He placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court passed in case of Tarsem v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office MANU/SC/

that with regard to disproportionate income a FIR was lodged by C.B.I. against him (scheduled offence) and after considering entire facts of the case in detail this Court has enlarged him on bail in the scheduled offence and order passed by this Court has been annexed along with the instant bail application.

5. He further submitted that, however, as per allegation, applicant acquired assets of Rs. 1,73,50,182/- in his name and in the name of his family members but he duly explained his income and expenses but in spite of that without considering explanation provided by the applicant complaint has been filed against him and his wife in the present matter.

6. He further submitted that during investigation, before filing the complaint, applicant fully cooperated with the investigation and Investigating Officer of the case did not arrest him and without arrest of the applicant investigation has been concluded and complaint has been filed. He further submitted that even from paragraph no. 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated

29.04.2025 filed by E.D. it reflects, this fact has been admitted by E.D.

7. He further submitted that unfortunately apart from the present case and predicate offence, applicant has also been made accused in one another case of trap, in which he has been convicted and when in connection to that case, he was in jail then warrants have also been executed upon him in the present matter. He further submitted that as during investigation, E.D. did not propose to arrest the applicant, therefore, there was absolutely no occasion for execution of warrants upon him while he was in custody with regard to other case. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court passed in case of Tarsem Lal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office MANU/SC/0448/2024.

8. He further submitted that, however, Section 45 PMLA states that no person shall be released on bail for offence under PMLA unless public prosecutor has been given opportunity to oppose the bail application and unless court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty but the embargo of section 45 PMLA is not applicable in the present matter as during investigation applicant fully cooperated with the investigation and he was not arrested and, therefore, in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in case of Tarsem Lal(supra) his arrest in the present matter is bad.

9. He further submitted that even law is settled that even in special 'Acts' cases like PMLA and NDPS Act etc., if an accused is languishing in jail since long then also on the ground of long incarceration this Court can enlarge him on bail irrespective with the stringent provisions like Section 45 PMLA. He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since

17.02.2024 i.e. for last almost one and half years.

10. He further submitted that however, apart from the present case and schedule offence, applicant has also been made accused in a case of trap, in which he has been convicted but his appeal is pending before this Court and during pendency of appeal, he is on bail.

11. He further submitted that, therefore, considering the above facts, applicant should be enlarged on bail Submissions advanced on behalf of E.D.

12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of E.D. opposed the prayer and submitted that it is a case of money laundering and applicant failed to provide any explanation with regard to his disproportionate income, which was in tune of Rs. 1,73,50,182/-. He further submitted that offences under the provisions of PMLA constitute a class apart and considering their serious nature an accused detained under the provisions of PMLA should not ordinarily be released on bail. He further submitted that before releasing an accused for offence under PMLA, it is necessary that twin conditions under the provisions of Section 45 PMLA must be satisfied. He further submitted that there is no good reason for this Court to believe that applicant is not guilty and, therefore, applicant should not be released on bail.

13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of E.D., however, could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has already been concluded and complaint has been filed against the applicant and during investigation, however, applicant fully cooperated with the investigation but he was not arrested by the Investigating Officer. He further could not dispute the fact that in the present matter, applicant was taken into custody while he was detained in jail in connection to another case. He further could not dispute the fact that in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last almost one and half years.

14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of E.D., however, further submitted that apart from the present case and schedule offence, applicant is also having criminal history of one another case of trap, in which, he has been convicted but could not dispute the fact that his appeal is pending before this Court and during pendency of appeal, he is on bail. Analysis

15. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

16. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of E.D. that offences under the provisions of PMLA are serious offences and these offences constitute a class apart and should be treated differently. Further, as per Section 45 PMLA, an accused cannot be released on bail for the offences under the provisions of PMLA unless public prosecutor has been given opportunity to oppose his release and unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offense but in case at hand, it reflects, during investigation, applicant fully cooperated with the investigation but in spite of that his arrest was not made.

17. Record further suggests that after complaint, when summons were issued then, although, applicant could not appear before the court concerned but in the meantime, he has been convicted in one another case of trap and sent to jail in that case and while he was in custody in that case warrants have been executed upon him in the present matter.

18. The Apex Court in case of Tarsem Lal(supra) categorically held that after taking cognizance an accused facing trial under Section 4 of PMLA, cannot be arrested. Further, in paragraph no.21 the Apex Court also deprecated the practice of the Courts to send an accused in jail when he appears on issuance of summons. The Apex Court further observed that if E.D. wants the custody of an accused, who appears after service of summons for conducting further investigation then E.D. will have to seek custody of the accused by applying to special court.

19. In the present matter, applicant was not arrested by the Investigating Officer during investigation and subsequently he was sent to jail after execution of warrants when he was in jail in connection to other case and it is not the case of E.D. that E.D. wanted the custody of applicant after investigation.

20. Further, in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last almost one and half years. The Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement AIR 2024 SC 4053 held that on the basis of long incarceration, even in cases of PMLA an accused can be released on bail. In above case, the Apex Court also reminded the trial courts and High Courts to follow the principle of bail being rule and jail being exception and observed that right to bail in cases of delay coupled with prolonged incarceration should be read into Section 45 PMLA. Similar view was adopted by the Apex Court in case of Udhaw Singh Vs. Enforcement Directorate NANU/SC/0239/2025 decided on 17.02.2025.

21. Therefore, considering the above facts, this Court is of the view that in spite of the stringent provisions of Section 45 PMLA in appropriate cases, considering the long incarceration of the accused, he can be released on bail even in cases of PMLA.

22. Further, in predicate offence i.e. scheduled offence lodged by C.B.I. applicant has already been released on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court.

23. Further, however, apart from the present case and schedule offence, applicant is also having criminal history of one another case of trap, in which, although, he has been convicted but his appeal is pending before this Court and during pendency of his appeal, he is on bail.

24. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

25. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

26. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

27. Let the applicant- Shashikant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

28. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

29. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

that with regard to disproportionate income a FIR was lodged by C.B.I. against him (scheduled offence) and after considering entire facts of the case in detail this Court has enlarged him on bail in the scheduled offence and order passed by this Court has been annexed along with the instant bail application.

5. He further submitted that, however, as per allegation, applicant acquired assets of Rs. 1,73,50,182/- in his name and in the name of his family members but he duly explained his income and expenses but in spite of that without considering explanation provided by the applicant complaint has been filed against him and his wife in the present matter.

6. He further submitted that during investigation, before filing the complaint, applicant fully cooperated with the investigation and Investigating Officer of the case did not arrest him and without arrest of the applicant investigation has been concluded and complaint has been filed. He further submitted that even from paragraph no. 4 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated

29.04.2025 filed by E.D. it reflects, this fact has been admitted by E.D.

7. He further submitted that unfortunately apart from the present case and predicate offence, applicant has also been made accused in one another case of trap, in which he has been convicted and when in connection to that case, he was in jail then warrants have also been executed upon him in the present matter. He further submitted that as during investigation, E.D. did not propose to arrest the applicant, therefore, there was absolutely no occasion for execution of warrants upon him while he was in custody with regard to other case. He placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court passed in case of Tarsem Lal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office MANU/SC/0448/2024.

8. He further submitted that, however, Section 45 PMLA states that no person shall be released on bail for offence under PMLA unless public prosecutor has been given opportunity to oppose the bail application and unless court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty but the embargo of section 45 PMLA is not applicable in the present matter as during investigation applicant fully cooperated with the investigation and he was not arrested and, therefore, in view of the observation made by the Apex Court in case of Tarsem Lal(supra) his arrest in the present matter is bad.

9. He further submitted that even law is settled that even in special 'Acts' cases like PMLA and NDPS Act etc., if an accused is languishing in jail since long then also on the ground of long incarceration this Court can enlarge him on bail irrespective with the stringent provisions like Section 45 PMLA. He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since

17.02.2024 i.e. for last almost one and half years.

10. He further submitted that however, apart from the present case and schedule offence, applicant has also been made accused in a case of trap, in which he has been convicted but his appeal is pending before this Court and during pendency of appeal, he is on bail.

11. He further submitted that, therefore, considering the above facts, applicant should be enlarged on bail Submissions advanced on behalf of E.D.

12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of E.D. opposed the prayer and submitted that it is a case of money laundering and applicant failed to provide any explanation with regard to his disproportionate income, which was in tune of Rs. 1,73,50,182/-. He further submitted that offences under the provisions of PMLA constitute a class apart and considering their serious nature an accused detained under the provisions of PMLA should not ordinarily be released on bail. He further submitted that before releasing an accused for offence under PMLA, it is necessary that twin conditions under the provisions of Section 45 PMLA must be satisfied. He further submitted that there is no good reason for this Court to believe that applicant is not guilty and, therefore, applicant should not be released on bail.

13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of E.D., however, could not dispute the fact that investigation of the case has already been concluded and complaint has been filed against the applicant and during investigation, however, applicant fully cooperated with the investigation but he was not arrested by the Investigating Officer. He further could not dispute the fact that in the present matter, applicant was taken into custody while he was detained in jail in connection to another case. He further could not dispute the fact that in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last almost one and half years.

14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of E.D., however, further submitted that apart from the present case and schedule offence, applicant is also having criminal history of one another case of trap, in which, he has been convicted but could not dispute the fact that his appeal is pending before this Court and during pendency of appeal, he is on bail. Analysis

15. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case.

16. This Court finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of E.D. that offences under the provisions of PMLA are serious offences and these offences constitute a class apart and should be treated differently. Further, as per Section 45 PMLA, an accused cannot be released on bail for the offences under the provisions of PMLA unless public prosecutor has been given opportunity to oppose his release and unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offense but in case at hand, it reflects, during investigation, applicant fully cooperated with the investigation but in spite of that his arrest was not made.

17. Record further suggests that after complaint, when summons were issued then, although, applicant could not appear before the court concerned but in the meantime, he has been convicted in one another case of trap and sent to jail in that case and while he was in custody in that case warrants have been executed upon him in the present matter.

18. The Apex Court in case of Tarsem Lal(supra) categorically held that after taking cognizance an accused facing trial under Section 4 of PMLA, cannot be arrested. Further, in paragraph no.21 the Apex Court also deprecated the practice of the Courts to send an accused in jail when he appears on issuance of summons. The Apex Court further observed that if E.D. wants the custody of an accused, who appears after service of summons for conducting further investigation then E.D. will have to seek custody of the accused by applying to special court.

19. In the present matter, applicant was not arrested by the Investigating Officer during investigation and subsequently he was sent to jail after execution of warrants when he was in jail in connection to other case and it is not the case of E.D. that E.D. wanted the custody of applicant after investigation.

20. Further, in the present matter, applicant is in jail for last almost one and half years. The Apex Court in case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement AIR 2024 SC 4053 held that on the basis of long incarceration, even in cases of PMLA an accused can be released on bail. In above case, the Apex Court also reminded the trial courts and High Courts to follow the principle of bail being rule and jail being exception and observed that right to bail in cases of delay coupled with prolonged incarceration should be read into Section 45 PMLA. Similar view was adopted by the Apex Court in case of Udhaw Singh Vs. Enforcement Directorate NANU/SC/0239/2025 decided on 17.02.2025.

21. Therefore, considering the above facts, this Court is of the view that in spite of the stringent provisions of Section 45 PMLA in appropriate cases, considering the long incarceration of the accused, he can be released on bail even in cases of PMLA.

22. Further, in predicate offence i.e. scheduled offence lodged by C.B.I. applicant has already been released on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court.

23. Further, however, apart from the present case and schedule offence, applicant is also having criminal history of one another case of trap, in which, although, he has been convicted but his appeal is pending before this Court and during pendency of his appeal, he is on bail.

24. Further, law is settled, unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent and bail application of an accused should not be dismissed for punitive purpose.

25. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

26. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

27. Let the applicant- Shashikant be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

28. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

29. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 24.7.2025 KK Patel KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad