2026 (3) TMI 1207 - HC - Money Laundering

Prima facie evidence and witness intimidation risk justified refusal of bail in a violent mob attack investigation.

Bail was refused where the court found a prima facie case from call detail records, witness statements, video footage and recovery material indicating the ... Seeking release of the petitioner on bail - mobilization of mob - offence of money laundering related to “proceeds of crime generated from irregularities in procurement, processing/milling/fortification and distribution of ration through Public Distribution System (PDS) scheme” under PMLA - huge mob gathered and attacked the E.D. and CRPF personnel as well as media persons present there and damaged their property and vehicle. Bail applications of the petitioners Sk. Sahajhan @ Sahajhan Sekh and Sk. Alomgir - HELD THAT:- The Court found that investigation disclosed sufficient incriminating material against both petitioners which prima facie suggested their leading role in mobilising a violent mob, injuring officials and damaging government property. Call details, witness statements (including the first petitioner's wife), video footage and recovery of firearms from a close associate linked the petitioners to the incident; several witnesses alleged direct instructions to assemble and participation by the petitioners. The Court noted that, although prolonged detention is a matter of concern, it is not an automatic ground for bail. Given the petitioners' influential status in the locality, ongoing further investigation and the realistic possibility that release would enable tampering with evidence or intimidation of witnesses, the balance of relevant considerations weighed against granting bail at this stage. The Court emphasised that credibility challenges arising from the delay in recording statements are matters for trial and did not preclude reliance on the material collected during investigation for purposes of the bail decision. [Paras 20, 21, 22, 23, 24] Bail refused for both petitioners at this stage Final Conclusion: The High Court refused the bail applications of the two petitioners, holding that prima facie incriminating material and the risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses outweigh concerns arising from their prolonged detention; the observations are confined to the bail proceedings and not to the merits of the case. Issues: Whether the petitioners, accused of mobilising a violent mob, attacking investigating officials and obstructing investigation, are entitled to grant of bail pending further investigation and trial.Analysis: The impugned order examines the material collected during investigation including call detail records indicating multiple calls in the relevant period, witness statements prima facie placing the petitioners at their premises and indicating they called persons to assemble, video footage suggesting presence of a mob, recovery of firearms kept by an associate, and complaints of threats and influence over witnesses. Investigation and charge-sheeting are in progress with further evidence and supplementary charges contemplated. While prolonged custody is recognised as a factor favouring bail, the assessment balances that factor against the incriminating material, the petitioners' alleged leadership role in mobilising a large violent crowd, the gravity of injuries to officials and damage to government property, and the real risk of tampering with evidence or intimidating witnesses if released. The co-accused released on bail were found not similarly circumstanced. The analysis treats delayed recording of some witness statements as an issue for trial, but finds the collected material sufficient for a prima facie case to refuse bail at this stage.Conclusion: Bail applications of the petitioners are rejected; petitioners are not entitled to bail at this stage and the proceedings shall continue.