IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR]

PRESENT : THE HON'BLE JUSTICE TIRTHANKAR GHOSH

CRM(SB)/5/2026

K. KALAIVANAN … PETITIONER

VS.

THE STATE (ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE) … STATE

For the petitioner : Mr. Ashok K Singh

Mr. D.Ilango

For the State : Mr. Zoheb Hossain

[through virtual mode]

Mr. V. D.Sivabalan

Mr. R. Sanat

Heard on : March 16, 2026

Judgment delivered on : March 19, 2026

TIRTHANKAR GHOSH, J.

1. Petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with ECIR/KLZO-

II/11/2025 dated 21

st

July, 2025 which was registered at the behest of

the Enforcement Directorate under the relevant provisions of the

Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the

‘PMLA’). It has been submitted that the petitioner was initially arrested in

connection with FIR No. 14 of 2025 dated 14

th May, 2025 which was

registered by the CID, Port Blair and such arrest was effected on 27

th

2

June, 2025 by the CID and the petitioner was shown arrested in

connection with the instant case on or about 17

th September, 2025.

2. It is contended by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner

that he was working as a Manager with the Andaman and Nicobar State

Cooperative Bank Limited (for short, ANSCBL) and the Enforcement

Directorate has misrepresented him as a Loan Manager alleging as a

conspirator behind the disbursement of loan. The petitioner was never

involved in any disbursement or sanctioning of loan, overdraft or CC

limit granted by the Bank. Each and every loan application was

submitted in the office of the AGM. After scrutiny of documents and

eligibility criteria by the AGM, the DGM (Banking) the loan applications

were sent to the Managing Committee wherein decision was taken for

grant or refusal of such loan. The final sanctioning authority was the

Managing Director of the Bank. The General Manager (Banking) was also

part of loan sanctioning authority team and the role of the petitioner was

limited to coordination with the customer for the disbursement of

approved loan only. The petitioner had no role in the disbursal of loan or

OD facility as alleged by the investigating authority or the prosecution.

The processing of loan according to the petitioner were vested with the

higher authorities and in the entire process the petitioner had no

involvement and he has been arrested meaninglessly for which he is

suffering incarceration for a period of 180 days.

3

3. It was next contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner,

that the petitioner was deliberately linked to some of the company with

which his brother-in-law and mother-in-law is associated as directors.

The relations of the petitioner are engaged in business for which the

petitioner cannot be held responsible and neither there is any association

of the petitioner with the day to day business activity of such relation.

Simply because the relations carry on business and borrowed money

from the same Bank where the petitioner is employed, the petitioner

cannot be linked and held accountable for performance of their accounts.

4. It has been further contended that there is no direct evidence of

money trail linked to the petitioner which would establish his

involvement in the alleged offence of money laundering. So far as the

account of OD facility which has been availed by the relation of the

petitioner, the same were performing assets, as such the account is

regular and the same cannot be termed as proceeds of crime.

5. Additionally, it was submitted that the complaint states the

overdraft facility which were availed by the relations of the petitioner

were to the tune of Rs. 46 crores whereas in the objection filed by the

Enforcement Directorate it states that loan of Rs. 51 crores was availed.

It was emphasised that the loan amount is of Rs. 28 crore and the same

is by mortgaging property of Rs. 32 crore. Further account was

performing on the date of its freezing and as such no offence of money

laundering could take place.

4

6. Relying in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Enforcement

Directorate the learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the

verification of CIBIL report as well as the property valuation was duly

conducted prior to the sanction of loan, as such it can be presumed that

no illegality was found while sanctioning the loan. The overdraft account

of M/s Asha Arya Traders and Travels Pvt. Ltd. was successfully paid off

and as such the same was closed which is acknowledged from the

objection of the Enforcement Directorate, further so far as M/S AKV

Traders and Travels Pvt. Ltd., M/s Amman Aryan General Store Pvt. Ltd.

are concerned, monthly installment was paid till 11

th

August, 2025 and

the same were not classified as NPA till the date of freezing. The relations

of the petitioner were involved only with aforesaid three companies and

none of the three companies were defaulters, further there was no

outstanding dues till 11

th August, 2025. It is only after the account was

frozen by the Enforcement Directorate, the businesses came to a stand

still in the absence of bank account operating and there is possibility the

loan accounts thereafter turned to be non performing asset/NPA.

