Md. Jahangir Alam vs Directorate of Enforcement

then Chief Engineer in Rural Works Department,

Jharkhand.

4. The said bribe money was getting routed by the Delhi

based CA Mukesh Mittal to the bank accounts of family

2 2025:JHHC:34660

members of said Veerendra Kumar Ram with the help of

bank accounts of Delhi based Mukesh Mittal‟s

employees/relatives.

5. It is also alleged that Veerendra Kumar Ram used to give

cash to CA Mukesh Mittal who with the help of other entry

providers used to take entries in the bank accounts of his

employees and relatives and then such fund was

transferred by Mukesh Mittal into the bank accounts of the

co-accused Rajkumari (wife of Veerendra Kumar Ram) and

Genda Ram (father of Veerendra Kumar Ram).

6. Further, it is also alleged that some bank accounts,

opened (at Delhi) on the basis of forged documents, were

also being used in such routing of funds. Therefore,

findings related to such routing of funds were shared with

the Delhi Police under Section 66(2) of the PMLA by the I.O.

Further, on the basis of the information shared U/s 66(2) of

PMLA, 2002, an FIR No. 22/2023 was registered by

Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Delhi against (i) Veerendra

Kumar Ram, (ii) Mukesh Mittal and (iii) unknown Others

under Sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 473, 474,

476, 484, and 120-B of IPC, 1860 and under Sections 7

and 5 of Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act,

2017.

3

2025:JHHC:34660

7. Consequently, in the light of additional facts emerging

out of investigation, FIR No.22/2023 registered by the

EOW, Delhi was merged with the investigation of ECIR No.

RNSZO/16/2020.

8. A prosecution complaint vide ECIR Case No. 02/2023

was filed before the learned Special Court, (PMLA), Ranchi

on 21.04.2023 against Veerendra Kumar Ram; Alok

Ranjan, Rajkumari and Genda Ram and cognizance of the

same was taken by the learned Special Judge, PMLA,

Ranchi on 29.04.2023.

9. Further, a supplementary prosecution complaint vide

ECIR Case Number 02/2023 under Section 45 of PMLA,

2002 was filed before the learned Special Court (PMLA),

Ranchi on 20.08.2023 against Veerendra Kumar Ram, Alok

Ranjan, Rajkumari, Genda Ram, Mukesh Mittal, Tara

Chand, Neeraj Mittal, Ram Prakash Bhatia, Harish Yadav

and Hirdya Nand Tiwari and the cognizance of the same is

taken on 22.08.2023.

10. During the further course of investigation searches

were conducted on 06-05-2024, 07-05-2024, 08-05-2024,

09-05-2024, 10-05-2024 and 24-05-2024 under section 17

of the PMLA, 2002 in the premises of Sanjeev Kumar Lal,

Jahangir Alam [present petitioner] and others at various

places.

4

2025:JHHC:34660

11. As a result of the search, huge cash was recovered

and seized from the residential premises of Jahangir Alam,

the present petitioner, situated at Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed

Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi to the tune of Rs. 32.20

crores on 06/07.05.2024.

12. Accordingly, on 07-05-2024 the present petitioner

Jahangir Alam was arrested for the commission of the

offence under sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, 2002.

13. The investigation further revealed the names of

various bureaucrats and politicians. Later on, the

departmental minister, namely, Alamgir Alam being the

minister of Department of Rural Works (RWD) was arrested.

14. It is also alleged that the petitioner is found to be

directly indulged and actually involved in possession of Rs

32.20 crores of the Proceeds of Crime.

15. A supplementary prosecution complaint vide ECIR

Case Number 02/2023 under Section 45 of PMLA, 2002

has been filed before the Learned Special Court (PMLA),

Ranchi on 04.07.2024 against Veerendra Kumar Ram, Alok

Ranjan, Rajkumari, Genda Ram, Mukesh Mittal, Tara

Chand, Neeraj Mittal, Ram Prakash Bhatia, Harish Yadav,

Hirdya Nand Tiwari, Alamgir Alam, Sanjeev Kumar Lal and

Jahangir Alam (the present petitioner) and the cognizance

of the same was taken on 12.07.2024.

5

2025:JHHC:34660

16. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Misc. Cri.

Application No. 1661 of 2025 for grant of bail but the same

was rejected vide order dated 17.09.2025 by the court of

learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XVIII-cum-

Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi. Hence the present petition

has been filed.

Argument advanced by learned senior counsel for the petitioner:

17. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner

has argued inter alia on the following grounds:

I. That the petitioner is quite innocent and has falsely

been implicated in this case with oblique motive and

mala fide intention to harass the petitioner and the

allegation made by the ED does not meet the criteria

required u/s 3 of the PML Act.

II.Submission has been made that the materials placed

on record by the ED is insufficient to establish a direct

link between the proceeds of crime and the petitioner.

III.Learned counsel for the petitioner has also questioned

the arrest of the petitioner and submitted that the

arrest of petitioner is illegal as during search

petitioner remained in physical custody of the ED

from 06:15 AM of 06.05.2024 when the search started

at his flat until having been brought before the

remand court in afternoon of 07.05.2024 i.e. after

6 2025:JHHC:34660

more than 30 hours, which is completely illegal. The

petitioner was unlawfully arrested at 02.00 AM in a

very mechanical way and has not been produced

before the court within stipulated period of 24 hours.

Therefore, the arrest of the petitioner is completely

illegal which is violative of Article 22(2) of the

Constitution of India.

IV.The submission has been made that the petitioner has

been implicated in the present case on the basis of

statement recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act of

the co-accused, who was already in custody, hence,

the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PML

Act of the co-accused, who were already in custody

cannot be used against the present petitioner.

V. Learned senior counsel has relied upon paragraph

253 of the case of the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary

and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2022) SCC

OnLine SC 929 in order to buttress his argument on

the issue of statement recorded under Section 50 of

the PML Act.

VI.It is further submitted that the ED has conducted the

investigation as if it is a completely new case,

unrelated to the predicate offence, which is not

permissible under the law. In the present case, the

7 2025:JHHC:34660

allegations against the petitioner involved the receipt

of money through alleged acts of corruption. But the

petitioner was not named as an accused in any of the

FIRs or corresponding charge sheets related to the

underlying corruption offences.

VII.Further submission has been made that the statement

of co-accused Sanjeev Kumar Lal was made while he

was in custody which is not admissible and is totally

unreliable. Furthermore, none of the allegations are

corroborated by any call details, messages, e-mail,

documents or independent witnesses. There is no

substantive evidence to prove that any money was

exchanged between the petitioner and Sanjeev Kumar

Lal and the statements given by Sanjeev Kumar Lal

during the remand period were made under pressure

and are not credible and using such statements

against them would be unfair and unjust, as it

violates the principles of fair play and justice and are

also considered inadmissible.

VIII.Learned counsel for the petitioner has further

submitted that the statements made by witnesses,

Munna Singh, Santosh Kumar "Rinku", are completely

false and baseless. The petitioner firmly denies any

such transactions and or has ever collected any

8 2025:JHHC:34660

amount directly or indirectly from the contractors or

any other persons. The credibility of these statements

made by either by co-accused individuals or by certain

witnesses are highly questionable.

IX.It is further submitted that petitioner has no other

criminal proceedings pending against him.

X. Raising the ground of parity, submission has been

made that taking the ground of long incarceration and

further there is no possibility of a trial even

commencing in the near future, co-accused Veerendra

Kumar Ram has been granted bail by the Hon‟ble

Supreme Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 in Cr.

Appeal No. 4615 of 2024. Likewise, accused Harish

Yadav was already granted bail vide order dated

30.08.2024 in Special Leave petition (Crl.) No. 6174 of

2024 on the ground that prima facie it is very difficult

to attribute any direct role, and thus, the twin tests

laid down under Section 45(1) of the PMLA are

satisfied and also that of long incarceration.

XI. Accused Tara Chand has also been granted bail by the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25.11.2024

in Cr. Appeal No. 4760 of 2024 on the ground that it

is difficult to attribute any direct role and also on

principle of parity, as accused Harish Yadav has been

9 2025:JHHC:34660

granted bail. Furthermore, other accused persons,

namely, Rajkumari, Genda Ram, Mukesh Mittal,

Neeraj Mittal and Ram Prakash Baitha have also been

granted regular bail by the Hon‟ble Apex Court.

XII. In the case at hand, the petitioner is in custody since

07.05.2024 i.e., for more than one year and six

months and it is not likely that the trial would

conclude in near future since only one witness has

been examined, therefore, taking into consideration

the law laid down in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs.

Directorate of Enforcement [2024 SCC OnLine SC

1920; Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC

713]; Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Enforcement Directorate

(supra) and V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State represented

by the Deputy Director & Ors. (2024) 3 SCC 51 the

petitioner may be directed to be released on bail.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the

aforesaid grounds, has submitted as per the ground

agitated hereinabove, it is a fit case where the petitioner is

to be given the benefit of privilege of bail.

Argument advanced by learned counsel for the opposite party-Enforcement Directorate:

19. While on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das,

learned counsel for the opposite party-Enforcement

Directorate has seriously opposed the said

10 2025:JHHC:34660

submission/ground both based upon the fact and the law

as referred hereinabove, on the following grounds.

I. Submission has been made that huge amount of

proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 32 crores and odd

have been recovered from the premises of petitioner

for which he has not given any explanation that from

which source he has received this money. The witness,

Munna Singh has stated in his statement recorded

u/s 50 of the PMLA has categorically stated that he

has several times handed over the commission money

collected from the Engineers of the department.

II. Submission has been made that the argument that

merely because petitioner was not named in the FIR

No. 13 of 2019, is having no aid to the petitioner

reason being that the applicability of Section 3 of the

PML Act wherein specific stipulation has been made

that 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. Herein, huge

amount of proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 32.20

11 2025:JHHC:34660

crores have been recovered from the Flat of the

petitioner.

III. It has been contended by referring to Section

3(ii) of the PML Act, 2002 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.

IV. Further from the statement of private

secretary, namely, Sanjeev Kumar Lal the co-accused,

and the engineers it is evident that they have fully

supported the fact of demanding commission to the

tune of 1.5% from the contractors to be collected by

the engineers or agents for the purpose of handing

over to the co-accused Alamgir Alam through the

petitioner clarifies that the petitioner was directly

involved in the process or activity connected with the

proceeds of crime in acquisition of money and the

same has been treated to be continuing activity when

the FIR was instituted in view of statement of Private

Secretary, namely, Sanjeev Kumar Lal, therefore, the

12 2025:JHHC:34660

involvement of the petitioner cannot in the alleged

crime cannot be denied.

V. It has been submitted that the proceeds of

crime have been defined under Section 2(u) of PML

Act, 2002 which 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. It has been contended that the

statement, as has been recorded under Section 50 of

the PML Act, 2002 is very much clear of the

involvement of the present petitioner in relation to

collection of money involved in the criminal case

registered under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 2018 and by way of continued

process, the ED has filed supplementary complaint in

which complicity of the present petitioner has been

surfaced.

VI. Submission has been made that ground which

has been advanced that the statement of Sanjeev

Kumar Lal is not to be taken into consideration since

it is recorded while he is in custody but herein the

13 2025:JHHC:34660

tainted money in form of commission has been

supported by other witnesses also. Further the

Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon vs.

Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46 has

observed that the statement if recorded under Section

50 of the PML Act will also have the impact in

implicating a person under Section 3 of the PML Act

and exactly the case herein.

VII. Learned counsel has argued by referring to

Sections 19 and 45 of the PML Act, that Section 19

confers power upon the prosecuting agency either the

Director or the Deputy Director or Assistant Director

to arrest a person on the basis of his satisfaction of

"reason to believe" of involvement of one or the other

in commission of crime and the ground for arrest is to

be given to the person concerned. While on the other

hand Section 45 of the PML Act confers power upon

the court to consider the issue of bail of the said

person and on being satisfied that no prima facie case

is being made out then only the prayer for bail is to be

considered on the ground that there is sufficient

ground for believing that he is not guilty of such

offence and he is not likely to commit any offence

while on bail.

14

2025:JHHC:34660

VIII. It has been submitted that twin conditions

have been provided under Section 45 of the Act 2002

but herein the first condition is of bearing which

pertains to the satisfaction of the court of the

reasonable ground for believing that he is not guilty of

such offence and there is no likelihood of committing

any offence while on bail. It has been submitted based

upon the grounds i.e., recovery of huge amount from

the house of petitioner, namely, Jahangir Alam, the

recovery of the diary having with code-word therein for

the purpose of transmitting the amount as also the

scripted letter head addressed to the minister have

been found from the house of Jahangir Alam where

huge amount of money has been recovered, hence, it

is not a case to have the believe of reasonable ground

that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence.

