TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of Money Laundering Act (hereinafter referred as PMLA), 2002. 4. The case of the prosecution is based upon a written information given by Shri S.K. Tyagi, Executive Director, Railway Board, New Delhi. The C.B.I. conducted a preliminary enquiry, bearing no. PE 03/18, regarding allegations of large-scale irregularity committed in the filing, processing and decisions at Railway Claims Tribunal (R.C.T), Patna. Such preliminary investigation disclosed that in between 2015-2017, some unknown public servants of Railway conspired with the claimants' advocates and their team and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, cheated the claimants as only a part of the decreed amount was given to the claimants while a major part thereof was siphoned off by the conspirators i.e., the accused persons. 5. As a consequence of the preliminary enquiry, CBI registered RC Case No. 002(A) of 2020 and RC Case No. 003(A) of 2020, under section 403/420/120 B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C) and 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act on 30-01-2020 and after investigation, a charge-sheet/final report bearing No. 21/2022 dated 31-12-2022 was submitted by the C.B.I revealing that an amo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccused Bidyanand Singh and the petitioner, being an employee, had no knowledge about the same. 10. Further, it has been submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03/05/2024 passed in SLP (Crl) No. 12121/2023 (Vijay Kumar V. State of Bihar & Anr.) has categorically observed that there is no charge against the petitioner under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as PC Act), as he is a private individual and that the investigating agency seems to have given up the case as earlier made out under the PC Act. Further, all the amount that has been received by the petitioner is 'private money' and part of the fee as agreed by the claimants and in order to support this submission the petitioner has filed audited income tax return and has fully disclosed his income to the tax authorities. Further, he submitted that the C.B.I. has itself admitted that the amount received by the petitioner is professional fee but they have chosen to consider only a part of it as genuine receipt and the remaining amount has been considered to be arising out of cheating. Thus, the money cannot be considered to be proceeds of crime. It is further sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ircumstances, protection of the personal liberty of the petitioners is imperative considering the fact that the petitioner, Parmanad Sinha is in custody since 23.01.2025, petitioner, Vijay Kumar is in judicial custody since 22.01.2025 and was remanded into the custody of ED on 27.01.2025 with no substantial progress in the trial. 14. Per contra, Mr. Tuhin Shankar, learned counsel for the E.D. has responded by way of his counter affidavit that the present case pertains to mass scale irregularity/criminality in the death claim cases at the Railway Claims Tribunal, Patna (RCT) as in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy only a part of the decreed amount awarded to the claimants was received by them and a major share was siphoned off by the conspirators which includes the present petitioners as they teamed up with the claimants' Advocates, Kumari Rinki Sinha and Sri Bidyanand Singh. It was revealed during investigation that out of 2030 claims issued by Sri R.K. Mittal, the then Member (Judicial), RCT, Patna, approximately 960 claims have been dealt by the Advocates, Bidyananad Singh, Kumari Rinki Sinha and others, wherein approximately Rs.50 crores of compensation was awarded to the cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tnesses or tampering with the evidence. 16. Upon hearing the rival contentions of the parties and from the perusal of the records of the case, the allegation against the present petitioners appears to be that of being involved in the conspiracy with the main accused, Bidyanand Singh and other Advocates of the claimants, however, it is also a fact that while petitioner, Vijay Kumar was granted anticipatory bail in the predicate offence i.e. in the C.B.I. case, the petitioner, Parmanand Sinha was also granted bail in a total period of 11 days of custody, considering the various facts and circumstances including the factum of submission of charge-sheet. There is no dispute over the proposition that the twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, the constitutionality of which was upheld in the case of Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary (surpa), creates a restriction upon the right of the accused to grant of bail but it has been held in the said case that it does not impose an absolute restrain on grant of bail and the discretion vests in the Court, which needs to be fair and judicious and not arbitrary or irrational. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....phrasing of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Liberty of the individual is always a Rule and deprivation is the exception. Deprivation can only be by the procedure established by law, which has to be a valid and reasonable procedure. Section 45 PMLA by imposing twin conditions does not re-write this principle to mean that deprivation is the norm and liberty is the exception. As set out earlier, all that is required is that in cases where bail is subject to the satisfaction of twin conditions, those conditions must be satisfied." 18. In the case of Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate, reported in (2024) 12 SCC 660, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also dealt with prolonged incarceration of an accused vis-à-vis the constitutional mandate of liberty guaranteed under Article-21 of the Constitution of India. The relevant paragraphs are being quoted hereunder: "35. A Division Bench of this Court in Ramkripal Meena v. Enforcement Directorate [Ramkripal Meena v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC 682] was considering an applicatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is the higher threshold or stringent conditions which a statute provides for the grant of bail. Even an outer limit provided by the relevant law for the completion of the trial, if any, is also a factor to be considered. The extraordinary powers, as held in the case of K.A. Najeeb, can only be exercised by the Constitutional Courts. The Judges of the Constitutional Courts have vast experience. Based on the facts on record, if the Judges conclude that there is no possibility of a trial concluding in a reasonable time, the power of granting bail can always be exercised by the Constitutional Courts on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the statutory provisions. The Constitutional Courts can always exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 226, as the case may be. The Constitutional Courts have to bear in mind while dealing with the cases under the PMLA that, except in a few exceptional cases, the maximum sentence can be of seven years. The Constitutional Courts cannot allow provisions like Section 45(1)(ii) to become instruments in the hands of the ED to continue incarceration for a long time when there is no possibility of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ihood of trial commencing in near future, coupled with continued incarceration, in the circumstance of documentary nature of evidence and further considering the law laid down by the earlier judicial pronouncements rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, bail was granted to the custody accused in view of Article-21 of the Constitution of India. Paragraph 15 to 18 of the said judgment are being quoted hereunder: "15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have carefully perused the record. The court while dealing with the prayer for grant of bail has to consider gravity of offence, which has to be ascertained in the facts and circumstances of each case. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of offences is also the term of sentence i.e., prescribed for the offence, the accused is alleged to have committed. The court has also to take into account the object of the special Act, the gravity of offence and the attending circumstances along with period of sentence. All economic offences cannot be classified into one group as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another. Therefore, it is not advisable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....damental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. This was taken into consideration in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharastra, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 813. Paragraph-17 and 18 of the judgment would be relevant and are being quoted hereunder: "17. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. 18. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be." 23. Furthermore, with regard to the plea taken by the E.D. of non-cooperation by the petitioners, it needs to be clarified that merely giving evasive re....