7. It has been reiterated that the overdraft account was performing

for a period of 5 years and it is for such reason when the enhancement

was applied, the same was granted, further the overdraft facilities was

only to the tune of Rs. 28 crore which was availed by mortgaging

property of Rs. 32 crores. There were no defaults in repayment by the

relations of the petitioner till it was frozen by the Enforcement

5

Directorate and as such the action of the Enforcement Directorate can be

said to be arbitrary.

8. It was thereafter submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he was

never a director, shareholder, promoter or any beneficiary of the said

companies which are being referred to by the prosecution, the petitioner

was not the part of sanctioning team or authority to sanction the loan in

favour of the said companies. No documents have been relied upon

which would substantiate that the petitioner recommended, forwarded or

did any scrutiny relating to the processing of the loan application in

discharging his official duty and the petitioner never dealt with the

overdraft section of the said Bank. Associating the petitioner with M/s

Atikaya Logistic Pvt. Ltd. is absurd and the same has been done by the

prosecution to establish a relationship of the petitioner with the said

company without any foundational facts. The money paid by T. Vinod to

his sister do not amount to any concealment or constitute any offence of

money laundering as there is an existing relationship between the

petitioner’s wife and his brother. The petitioner has been made a

scapegoat for wrongful actions of the Managing Committee, Managing

Director, GM (Banking), DGM and other Manager of the Bank. Petitioner

was neither empowered nor had the authority to disburse, process or

recommend for the quantum of loan which has been alleged by the

prosecution and as such on the basis of unsupported evidence his

detention is baseless and untenable in the eye of law.

6

9. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of

Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others vs.

Union of India and others reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 929 and

referred to the following paragraphs:-

“302. It is important to note that the twin conditions provided under

Section 45 of the 2002 Act, though restrict the right of the accused to grant

of bail, but it cannot be said that the conditions provided under Section 45

impose absolute restraint on the grant of bail. The discretion vests in the

court, which is not arbitrary or irrational but judicial, guided by the

principles of law as provided under Section 45 of the 2002 Act.

287. … … Such twin conditions in the provisions concerned have been

tested from time to time and have stood the challenge of the constitutional

validity thereof.

288. The successive decisions of this Court dealing with analogous

provision have stated that the court at the stage of considering the

application for grant of bail, is expected to consider the question from the

angle as to whether the accused was possessed of the requisite mens rea.

The court is not required to record a positive finding that the accused had

not committed an offence under the Act. 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. Further, the court is required

to record a finding as to the possibility of the accused committing a crime

which is an offence under the Act after grant of bail.”

10. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of Jalaluddin Khan vs.

Union of India (2024 INSC 604). Emphasis was made on paragraph 21

which reads as follows :

“21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the

Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the

charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of

PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated.

When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have

any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be

very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of

bail in accordance with the law. “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is

a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are

7

stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same

rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the

conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a

case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant

bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a

violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution.”

11. Petitioner also referred to Manish Sisodia vs. Central Bureau of

Investigation reported in (2024) 12 SCC 69 and drew the attention of

the Court to paragraph 34 of the said judgment which reads as follows:-

“34. Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an offence should

not become punishment without trial. If the trial gets protracted despite

assurances of the prosecution, and it is clear that case will not be decided

within a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail may be meritorious. While the

prosecution may pertain to an economic offence, yet it may not be proper to

equate these cases with those punishable with death, imprisonment for

life, ten years or more like offences under the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, murder, cases of rape, dacoity,

kidnaping for ransom, mass violence, etc. Neither is this a case where

100/1000s of depositors have been defrauded. The allegations have to be

established and proven.”

12. Finally the petitioner referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex

Court in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in

(2020) 13 SCC 791 and attention of the Court was drawn in respect of

the following paragraph:

“23. Thus, from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on either side

including the one rendered by the Constitution Bench of this Court, it could

be deduced that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains the same

inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception so as

to ensure that the accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.