IX. So far as the grounds of parity is concerned,

the case of the present petitioner is quite distinct to

that of other co-accused persons, who have been

granted bail by the Hon‟ble Apex Court, not only on

the long incarceration but as also on the ground that

there is direct involvement of the petitioner as huge

amount of proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 32.20

crores have been recovered from the flat of the

15 2025:JHHC:34660

petitioners; therefore, submission has been made that

no consideration is to be given on the issue of parity

on the aforesaid distinguishable fact.

20. Learned counsel for the respondent-Enforcement

Directorate, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has

submitted that it is not a fit case where the prayer for bail is

to be allowed taking into consideration the involvement of the

petitioner in directly acquiring the proceeds of crime.

Discussion:

21. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties,

gone across the pleading available on record as also the

finding recorded by learned trial court.

22. 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

Act, 2002 with its object and intent.

23. The Act 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 combating money-laundering and

also to prosecute the persons indulging in the process or

activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

16

2025:JHHC:34660

24. The issues were debated threadbare in the United Nation

Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances, Basle Statement of Principles

enunciated in 1989, the FATF established at the summit of

seven major industrial nations held in Paris from 14th to

16thJuly, 1989, the Political Declaration and Noble

Programme of Action adopted by United Nations General

Assembly vide its Resolution No. S-17/2 of 23.2.1990, the

United Nations in the Special Session on countering World

Drug Problem Together concluded on the 8th to the 10thJune,

1998, urging the State parties to enact a comprehensive

legislation. This is evident from the introduction and

Statement of Objects and Reasons accompanying the Bill

which became the 2002 Act. The same reads thus:

"INTRODUCTION Money-laundering poses a serious threat not only to the financial systems of countries, but also to their integrity and sovereignty. To obviate such threats international community has taken some initiatives. It has been felt that to prevent money-laundering and connected activities a comprehensive legislation is urgently needed. To achieve this objective the Prevention of Money-laundering Bill, 1998 was introduced in the Parliament. The Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, which presented its report on 4th March, 1999 to the Lok Sabha. The Central Government broadly accepted the recommendation of the Standing Committee and incorporated them in the said Bill along with some other desired changes.

STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS

17 2025:JHHC:34660

It is being realised, world over, that money-laundering poses a serious threat not only to the financial systems of countries, but also to their integrity and sovereignty. Some of the initiatives taken by the international community to obviate such threat are outlined below:--

(a) the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, to which India is a party, calls for prevention of laundering of proceeds of drug crimes and other connected activities and confiscation of proceeds derived from such offence.

(b) the Basle Statement of Principles, enunciated in 1989, outlined basic policies and procedures that banks should follow in order to assist the law enforcement agencies in tackling the problem of money-laundering.

(c) the Financial Action Task Force established at the summit of seven major industrial nations, held in Paris from 14th to 16th July, 1989, to examine the problem of money-laundering has made forty recommendations, which provide the foundation material forcomprehensive legislation to combat the problem of money-laundering. The recommendations were classified under various heads. Some of the important heads are--

(i) declaration of laundering of monies carried through serious crimes a criminal offence;

(ii) to work out modalities of disclosure by financial institutions regarding reportable transactions;

(iii) confiscation of the proceeds of crime;

(iv) declaring money-laundering to be an extraditable offence; and

(v) promoting international co-operation in investigation of money-laundering.

(d) the Political Declaration and Global Programme of Action adopted by United Nations General Assembly by its Resolution No. S-17/2 of 23rd February, 1990, inter alia, calls upon the member States to develop mechanism to prevent financial institutions from being used for laundering of drug related money and enactment of legislation to prevent such

18 2025:JHHC:34660

laundering. (e) the United Nations in the Special Session on countering World Drug Problem Together concluded on the 8th to the 10th June, 1998 has made another declaration regarding the need to combat money-laundering. India is a signatory to this declaration."

25. It is thus 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.

26. 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 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;]"

27. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that "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

19 2025:JHHC:34660

property or where such property is taken or held outside the

country, then the property equivalent in value held within the

country or abroad.

28. In the explanation part of the aforesaid Section, it has

been referred that 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.

29. 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 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.

30. The "property" has been defined under Section 2(1)(v)

which means any property or assets of every description,

20 2025:JHHC:34660

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.

31. The schedule has been defined under Section 2(1)(x)

which means schedule to the Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, 2002. The "scheduled offence" has been

defined under Section 2(1)(y) which reads as under:

"2 (1)(y) "scheduled offence" means-- (i) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedule if the total value involved in such offences is [one crore rupees] or more; or (iii) the offences specified under Part C of the Schedule."

32. 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.

33. 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 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

21 2025:JHHC:34660

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.]"

34. 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.

35. 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.

36. The punishment for money laundering has been provided

under Section 4 of the Act, 2002.

22

2025:JHHC:34660

37. Further, Section 50 of the Act, 2002 confers power upon

the authorities regarding summons, production of documents

and to give evidence. For ready reference, Section 50 of the

Act, 2002 is quoted as under:

"50. Powers of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence, etc.--(1) The Director shall, for the purposes of section 13, have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:--

(a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a [reporting entity] and examining him on oath; (c) compelling the production of records; (d) receiving evidence on affidavits; (e) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses and documents; and (f) any other matter which may be prescribed. (2) The Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary whether to give evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation or proceeding under this Act. (3) All the persons so summoned shall be bound to attend in person or through authorised agents, as such officer may direct, and shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements, and produce such documents as may be required. (4) Every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (5) Subject to any rules made in this behalf by the Central Government, any officer referred to in sub-section (2) may impound and retain in his custody for such period, as he thinks fit, any records produced before him in any proceedings under this Act: Provided that an Assistant Director or a Deputy Director shall not-- (a) impound any records without recording his reasons for so doing; or (b) retain in his custody any such records for a period exceeding three months, without obtaining the previous approval of the [Joint Director]."

23 2025:JHHC:34660

38. It needs to refer herein that the various provisions of the

Act, 2002 alongwith 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., (supra) 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, as would appear from

paragraph 128, 129 and 130. For ready reference, relevant

paragraph is being referred as under:

"128. To put it differently, the section as it stood prior to 2019 had itself incorporated the expression "including", which is indicative of reference made to the different process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Thus, the principal provision (as also the Explanation) predicates that if a person is found to be directly or indirectly involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime must be held guilty of offence of money laundering. If the interpretation set forth by the petitioners was to be accepted, it would follow that it is only upon projecting or claiming the property in question as untainted property, the offence would be complete. This would undermine the efficacy of the legislative intent behind Section 3 of the Act and also will be in disregard of the view expressed by the FATF in connection with the occurrence of the word "and" preceding the expression "projecting or claiming" therein.

129.This Court in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, enunciated that the international treaties, covenants and conventions although may not be a part of municipal law, the same be referred to and followed by the Courts having regard to the fact that India is a party to the said treaties. This Court

24 2025:JHHC:34660

went on to observe that the Constitution of India and other ongoing statutes have been read consistently with the rules of international law. It is also observed that the Constitution of India and the enactments made by Parliament must necessarily be understood in the context of the present-day scenario and having regard to the international treaties and convention as our constitution takes note of the institutions of the world community which had been created.

130.In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, the Court observed that domestic Courts are under an obligation to give due regard to the international conventions and norms for construing the domestic laws, more so, when there is no inconsistency between them and there is a void in domestic law. This view has been restated in Githa Hariharan, as also in People's Union for Civil Liberties, and National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India."

39. The implication of Section 50 has also been taken

into consideration. Relevant paragraph, i.e., paragraphs-

327 to 332, 338, 339, 342 are quoted as under:

"327. The validity of this provision has been challenged on the ground of being violative of Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution. For, it allows the authorised officer under the 2002 Act to summon any person and record his statement during the course of investigation. Further, the provision mandates that the person should disclose true and correct facts known to his personal knowledge in connection with the subject matter of investigation. The person is also obliged to sign the statement so given with the threat of being punished for the falsity or incorrectness thereof in terms of Section 63 of the 2002 Act. Before we proceed to analyse the matter further, it is apposite to reproduce Section 50 of the 2002 Act, as amended. -----:

330. By this provision, the Director has been empowered to exercise the same powers as are vested in a civil Court under the 1908 Code while trying a suit in respect of matters specified in sub-section (1). This is in reference to Section 13 of

25 2025:JHHC:34660

the 2002 Act dealing with powers of Director to impose fine in respect of acts of commission and omission by the banking companies, financial institutions and intermediaries. From the setting in which Section 50 has been placed and the expanse of empowering the Director with same powers as are vested in a civil Court for the purposes of imposing fine under Section 13, is obviously very specific and not otherwise.

331. Indeed, sub-section (2) of Section 50 enables the Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director to issue summon to any person whose attendance he considers necessary for giving evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation or proceeding under this Act. We have already highlighted the width of expression "proceeding" in the earlier part of this judgment and held that it applies to proceeding before the Adjudicating Authority or the Special Court, as the case may be. Nevertheless, sub-section (2) empowers the authorised officials to issue summon to any person. We fail to understand as to how Article 20(3) would come into play in respect of process of recording statement pursuant to such summon which is only for the purpose of collecting information or evidence in respect of proceeding under this Act. Indeed, the person so summoned, is bound to attend in person or through authorised agent and to state truth upon any subject concerning which he is being examined or is expected to make statement and produce documents as may be required by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the 2002 Act. The criticism is essentially because of subsection (4) which provides that every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC. Even so, the fact remains that Article 20(3) or for that matter Section 25 of the Evidence Act, would come into play only when the person so summoned is an accused of any offence at the relevant time and is being compelled to be a witness against himself. This position is well-established.

26 2025:JHHC:34660

332.The Constitution Bench of this Court in M.P. Sharma had dealt with a similar challenge wherein warrants to obtain documents required for investigation were issued by the Magistrate being violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution. This Court opined that the guarantee in Article 20(3) is against "testimonial compulsion" and is not limited to oral evidence. Not only that, it gets triggered if the person is compelled to be a witness against himself, which may not happen merely because of issuance of summons for giving oral evidence or producing documents. Further, to be a witness is nothing more than to furnish evidence and such evidence can be furnished by different modes. The Court went on to observe as follows:

"Broadly stated the guarantee in article 20(3) is against "testimonial compulsion". It is suggested that this is confined to the oral evidence of a person standing his trial for an offence when called to the witness-stand. We can see no reason to confine the content of the constitutional guarantee to this barely literal import. So to limit it would be to rob the guarantee of its substantial purpose and to miss the substance for the sound as stated in certain American decisions. The phrase used in Article 20(3) is "to be a witness". A person can "be a witness" not merely by giving oral evidence but also by producing documents or making intelligible gestures as in the case of a dumb witness (See section 119 of the Evidence Act) or the like. "To be a witness"

is nothing more than "to furnish evidence", and such evidence can be furnished through the lips or by production of a thing or of a document or in other modes. So far as production of documents is concerned, no doubt Section 139 of the Evidence Act says that a person producing a document on summons is not a witness. But that section is meant to regulate the right of cross examination. It is not a guide to the connotation of the word "witness", which must be understood in its natural sense, i.e., as referring to a person who furnishes evidence. Indeed, every positive volitional act which furnishes evidence is testimony, and testimonial compulsion connotes coercion which procures the positive volitional evidentiary acts of the

27 2025:JHHC:34660

person, as opposed to the negative attitude of silence or submission on his part. Nor is there any reason to think that the protection in respect of the evidence so procured is confined to what transpires at the trial in the court room. The phrase used in article 20(3) is "to be a witness" and not to "appear as a witness". It follows that the protection afforded to an accused in so far as it is related to the phrase "to be a witness" is not merely in respect of testimonial compulsion in the court room but may well extend to compelled testimony previously obtained from him. It is available therefore to a person against whom a formal accusation relating to the commission of an offence has been levelled which in the normal course may result in prosecution. Whether it is available to other persons in other situations does not call for decision in this case." (emphasis supplied)

338. In the context of the 2002 Act, it must be remembered that the summon is issued by the Authority under Section 50 in connection with the inquiry regarding proceeds of crime which may have been attached and pending adjudication before the Adjudicating Authority. In respect of such action, the designated officials have been empowered to summon any person for collection of information and evidence to be presented before the Adjudicating Authority. It is not necessarily for initiating a prosecution against the noticee as such. The power entrusted to the designated officials under this Act, though couched as investigation in real sense, is to undertake inquiry to ascertain relevant facts to facilitate initiation of or pursuing with an action regarding proceeds of crime, if the situation so warrants and for being presented before the Adjudicating Authority. It is a different matter that the information and evidence so collated during the inquiry made, may disclose commission of offence of money- laundering and the involvement of the person, who has been summoned for making disclosures pursuant to the summons issued by the Authority. At this stage, there would be no formal document indicative of likelihood of involvement of such person as an accused of offence of money laundering. If the

28 2025:JHHC:34660

statement made by him reveals the offence of money laundering or the existence of proceeds of crime, that becomes actionable under the Act itself.

339.To put it differently, at the stage of recording of statement for the purpose of inquiring into the relevant facts in connection with the property being proceeds of crime is, in that sense, not an investigation for prosecution as such; and in any case, there would be no formal accusation against the noticee. Such summons can be issued even to witnesses in the inquiry so conducted by the authorised officials. However, after further inquiry on the basis of other material and evidence, the involvement of such person (noticee) is revealed, the authorised officials can certainly proceed against him for his acts of commission or omission. In such a situation, at the stage of issue of summons, the person cannot claim protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. However, if his/her statement is recorded after a formal arrest by the ED official, the consequences of Article 20(3) or Section 25 of the Evidence Act may come into play to urge that the same being in the nature of confession, shall not be proved against him. Further, it would not preclude the prosecution from proceeding against such a person including for consequences under Section 63 of the 2002 Act on the basis of other tangible material to indicate the falsity of his claim. That would be a matter of rule of evidence.

342. It is, thus, clear that the power invested in the officials is one for conducting inquiry into the matters relevant for ascertaining existence of proceeds of crime and the involvement of persons in the process or activity connected therewith so as to initiate appropriate action against such person including of seizure, attachment and confiscation of the property eventually vesting in the Central Government."

40. It is evident from the observation so made as above

that the purposes and objects of the 2002 Act for which it

has been enacted, is not limited to punishment for offence

of money-laundering, but also to provide measures for

29 2025:JHHC:34660

prevention of money-laundering. It is also to provide for

attachment of proceeds of crime, which are likely to be

concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which

may result in frustrating any proceeding relating to

confiscation of such proceeds under the 2002 Act. This Act

is also to compel the banking companies, financial

institutions and intermediaries to maintain records of the

transactions, to furnish information of such transactions

within the prescribed time in terms of Chapter IV of the

2002 Act.

41. 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

"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.

30 2025:JHHC:34660

42. So far as the purport of Section 45(1)(i)(ii) is

concerned, 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 a 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.

43. Sub-section (2) thereof puts limitation on granting

bail specific in subsection (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.

44. 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

31 2025:JHHC:34660

to the fulfilment of conditions under section 19 and subject

to the conditions enshrined under this section.

45. 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-268-270. For ready reference,

the said paragraphs are being referred as under:

"268. Section 45 has been amended vide Act 20 of 2005, Act 13 of 2018 and Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. The provision as it obtained prior to 23.11.2017 read somewhat differently. The constitutional validity of Sub-section (1) of Section 45, as it stood then, was considered in Nikesh Tarachand Shah. This Court declared Section 45(1) of the 2002 Act, as it stood then, insofar as it imposed two further conditions for release on bail, to be unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The two conditions which have been mentioned as twin conditions are: (i) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

269. According to the petitioners, since the twin conditions have been declared to be void and unconstitutional by this Court, the same stood obliterated. To buttress this argument, reliance has been placed on the dictum in State of Manipur.

270. The first issue to be answered by us is: whether the twin conditions, in law, continued to remain on the statute book post decision of this Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah and if yes, in view of the amendment effected to Section 45(1) of the 2002 Act vide Act 13 of 2018, the declaration by this Court will be of no consequence. This argument need not detain us for long. We say so because the observation in State of Manipur in paragraph 29 of the judgment that owing to the declaration by a Court that the statute is unconstitutional obliterates the statute entirely as though it had never been passed, is contextual. In this case, the Court was dealing with the efficacy of the repealing Act. While

32 2025:JHHC:34660

doing so, the Court had adverted to the repealing Act and made the stated observation in the context of lack of legislative power. In the process of reasoning, it did advert to the exposition in BehramKhurshidPesikaka and Deep Chand including American jurisprudence expounded in Cooley on Constitutional Limitations and Norton v. Shelby County."

46. 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), has laid down

that since the conditions specified under Section 45 are

mandatory, they need to be complied with. The Court is

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

33 2025:JHHC:34660

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.

47. For ready reference, paragraph-17 of the said

judgment is quoted as under:

"17. As well settled by now, the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory. They need to be complied with. The Court is 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 is needless to say 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."

48. 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.

34

2025:JHHC:34660

49. In the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court

in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of

India and Ors. (supra) as under paragraph 284, it has been

held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute

a person for offence of money-laundering only if it has

reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing

that the person is in possession of "proceeds of crime". Only

if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible

evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned

in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of

crime, action under the Act can be taken to forward for

attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until

vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process

initiated would be a standalone process.

50. So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45

of the Act, 2002 is concerned, 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 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

35 2025:JHHC:34660

uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special

legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for

combating the menace of money-laundering.

51. 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,

(2015) 16 SCC 1 has been pleased to hold at paragraph -30

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 Cr.P.C 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.

52. 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 Section 439 CrPC. That

coupled with the provisions of Section 24 provides that

36 2025:JHHC:34660

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. For ready

reference, paragraph-30 of the said judgment reads as

under:

"30. 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 Section 439 CrPC. 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 appellant."

53. Now adverting to the fact of the present case,

learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the allegation leveled against the present petitioner cannot

be said to attract the ingredient of Section 3 of PMLA. While

on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the

ED has submitted by referring to various paragraphs of

37 2025:JHHC:34660

prosecution complaint that the offence is very much

available attracting the offence under provisions of PML Act.

54. This Court, in order to appreciate the rival

submission, is of the view that various paragraphs of

prosecution complaint upon which the reliance has been

placed on behalf of both the parties, needs to be referred

herein so as to come to the conclusion as to whether the

parameter as fixed under Section 45(ii) of the 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.

55. In order to reach to conclusion regarding share of

the accused persons in commission against allotment of

tenders and accumulation of „proceeds of crime‟, this Court

needs to refer the relevant paragraph 7 of the prosecution

complaint, which reads as under:

"7. INVESTIGATION LEADING TO FURTHER SEARCHES UNDER PMLA:

7.1 During the course of the investigation, Veerendra Kumar Ram was arrested u/s 19 of PMLA, 2002 on 23.02.2023 for the offence defined under Section 3 of PMLA. During his custodial interrogation, Veerendra Kumar Ram disclosed that he was taking commission against the allotment of tenders from the contractors. He further disclosed in his statement that the commission amount taken from the contractors is 3.2% of the total tender value and that his share was 0.3% of the total tender value which at some postings was higher than 0.3%.

However, given the total Proceeds of Crime acquired by him, it is believed that the percentage (%) of commission varied from 0.3%

38 2025:JHHC:34660

to 1% of the tender value which is being stated by him under Section 50 of PMLA, 2002.

7.2 Veerendra Kumar Ram in his statement further stated that the whole process of collection and distribution of commission was taken care of by the assistant engineers posted at the Rural Development Special Zone and Rural Works Department. He further stated that the share of Minister Alamgir Alam was 1.5% of the allocated tender amount. Investigation revealed that Rs. 3 crores were given to Alamgir Alam by engineers of the Rural Works Department through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal in September 2022.

7.3 Further, it was ascertained that the amount of commission on behalf of Alamgir Alam was getting collected by Sanjeev Kumar Lal (his PS). Further, it was ascertained that a person named Jahangir Alam collects such commission on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal who is an associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. During investigation, it was found that Sanjeev Kumar Lal resides at Booty Road, Ranchi which is a government accommodation. During analysis of the seized mobile phone of Veerendra Kumar Ram, contact details of Sanjeev Kumar Lal was found as 'Sanjeev Lal PA of RDD Minister' and two mobile nos. (9939121851 and 8789745592) are saved in the said contact's name. Further, SDR, CAF and CDR of the aforesaid mobile nos, were sought and it was revealed that the mobile no. 9939121851 is in the name of Sanjeev Kumar Lal himself. However, another mobile no. 8789745592 was found to be in the name of Jahangir Alam, S/o- Ekramul Haque. Thus, it became evident that Jahangir Alam is a close associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and the Jahangir acts as a close trusted aid of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. Further, analysis of the CDR and tower location of both mobile nos. was also made and it was found that they live in very close proximity to the government accommodation and it was found during search that they were residing in the same government residence. Further, it was gathered that there is a flat in the name of Jahangir Alam which was used by Sanjeev Kumar Lal for secreting the proceeds of crime. It was also gathered that the

39 2025:JHHC:34660

wife of Sanjeev Lal @ Sanjeev Kumar Lal is involved in businesses related to construction and is a director/partner/shareholder in an entity with one builder Munna Singh. It was learnt that the proceeds of crime in the form of cash acquired by the officials/officers of the Rural Development Department are deposited to a builder on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. Therefore, on the basis of reasons to believe, search u/s 17 of PMLA, 2002 was conducted at seven premises on 06.05.2024.

7.4.As a result of the search, huge cash to the tune of Rs 32.20 crores was recovered and seized on 06/07.05.2024 from the premises of Jahangir Alam i.e. Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi.

.....

Further, huge cash amount to the tune of Rs. 2.93 Crore have been recovered and seized on 06.05.2024 from the premises of Munna Singh i.e. Flat No. 1A Kashmiri Gali, PP Compound, Ranchi, Jharkhand.

7.5 On the basis of statement recorded of Munna Singh wherein he stated that he used to collect such cash from the engineers/contractors on the instruction of Sanjeev Lal, searches were also conducted at the residences of these engineers viz. Rajiv Kumar, Santosh Kumar, Rajkumar Toppo, Ajay Tirkey & Amit Kumar on 07.05.2024.

7.6 Further, as a result of the search on 07.05.2024 at the Residential premises of Rajeev Kumar Singh i.e. E-4, Mecon Vatika, Kalyanpur Hatiya, Ranchi Jharkhand-834003, a huge cash amount to the tune of Rs. 2.13 Crore have been recovered and seized.

7.7 Apart from the above, as a result of the search other cash amounts that were recovered and seized on different dates from the other premises.

........

In this way, Cash totalling to Rs. 37.55 Crores Approx. has been recovered and seized from the various premises searched u/s 17 of the PMLA,2002 on 06th, 07th and 08th of May 2024.

40

2025:JHHC:34660

7.8 Apart from the above cash amounts several digital devices, incriminating documents and records were found and seized from the aforesaid premises during the course of searches on 06.05.2024, 07.05.2024, 08.05.2024, 10.05.2024 & 24.05.2024 under section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002........."

56. This Court has also gone through the averments

made in the prosecution complaint regarding modus

operandi of generation of „proceeds of crime‟, wherein it has

been stated that total of 18 searches was conducted u/s 17

of PMLA in Ranchi, at the premises of Sanjeev Kumar Lal,

Jahangir Alam, some Engineers and other persons on

different dates. As a result of search, huge amount of cash

to the tune of Rs. 37.55 Crore, digital devices, records and

various incriminating documents were recovered which gave

details with regard to the various individuals involved in the

process of generation and distribution of proceeds of crime.

Statement of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD,

JSRRDA and RDSD were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002

wherein they have inter alia stated that commission is

collected by the engineers/officials from

contractors/companies/firms against tender allocation in

the RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD departments. The

commission of 3% of the total amount mentioned in LOA

(Letter of Acceptance) is fixed for tender allotment, the

distribution of which among the Minister, bureaucrats,

41 2025:JHHC:34660

engineers and other officials is distributed as -(a) 1.35%-

Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal;

(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials.

They also stated that the collection of commission for

minister, Alamgir Alam, has been done by Sanjeev Kumar

Lal through his person/agent and for other persons the

commission has been collected by Chief Engineer, JSRRDA

himself and, through his selected persons. For ready

reference, the relevant portion of paragraph 8 is quoted as

under:

"8. GENERATION OF PROCEEDS OF CRIME 8.1 A total of 18 searches were conducted u/s 17 of PMLA in Ranchi, at the premises of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, Jahangir Alam, some Engineers and other persons on different dates. As a result of the search huge amount of cash to the tune of Rs. 37.55 Crore, digital devices, records and various incriminating documents were recovered which gave details with regard to the various individuals involved in the process of generation and distribution of proceeds of crime. 8.2 Sanjeev Kumar Lal during his ED Custody interrogation also stated that the commission in the range of 3 to 4 % of the total tender amount is collected in cash by the Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers of the respective departments. He further stated that he used to collect the share of 1.35 % of minister Alamgir Alam on his behalf from Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers via Chief Engineers. He further stated that first of all, the Asst. Engineers/Executive Engineers used to inform him regarding handing over the share of Alamgir Alam and they requested Sanjeev Kumar Lal to send some person to collect cash i.e. commission.

Thereafter, Sanjeev Kumar Lal used to instruct Munna Singh who was his close friend, and/or his brother (Santosh Kumar) to

42 2025:JHHC:34660

collect cash from the said engineers. Sanjeev Kumar Lal further instructed Jahangir Alam to stand near Abhinandan Marriage hall, near Rani Hospital and Deendayal Nagar, Ranchi with his Aprilia scooter bearing Registration No. JH01ES8402, where Rinku alias Santosh Kumar (brother of Munna Singh) handed over bags filled with currency/note bundles, and after receiving those bags, he used to park the said bags beneath bed and almirah at his Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi safely. Thus, it is ascertained that Sanjeev Kumar Lal takes care of the collection of commission on behalf of Minister Alamgir Alam. 8.3 Statements of various Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 wherein they have inter alia stated that commission is collected by the engineers/officials from contractors/companies/firms against tender allocation in the RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD departments. The commission of 3% of the total amount mentioned in LOA (Letter of Acceptance) is fixed for tender allotment, the distribution of which among the Minister, bureaucrats, engineers and other officials is distributed as under:

(a) 1.35%- Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal)

(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials They also stated that the collection of commission for minister Alamgir Alam has been done by Sanjeev Kumar Lal through his person/agent and for other persons the commission has been collected by Chief Engineer, JSRRDA himself and, through his selected persons.

8.4 Further, From the statements of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and aforesaid Chief Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD the modus operandi of allocation of Tenders and collection of commission against the tenders has surfaced which is detailed as under:

(i) The modus operandi regarding collection of commission against allotment tenders starts with the floating of tenders by RWD, RDSD and JSRRDA for the construction of roads, bridges and other government buildings in Jharkhand.

43 2025:JHHC:34660

Firstly, the Government takes decision to construct road/bridge, the Detailed Project Report (DPR) is prepared by Executive Engineer. Thereafter, the technical sanction is approved by the competent Authority i.e. up to 1.00 Crore by Superintendent Engineer and more than 01.00 Crore by Chief Engineer. After that sanctioned estimate is sent to the Department/Secretary and processed by the Department for Administrative Approval (AA) duly approved by the Hon'ble Minister of the department. Once the Administrative Approval (AA) sanction letter is issued by the Secretary, it is sent to Chief Engineer for Tender Process. Further, Apart from huge cash as mentioned above, several documents including letters on official letterheads were found from the said premise of Jahangir Alam, which were kept there on the instructions of, and under the possession of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, as PS to Alamgir Alam RDD minister, which clearly establishes that Sanjeev Kumar Lal was using the said premise of Jahangir Alam as a safe house for keeping cash, documents/records and other belongings related to Minister Alamgir Alam and himself. ........

.......

8.15 Further, Apart from huge cash as mentioned above, several documents including letters on official letterheads were found from the said premise of Jahangir Alam, which were kept there on the instructions of, and under the possession of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, as PS to Alamgir Alam RDD minister, which clearly establishes that Sanjeev Kumar Lal was using the said premise of Jahangir Alam as a safe house for keeping cash, documents/records and other belongings related to Minister Alamgir Alam and himself......

8.16.That, several documents and records pertaining to Sanjeev Kumar Lal were seized from the said premise of Jahangir Alam including several torn pages of a few diaries and notes. When these torn pages of diaries were confronted with Sanjeev Kumar Lal, he in his statements recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 has inter alia stated that these torn pages and notes contain the calculations (Hisab Kitab) of cash/commission collected

44 2025:JHHC:34660

against the allocation of tenders of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD........."

57. In order to prove the allegation, statements of

several persons were recorded under the provisions of

PMLA, the gist of the statements is quoted as under:

"10. BRIEF DETAILS OF PERSONS EXAMINED UNDER SECTION 17 AND 50 OF PMLA, 2002.

During the course of the search and investigation, statements of several persons were recorded under the provisions of PMLA, the gist of the statements relevant to this investigation is as under:

10.1. Veerendra Kumar Ram: Veerendra Kumar Ram is a chief engineer in Rural Department Special Zone and also in additional charge of Rural Works Department. In his statement recorded u/s 50 of PMLA during custodial interrogation and in judicial custody on different dates wherein he inter alia accepted that commission was taken in lieu of allotment of tenders and that the total commission was 3.2% of tender value and that his share of commission was 0.3% of the total tender amount which varies from 0.3% to 1%. The share of Minister Alamgir Alam is around 1.5% of the allocated tender amount. He further stated that the whole process of collection and distribution of commission was taken care of by the assistant engineers posted at Rural Development Special Zone and Rural Works Department. He further stated that Rs. 3 crores were given to Alamgir Alam by engineers of Rural Works Department through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal in September 2022.

During analysis of the seized mobile phone of Veerendra Kumar Ram, contact details of Sanjeev Lal was found as 'Sanjeev Lal PA of RDD Minister' and two mobile nos. (9939121851 and 8789745592) are saved in the-said-contact's name.

10.2. Alamgir Alam: He is the minister of RWD and other departments. He was arrested on 15.05.2024 and during his ED custodial interrogation u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002, he showed

45 2025:JHHC:34660

complete non-cooperation, by not divulging the true facts about Rs. 56 crores which are the Proceeds of Crime acquired by him and other seized records and documents. He has not disclosed the true facts even in his statements recorded u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 during his ED Custody and Judicial Custody. He failed to discharge the burden of proof which is bestowed upon him u/s 24 of PMLA.

10.3. Sanjeev Kumar Lal: He is PS to minister Alamgir Alam. He was arrested on 07.05.2024 and during his ED custodial interrogation u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002, he showed complete non- cooperation, by not divulging the true facts about 53 crores initially, which are the Proceeds of Crime acquired by Alamgir Alam and himself and other seized records and documents. When he was shown the evidences, he disclosed that he was collecting the share of Minister Alamgir Alam (1.35%) from the total commission which is 3% of total tender amount that was collected against the tenders of RWD, JSRRDA, RDSD, RDSD and RDSZ. He has instructed the Chief-Engineers and other engineers to collect the commission and give him the share of Minister Alamgir Alam. He instructed Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh to collect commission/cash from Chief Engineers and other engineers and hand over the same to Jahangir Alam. He further instructed Jahangir Alam to collect cash/commission from Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh and store the same at his (Jahangir Alam's) premises safely. He further accepted that the cash amount recovered and seized from the premises of Munna Singh and Rajeev Kumar Singh during the search is also the commission amount of Alamgir Alam which was yet to be handed over to Jahangir Alam. He maintained the calculations (Hisab Kitab) of the collected commission of Alamgir Alam in torn pages of diaries. He has also taken his share of around Rs. 2.05 Crore from the commission and invested the same in immovable and movable properties in his name and in the name of his family members. Further, Sanjeev Kumar Lal stated u/s 50 of PMLA that Munna Singh and his brother were not aware that the money they were

46 2025:JHHC:34660

collected, was the commission amount against the tenders. They did the same on his instructions.

10.4. Jahangir Alam: He is a close aide of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He was arrested on 07.05.2024 and during his ED custodial interrogation u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002, he showed complete non-cooperation, by not divulging the true facts about Rs. 32.20 crore initially, which are the Proceeds of Crime acquired by Alamgir Alam and Sanjeev Kumar Lal and other seized records and documents.

He further stated that the cash amount seized from his said premises belongs to Sanjeev Kumar Lal, and he collected the aforesaid huge cash amount i.e. Rs. 32.20 Crore on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further stated that about 4 to 5 months ago Sanjeev Kumar Lal instructed him to stand near Abhinandan Marriage hall, near Rani Hospital and Deendayal Nagar, Ranchi with his Aprilia scooter bearing, where Rinku alias Santosh Kumar (brother of Munna Singh) handed over bags filled with currency/note bundles, and after receiving those bags, he used to park the said bags beneath bed and almirah at his Flat No. 1A, Sir Syed Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi safely. He has also taken cash around Rs. 40.40 Lakhs from Sanjeev Kumar Lal and invested the same in immovable and movable properties in his name with the help of his friends. With respect to jewellery seized from his premises, he in his statement recorded in judicial custody, has accepted that the seized jewellery belongs to him and the said jewellery items was purchased by him in cash, however, he has no invoice in support of such purchase.

10.5. Reeta Lal: Statements of Reeta Lal W/o Sanjeev Kumar Lal were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein she inter alia stated that she is a housewife and her source of income is agriculture. She has purchased immovable properties in Khunti, Bariyatu, Kanke Road and Pundag. She further stated that she is a partner in Tejaswini Buildcon with Munna Singh. She transferred Rs 10 Lakhs on 22.04.2022 to the bank account of Tejaswini Buildcon as an investment. She further stated that she has invested Rs. 21-22-Lakhs in the said firm. She further stated that she has

47 2025:JHHC:34660

received Rs. 9,00,000/- from TEJASWINI BUILDCON as a partner against her aforesaid investment made in Tejaswini Buildcon which has been further used for purchase of aforesaid property. Further, regarding the source of funds for the purchase of the said property, she stated that it is either a loan taken from various persons or her agriculture income, but she failed to produce any documents regarding her aforesaid loans and agriculture income.

10.6. Munna Singh: Statements of Munna Singh were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that the huge cash amount seized from his premises i.e. Rs. 2.93 Crore is the commission amount which was yet to be handed over to the person of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further stated that Rs. 50 Crore were collected from assistant engineers, and he sent it to Sanjeev Kumar Lal during the period of 8 to 9 months. When asked about regarding Rs. 50 Crore already sent to Sanjeev Kumar Lal but only Rs. 32.20 Crore have been recovered and seized from the premised of Jahangir Alam he stated that only Sanjeev Kumar Lal can explain the same. Further, a diary was recovered and seized from the premises of Munna Singh which contains the details of commission amount of around Rs. 50 Crore collected from the Chief and other engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD. Further, Munna Singh has stated in his statement recorded on u/s 50 of PMLA, that he has not received any share from the commission he used to collect. He did the collection and handing over of the cash only following the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. Munna Singh further stated that he showed his inability and objected against the collection of cash and he tried to know the source of funds from Sanjeev Kumar Lal, however, Sanjeev Kumar Lal never revealed him the actual source of the cash collected. Sanjeev Kumar Lal always told him that there would be no issue in aforesaid task.

10.7. Santosh Kumar alias Rinku: Statements of Santosh Kumar alias Rinku, brother of Munna Singh were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that he following the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal has collected the commission/cash from the Chief and other engineers, and

48 2025:JHHC:34660

handed over the same to the person of Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further stated that he has received cash-several times from various persons.

10.8. Rajkumar Toppo: Statement of Rajkumar Toppo, Executive Engineer was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the engineers/official from Contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the departments. He further stated that the commission is 3% of total LOA, for the allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed as under:

(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal)

(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and his Chief-Engineer Singrai Tuti he has collected around Rs. 5 Crore commission from the contractors and further handed over to Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh for giving the same to Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further stated when he was confronted with the documents seized from his premises on 07.05.2024, that 'U' stands for Umesh Kumar, "DS" code stands for Deposited Sum, "H" code stands for Ministry (Hon'ble Minister Alamgir Alam) and Ce stands for Chief Engineer.

10.9. Ajay Tirkey: Statement of Ajay Tirkey, Executive Engineer, JSRRDA was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the departments. He further stated that the commission is 3% of the total LOA, for allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed as under:

(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal)

(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and his Chief Engineer Promod Kumar, he has collected around Rs. 6.36 Crore against the total tender amount of Rs. 212 Crores.

49 2025:JHHC:34660

Out of which 2.86 Crores i.e. share of Alamgir Alam has been handed over to Sanjeev Kumar Lal.

10.10. Ajay Kumar: Statement of Ajay Kumar, Executive Engineer, JSRRDA was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the departments. He further stated that the commission is 3% of total LOA, for allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed as under:

(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal)

(b) 1.65% - Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and his Chief Engineer Pramod Kumar he has collected around Rs. 4.77 Crore against total tender amount of Rs. 150 Crores. Out of which 2.295 Crores i.e. share of Alamgir Alam has been handed over to Sanjeev Kumar Lal.

10.11.Ashok Kumar Gupta: Statement of Ashok Kumar Gupta, Executive Engineer was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the departments. He further stated that the commission is 3% of total LOA, for allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed as under:

(a) 1.35%- Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal)

(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and his Chief-Engineers Singrai Tuti and Pramod Kumar he has collected around Rs. 10.50 Crore commission from the contractors. He further stated that he along with Ajay Kumar had handed over Rs. 4.72 Crores to Sanjeev Kumar Lal as share of Minister Alamgir Alam.

10.12. Santosh Kumar: Statement of Santosh Kumar, Executive Engineer was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he

50 2025:JHHC:34660

inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the departments. He further stated that the commission is 3% of the total LOA, for allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed as under:

(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal)

(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and his Chief-Engineer Rajiv Lochan he has collected around Rs.

20 Crore commission from the contractors, and further handed over to Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh for giving the same to Sanjeev Kumar Lal.

10.13. Singrai Tuti: Statement of Singrai Tuti, retired Chief- Engineer, JSRRDA was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the departments under his portfolios. He further stated that the commission is 3% of total LOA, for the allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed as under:

(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal)

(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, PS to Alamgir Alam he has collected around Rs. 18 Crore through Assistant Engineers against a total tender amount of Rs. 600 Crores. Out of which 12 Crores i.e. share of Alamgir Alam has been handed over to Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further stated that Sanjeev Kumar Lal told him that the excess commission amount would be adjusted in future. He further stated that during one of his visits to Project Bhavan in April 2023 Minister Alamgir Alam had asked him about his share in commission against the allotment of tenders and Alamgir Alam also told him that his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal would handle the collection of commission on

51 2025:JHHC:34660

his behalf and also told him to follow the directions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal in this regard.

10.14. Surendra Kumar: Statement of Surendra Kumar, Chief- Engineer, RDSD was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the departments under his portfolios. He further stated that the commission is 3% of the total LOA, for allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed as under:

(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal)

(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, PS to Alamgir Alam he has collected around Rs. 15 Crore through Assistant Engineers and the same was handed over to Rajeev Kumar Singh, his known one, and further Rajeev Kumar Singh handed over the same to Munna Singh for giving it to Sanjeev Kumar Lal.

10.15. Pramod Kumar: Statement of Pramod Kumar, Chief- Engineer, JSRRDA was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the departments under his portfolios. He further stated that the commission is 3% of total LOA, for the allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed as under:

(a) 1.35%- Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal)

(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further stated that on the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, PS to Alamgir Alam he has collected around Rs. 10.5 Crore against total LOAs of Rs. 300 Crores, through Assistant Engineers. Out of which 7.50 Crore was handed over to Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further stated that he kept his share of Rs. 1.75 Crore and the rest amount was distributed among others.

52 2025:JHHC:34660

10.16. Rajiv Lochan: Statements of Rajiv Lochan, retired Chief- Engineer, RWD were recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the departments under his portfolios. He further stated that the system of collecting commission from contractors was prevalent even before he taking the charge as Chief Engineer in RWD. He further stated that some person of Sanjeev Kumar Lal used to collect commission amount from his subordinate assistant engineers time to time. He further stated that Sanjeev Kumar Lal used to forward his instructions to Assistant Engineers through Santosh Kumar, Executive Engineer and/or other executive engineers to collect commission amount, and this system had been continuously followed. He further stated that he had collected Ra. 9 Crores through his subordinate engineers, and same was further handed over to Sanjeev Kumar Lal. He further stated that the commission is 3% of total LOA, for allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed as under:

(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal)

(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials 10.17. Ramesh Ojha: Statement of Ramesh Ojha, Retired Assistant Engineer, RWD and RDSZ was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that Veerendra Kumar Ram instructed and pressurized him to receive a commission in lie of allotment of tenders.

He further stated that the commission is 3% of total LOA, for the allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is distributed as under:

(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal)

(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further stated that the commission was collected by the then Chief Engineer Veerendra Kumar Ram by his selected person and through him. Further, he has collected and handed over Rs.

1.5 Crore to Veerendra Kumar Ram.

53

2025:JHHC:34660

10.18. Umesh Kumar: Statement of Umesh Kumar, Executive Engineer was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that he was aware of the fact that the commission was collected by the engineers/official from contractors/companies/firms in lieu of allocation of tender in the departments under portfolio of Chief Engineer Singrai Tuti. He further stated that the commission is 3% of total LOA, for allotment of tenders.

The said 3% commission amount is distributed as under:

(a) 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam (through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal)

(b) 1.65% Top bureaucrats and other engineers/officials He further stated that during his period as superintending engineer in JSRRDA he has collected around Rs. 3.5 to 3.8 Crore commission amount from contractors through his executive/assistant Engineers on behalf of his Chief-Engineer Singrai Tuti and further handed over to the person of Sanjeev Kumar Lal.

10.19. Siddhant Kumar: Statement of Siddhant Kumar, Executive Engineer, RDSZ was recorded u/s 50 of PMLA wherein he inter alia stated that Veerendra Kumar Ram instructed and pressurized him to receive commission in lieu of allotment of tenders.

Similar was the statement of other engineers, as mentined in the prosecution complaint.

58. From the statement so recorded of the accused

persons as also of the Statement of various Chief

Engineers/Engineers of RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD recorded

u/s 50 of PMLA, it is evident that they all are consistent in

their statement that the commission is 3% of total LOA is for

the allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is

distributed in share of 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam

54 2025:JHHC:34660

through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal and rest 1.65% Top

bureaucrats and other engineers/officials.

59. Role of the present petitioner along with his close

allied in the commission of offence of money laundering, in

particular, who have been arrayed as accused in the second

supplementary prosecution, as mentioned at paragraph 15

of the prosecution complaint has been made. For ready

reference, the same is quoted as under:

"15.1 Role of the accused persons in the commission of offence of money laundering.

1.Alamgir Alam [Accused No. 11]-

a) Alamgir Alam is Minister of (i) Department of Rural Works (RWD), (ii) Department of Panchayati Raj and (iii) Department of Rural Development (RDD). Jharkhand State Rural Road Development Authority (JSRRDA) and Rural Development Special Division (RDSD) are the part of the Department of Rural Works (RWD). RWD, JSRRDA and RDSD constructs the roads and bridges in the state of Jharkhand, for which tenders are floated by these departments, against which 3% commission has been collected. He being the minister of these departments, is all in all and at the top echelon in the syndicate of commission collection.

b) He has pressurised and compelled the Chief Engineer under his portfolio to collect commission and give him his share through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal.

c) He has instructed Sanjeev Kumar Lal to collect his 1.35% share in total commission which is 3% of total tender value(Discussed in detail in Para 8.2 88.3).

d) Accordingly, Sanjeev Kumar Lal has instructed departmental engineers to hand over the commission part of Alamgir Alam to Munna Singh and/or his brother Santosh Kumar alias Rinku Singh. Further Munna Singh has stated that he has collected a total of Rs. 53 crores of commission

55 2025:JHHC:34660

from such engineers/contractors and handed over Rs.50 crores approx. to Sanjeev Lal through Jahangir Alam. Thus, the same amount of PoC was acquired by Alamgir Alam through Sanjeev Kumar Lal, out of this Rs.53 crores, an amount of Rs.35 crores approx. was seized during the search proceedings.

e) Further, it is ascertained from the statement of Veerendra Kumar Ram and Sanjeev Kumar Lal that Alamgir Alam also acquired a commission amount of Rs. 3 crores from Veerendra Kumar Ram through one engineer of the department and same transaction was also assisted by Sanjeev Kumar Lal in September 2022.

f) Thus, Alamgir Alam is found to be directly indulged and actually involved in possession and concealment of atleast Rs 35 crores of the Proceeds of Crime through Sanjeev Kumar Lal and he has also found to be directly indulged and actually involved in acquisition and concealment of atleast Rs. 56 crores of the Proceeds of Crime.

2.Sanjeev Kumar Lal (Accused No.-12):

a) He is the PS to Minister Alamgir Alam, and he has misused his official position for collection of commission on behalf of Minister Alamgir Alam.

b) He has pressurised, threatened and instructed the Chief-

Engineers and other engineers to collect commission and give him the share of Minister Alamgir Alam.

c) He is the person who is controlling whole syndicate of collection of commission against tenders from top to bottom on behalf of Minister Alamgir Alam.

d) He instructed Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh to collect commission/cash from Chief Engineers and other engineers and hand over the same to Jahangir Alam.

e) He instructed Jahangir Alam to collect cash/commission from Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh and store the same at his (Jahangir Alam's) premises safely.

f) He has taken his share of around Rs. 2.05 Crore from the commission and integrated the proceeds of crime in immovable and movable properties in his name and in the

56 2025:JHHC:34660

name of his family members and associates. He has purchased immovable properties, plot alongwith building at Bariyatu, which was also renovated by him and plot at Pundag, Ranchi in the name of his wife using proceeds of crime. He has also found to be involved in using PoC more than Rs 2.05 crores, for purchasing immovable properties in the name of himself, his wife and his close aid Jahangir Alam. Hence, Sanjeev Kumar Lal is directly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment, possession, utilisation and acquisition.

g) Sanjeev Kumar Lal is the mastermind and has played vital role in this syndicate/organized structure of illegal collection of proceeds of crime.

h) He is found to be directly indulged and actually involved and knowingly assisted Alamgir Alam in acquisition, possession and concealment of the Proceeds of Crime at least to the tune of Rs. 56 crores.

i) He is also found to be directly indulged and actually involved in the acquisition and concealment of PoC at least to the tune of Rs. 2.05 crores and claimed the proceeds of crime as untainted.

j) He has also found to be directly indulged and actually involved in using Proceeds of crime in at least 4 (four) immovable properties which he acquired in his own name, in name of his wife and his close aide Jahangir Alam and same four properties have been attached u/s 5(1) of the PMLA, 2002 and also being prayed for confiscation.

3. Jahangir Alam (Accused No.-13)

(a) Jahangir Alam is close associate of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, and has collected commission on behest of Sanjeev Kumar Lal.

(b) Following the instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, he has collected cash/commission from Santosh Kumar, brother of Munna Singh.

(c) He has played vital role in collection of cash/commission and concealment of the proceeds of crime clandestinely at his premises.

57

2025:JHHC:34660

(d) He has also taken cash around Rs. 40.40 Lakhs from Sanjeev Kumar Lal which is commission amount against tenders i.e. Proceeds of Crime and invested the same in immovable and movable properties in his name. He has purchased immovable properties, flat at Sir Syed Residency and plot at Pundag, Ranchi.

(e) Jahangir Alam is the key person who has facilitated the movement and hiding of cash/commission i.e. Proceeds of Crime.

(f) He is found to be directly indulged, actually involved and knowingly assisted Sanjeev Kumar Lal in acquisition, possession and concealment of the Proceeds of Crime at least to the tune of Rs. 50 crores approx. and jewellery worth Rs 14.50 lakhs approx.

(g) He is found to be directly indulged and actually involved and knowingly assisted Sanjeev Kumar Lal in utilisation, possession and concealment of Proceeds of Crime to the tune of Rs. 1,10,25,000/- for purchasing two immovable properties in his own name and claimed the proceeds of crime as untainted, which were attached u/s 5(1) of the PMLA, 2002 and also being prayed for confiscation vide this PC.

(h) Jahangir Alam has also found to be actually involved and knowingly assisted Sanjeev Kumar Lal in utilising Proceeds of crime in purchasing one vehicle viz. Tata Harrier having Reg. No. JH01DK-7459 which was seized u/s 17(1-A) of the Act, same vehicle was also used for commissioning of an offence under the Act, and also being prayed for confiscation.

60. Thus, from the complaint it appears that apart from

huge cash as mentioned above, several documents including

letters were found from the premise of Jahangir Alam, which

were kept there on the instructions of, Sanjeev Kumar Lal,

as PS to Alamgir Alam the then RDD minister, which

58 2025:JHHC:34660

indicates that premise of Jahangir Alam was used as a safe

house for keeping cash, documents/records and other

belongings.

61. Thus, from perusal of the entire prosecution

complaint prima facie it appears that the whole modus-

operandi regarding collection of commission and later

distribution has been illustrated to the respondent ED by

the Sanjeev Kumar Lal, during his statement‟s u/s 50 of

PMLA, which are mentioned in Para 10.3 of the

supplementary prosecution complaint.

62. Further, the similar is the statements of witnesses

Raj Kumar Toppo, Executive Engineer given in Para-10.8,

Ajay Kumar, Executive Engineer in Para- 10.9, Ajay Tirkey,

Executive Engineer in Para-10.10, Ashok Kumar Gupta,

Executive Engineer in Para-10.11, Santosh Kumar,

Executive Engineer mentioned in Para-10.12, Singrai Tuti,

Retd Chief Engineer in Para-10.13, Surendra Kumar, Chief

Engineer in Para-10.14, Pramod Kumar, Chief Engineer in

Para-10.15, Rajeev Lochan, Chief Engineer in Para-10.16,

Ramesh Ojha, Retd Assistant Engineer in Para-10.17,

Umesh Kumar, Executive Engineer in Para-10.18 and

Siddhant Kumar, Executive Engineer in Para-10.19 as

recorded u/s 50 PMLA and also mentioned in the

prosecution complaint dated 04.07.2024.

59

2025:JHHC:34660

63. Further from the prosecution complaint it is evident

that the Petitioner is the key person who has facilitated the

movement and hiding of cash/commission i.e. Proceeds of

Crime and further he knowingly assisted Sanjeev Kumar Lal

in acquisition, possession and concealment of the Proceeds

of Crime as the huge amount of money i.e. approx. 32 crore

have been recovered from premises of the petitioner.

64. Further it has come on record that the present

accused/petitioner is found to be directly indulged and

knowingly assisted co- accused Sanjeev Kumar Lal PS of the

then RDD minister Alamgir Alam(co-accused) in utilisation,

possession and concealment of Proceeds of Crime to the

tune of Rs. 1,10,25,000/- for purchasing two immovable

properties in his own name and claimed the proceeds of

crime as untainted, which were attached u/s 5(1) of the

PMLA, 2002.

65. At this juncture it needs to refer herein that it is

settled connotation of law that at the stage of considering

bail, the duty of the Court is not to weigh the evidence

meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad

probabilities and Court should not venture into the merit of

the case by analyzing that whether conviction is possible or

not. Meaning thereby at this stage the Court has to see the

prima facie case only.

60

2025:JHHC:34660

66. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit

Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) while

referring the ratio of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing

Sharma v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2005) 5 SCC

294 has categorically held that 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.

67. Further the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay

Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and

Ors(supra) has reiterated the same view and has observed

that the Court while dealing with the application for grant of

bail need not to delve deep into the merits of the case and

only a view of the court based on available material on

record is required. For ready reference the relevant

paragraph is being quoted as under:

303. We are in agreement with the observation made by the Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma [Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1057] . 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

61 2025:JHHC:34660

view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material 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 Prasad [Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 575] , 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.

68. This Court is now re-adverting to the fact of the

instant case as well as the prosecution complaint wherefrom

it is evident that Jahangir Alam is the key person who has

facilitated the movement and hiding of cash/commission i.e.

Proceeds of Crime.

Culpability of the present petitioner in the alleged Crime

69. From the prosecution complaint relevant part

quoted and referred herein above, it appears that the

present petitioner is found to be directly indulged, and

knowingly assisted Sanjeev Kumar Lal in acquisition,

possession and concealment of the Proceeds of Crime at

least to the tune of Rs. 50 crores approx. and jewellery worth

Rs 14.50 lakhs approx.

70. The present petitioner Jahangir Alam has also

found to have actually assisted Sanjeev Kumar Lal in

utilising Proceeds of crime in purchasing one vehicle viz.

Tata Harrier having Reg. No. JH01DK-7459 which was

62 2025:JHHC:34660

seized u/s 17(1-A) of the Act, same vehicle was also used for

commissioning of an offence under the Act..

71. Thus, on the basis of the material available in

prosecution complaint prima facie the role of the present

petitioner in the alleged money laundering cannot be

negated.

72. Further it has come on the record that a huge cash

of Rs.32.20 crore was recovered and seized from the

premises of present petitioner Jahangir Alam. Thus, this

Court is of prima facie view that the contention of the

petitioner that the prosecution has failed to establish the

entire money trail, is without any factual basis and moreover

section 3 of PMLA nowhere requires the entire money trail or

where the money eventually went.

73. It needs to refer herein that the Hon‟ble Apex Court

in the case of Rana Ayyub v. Directorate of Enforcement)

(2023) 4 SCC 357 observed as follows:

"19. The word "money-laundering" is defined in Section 2(1)(p) of the Act to have the same meaning as assigned to it in Section

3. Section 3 of the Act makes a person guilty of the offence of money laundering, if he (1) directly or indirectly attempts to indulge, or (n) knowingly assists or, (im) knowingly is a party, or (iv) is actually involved in any process or activity. Such process or activity should be connected to "proceeds of crime "

including its concealment or possession or acquisition or use. In addition, a person involved in such process or activity connected to proceeds of crime, should be projecting or claiming it as untainted property. The Explanation under Section 3 63 2025:JHHC:34660

makes it clear that even if the involvement is in one or more of the following activities or processes, namely: (i) concealment; (ii) possession; (im) acquisition; (iv) use; (o) projecting it as untainted property, or (vi) claiming it as untainted property, the offence of money-laundering will be made out.

20. Thus, Section 3 comprises of two essential limbs, namely: (i) involvement in any process or activity, and (ii) connection of such process or activity to the proceeds of crime. The expression "proceeds of crime" is defined in Section 2(1)(u) to mean 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 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."

74. In the light of the aforesaid statutory definitions, it

can safely be inferred that it is enough if the prosecution

establishes that there was generation of proceeds of crime

and the accused was involved in any process or activity in

connection with the proceeds of crime. Therefore, it is

considered view of this Court that since concealment of the

proceeds of crime is itself an offence it is not necessary for

the prosecution to establish the money trail.

75. Therefore, in view of Section 3 of the PML Act

particularly its explanation part, the aforesaid argument is

having no substance.

Issue of Arrest

76. It has been contended by learned counsel for the

petitioner that procedure as stipulated in the Section 19 of

the Act 2002 and the mandate of the Section 57 Criminal

64 2025:JHHC:34660

Procedure Code has not been followed, therefore the arrest of

present petitioner is illegal. In order to substantiate this limb

of argument, it has further been submitted that during

search petitioner remained in physical custody of the ED

from 06:15 AM of 06.05.2024 when the search started at his

flat until having been brought before the remand court in

afternoon of 07.05.2024 i.e. after more than 30 hours, which

is completely illegal. The petitioner was unlawfully arrested

at 02.00 AM in a very mechanical way and has not been

produced before the court within stipulated period of 24

hours as stipulated in Section 57 Cr.P.C., therefore, the

arrest of the petitioner is completely illegal

77. In order to substantiate the aforesaid contention of

the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court has gone

through the record of the case, wherefrom it is evident from

the Panchnama dated 06/07.05.2024 (Annexure R-1)

appended to the main petition, the period from 06:15 AM on

06.05.2024 was part of a single, continuous, and lawful

search proceeding, which concluded at 03:15 AM on

07.05.2024 and the petitioner was formally arrested under

Section 19 of the PMLA only at 02:00 AM on 07.05.2024,

after the recovery of overwhelming evidence. The Arrest

Order, served upon the petitioner, explicitly records the

aforesaid time. Thereafter, petitioner was produced before

65 2025:JHHC:34660

the Special Court on the afternoon of 07.05.2024, which is

well within the 24-hour limit from the time of his formal

arrest.

78. It needs to refer herein that the 24-hour period

commences from the moment of formal arrest, not from the

commencement of a search proceeding, thus the mandate of

Section 57 Cr.PC as well as core of Article 22(2) has fully

been complied by the prosecuting agency.

79. From the record it is fully established that the

petitioner was formally arrested under Section 19 of the

PMLA, 2002, only at 02:00 AM on 07.05.2024, after the

recovery of overwhelming incriminating evidence, including

the seizure of ₹32.20 Crores in cash from his possession and

further the Arrest Order and the ground of arrest was served

upon the petitioner at the time of arrest and the same was

countersigned by the petitioner.

80. Thus, the mandate of Section 19 as well as the

directions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court given in the cases

of Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India 2023 SCC Online SC

1244 and Ram Kishore Arora vs Directorate of

Enforcement, 2023 SCC Online SC 1682 have been fully

complied as the grounds mentioned explicitly in a separate

memo handed over to the petitioner in writing before his

66 2025:JHHC:34660

arrest u/s 19 of PMLA, 2002 on 07.05.2024 and the same

was counter signed by the petitioner.

81. It requires to refer herein that in the case of Arvind

Kejriwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 SCC

OnLine 1703] which has been delivered by Hon‟ble Apex

Court on 12.07.2024 wherein it has been laid down by the

Hon‟ble Apex Court that the "reason to believe" should be

reduced in writing and furnished to the arrestee at the time

of arrest.

82. But it needs to refer herein that on 07.05.2024

when the arrest of the petitioner was made by the ED, the

judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the Arvind

Kejriwal (supra) was not in the existence as the same was

rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court on 12.07.2024,

therefore on 07.05.2024 when petitioner was arrested it was

not required for the ED to furnished the „reason to believe‟ in

writing to the petitioner.

83. It is pertinent to mention herein that the

retrospective application of said Judgment i.e. Arvind

Kejriwal (supra), has been question before the Delhi High

Court in the case of Arvind Dham vs. Union of India [2024

SCC OnLIne Del 8490], in which, the Delhi High Court has

taken into consideration the aforesaid fact and on the

principle of retrospectively the judgment passed by Hon‟ble

67 2025:JHHC:34660

Apex Court in the case of Arvind Kejriwal has not been

followed. The said order passed by the Delhi High Court has

been questioned before the Hon‟ble Apex Court by filing

SLP(Cr.) No. 017357 of 2024 and the order passed by the

Delhi High Court in Arvind Dham (supra) has been upheld

by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.

84. Thus, on the basis of discussion made hereinabove,

it is considered view of this Court that mandate of the

Section 19 of the Act 2002 and Section 57 Cr.P.C. has been

fully complied by the prosecuting agency, therefore the

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

arrest of the petitioner was illegal due to want of non-

adherence of the provision of section 19 of the Act 2002 and

Section 57 Cr.P.C., is not fit to be accepted.

85. The another contention has been raised by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is not the

named accused in the first FIR and as such his culpability

in alleged crime cannot be fully established.

86. In this context it is pertinent to mention here that

the provisions of the PMLA is an independent offence and

the investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate

under the PMLA, 2002 is triggered after committing, the

commission of a scheduled offence, out of which proceeds

have been generated. During the investigation, there is the

68 2025:JHHC:34660

active involvement of the petitioner in the layering, transfer

and use as well as the petitioner entering into transactions

to launder the proceeds of crime generated out of such

scheduled offence.

87. Thus, prima-facie, it appears that the petitioner has

involved himself in accumulating proceeds of crime and the

aforesaid plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner

doesn‟t hold water. Further the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Pavna

Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal

No. 2779/2023) held that the who could commit an offence

under the PMLA maybe not be named in the scheduled

offence.

88. Further the offence of money laundering as

contemplated in Section 3 of the PMLA has been elaborately

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 money

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

69 2025:JHHC:34660

proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) of

the Act and further it is involved in any process or activity.

Not even in case of existence of undisclosed income and

irrespective of its volume, the definition of "Proceeds of

Crime" under Section 2(1)(u) will get attracted, unless the

property has been derived or obtained as a result of criminal

activity relating to a scheduled offence. The property must

qualify the definition of "Proceeds of Crime" under Section

2(1)(u) of the Act. As observed, in all or whole of the crime

property linked to scheduled offence need not be regarded as

proceeds of crime, but all properties qualifying the definition

of "Proceeds of Crime" under Section 2(1)(u) will necessarily

be the crime properties.

89. It is required to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Pavana Dibbur vs. The Directorate of

Enforcement passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2779 of 2023

has considered the effect of the appellant not being shown

as an accused in the predicate offence by taking into

consideration Section 3 of the Act, 2002. The Hon'ble Apex

Court by interpreting the provision of Section 3 of the Act,

2002 has come out with the finding that on a plain reading

of Section 3, unless proceeds of crime exist, there cannot be

any money laundering offence.

70

2025:JHHC:34660

90. Based upon the definition Clause (u) of sub-section

(1) of Section 2 of the Act 2002 which defines "proceeds of

crime", the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph-12 has been

pleased to observe that clause (v) of sub-section (1) of

Section 2 of PMLA defines "property" to mean any property

or assets of every description, whether corporeal or

incorporeal, movable or immovable, tangible or intangible.

91. 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.

92. At paragraph-14 of the aforesaid judgment, it has

observed by referring the decision rendered by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs.

Union of India and Ors.(supra) that the condition

precedent for the existence of proceeds of crime is the

existence of a scheduled offence. At paragraph-15 the

finding has been given therein that on plain reading of

71 2025:JHHC:34660

Section 3 of the Act, 2002, an offence under Section 3 can

be said to be committed after a scheduled offence is

committed. By giving an example, it has been clarified that if

a person who is unconnected with the scheduled offence,

knowingly assists the concealment of the proceeds of crime

or knowingly assists the use of proceeds of crime, in that

case, he can be held guilty of committing an offence under

Section 3 of the PMLA. Therefore, it is not necessary that a

person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the

PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused in

the scheduled offence.

93. So far as the facts of the present case are

concerned, the respondent-ED has placed heavy reliance on

the statements of witnesses and the documents produced by

them under Section 50 of the said Act, to prima facie show

the involvement of petitioner in the alleged offence of money

laundering under Section 3 thereof.

94. The three Judge Bench the Hon‟ble Apex Court in

the case of Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement

(supra) 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

72 2025:JHHC:34660

commission of the offence of money laundering. For ready

reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:

31. Suffice it to observe that the appellant has not succeeded in persuading us about the inapplicability of the threshold stipulation under Section 45 of the Act. In the facts of the present case, we are in agreement with the view taken by the Sessions Court and by the High Court. We have independently examined the materials relied upon by the prosecution and also noted the inexplicable silence or reluctance of the appellant in disclosing the source from where such huge value of demonetised currency and also new currency has been acquired by him. The prosecution is relying on statements of 26 witnesses/accused already recorded, out of which 7 were considered by the Delhi High Court. These statements are admissible in evidence, in view of Section 50 of the 2002 Act. The same makes out a formidable case about the involvement of the appellant in commission of a serious offence of money laundering. It is, therefore, not possible for us to record satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant is not guilty of such offence. Further, the courts below have justly adverted to the antecedents of the appellant for considering the prayer for bail and concluded that it is not possible to hold that the appellant is not likely to commit any offence ascribable to the 2002 Act while on bail. Since the threshold stipulation predicated in Section 45 has not been overcome, the question of considering the efficacy of other points urged by the appellant to persuade the Court to favour the appellant with the relief of regular bail will be of no avail. In other words, the fact that the investigation in the predicate offence instituted in terms of FIR No. 205/2016 or that the investigation qua the appellant in the complaint CC No. 700 of 2017 is completed; and that the proceeds of crime are already in possession of the investigating agency and provisional attachment order in relation thereto passed on 13-2-2017 has been confirmed;

or that charge-sheet has been filed in FIR No. 205/2016 against the appellant without his arrest; that the appellant has been lodged in judicial custody since 2-1-2017 and has not been

73 2025:JHHC:34660

interrogated or examined by the Enforcement Directorate thereafter; all these will be of no consequence.

95. In a recent judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Abhishek Banerjee & Anr. v. Enforcement Directorate,

(2024) 9 SCC 22 has again made similar observations:

"21. ...Section 160 which falls under Ch. XII empowers the police officer making an investigation under the said chapter to require any person to attend within the limits of his own or adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, whereas, the process envisaged by Section 50 PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not "investigation" in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution; and the authorities referred to in Section 48 PMLA are not the police officers as held in Vijay Madanlal [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] .

22. It has been specifically laid down in the said decision that the statements recorded by the authorities under Section 50 PMLA are not hit by Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the Constitution, rather such statements recorded by the authority in the course of inquiry are deemed to be the judicial proceedings in terms of Section 50(4), and are admissible in evidence, whereas the statements made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under Ch. XII of the Code could not be used for any purpose, except for the purpose stated in the proviso to Section 162 of the Code. In view of such glaring inconsistencies between Section 50 PMLA and Sections 160/161CrPC, the provisions of Section 50 PMLA would prevail in terms of Section 71 read with Section 65 thereof."

96. In light of the foregoing judicial pronouncements, it

is evident that statements recorded under Section 50 of the

PMLA hold evidentiary value and are admissible in legal

proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while emphasizing

74 2025:JHHC:34660

the legal sanctity of such statements, observed that they

constitute valid material upon which reliance can be placed

to sustain allegations under the PMLA.

97. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court also reaffirmed the admissibility of Section 50 of the

PMLA distinguishing them from statements recorded under

the CrPC. The Court underscored that such statements,

being recorded during an inquiry rather than an

investigation, are not subject to the restrictions under Article

20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution. Instead, they are

deemed to be judicial proceedings under Section 50(4) of the

PMLA and, therefore, admissible as evidence in proceedings

under the PMLA. The Hon'ble Apex Court further clarified

that the provisions of Section 50 of the PMLA having an

overriding effect by virtue of Sections 65 and 71 of the PMLA

prevail over the procedural safeguards under the CrPC.

98. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view

that statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA can

be relied upon to prima facie establish culpability in money

laundering cases.

99. In the instant case, it has been found that during

the course of investigation, statement recorded of the

witnesses u/s 50 of PMLA, wherein all are consistent in

their statement that the commission is 3% of total LOA, for

75 2025:JHHC:34660

the allotment of tenders. The said 3% commission amount is

distributed in share of 1.35% Minister, Alamgir Alam

through his PS Sanjeev Kumar Lal and rest 1.65% Top

bureaucrats and other engineers/officials.

100. It has come during investigation the amount of

commission on behalf of Alamgir Alam was collected by the

Sanjeev Kumar Lal (his PS). Further, it has come in the

prosecution complaint that Jahangir Alam (Associate of

Sanjeev Kumar Lal) collected such commission on the

instructions of Sanjeev Kumar Lal.

101. Further, it has come in prosecution complaint that

during analysis of the seized mobile phone of Veerendra

Kumar Ram, contact details of Sanjeev Kumar Lal were

found as 'Sanjeev Lal PA of RDD Minister' and two mobile

nos. (xxxxxxx1851 and xxxxxx5592) are saved in the said

contact's name. Further, SDR, CAF and CDR of the aforesaid

mobile nos. were sought and it was revealed that the mobile

no. xxxxxx1851 is in the name of Sanjeev Kumar Lal

himself. However, another mobile no. xxxxxx5592 was found

to be in the name of present petitioner i.e Jahangir Alam S/o

Ekramul Haque.

102. Thus, it is evident that petitioner is a close associate

of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and he acts as a close trusted aide of

Sanjeev Kumar Lal. Further, analysis of the CDR and tower

76 2025:JHHC:34660

location of both mobile nos. was also made and it was found

that they live in very close proximity to the government

accommodation and it was found during the search that

they were residing in the same government residence.

Further, it was gathered that there is a flat at Sir Syed

Residency, Kumhartoli, Ranchi in the name of Jahangir

Alam which was used by Sanjeev Kumar Lal for secreting the

proceeds of crime and keys to the said flat were also found

at the premise of Sanjeev Kumar Lal.

103. Thus, from the aforesaid prima facie it appears that

the petitioner knowingly is 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.

104. At this juncture, this Court shall now proceed to

analyze the statutory framework governing the burden of

proof under Section 24 in proceedings related to proceeds of

crime.

"24. Burden of proof. --In any proceeding relating to proceeds of crime under this Act, -- (a) in the case of a person charged with the offence of money-laundering under section 3, the Authority or Court shall, unless the contrary is proved, presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering; and

(b) in the case of any other person the Authority or Court, may presume that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-

laundering."

77

2025:JHHC:34660

105. From bare perusal of Section 24 of the PMLA, it is

evident that once a person is charged with the offence of

money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA, the law

presumes that the proceeds of crime are involved in money

laundering unless the contrary is proven by the accused.

106. In the present case, the investigating agency has

relied not only on the statement of co-accused under Section

50 of the PMLA but also other evidences which indicate the

applicant's active role in the alleged money laundering

activities.

107. By virtue of Section 24 of the PMLA, the respondent

ED is not required to conclusively establish the applicant's

guilt at the pre-trial stage, rather, the applicant must

demonstrate that the proceeds of crime attributed to him are

not linked to money laundering. In the absence of any

rebuttal by the applicant, the presumption under Section 24

of the PMLA stands in favor of the respondent, thereby,

justifying the continued detention of the petitioner.

108. With regard to the above, this Court has referred to

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem

Prakash v. Union of India through Directorate of

Enforcement, (2024) 9 SCC 787, wherein, the following

observations were made:

"18.In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] dealing with Section 24 PMLA,

78 2025:JHHC:34660

the three-Judge Bench held as under : (SCC pp. 229-31, paras 237 & 239-40) "237. Be that as it may, we may now proceed to decipher the purport of Section 24 of the 2002 Act. In the first place, it must be noticed that the legal presumption in either case is about the involvement of proceeds of crime in money-laundering. This fact becomes relevant, only if, the prosecution or the authorities have succeeded in establishing at least three basic or foundational facts. First, that the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence has been committed. Second, that the property in question has been derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of that criminal activity. Third, the person concerned is, directly or indirectly, involved in any process or activity connected with the said property being proceeds of crime. On establishing the fact that there existed proceeds of crime and the person concerned was involved in any process or activity connected therewith, itself, constitutes offence of money-laundering. The nature of process or activity has now been elaborated in the form of Explanation inserted vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019. On establishing these foundational facts in terms of Section 24 of the 2002 Act, a legal presumption would arise that such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering. The fact that the person concerned had no causal connection with such proceeds of crime and he is able to disprove the fact about his involvement in any process or activity connected therewith, by producing evidence in that regard, the legal presumption would stand rebutted.

109. Be it noted that the legal presumption under

Section 24(a) of the Act 2002, would apply when the person

is charged with the offence of money-laundering and his

direct or indirect involvement in any process or activity

connected with the proceeds of crime, is established. The

existence of proceeds of crime is, therefore, a foundational

fact, to be established by the prosecution, including the

79 2025:JHHC:34660

involvement of the person in any process or activity

connected therewith. Once these foundational facts are

established by the prosecution, the onus must then shift on

the person facing charge of offence of money- laundering to

rebut the legal presumption that the proceeds of crime are

not involved in money-laundering, by producing evidence

which is within his personal knowledge of the accused.

110. In other words, the expression "presume" is not

conclusive. It also does not follow that the legal presumption

that the proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering

is to be invoked by the authority or the court, without

providing an opportunity to the person to rebut the same by

leading evidence within his personal knowledge.

111. Such onus also flows from the purport of Section

106 of the Evidence Act. Whereby, he must rebut the legal

presumption in the manner he chooses to do and as is

permissible in law, including by replying under Section 313

of the 1973 Code or even by cross-examining prosecution

witnesses. The person would get enough opportunity in the

proceeding before the authority or the court, as the case may

be. He may be able to discharge his burden by showing that

he is not involved in any process or activity connected with

the proceeds of crime.

80

2025:JHHC:34660

112. In the case of Collector of Customs & Ors. v. D.

Bhoormall (1974) 2 SCC 544 proceedings were initiated

under Section 167(8)(c) of the Customs Act for confiscation

of contraband or smuggled goods and it was observed by the

Hon‟ble Apex Court that on the principle underlying Section

106, Evidence Act, the burden to establish those facts is cast

on the person concerned; and, if he fails to establish or

explain those facts, an adverse inference of facts may arise

against him. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid

Judgment is being quoted as under:

"Since it is exceedingly difficult, if not absolutely impossible, for the prosecution to prove facts which are especially within the knowledge of the opponent or the accused, it is not obliged to prove them as part of its primary burden.

... On the principle underlying Section 106, Evidence Act, the burden to establish those facts is cast on the person concerned; and, if he fails to establish or explain those facts, an adverse inference of facts may arise against him, which coupled with the presumptive evidence adduced by the prosecution or the Department would rebut the initial presumption of innocence in favour of that person, and in the result, prove him guilty."

113. Thus, in light of the aforesaid principles and the law

enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay

Madanlal Choudhary (Supra), this Court must determine

whether the foundational facts necessary to invoke the

presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA have been

established by the respondent/ED.

81

2025:JHHC:34660

114. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held

that the prosecution must satisfy three essential ingredients.

First, the commission of a scheduled offence must be

established. Second, the property in question must be

shown to have been derived or obtained, directly or

indirectly, as a result of such criminal activity and third, the

accused must be linked, directly or indirectly, to any process

or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

115. Thus, from the entire discussion it is evident that

apart from huge cash which were found from the said

premise of Jahangir Alam, the link between Sanjeev Lal (PS

of the Alamgir Aalam) and the present petitioner has been

surfaced during investigation which clearly establish the role

of the petitioner in the alleged crime.

116. It has also transpired that petitioner Jahangir Alam

was assisting Sanjeev Kumar Lal and was hoarding the said

commission on the instruction of Sanjeev Kumar Lal and the

said Sanjeev Kumar Lal takes care of the collection of

commission, and Jahangir Alam collected the same at the

instruction of Sanjeev Kumar Lal, who in turn was doing so

on behalf of departmental minister i.e. Alamgir Alam.

117. Now in the light of aforesaid discussion at this

juncture this Court thinks it fit to revisit the scope of Section

45 of the PML Act 2002. As discussed in preceding

82 2025:JHHC:34660

paragraphs that Section 45 of the PMLA Act, 2002 provides

twin test. First „reason to believe' is to be there for the

purpose of reaching to the conclusion that there is no prima

facie case and second condition is that the accused is not

likely to commit any offence while on bail.

118. Sub-section (1)(ii) of Section 45 of the Act, 2002,

provides that if 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,

meaning thereby, the parameter which is to be followed by

the concerned court that satisfaction is required to be there

for believing that such accused person is not guilty of such

offence and is not likely to commit offence while on bail.

119. Section 45(2) of the Act 2002 provides to consider

the limitation for grant of bail which is in addition to the

limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, i.e.,

limitation which is to be considered while granting the

benefit either in exercise of jurisdiction conferred to this

Court under BNSS 2023 is to be taken into consideration.

120. It is, thus, evident by taking into consideration the

provision of Sections 19(1), 45(1) and 45(2) of PML Act that

the conditions provided therein are required to be considered

while granting the benefit of regular bail in exercise of power

83 2025:JHHC:34660

conferred under statute apart from the twin conditions

which has been provided under Section 45(1) of the Act,

2002.

121. Thus, Section 45 of the PMLA turns the principle of

bail is the rule and jail is the exception on its head. The

power of the Court to grant bail is further conditioned upon

the satisfaction of the twin conditions prescribed under

Section 45(1) (i) and (ii) PMLA. While undertaking this

exercise, the Court is required to take a prima facie view on

the basis of materials collected during investigation. The

expression used in Section 45 of PMLA are "reasonable

grounds for believing" which means that the Court has to

find, from a prima facie view of the materials collected

during investigation that there are reasonable grounds to

believe that the accused has not committed the offence and

that there is no likelihood of him committing an offence

while on bail. Recently, in Tarun Kumar v Assistant

Directorate of Enforcement, (supra) the Hon‟ble Supreme

Court has held as under:

"17.As well settled by now, the conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory. They need to be complied with. The Court is 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 is needless to say 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

84 2025:JHHC:34660

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."

122. This Court, based upon the imputation as has been

discovered in course of investigation, is of the view that what

has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that proceeds

cannot be said to be proceeds of crime is not fit to be

acceptable because as would appear from the preceding

paragraphs, huge amount of money to the tune of Rs. 32.20

crores and many other evidences showing the commission

of departmental minister and other recovered from the flat of

the petitioner.

123. Further, at the stage of recording statements during

enquiry, it cannot be construed as an investigation for

prosecution. The process envisaged under Section 50 of

PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of

crime and it is not an investigation and the authorities who

are recording the statements are not police officers and

therefore, these statements can be relied upon as

admissible piece of evidence before the Court. The

summons proceedings and recording of statements under

85 2025:JHHC:34660

PMLA are given the status of judicial proceedings under

Section 50(4) of PMLA. When such is the sweep of Section

50 of PMLA, the statements that have been recorded by the

respondent and which have been relied upon in the

complaint must be taken to be an important material

implicating the petitioner. The co-accused or the suspected

persons in the predicate offence cannot automatically be

brought within the same status in the PMLA proceedings

and it is always left open to the authorities to deal with

them as witnesses.

124. Therefore, the statements that have been recorded

from the witnesses and which has been relied upon, is also

a strong material that prima facie establishes the offence of

money laundering against the present petitioner.

125. 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.

126. Further, contention has been raised that a

prosecution complaint against the petitioner has already

been filed and, thus, investigation is complete and

86 2025:JHHC:34660

therefore, no purpose would be served in keeping the

petitioner in judicial custody.

127. In the aforesaid context, it is settled position of law

that the mere fact that investigation is complete does not

necessarily confer a right on the accused/petitioner to be

released on bail.

128. In the context of aforesaid contention, it would be

relevant to note here that in the instant case mere

completion of the investigation does not cause material

change in circumstances.

129. Further, it is settled proposition of law that the

filing of charge-sheet is not a circumstance that tilts the

scales in favour of the accused for grant of bail and

needless to say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any

manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution.

130. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer the

decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of

Virupakshappa Gouda & Anr. vs. State of Karnataka

& Anr., (2017) 5 SCC 406, wherein, at paragraph-12, the

Hon‟ble Apex Court has observed which reads as under:

"12. On a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Judge, we find that he has been swayed by the factum that when a charge-sheet is filed it amounts to change of circumstance. Needless to say, filing of the charge-sheet does not in any manner lessen the allegations made by the prosecution. On the contrary, filing of the charge-sheet

87 2025:JHHC:34660

establishes that after due investigation the investigating agency, having found materials, has placed the charge-sheet for trial of the accused persons."

131. Thus, this Court, after taking note of the settled

legal proposition, is of view that the aforesaid contention is

not tenable in the eye of law.

132. 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 of incarceration 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.

133. Further, 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.

134. 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

88 2025:JHHC:34660

vs. 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 of 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

135. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled position

of law it is evident that mere proposed delay in trial

pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant

case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail.

136. Admittedly, the petitioner has been in judicial

custody since May 2024 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

89 2025:JHHC:34660

of the offence, the seriousness of allegations or the

statutory twin conditions under Section 45 of the Act

2002.

137. Similarly, in Satyendar Kumar Jain v.

Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 306,

the Hon‟ble Apex Court refused bail despite protracted

proceedings, noting that the complexity inherent in

economic offences often necessitates lengthy trials.

138. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussion and

taking into consideration 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 PML Act,

2002, it is considered view of this Court that the said

grounds i.e. delay in trial or long incarceration (herein 18

months) is not fit ground to claim the benefit of bail on

merits.

On the issue of Parity:

139. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the

ground of parity with respect to co-accused person, namely,

Veerendra Kumar Ram who has been granted bail by the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.11.2024 passed

in Cr. Appeal No. 4615 of 2024. Likewise, accused Harish

Yadav was already granted bail vide order dated 30.08.2024

90 2025:JHHC:34660

in Special Leave petition (Crl.) No. 6174 of 2024.

Further,accused Tara Chand has also been granted bail by

the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 25.11.2024 in

Cr. Appeal No. 4760 of 2024. Furthermore, other accused

persons, namely, Rajkumari, Genda Ram, Mukesh Mittal,

Neeraj Mittal, Ram Prakash Baitha and Harish Yadav have

also been granted regular bail by the Hon‟ble Apex Court.

140. Now coming to the ground of parity as raised by the

learned counsel for the petitioner, the law is well settled

that the principle of parity is to be applied if the case on fact

is exactly similar then only the principle of parity in the

matter of passing order is to be passed but if there is

difference in between the facts then the principle of parity is

not to be applied.

141. It is further settled connotation of law that Court

cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has

to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail

and by only simple saying that another accused has been

granted bail is not sufficient to determine whether a case for

grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established.

Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment

rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Ramesh Bhavan

Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana & Anr.,

(2021) 6 SCC 230, wherein, it has been held as under: 91

2025:JHHC:34660

"25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law. They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 :] , this Court has held that while applying the principle of parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality of circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed : (SCC p. 515, para 17) "17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a stand was taken that the second respondent was a history-sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] clearly exposes the non-

application of mind. That apart, as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that the second respondent has been charge- sheeted in respect of number of other heinous offences. The High Court has failed to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the path of extinction, for its approval by this Court would tantamount to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it aside.

26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of parity. By its two orders both dated 21-12-2020 [Pravinbhai Hirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2986] , [Khetabhai Parbatbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted bail to Pravin Koli (A-

10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to whom bail was granted on 22-10-2020 [Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was "assigned similar role of armed with stick (sic)". Again, bail was granted to Vanraj Koli (A-16) on

92 2025:JHHC:34660

the ground that he was armed with a wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with sticks had been granted bail. The High Court has evidently misunderstood the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law."

142. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Tarun Kumar Vs.

Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement (supra)

wherein at paragraph-18, it has been held that parity is not

the law and while applying the principle of parity, the Court

is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused

whose application is under consideration.

143. Now, this Court is adverting to the facts of instant

case to decide the issue of parity in the backdrop of

aforesaid settled legal ratio and as such thinks it fit to

discuss herein distinguishable facts in the case of present

petitioner to that of the case of co-accused persons who

have been granted bail.

144. This Court, in order to verify the issue of principle of

parity, has gone through the order by which, co-accused

have been enlarged on the bail and found that there is

93 2025:JHHC:34660

allegation upon the said co-accused persons that they have

worked as a pawn in their individual capacity in the alleged

commission of crime and further the Hon‟ble Apex Court

prima-facie has not found their direct involvement in the

alleged offence but herein huge amount of cash to the tune

of Rs. 32.20 crores have been recovered from the flat of the

petitioners besides other documents which shows that the

said amount is the amount of commission received in lieu

of tender and said amount was received by the present

petitioner on the instruction of Sanjeev kumar Lal (PS to

the Minister Alamgir Alam).

145. It needs to refer herein that the prayer for bail of the

said Alamgir Alam and Sanjeev kumar Lal has already been

rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.07.2025 passed

in B.A. No.9548 of 2024 and vide order dated 13.08.2025

passed in B.A. No 47 of 2025 respectively.

146. Further, there is substantial documentary evidence

that reveals the role of the petitioner in detail as already

discussed in Supplementary Prosecution Complaints as

above.

147. Applying the principle of parity, this Court is of the

view as per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex

Court rendered in Tarun Kumar (Supra) that the benefit of

parity is to be given if the facts/involvement of the

94 2025:JHHC:34660

petitioner is identical to the persons with whom parity is

being claimed but that is not the case herein.

148. This Court, on the basis of the discussion with

respect to the involvement of the petitioner, vis-à-vis, the

other co-accused person, is of the view that the case of the

petitioner is quite distinguishable to that of the case of the

co-accused persons therefore, is of the considered view that

it is not a fit case for applying the principle of parity.

149. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble Apex

Court in P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau

Investigation reported in 2020 13 SCC 337 has come up

with triple test under Section 439 of Cr.PC, while dealing

with cases involving economic offences. The principles that

were summarised in this judgment is extracted hereunder:

"21.The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses;

(iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character, behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations."

95 2025:JHHC:34660

150. This Court, on the basis of aforesaid discussion,

factual aspect as also the legal position, is of the prima-facie

view that there is no reason to believe by this Court that the

petitioner is not involved in managing the money said to be

proceeds of crime.

151. This Court while considering the prayer for regular

bail has taken into consideration that though this Court is

not sitting in appeal on the order passed by learned trial

court but only for the purpose of considering the view which

has been taken by learned court while rejecting the prayer

for bail, this Court is also in agreement with the said view

based upon the material surfaced in course of investigation,

as referred hereinabove.

152. This Court is conscious of this fact that while

deciding the issue of granting bail in grave economic

offences it is the utmost duty of the Court that the nature

and gravity of the alleged offence should have been kept in

mind because corruption poses a serious threat to our

society should be dealt with by iron hand.

153. Further, it is required to refer herein that the Money

Laundering is an economic offence and economic offences

comes under the of grave offences hence needs to be visited

with a different approach in the matter of bail as held by the

Hon‟ble Apex court in the case of Y. S Jagan Mohan Reddy

96 2025:JHHC:34660

v/s C. B. I., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439. For ready

reference, the relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid

judgments are 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 deep-rooted 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."

154. 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 paragraphs-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 have 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 the 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

97 2025:JHHC:34660

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" 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 deep-rooted 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."

155. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Central

Bureau of Investigation Vs Santosh Karnani and

Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 427 has observed that

corruption poses a serious threat to our society and must

be dealt with iron hands. The relevant paragraph of the

aforesaid judgment is being referred as under:-

"31. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have been kept in mind by the High Court. Corruption poses

98 2025:JHHC:34660

a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. It not only leads to abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also tramples good governance. The common man stands deprived of the benefits percolating under social welfare schemes and is the worst hit. It is aptly said, "Corruption is a tree whose branches are of an unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere; and the dew that drops from thence, Hath infected some chairs and stools of authority."

Hence, the need to be extra conscious."

156. It requires to refer herein that the Hon‟ble Apex

Court in catena of judgments has held that the economic

offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with

a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic

offences having deep-rooted 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.

157. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has further observed that

with the advancement of technology and Artificial

Intelligence, the economic offences like money laundering

have become a real threat to the functioning of the financial

system of the country and have become a great challenge

for the investigating agencies to detect and comprehend the

intricate nature of transactions, as also the role of the

persons involved therein. Reference in this regard be made

to the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the

99 2025:JHHC:34660

case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate

of Enforcement (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the

aforesaid Judgment are being quoted as under:

"22. Lastly, it may be noted that as held in catena of decisions, the economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted 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. Undoubtedly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. To cite a few judgments in this regard are Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra), State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai. This court taking a serious note with regard to the economic offences had observed as back as in 1987 in case of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal as under:--

"5... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to books. 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 the 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..."

23. With the advancement of technology and Artificial Intelligence, the economic offences like money laundering have become a real threat to the functioning

100 2025:JHHC:34660

of the financial system of the country and have become a great challenge for the investigating agencies to detect and comprehend the intricate nature of transactions, as also the role of the persons involved therein. Lot of minute exercise is expected to be undertaken by the Investigating Agency to see that no innocent person is wrongly booked and that no culprit escapes from the clutches of the law. When the detention of the accused is continued by the Court, the courts are also expected to conclude the trials within a reasonable time, further ensuring the right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

24. With the afore-stated observations, the appeal is dismissed."

158. This Court, considering the aforesaid material

available against the petitioner in such a grave nature of

offence and applying the principle of grant of bail wherein

the principle of having prima facie case is to be followed, is

of the view that it is not a fit case of grant of bail.

159. Having regard to the entirety 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.

160. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to facts

and circumstances, as have been analyzed hereinabove,

since the petitioner has failed to make out a special case to

exercise the power to grant bail and considering the facts

101 2025:JHHC:34660

and parameters, necessary to be considered for adjudication

of bail, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to

exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to grant bail.

161. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is not a

case where the prayer for bail is to be granted, as such the

instant application stands dismissed.

162. It is made clear that any observations made herein

are prima-facie for consideration of matter of bail only and

the view expressed herein shall not be construed as an

expression on the merits of the case. The learned Trial

Court shall proceed with the matter uninfluenced by any

observations made by this Court and shall decide the case

strictly in accordance with law.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

19th November, 2025 Alankar/-

A.F.R.

102