. The Special Court has not found the defects to be of such nature so as to vitiate the chargesheet itself. If that were to be so, it cannot be held - 34 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR that the defects such as Index Sheet as noticed in the present case cannot have the effect of vitiating the chargesheet.

In the case of Sajith v. State of Kerala6 relied on by the petitioner, the chargesheet was not re-presented after it was returned as defective. Accordingly, the said order would not come to the aid of the petitioner.

Insofar as the aspect of incomplete chargesheet being a ground for default bail, it must be noticed that as regards the petitioner is concerned, a Final Report was filed within the period of sixty days. No doubt, investigation against other accused is still under progress, however, by virtue of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil Wadhawan and Another7 [Kapil Wadhawan (supra)], wherein it is clarified that once the chargesheet is filed against the particular accused, the statutory right of 6 Bail Appl. No.399/2007 7 (2024) 3 SCC 734 - 35 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR default bail cannot be claimed on the ground that investigation qua other accused was pending, the question of contending that there was incomplete chargesheet warranting extending of relief of default bail does not arise.

The further contention is that while filing the Prosecution Complaint, liberty has been sought Additional Prosecution Complaint by the prosecution for further investigation.

Once the essential contents of chargesheet are found, mere liberty reserved for further investigation would not take away the effect of filing of chargesheet, as long as the requirements of a Final Report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. are found.

Accordingly, in the present case, it is not demonstrated that the requirements of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. is absent. If that were to be so, the Prosecution Complaint filed would fulfil the requirement of filing of the - 36 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR Final Report within the time stipulated and liberty sought for to file Additional Prosecution Complaint after further investigation would not take away the effect of first complete Prosecution Complaint that was filed on

14.11.2025. This position would emanate from the reading of paras-21 to 24 of the decision in Kapil Wadhawan (supra). The same are extracted hereinbelow:- ” 21. In our opinion, the Constitution Bench in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India8 has aptly explained the scope of Section 173(2) : (SCC p. 716, para 76) “76. The charge-sheet is nothing but a final report of police officer under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. The Section 173(2) provides that on completion of the investigation the police officer investigating into a cognizable offence shall submit a report. The report must be form prescribed by the State Government and stating therein (a) the names of the parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom 8(1991) 3 SCC 655 - 37 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No.

14793 of 2025 HC-KAR (e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether he had been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties; and (g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under Section 170. As observed by this Court in Satya Narain Musadi v. State of Bihar9 that the statutory requirement of the report under Section 173(2) would be complied with if the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. This report is an intimation the magistrate that upon investigation into a cognizable offence the Investigating Officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into the offence and the necessary information is being sent to the court. In fact, the report under Section 173(2) purports to be an opinion of the Investigating Officer that as far as he is concerned he has been able to procure sufficient material for the trial of the accused by the court.

The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175(5). Nothing more need be stated in the report of the Investigating Officer. It is also not necessary that all the details of the offence must be stated. The details of the offence are required to be proved to bring home the guilt to the accused at a later stage i.e. in the course of the trial of the case by adducing acceptable evidence.” (emphasis supplied) 9 (1980) 3 SCC 152 - 38 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR

22. In view of the above settled legal position, there remains no shadow of doubt that the statutory requirement of the report under Section 173(2) would be complied with if the various details prescribed therein are included in the report. The report under Section 173 is an intimation to the court that upon investigation into the cognizable offence, the investigating officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire into the offence and the necessary information is being sent to the court. The report is complete if it is accompanied with all the documents and statements of witnesses as required by Section 175(5). As settled in the aforestated case, it is not necessary that all the details of the offence must be stated.

23. … It may be noted that the right of the investigating officer to pray for further investigation in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 is not taken away only because a charge-sheet is filed under sub-section (2) thereof against the accused. Though ordinarily all documents relied upon by the prosecution should accompany the charge-sheet, nonetheless for some reasons, if all the documents are not filed along with the charge-sheet, that reason by itself would not invalidate or vitiate the - 39 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR charge-sheet. It is also well settled that the court takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender. "

The reliance may also be placed upon the Apex Court decision in Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI10 [also referred to by the Apex Court in Kapil Wadhawan (supra)]. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereinbelow:- "39. … The statutory scheme does not lead to a conclusion in regard to an investigation leading to filing of final form under sub-section (2) of Section 173 and further investigation contemplated under sub-section (8) thereof. Whereas only when a charge-sheet is not filed and investigation is kept pending, benefit of proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code would be available to an offender; once, however, a charge-sheet is filed, the said right ceases. Such a right does not revive only because a further investigation remains pending within the meaning of sub- section (8) of Section 173 of the Code.” (emphasis supplied) 10(2007) 8 SCC 770 - 40 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR

Further, it must be noticed that, as this Court finds that the Prosecution Complaint filed in the first instance cannot be stated to be incomplete merely on the ground that further Prosecution Complaint would be filed upon further investigation. Accordingly, the question of granting default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. does not arise. The petitioner has not been able to point out that the essential requirements of a chargesheet are absent.