However, while considering the same the gravity of the offence is an

aspect which is required to be kept in view by the Court. The gravity for

the said purpose will have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances

arising in each case. Keeping in view the consequences that would befall

on the society in cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that even

economic offences would fall under the category of “grave offence” and in

such circumstance while considering the application for bail in such

matters, the Court will have to deal with the same, being sensitive to the

8

nature of allegation made against the accused. One of the circumstances to

consider the gravity of the offence is also the term of sentence that is

prescribed for the offence the accused is alleged to have committed. Such

consideration with regard to the gravity of offence is a factor which is in

addition to the triple test or the tripod test that would be normally applied.

In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective is that even if the

allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should

be denied in every case since there is no such bar created in the relevant

enactment passed by the legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence

provide so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the

nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not

be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing

on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case-to-

case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the

accused to stand trial.”

13. Learned advocate for the petitioner lastly contended that the

petitioner is in custody for about six months in connection with the

instant case and if his custody in connection with the predicate offence is

taken into consideration he is in custody for 260 days.

14. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the

Hon’ble Apex Court in V. Senthil Balaji vs. The Deputy Director,

Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal No. 4011 of 2024),

2024 INSC 739 and emphasised on paragraph 21, that it is not only for

the detention in the present case but also the period of detention has to

be related in the fate of the predicate offence, as the judgment in PMLA

case cannot be decided without the findings of the judgment in predicate

offence. Paragraph 21 of the judgment reads as follows:-

“21. Hence, the existence of a scheduled offence is sine qua non for

alleging the existence of proceeds of crime. A property derived or obtained,

directly or indirectly, by a person as a result of the criminal activity

relating to a scheduled offence constitutes proceeds of crime. The existence

of proceeds of crime at the time of the trial of the offence under Section 3 of

PMLA can be proved only if the scheduled offence is established in the

9

prosecution of the scheduled offence. Therefore, even if the trial of the case

under the PMLA proceeds, it cannot be finally decided unless the trial of

scheduled offences concludes. In the facts of the case, there is no

possibility of the trial of the scheduled offences commencing in the near

future. Therefore, we see no possibility of both trials concluding within a

few years.”

15. It has been further submitted that as the complaint has already

been filed before the learned Special Court/Trial Court and all the

accused persons are before the Court, there being no possibility of the

petitioner delaying the process of trial, as petitioner is not a flight risk

being a permanent resident of the Islands and 33 accused persons are

already on bail, the petitioner may be released on bail on any stringent

conditions.

16. Learned advocate appearing for the Enforcement Directorate

opposed the prayer for bail advanced by the petitioner and in order to

substantiate his arguments placed an over view of the case which

according to him involved a sum of Rs 301.5 crores being fraudulently

availed under the garb of loan in the name of shell companies. According

to the learned advocate ECIR/No.KLZO-II/11/2025 (ECIR) was registered

by the Enforcement Directorate on 21

st July, 2025 under the PMLA on

the basis of FIR No. 14 of 2025 dated 15

th May 2025 which was a case

registered by the Crime and Economic Offences (C&EO), Andaman and

Nicobar Police under sections 406, 409, 420, 463, 467, 468, 471 and

120B of the Indian Penal Code against various officials of the ANSCBL

10

and others for irregularities in financial transactions and criminality in

the functioning of the ANSCBL at Sri Vijay Puram.

17. The prosecution complaint was filed on 14

th November, 2025

against 39 accused persons including the present petitioner. Two

accused persons namely Kuldeep Rai Sharma and Sanjay Lal also filed

their applications for bail before this Hon’ble Court in CRM(SB)/1/2026

and CRM(SB)/2/2026 which were rejected by separate orders on 10

th

February, 2026 and the same was because of the reason both the

accused persons failed to satisfy the twin conditions under section 45 of

the PMLA. One of the accused has been granted bail namely K. Murugan

which was restricted on medical grounds and not on merits of the case.

18. Learned advocate referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex

Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others vs. Union of India

and others reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 929 to emphasise that an

accused seeking bail under PMLA has to mandatorily satisfy the twin

conditions under section 45 of PMLA. The relevant paragraphs relied

upon by the learned advocate are as follows:-

“303. We are in agreement with the observation made by the Court in

Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma. 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 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, the words used

in Section 45 of the 2002 Act are "reasonable grounds for believing" which

11

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.

315. … … … The underlying principles of Section 45 of the 2002 Act

would get triggered in either case before the relief of bail in connection with

the offence of money laundering is taken forward. Any other view would

be counterproductive and defeat the purposes and objects behind the

stringent provision enacted by Parliament for prevention of money

laundering and to combat the menace on account of such activity which

directly impacts the financial systems, including the sovereignty and

integrity of the country.”

19. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Union of India through the Assistant Director vs. Kanhaiya

Prasad reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 306 for stressing upon

importance of section45 of PMLA. To that effect, attention of the Court

was drawn to the paragraphs 16, 17 and 21, which reads as follows:-

“16. In view of the above, there remains no shadow of doubt that the

consideration of the two conditions mentioned in Section 45 is mandatory,

and that while considering the bail application, the said rigours of Section

45 have to be reckoned by the court to uphold the objectives of the PMLA.

17. So far as facts of the present case are concerned, the High Court in a

very casual and cavalier manner, without considering the rigours of

Section 45 granted bail to the respondent on absolutely extraneous and

irrelevant considerations. There is no finding whatsoever recorded in the

impugned order that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the

respondent was not guilty of the alleged offence under the Act and that he

was not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Noncompliance of the

mandatory requirement of Section 45 has, on the face of it, made the

impugned order unsustainable and untenable in the eye of law.

…

21. As well settled, the offence of money laundering is not an ordinary

offence. The PMLA has been enacted to deal with the subject of money

laundering activities having transnational impact on financial systems

including sovereignty and integrity of the countries. The offence of money

laundering has been regarded as an aggravated form of crime world over

and the offenders involved in the activity connected with the Proceeds of

Crime are treated as a separate class from ordinary criminals. Any casual

or cursory approach by the Courts while considering the bail application of

the offender involved in the offence of money laundering and granting him

bail by passing cryptic orders without considering the seriousness of the

12

crime and without considering the rigours of Section 45, cannot be

vindicated."

20. Additionally, learned advocate for the Enforcement Directorate in

order to fortify his argument referred to Tarun Kumar vs. Enforcement

Directorate reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486 wherein it was held

as follows:-

“16. 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 the PML Act will have to be complied with even in respect of an

application for bail made under Section 439CrPC 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.”

21. It was contended that the present petitioner along with other

accused persons facilitated sanctioning of fraudulent loan to 23 shell

companies by ignoring the rules and regulation of the ANSCBL, RBI,

NABARD and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in lieu of receiving

commissions. Loan amount to the tune of Rs. 301.5 crores were

fraudulently availed in the name of 21 out of the 23 shell companies, of

which loan to 18 companies aggregated to sum of Rs. 271 crores which

were subsequently declared as NPA.

22. Summarizing the allegation against the present petitioner, learned

advocate for the Enforcement Directorate submitted that the petitioner

13

was knowingly involved in the processing and forwarding of high value

loan proposals pertaining to several companies, including shell entities

and individual borrowers, supported by incomplete, false, and fabricated

documentation, in complete violation of statutory banking norms and

regulations. Petitioner was posted at Loan Section of ANSCBL at the time

of commission of the offence, he took advantage of his official position

and in lieu of illegal gratification and commission, willfully misused his

authority to expedite further processing of the loan files, thereby

committing the offence of cheating and forgery with the ANSCBL.

Petitioner is also involved in generation and diversion of proceeds of

crime.

23. Learned advocate for the Enforcement Directorate thereafter

referred to M/s Asha Arya Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd, M/s Amman Aryan

General Store Pvt. Ltd, M/s AKV Traders and Travels Pvt. Ltd. and M/s

Atikaya Logistic Pvt. Ltd. and submitted that these four companies were

merely in the name of the petitioner’s relations but they were practically

managed by the present petitioner. The total amount of loan availed by

these companies aggregated to a sum of Rs. 63 crores and these

companies were floated for personal benefits of the petitioner and for

availing fraudulent loans. It was further contended that the petitioner

was closely associated with the co-accused Kuldeep Rai Sharma, who

helped him to avail a loan of Rs. 7 crores in the name of M/s Asha Arya

Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd wherein mother-in-law of the petitioner is one

14

of the Directors. Petitioner not only managed 5% commission amount on

behalf of the co-accused K. Murugan (then MD) in his absence, but also

actively facilitated sanction and disbursal of loans to companies floated

for his own benefit in the names of his brother-in-law (T.Vinod), mother-

in-law (T. Rajeshwari) and close associates. These companies were used

as shell companies to obtain credit facilities without genuine business

activities.

