AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 552
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mplaint Case No. 678/2024 dt. 29.04.2024 against Shiva Kumar Deora, Complaint Case No. 1280/2024 dt. 04.06.2024 against Sumit Gupta and Complaint Case No. 1281/2024 dt. 04.06.2024 against Amit Gupta u/s 132 of the GST Act r/w section 20 of the Integrated GST Act, 2017 r/w section 34, 120A, 193, 195A, 201, 203, 204, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC in the court of Economic Office, Jamshedpur. Since u/s 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC, above stated complaints filed by the DGGI, Jamshedpur are scheduled offence and as per paragraph 1 Part A of the schedule provided under PMLA 2002, the ECIR No. RNZO/18/2004 was recorded on 23.09.2024 for conducting an investigation under PMLA, 2002. 3. As per aforesaid three complaint cases, it is revealed that a syndicate is operational in Jharkhand, West Bengal, Delhi and other States of the Country, Syndicate is indulged in creation, operation and management of fake companies / firms for passing on ineligible ITC (Input Tax Credit) by issuing fake GST bills, without actually delivering the related goods and services and the persons namely Shiva Kumar Deora, Sumit Kumar Gupta and Amit Kumar Gupta are a part of the said syndicate who are knowi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9. In this regard FIR NO. 98/2022 u/s 420, 406, 120B of the IPC registered at Bowbazar Police Station, Kolkata against Amit Agarwal @ Vicky Bhalotia in relation to the matter pertaining to availing fake ITC to the tune of Rs. 5,05,91,296/-. 10. Amit Agarwal is one of the directors of Greentech Steel Private Limited which are indulged in claiming ineligible ITC on strength of bogus invoices without actually delivering the goods and services. Shiva Kumar Deora and Amit Agarwal @ Vicky Bhalotia are also common directors / proprietors of various firms. From the scrutiny of the bank accounts maintained in the name of TE Udhyog Private Ltd., it is revealed that Rs. 76,98,500/- have been debited to Amit Gupta on various occasions. It is further revealed that Amit Gupta is one of the former directors in the said company namely TE Udhyog Pvt. Ltd. Further, several transactions have been identified between the entities beneficially owned by Shiva Kumar Deora and Amit Gupta with the said Amit Agarwal @ Vicky Bhalotia through his ICICI Bank Account. 11. Thus, it is evident that there is a nexus between Shiva Kumar Deora and Amit Gupta with Amit Agarwal alias Vicky Bhalotia in illegal cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....referred Misc. Cri. Application No. 1005 of 2025 for grant of bail which was rejected, vide order dated 19.06.2025 by the learned Spl. Judge, PML Act, Ranchi, hence, the instant bail application. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner 17. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the order impugned that: - (i) 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. (ii) It has been contended that the petitioner has been arrested arbitrarily and there was no necessity to arrest the petitioner, due to the reason that, search has been done on 08.05.2025 and on the same date, he was arrested by the E.D. (iii) The petitioner was never summoned by the prosecution in this case. (iv) There was no material before the E.D. to "reasons to believe" that the petitioner has committed any offence. (v) Both the "ground of arrest" and reason to believe are identical and ground of arrest lacks additional parameters under Section 41 Cr.P.C., in addition to satisfacti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner has no prior criminal record. The petitioner has neither committed any fraud/cheating or forged any documents, thus, no offences under the aforementioned sections have been committed by the petitioner. (xii) There is no assertion that the petitioner attempted to commit any offence delineated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, particularly as delineated in Section 3 of the statute. (xiii) The petitioner is in custody since 08.05.2025. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the learned court while considering the prayer for bail ought to have taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter both legal and factual but having not done so, serious error has been committed. Hence, it is a fit case where the petitioner is to be given the privilege of bail. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Opp. Party/Directorate of Enforcement: 19. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail by taking the following grounds: - (i) It has been contended that the petitioner is a member of syndicate of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnexure-2 appended with the instant petition and his statement was recorded. The statement revealed non-cooperative conduct and evasiveness regarding the origin of huge cash transactions and his involvement in shell entities used for laundering proceeds of crime, thereby, justifying the subsequent arrest. (viii) The contention of the Petitioner that the reasons to believe and grounds of arrest are identical, are factually misconceived and legally untenable as both the "Reasons to Believe" and "Grounds of Arrest" were recorded separately, in writing, and were duly communicated to the Petitioner at the time of arrest. (ix) Reference to Section 41 of Cr.P.C. and its parameters is wholly misplaced in the context of PMLA. The arrest under Section 19(1) of PMLA does not require compliance with Section 41 Cr.P.C., since the later governs police arrests under the Code of Criminal Procedure. PMLA being a special law, the provisions