Though the Apex Court in Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India and Others11 [Ritu Chhabaria (supra)] had observed that without completing investigation of a case, the Prosecution Complaint cannot be filed by the Investigating Agency only to deprive the accused of right of default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. However, in the case of Director of Enforcement v. Manpreet Singh Talwar12, the Apex Court by its order of 12.05.2023 has clarified that the application for grant of default bail could 11 (2024) 12 SCC 116 - [W.P.(Crl.) No.60/2023] 12 SPL (Crl.) 5724/2023 - 41 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR be proceeded independent of and without relying on the judgment in W.P.(Crl.) No.60/2023, disposed of on

26.04.2023. In effect, the Apex Court has held as hereunder:- "In continuation of the interim order of this Court dated 1 May 2023, we clarify that the order shall not preclude any trial court or, as the case may be, High Court from considering an application for the grant of default bail under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 independent of and without relying on the judgment dated 26 April 2023 in Writ Petition (Criminal) No 60 of 2023." [VI] MEDICAL BAIL:-

The petitioner has also raised the medical ground and seeks for bail on such ground as well. Reliance is placed on the First Proviso to Section 45 of PMLA, while seeking bail. Proviso to Section 45 reads as follows:- "Provided that a person who is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm or - 42 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees, may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs: "

It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is suffering from health issues, such as Haemorrhoids, Asthma, Hamstring injury and also that the Doctor has advised him to undergo 2D Scan for chest pain. The medical documents are enclosed at Annexure-'V6' to the petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is required to be operated regarding Haemorrhoids. It must be noticed that for the purpose of being enlarged on bail, it is to be established that the petitioner is to be sick or infirm. However, it is the settled position of law that sickness or infirmity must be of such nature that medical assistance cannot be provided in penitentiary hospitals. The nature of illness pleaded is such that it could be treated in Government Hospitals and - 43 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR the respondents can be directed to ensure that medical treatment as may be required for the purpose of present medical ailment be provided. The material on hand does not make out a case of any serious life threatening ailment that cannot be treated in jail/Government Hospital. Further, it cannot be stated that the medical ailment is such that his continuance in custody would endanger life of the accused.

Accordingly, the bail sought on medical grounds liable to be rejected, while observing that the respondent Authorities have to take appropriate action to ensure that the petitioner is given adequate treatment for his health ailment. [VII] LONG INCARCERATION AND DELAYED TRIAL AS A CONSIDERATION FOR GRANT OF BAIL:-

While the satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA are indeed necessary in order to consider grant of bail, the question as to whether general - 44 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR principles of bail which may be considered to be the facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India could be read into so as to enlarge the accused on bail in case the circumstances are made out, is a matter that has been dealt with by the Apex Court. The observations made by Apex Court in Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of Investigation13 [Manish Sisodia-1] are extracted hereinbelow:- "28. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the reasons stated, we are not inclined to accept the prayer for grant of bail at this stage.

29. However, we are also concerned about the prolonged period of incarceration suffered by the appellant Manish Sisodia. In P. Chidambaram v. Enforcement Directorate14, the appellant therein was granted bail after being kept in custody for around 49 days15, relying on the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab16 and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI17, that even [Manish Sisodia-1 (supra)] not having expired, reserved liberty to revive his prayer to move afresh after filing of complaint/chargesheet.

Finally, the Apex Court in the third round of approach whereby a challenge was made to the rejection of application by the High Court in Manish Sisodia-3 (supra) enlarged the petitioner on bail recording that there was remote possibility of trial being concluded in the near future, that keeping the appellant behind the bars for an unlimited period of time would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial.

Finally, the Apex Court proceeded to grant bail after taking note of the aspect of long incarceration. In - 70 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR the present case as well having held that the length of incarceration cannot qualify to be long incarceration, as the petitioner has been in custody for 127 days as of now, it would be appropriate to reserve liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court after a lapse of three months.

The petitioner then would have to point out as regards Prosecution having commencement of trial and that there may be the possibility of joint trial contributing to further delay and that there was no possibility of trial concluding within a reasonable time.

The Prosecution also would have to keep such aspects in mind so as to demonstrate that trial would be concluded within a reasonable time. Upon consideration of such aspects, the Court may take an appropriate decision.

Reserving liberty would be justified while noticing that, as on date, it is the petitioner alone who has been arrested amongst the several accused, that prior to - 71 - NC: 2026:KHC:3030 CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025 HC-KAR his arrest, he had subjected himself to interrogation and that the investigation of the predicate offence is not yet concluded.

Accordingly, in light of the observations made above, the grant of bail for the present is rejected. However, liberty is reserved the petitioner re-approach after a period of three months directly before this Court and to make a renewed plea for bail.

Accordingly, the petition is rejected, while reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach afresh in terms of the relevant observations supra. Sd/- (S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR