Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sikandar B. Kochar, learned counsel the Enforcement Directorate (hereinafter referred to as the "ED") and perused the record.

2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in ECIR/HIU-I/20/2024, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, arising out of Case Crime No. 239 of 2024, under Sections 415, 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

3. It is contended by the learned Senior counsel that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case. He further submits that as per the FIR the dispute is between two private individuals and there is no case of money laundering of public money. It is further submitted that the case is based on documentary evidence and the applicant has been constantly cooperating in the investigation and he is 2 NABAIL No. 7352 of 2025 appearing before the ED as and when required. It is further submitted that ED is in haste to arrest the applicant as short dates are being fixed for his summoning. It is further submitted that the applicant is aged about 70 years and is a sick person and he is not in a position to travel to Delhi so frequently. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the cases of Mahdoom Bava vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 376 of 2023, and Pradip N. Sharma vs. State of Gujarat and another, passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 354 of 2019 and Musheer Alam vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and another, passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 18081 of 2024 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when the case is based on documentary evidence, there is no necessity to keep him behind bar during investigation. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency . It has been stated that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the ED has raised a preliminary objection that the applicant ought to have approached the Sessions Court first before directly approaching this Court. He has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdeo Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and others, passed in Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 17805 of 2024 wherein it has been held that though the jurisdiction of Sessions Court and High Court are concurrent regarding entertaining the anticipatory bail but it should not be made practice to directly approach first the High Court. Ordinarily the applicant should first approach the Sessions Court and then the High Court.

5. In reply, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that objections should have been raised at the threshold. Now the present application has been heard on several occasions and counter and rejoinder have been exchanged, therefore, the 3 NABAIL No. 7352 of 2025 applicant cannot be relegated to approach the Sessions Court/Special Court at Lucknow. He further submits that Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdeo Prasad (supra) has held that ordinarily the applicant should approach the Sessions Court first but jurisdiction of the High court in entertaining the application directly is not barred. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that case is based on documentary evidence and is at the stage of pre- complaint stage and complaint is yet to be filed and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahdoom Bava (supra) and Pradip N. Sharma (supra), custodial interrogation is not necessary in cases based on documentary evidence.

6. Learned counsel for the ED submits that they simply want to interrogate the applicant.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the case laws as relied upon by the learned Senior counsel and learned counsel for the ED.

8. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

9. Let the applicant-Shiv Dutt pandey involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on interim bail for six weeks till 25.11.2025 on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the investigating agency on the date fixed unless exempted by it; 4 NABAIL No. 7352 of 2025 (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the investigating agency/Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant would cooperate during investigation and would not misuse the liberty of interim bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

10. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim bail granted to the applicant herein.

11. List this case as fresh on 25.11.2025

12. It is expected that the ED shall given reasonable time to the applicant to appear before it for interrogation. October 10, 2025 Abhishek (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sikandar B. Kochar, learned counsel the Enforcement Directorate (hereinafter referred to as the "ED") and perused the record.

2. The present application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in ECIR/HIU-I/20/2024, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, arising out of Case Crime No. 239 of 2024, under Sections 415, 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj with the prayer that in the event of arrest, applicant may be released on bail.

3. It is contended by the learned Senior counsel that applicant is innocent and he has an apprehension that he may be arrested in the above-mentioned case. He further submits that as per the FIR the dispute is between two private individuals and there is no case of money laundering of public money. It is further submitted that the case is based on documentary evidence and the applicant has been constantly cooperating in the investigation and he is 2 NABAIL No. 7352 of 2025 appearing before the ED as and when required. It is further submitted that ED is in haste to arrest the applicant as short dates are being fixed for his summoning. It is further submitted that the applicant is aged about 70 years and is a sick person and he is not in a position to travel to Delhi so frequently. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the cases of Mahdoom Bava vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 376 of 2023, and Pradip N. Sharma vs. State of Gujarat and another, passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 354 of 2019 and Musheer Alam vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and another, passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 18081 of 2024 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when the case is based on documentary evidence, there is no necessity to keep him behind bar during investigation. It was also submitted that applicant undertakes to co-operate during investigation and he would appear as and when required by the investigating agency . It has been stated that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and will co-operate with the investigation and would obey all conditions of bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the ED has raised a preliminary objection that the applicant ought to have approached the Sessions Court first before directly approaching this Court. He has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdeo Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and others, passed in Criminal Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 17805 of 2024 wherein it has been held that though the jurisdiction of Sessions Court and High Court are concurrent regarding entertaining the anticipatory bail but it should not be made practice to directly approach first the High Court. Ordinarily the applicant should first approach the Sessions Court and then the High Court.

5. In reply, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that objections should have been raised at the threshold. Now the present application has been heard on several occasions and counter and rejoinder have been exchanged, therefore, the 3 NABAIL No. 7352 of 2025 applicant cannot be relegated to approach the Sessions Court/Special Court at Lucknow. He further submits that Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagdeo Prasad (supra) has held that ordinarily the applicant should approach the Sessions Court first but jurisdiction of the High court in entertaining the application directly is not barred. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that case is based on documentary evidence and is at the stage of pre- complaint stage and complaint is yet to be filed and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahdoom Bava (supra) and Pradip N. Sharma (supra), custodial interrogation is not necessary in cases based on documentary evidence.

6. Learned counsel for the ED submits that they simply want to interrogate the applicant.

7. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the case laws as relied upon by the learned Senior counsel and learned counsel for the ED.

8. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, the Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.

9. Let the applicant-Shiv Dutt pandey involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on interim bail for six weeks till 25.11.2025 on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, with the following conditions :- (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence and that he would appear before the investigating agency on the date fixed unless exempted by it; 4 NABAIL No. 7352 of 2025 (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the investigating agency/Court or to any police officer; (iii) The applicant would cooperate during investigation and would not misuse the liberty of interim bail. (iv) The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned.

10. In default of any of the conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of interim bail granted to the applicant herein.

11. List this case as fresh on 25.11.2025

12. It is expected that the ED shall given reasonable time to the applicant to appear before it for interrogation. October 10, 2025 Abhishek (Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.)