of Section 19(1) of PMLA operate independently, with in-built safeguards including the requirement of written reasons to believe, furnishing of grounds of arrest, and production before the Ld. Special Court within 24 hours and the aforesaid safe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olled several shell firms and facilitated the syndicate by providing his own proprieties for the registration of bogus firms. This syndicate, along with a network of other associates, executed a large-scale fraud with operations in Jharkhand, West Bengal and Delhi. (xviii) The syndicate's criminal activities, as detained in the DGGI complaints, followed a meticulous and multi-layered modus operandi, executed in a series of systematic steps designed to generate and launder massive amounts of fraudulent ITC. (xix) It has further been contended that the petitioner directly controlled several shell firms, including M/s Aurorus Metal Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Bizzare Commercial Pvt. Ltd. using dummy directions to whom he made monthly payments. He also facilitated the syndicate by providing his own property for the registration of these bogus firms. (xx) The "whats-app" chats recovered during the DGGI investigation indicate his direct involvement in giving operational instructions and managing GST related deceptions. He was linked to fake ITC availment of approximately Rs.48.10 Crores through 9 firms. 20. Learned counsel for the Opp. Party-ED, based upon the aforesa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country] [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 by which the "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 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, 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 indirect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion "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 went on to observe that the Constitutio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rposes 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 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 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. Whethe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orded 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." 43. 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 prevention of money-laundering. It is also to pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bail in relation to the offence of money laundering unless the twin conditions are fulfilled. The twin conditions are that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of offence of money laundering and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 286. Considering the purposes and objects of the legislation in the form of the 2002 Act and the background in which it had been enacted owing to the commitment made to the international bodies and on their recommendations, it is plainly clear that it is a special legislation to deal with the subject of money laundering activities having transnational impact on the financial systems including sovereignty and integrity of the countries. This is not an ordinary offence. To deal with such serious offence, stringent measures are provided in the 2002 Act for prevention of money laundering and combating menace of money laundering, including for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and to prosecute persons involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. In view of the gravity of the fallout of money laundering activities having transnational impact, a speci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her 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 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 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 Behram Khurshid Pesikaka and Deep Chand including American jurisprudence expounded in Cooley on Constitutional Limitations and Norton v. Shelby County." 49. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il 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. 52. In the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) 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 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. 53. So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 is concerned, in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowing the application for intervention, an appropriate order was passed on 7-10-2021 [Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773: (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 153]. The same is reproduced as under : (Satender Kumar Antil case [Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2021) 10 SCC 773 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 153], SCC pp. 774-76, paras 2-11) "2. We have been provided assistance both by Mr S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr Sidharth Luthra, learned Senior 28 B.A. No. 8321 of 2024 2025:JHHC:12446 Counsel and there is broad unanimity in terms of the suggestions made by the learned ASG. In terms of the suggestions, the offences have been categorised and guidelines are sought to be laid down for grant of bail, without fettering the discretion of the courts concerned and keeping in mind the statutory provisions. 3. We are inclined to accept the guidelines and make them a part of the order of the Court for the benefit of the courts below. The guidelines are as under: 'Categories/Types of Offences (A) Offences punishable with imprisonment of 7 years or less not falling in Categories B & D. (B) Offences punishable with death, imprisonment for lif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the exception' - unless circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act and the 'exercise' of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. For ready reference, relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being referred as under: "28. The conventional idea in bail jurisprudence vis-à-vis ordinary penal offences that the discretion of Courts must tilt in favour of the oft-quoted phrase - 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' - unless circumstances justify otherwise - does not find any place while dealing with bail applications under UAP Act. The 'exercise' of the general power to grant bail under the UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope. The form of the words used in proviso to Section 43D(5)- 'shall not be released' in contrast with the form of the words as found in Section 437(1) CrPC - 'may be released' - suggests the intention of the Legislature to make bail, the exception and jail, the rule." 59. The reason for making reference of this judgment is that in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and Anr. (supra), the UAPA has also been brought under the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, deputy director, assistant director or any other officer shall, immediately after arrest of such person under sub-section (1), forward a copy of the order along with the material in his possession, referred to in that sub-section, to the adjudicating authority, in a sealed envelope, in the manner as may be prescribed and such adjudicating authority shall keep such order and material for such period, as may be prescribed. (3) every person arrested under sub-section (1) shall, within twenty-four hours, be taken to a [special court or] judicial magistrate or a metropolitan magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction: Provided that the period of twenty-four hours shall exclude the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the 79[special court or] magistrate's court." 64. It is evident from perusal of the Section 19 of PMLA which gives the power to arrest if the officer concerned has "reason to believe" on the basis of material in his possession, that the person is guilty. As per Section 19 the arrest has to be on the basis of material in possession with the ED, there is reason to believe that the accused is guilty of the offence, wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is noticed that in some cases ED has furnished copy of ECIR to the person before filing of the complaint. That does not mean that in every case same procedure must be followed. It is enough, if ED at the time of arrest, contemporaneously discloses the grounds of such arrest to such person. Suffice it to observe that ECIR cannot be equated with an FIR which is mandatorily required to be recorded and supplied to the accused as per the provisions of the 1973 Code. Revealing a copy of an ECIR, if made mandatory, may defeat the purpose sought to be achieved by the 2002 Act including frustrating the attachment of property (proceeds of crime). Non-supply of ECIR, which is essentially an internal document of ED, cannot be cited as violation of constitutional right. Concededly, the person arrested, in terms of Section 19 of the 2002 Act, is contemporaneously made aware about the grounds of his arrest. This is compliant with the mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution." 66. It is evident from the aforesaid consideration as referred in the aforesaid judgment that once the person is informed of the grounds of arrest, that would be sufficient compliance with the mandate of Art....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IR") in connection with the money laundering offences allegedly committed by the IREO Group and Lalit Goyal, its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director. Neither in the FIRs nor in the first ECIR were M3M Group or the appellants herein arrayed as the accused. Further, no allegations were levelled against them therein. On 14-1-2022, ED filed Prosecution Complaint No. 01/2022, titled "Enforcement Directorate v. Lalit Goyal and others", against seven named accused, under Section 200CrPC read with Sections 44 and 45 PMLA. Notably, M3M Group and the appellants did not figure amongst those named accused. The number of FIRs had also increased from 13 to 30, as per this complaint. This case was numbered as COMA/01/2022, titled "Enforcement Directorate v. Lalit Goyal and others", and was pending in the Court of Sudhir Parmar, Special Judge. At that stage, the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Panchkula, received information that Sudhir Parmar was showing favouritism to Lalit Goyal, the owner of IREO Group, and also to Roop Bansal and his brother, Basant Bansal, the owners of M3M Group. This led to the registration of FIR No. 0006 dated 17-4-2023. On 12-5-2023, ED issued summons to M3M India Pvt. Ltd., ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons on 14-6-2023 at 11 a.m. While Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal were at the office of ED at Rajokri, New Delhi, in compliance with these summons, Pankaj Bansal was served with fresh summons at 4.52 p.m. on 14-6-2023, requiring him to be present before another investigating officer at 5.00 p.m. on the same day. This summons was in connection with the second ECIR. There is lack of clarity as to when summons in relation to the second ECIR were served on Basant Bansal. According to ED, he was served the summons on 13-6 2023 itself and refused to receive the same. However, it is an admitted fact that Basant Bansal was also present at ED's office at Rajokri, New Delhi, on 14-6-2023 at 11.00 a.m. It is also not in dispute that, while he was there, Basant Bansal was arrested at 6.00 p.m. on 14-6-2023 and Pankaj Bansal was arrested at 10.30 p.m. on the same day. These arrests, made in connection with the second ECIR, were in exercise of power under Section 19(1) PMLA. The arrested persons were then taken to Panchkula, Haryana, and produced before the learned Vacation Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula. There, they were served with the remand application filed by ED. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y making reference of word 'henceforth'. The Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the particular case of said Pankaj Bansal has considered the admitted position that the investigating officer merely read out or permitted reading of the grounds of arrest of the appellants and left it at that, which is also disputed by the appellants and hence, it has been held that their arrest was not in keeping with the provisions of Section 19(1) PMLA, 2002. Accordingly, the appeals before the Hon'ble Apex Court were allowed, setting aside the impugned orders passed by High Court as well as the impugned arrest orders and arrest memos along with the orders of remand passed by the learned Vacation Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, and all orders consequential thereto. Accordingly, the appellants were directed to be released forthwith. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under: "39. We may also note that the language of Section 19 PMLA puts it beyond doubt that the authorised officer has to record in writing the reasons for forming the belief that the person proposed to be arrested is guilty of an offence punishable under the 2002 Act. Section 19(2) requires the au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....effect, the arrest of the appellants and, in consequence, their remand to the custody of ED and, thereafter, to judicial custody, cannot be sustained. 46. The appeals are accordingly allowed, setting aside the impugned orders [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 2045], [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 2028] passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as the impugned arrest orders and arrest memos along with the orders of remand passed by the learned Vacation Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula, and all orders consequential thereto. 47. The appellants shall be released forthwith unless their incarceration is validly required in connection with any other case." 70. Subsequent to the said judgment, the judgment has come in the case of Ram Kishor Arora Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1682]. The Hon'ble Apex Court while taking into consideration the judgment passed by Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (supra) has observed that the law laid down by the three-Judges Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary that Section 19(1) PMLA has a reasonable nexus with the purposes an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to invalidate the arrest of said Ram Kishor Arora. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted as under: "21. In view of the above, the expression "as soon as may be" contained in Section 19 PMLA is required to be construed as - "as early as possible without avoidable delay" or "within reasonably convenient" or "reasonably requisite" period of time. Since by way of safeguard a duty is cast upon the officer concerned to forward a copy of the order along with the material in his possession to the adjudicating authority immediately after the arrest of the person, and to take the person arrested to the court concerned within 24 hours of the arrest, in our opinion, the reasonably convenient or reasonably requisite time to inform the arrestee about the grounds of his arrest would be twenty-four hours of the arrest. 22. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929], it has been categorically held that so long as the person has been informed about the grounds of his arrest, that is sufficient compliance with mandate of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It is also observed that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court has considered the issue of Section 19(1) in the case of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the order of release of said Prabir Purkayastha, the appellant in the said case, on the ground that no reason said to be in writing was communicated even though the law has been laid down in the case of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India & Ors (supra). 73. So far as the fact of the said case is concerned, the officers of PS Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi carried out extensive raids at the residential and official premises of the appellant and the company, of which the appellant is the Director in connection with FIR No. 224 of 2023 dated 17-8-2023 registered at PS Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 22-C of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 read with Sections 153-A, 120-B of the Penal Code. 74. The appellant was arrested in connection with the said FIR on 3-10-2023 vide arrest memo. Thereafter, the appellant was presented in the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on 4-10-2023, sometime before 6.00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder any situation. Non-compliance of this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would lead to the custody or the detention being rendered illegal, as the case may be. 30. Furthermore, the provisions of Article 22(1) have already been interpreted by this Court in Pankaj Bansal [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576] laying down beyond the pale of doubt that the grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the person arrested of an offence at the earliest. Hence, the fervent plea of the learned ASG that there was no requirement under law to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing to the appellant-accused is noted to be rejected." 77. Again, in the case of Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) the view has been taken for communication of reason of arrest and it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the written "grounds of arrest", though a must, does not in itself satisfy the compliance requirement. The authorized officer's genuine belief and reasoning based on the evidence that establishes the arrestee's guilt is also the legal necessity. As the "reasons to believe" are accorded by the authorised off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity and unconstitutionality committed at the time of arrest and grant of remand custody of the accused. Reference is also made to the principle behind Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Thus, this Court held that not complying with the constitutional mandate under Article 22(1) and the statutory mandate of the UAPA, on the requirement to communicate grounds of arrest or grounds of detention, would lead to the custody or detention being rendered illegal. 28. Providing the written "grounds of arrest", though a must, does not in itself satisfy the compliance requirement. The authorized officer's genuine belief and reasoning based on the evidence that establishes the arrestee's guilt is also the legal necessity. As the "reasons to believe" are accorded by the authorised officer, the onus to establish satisfaction of the said condition will be on the DoE and not on the arrestee." 78. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. Senthil Balaji v. Director, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626 has again considered the issue of Section 19(1) of the Act 2002. The factual aspect of the case is like that between 2011 and 2016; the appellant was holding the post of Transport Minist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly of Tamil Nadu (Special MPMLA Court), Chennai. 82. The Hon'ble Apex Court while taking note of the settled principle that the stringent provisions regarding the grant of bail, such as Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, cannot become a tool which can be used to incarcerate the accused without trial for an unreasonably long time has allowed the appeal and direction has been passed that the appellant shall be enlarged on bail till the final disposal of the case. 83. Consequent to the aforesaid judgments, recently the Hon'ble Apex Court has expressed its view in the case of Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (supra) wherein the judgment and order dated 30th August 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court has been assailed. The appellant of the said case was arrested in connection with first information report no. 121 of 2023 dated 25th March 2023 registered for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). According to the appellant's case, he was arrested on 10th June 2024 at about 10.30 a.m. at his office premises on the 3rd-5th floor of HUDA City Centre, Gurugram,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....j Bansal1 are suggestions that merit consideration. We are aware that in every case, it may not be practicable to implement what is suggested. If the course, as suggested, is followed, the controversy about the non-compliance will not arise at all. The police have to balance the rights of a person arrested with the interests of the society. Therefore, the police should always scrupulously comply with the requirements of Article 22." 87. It is, thus, evident that in all these judgments the issue at the time of arrest was the primary factor, which was questioned before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in those judgments. 88. It is, thus, evident from the cumulative consideration of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as referred above, that the law under statutory provision as contained under Section 19(1) of the PML Act, 2002 is that the reason/ground is to be communicated to the person concerned then only the arrest would be said to be valid. 89. This Court is conscious that in any nature of arrest, the mandatory requirement is to be fulfilled. Herein, the mandatory requirement as per Article 19(1) of the PML Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f all documents like grounds of arrest and reasons to believe. 94. Further, the Petitioner was promptly produced before the Ld. Special Court, PMLA, Ranchi within 24 hours, as mandated under Section 19(3) of the Act. Subsequently, a well-reasoned remand order was passed and even custody was granted upon an application made by the Opposite Party, demonstrating full judicial application of mind and negating the plea of arbitrariness. 95. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is evident that the mandate as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, (supra) and Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (supra) is fully complied with in the facts of the present case. The said decisions reinforce the requirement for proper application of mind, existence of reasons, and communication of grounds, all of which were duly complied with in the present case. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (supra) has clearly laid down that once reasons to believe are recorded on the basis of material, the scope of judicial review at the pre-trial stage, is limited. 96. Further, the submission of the Petitioner th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e authorised officer must assess material, form a belief and communicate the grounds of arrest which was done in the instant case. 101. Further, the Petitioner's contention that the Arresting Officer must himself have physically participated in the search proceedings or have personally gathered all material is not a legal requirement under PMLA. 102. It requires to refer herein that Section 19(1) of PMLA only mandates that the authorised officer must form a reason to believe, on the basis of material in his possession, which may include material collected by subordinate officers during search and investigation and placed before him for consideration. This does not mean the arresting officer must be physically present at every preceding investigative step. Such a literal and restrictive interpretation finds no support in law and is contrary to the operational realities of multi-agency investigations. Further, there is no requirement under Section 19(1) of PMLA or the relevant rules that the authorisation to arrest in a particular ECIR must be separately annexed or filed before the Court. The arrest cannot be declared invalid merely because the Petitioner seeks production o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aterial to the Adjudicating Authority, thereby satisfying all legal requirements under the PMLA and the binding judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner about legality of the arrest, is hereby negated. Issue of culpability of the present petitioner: 107. It is evident from the record that the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (in short DGGI), Jamshedpur filed three complaint cases i.e. Complaint Case No. 678/2024 dt. 29.04.2024 against Shiva Kumar Deora, Complaint Case No. 1280/2024 dt. 04.06.2024 against Sumit Gupta and Complaint Case No. 1281/2024 dt. 04.06.2024 against Amit Gupta u/s 132 of the GST Act r/w section 20 of the Integrated GST Act, 2017 r/w section 34, 120A, 193, 195A, 201, 203, 204, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC in the court of Economic Offices, Jamshedpur. Since u/s 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC, above stated complaints filed by the DGGI, Jamshedpur are scheduled offences as per paragraph 1 Part A of the schedule provided under PMLA 2002, the ECIR No. RNZO/18/2024 was recorded on 23.09.2024 for conducting an investigation under PMLA, 2002. 108. As per aforesaid three complai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... them to several end beneficiaries thereby causing significant loss to the government exchequer. 112. It has further been alleged in the aforesaid complaints as filed by DGGI, Jamshedpur, that an FIR was registered against Tutui Debnath, Sumi Shaw and present petitioner Amit Agarwal @ Vicky Bhalotia. 113. It has been alleged that the present petitioner is also one of the accomplices of main mastermind Shiva Kumar Deora who also works on similar modus in availing fake ITC on strength of bogus invoices. In this regard FIR NO. 98/2022 u/s 420, 406, 120BV of the IPC registered at Bowbazar Police Station, Kolkata against petitioner in relation to the matter pertaining to availing fake ITC to the tune of Rs. 5,05,91,296/-. 114. It has been stated that Petitioner is one of the directors of Greentech Steel Private Limited which are indulged in claiming ineligible ITC on strength of bogus invoices without actually delivering the goods and services. Shiva Kumar Deora and present petitioner are also common directors / proprietors of various firms. 115. From the scrutiny of the bank accounts maintained in the name of TE Udhyog Private Ltd., it is revealed that Rs. 76,98,500/- have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dient of Section 3 of PML Act, 2002. 123. While on the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-ED has submitted by referring to various paragraphs of prosecution complaint that the offence is very much available attracting the offence under provisions of PML Act, 2002. 124. 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 (i) and (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". 125. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the prosecution complaint are being quoted as under: A. The Criminal Conspiracy & The Syndicat: Shri Amit Agarwal @ Vicky Bhalotia (Accused-4): A key local operative and mastermind based in Jamshedpur, who controlled several shell firms and facilitated the syndicate by providing his own properties for the registration of these bogus firms. C. Orchestrat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it Gupta. He was unable to explain huge credits of over 115.40 crores in his HDFC bank account from various shell entities, thus admitting to his role in the laundering of proceeds of crime. B. Statement of dummy directors / employees and other persons 9.5 Statement of Shri Dipesh Kejriwal (RUD- 23): In his statements recorded on 02.06.2025 and 11.06.2025, Shri Dipesh Kejriwal, an accountant for the syndicate, provided a detailed insider account of the entire conspiracy. He confirmed being hired by Shiva Kumar Deora (Accused-1) and Amit Kumar Gupta (Accused-3) and being made a director in shell companies like M/s Lambodar Traders Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Lambodar Iron Pvt. Ltd. He confessed to investing approximately 240 lakhs with the syndicate on the promise of high returns. Crucially, he stated that after the arrest of Shiva Kumar Deora, Amit Gupta instructed him to destroy his phone and abscond for a few days to evade investigation. He further revealed that Shiva Kumar Deora later pressured and threatened him to sign a false affidavit contradicting his statement given to DGGI. His testimony corroborates the modus operandi, the roles of the masterminds, and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d a separate complaint (No. 5760 of 2023) by the DGGI, Jamshedpur. Furthermore, an FIR (No. 98/2022) was registered against him at PS Bowbazar Kolkata under sections 420/406/120B of the IPC, for availing fraudulent ITC to the tune of Rs. 5,05,91,296/- This pattern of behaviour establishes his expertise and intent in committing large-scale financial fraud. B. In the present case, Amit Agarwal operated a parallel sub-syndicate based in Jamshedpur. He personally managed and controlled at least nine shell companies, through which he fraudulently generated and availed irregular and inadmissible GST ITC amounting to Rs.48.19 crores on the strength of bogus invoices, without any corresponding delivery of goods or services. C. While running his own operation, this sub- syndicate was deeply intertwined with the main syndicate controlled by Shiva Kumar Deora and Amit Kumar Gupta. The nexus is established through clear operational and financial linkages; Operational Nexus: The syndicates share a common pool of dummy directors. For instance, individuals like Sumi Shaw were found to be common directors in firms controlled by both Shiva Kumar Deora and Amit Agarwal, pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l, directly and indirectly, indulged, knowingly assisted, and was knowingly a party to and actually involved in the following processes and activities connected with the proceeds of crime: 1. Generation, Acquisition, and Possession of Proceeds of Crime: Generation & Acquisition: He established and controlled a network of at least nine shell companies, including M/s Greentech Steel Enterprises, M/s Aurorus Metal Private Limited, and M/s Bizzare Commercial Private Limited. He used these entities to generate bogus invoices and fraudulently availed inadmissible ITC amounting to approximately 148.19 Crores. He admitted to creating these firms and using individuals like Shri Ritesh Kumar as dummy directors on a monthly salary, while retaining complete control over the entities' finances and operations. Possession: He was found in possession of substantial proceeds of crime. An analysis of his personal HDFC Bank account revealed unexplained credits of over Rs.15.40 crores from various shell entities, for which he could not provide a legitimate explanation. 2. Concealment and Layering: In his statement, Shri Amit Agarwal confessed to the det....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is evident that the petitioner Amit Agarwal @ Vicky Bhalotia was a key mastermind in the criminal conspiracy, operating as the head of the syndicate's fraudulent activities in Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. He was directly involved in creating and managing his own network of shell entities, generating substantial proceeds of crime, and laundering these funds in close coordination with the other masterminds. 130. It is evident from the prosecution complaint that the petitioner directly and indirectly, indulged, knowingly assisted, and was knowingly a party to and actually involved in the processes and activities connected with the proceeds of crime. 131. It has further come in the investigation that he established and controlled a network of at least nine shell companies, including M/s Greentech Steel Enterprises, M/s Aurorus Metal Private Limited, and M/s Bizzare Commercial Private Limited. He used these entities to generate bogus invoices and fraudulently availed inadmissible ITC amounting to approximately 148.19 Crores. He admitted to creating these firms and using individuals like Shri Ritesh Kumar as dummy directors on a monthly salary, while retaining complete control ove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ile dealing with the application for grant of bail need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the court based on available material on record is required. The court will not weigh the evidence to find the guilt of the accused which is, of course, the work of the trial court. The court is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material 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." 137. Thus, prima-facie on the basis of the material available in prosecution complaint the role of the present petitioner in the alleged money laundering cannot be negated. 138. It needs to refer ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of money laundering as contemplated in Section 3 of the PML Act, 2002 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 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 cr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved from a scheduled offence and the person has indulged in or facilitated any process or activity connected with such proceeds of crime. 146. In the aforesaid case, i.e., Pawana Dibbur (supra) it has further been 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 Section 3 of the Act, 2002, an offence under Section 3 can 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. 147. Keeping in mind these essential elements that make ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led by the DGGI does not dilute or nullify the independent action taken under the PMLA since both are the parallel proceedings. 153. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended 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 as per the mandate of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Prakash Vs. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement (supra). 154. In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein that there is no dispute regarding the settled proposition of law that the statements recorded which are merely confessional in nature ought to be ignored while adjudicating upon a case as confessional statement of co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence and such statements can only be pressed into service when the Hon'ble Courts are inclined to accept other evidences. Thus, instead of placing reliance solely upon the statements of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and are admissible in legal proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while emphasizing the legal sanctity of such statements, observed that they constitute valid material upon which reliance can be placed to sustain allegations under the PML Act, 2002. 160. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also reaffirmed the admissibility of Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 distinguishing them from statements recorded under the Cr.PC. 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 PML Act, 2002 and, therefore, admissible as evidence in proceedings under the PML Act, 2002. The Hon'ble Apex Court further clarified that the provisions of Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 having an overriding effect by virtue of Sections 65 and 71 of the PML Act, 2002 prevail over the procedural safeguards under the CrPC. 161. In the instant case, it has been found that during the course of investigation, statement recorded of the accused persons as also the statement....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the law presumes that the proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering unless the contrary is proven by the accused. 167. In the present case, the investigating agency has relied not only on the statement of co-accused under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 but also other evidences which indicate the applicant's active role in the alleged money laundering activities. 168. By virtue of Section 24 of the PML Act, 2002, 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 PML Act, 2002 stands in favor of the respondent, thereby, justifying his continued detention. 169. 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, (supra) wherein, the following observations were made: "18.I n Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] dealing with Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s within his personal knowledge of the accused. 171. 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. 172. 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. 173. In the case of "Collector of Customs, Madras & 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. 178. 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. 179. It is, thus, evident by taking into consideration the provision of Sections 19(1), 45(1) and 45(2) of PML Act, 2002 that the conditions provided therein are required to be considered while granting the benefit of regular bail in exercise of power conferred under statute apart from the twin conditions which has been provided under Section 45(1) of the Act, 2002. 180. Thus, Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 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 S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion complaint and many of the statements clearly implicate the petitioner. 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. 183. 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 PML Act, 2002, is totally misplaced in the light of accusation as mentioned in prosecution complaint. 184. 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. 185. 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 (herein about 05 month) or delay in trial alone cannot be ground to release the petitioner on bail, rather in case of scheduled offences/spec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....02. 190. 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. 191. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid discussions 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 the considered view of this Court that no ground exists for the petitioner to claim the benefit of bail on merits. The gravity of the offence, and the serious allegations of facilitating the laundering of proceeds of crime continue to justify the petitioner's custody under the strict rigours of Section 45 of the Act 2002. 192. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess 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." 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....end the intricate nature of transactions, as also the role of the persons involved therein. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the 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 seri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the respondent-ED to show that he is prima facie guilty of the alleged offences. 201. 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 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. 202. It is evident from the various paragraphs of the prosecution report dated 05.07.2025 which have been quoted and referred hereinabove that the allegations levelled against the Petitioner are of an extremely grave and serious in nature, striking at the very foundation of the country's economic and financial system. The same pertains to fraudulent transactions running into hundreds of crores of rupees, executed through a complex and deliberate layering of illicit funds, and culminating in the acquisition and projection of properties derived from such tainted sources as untainted assets. The Petitioner's activities have been found to be indispensable to the layering and integration st....