24. The petitioner and the co-accused persons inflated property

valuation, mortgaged assets not belonging to the borrowers, and

siphoned loan funds into personal accounts of family members and

associates. Each and every loan which were availed by the four

companies were sanctioned by the petitioner while he was acting in

discharge of his official duty as a Loan Manager of ANSCBL. The

petitioner had the knowledge that the loans were intended to be diverted

and not used for the purposes which was taken and the funds availed in

one company’s name were utilized to repay loans of another shell

company, wherein his friends and relatives were directors.

25. Learned advocate thereafter referred to a document wherein copy

was send to M/s Amman Aryan General Store Pvt. Ltd. and contended

that the said document was checked by the present petitioner which

bears his signature.

26. Learned advocate thereafter referred to the statements of some of

the co-accused as also his brother-in-law (i.e. T.Vinod) which was

15

recorded under section 50 of the PMLA, which according to the

prosecution reflects that for obtaining the loan which was sanctioned in

the name of the respective company, it was the present petitioner who

had the crucial role.

27. Learned advocate further drew the attention to the relevant part of

the statement of the co-accused to substantiate his contention that the

loan amounts were also subsequently enhanced and the same was under

the supervision of the present petitioner which would be transparent

from the documents collected in support of the said accusation. It was

further contended that the statement of the co-accused reflected that

payments made to Shakti Hardware and SB Construction from M/s

Amman Aryan General Store Pvt. Ltd was on the instruction of the

present petitioner and it is the petitioner only who can explain the

purpose for which the same was paid.

28. Learned advocate thereafter proceeded to refer to the part of the

statement wherein it was stated by T. Vinod that a commission of Rs. 27

lakhs were paid for sanctioning of OD facility in the name of AKV Tours

and Travels Pvt. Ltd.

29. Reference was also made to the statement of the other co-accused

Sanjay Lal, who stated that accounts of about 10 persons were used by

him along with the petitioner and the same was as per the directions of

the other co-accused persons namely Kuldeep Rai Sharma and K.

Murugan. Cash amounts were withdrawn on various occasions by

16

depositing money through cheque of different shell companies. It was

also stated by Sanjay Lal, that he paid approximately Rs. 11.85 crores to

K. Murugan as commission/kickback/bribe and in his absence he used

to pay the present petitioner and such cash payment were to the tune of

Rs. 7.65 crores during the period from 2022-2025 and Rs. 2.70 crores

were paid through cheques. The statement of Kanika Mondal director of

Heyday Hospitality Private Limited also refers to money being handed

over to the petitioner as he was employed with ANSCBL.

30. Learned advocate further submits that there are ample evidence

collected by the Investigating Agency in course of investigation to

establish the prosecution case in a Court of law relating to diversion

and layering of the funds to the shell companies of the present petitioner

and the explanation offered by the present petitioner reflects that loan

money involved was rooted for repaying the loan of one shell company or

the other.

31. Learned advocate thereafter referred to the statement of various

witnesses to oppose the bail of the present petitioner and submitted that

the non- arrest of other co-accused persons cannot be a ground to grant

bail to the present petitioner against whom there are overwhelming

materials and there is compliance of section 19 of the PMLA. According

to the learned advocate the Investigating Agency has filed the complaint

well within the statutory period i.e. 14

th November, 2025 and the accused

persons are purposely adopting dilatory tactic at pre-cognizance stage

17

thereby compelling the learned Special Court to defer the stage of taking

cognizance of the offence on the complaint which has been filed.

32. It has been categorically submitted that petitioner has failed to

overcome the twin conditions referred to in section 45 of PMLA and is

enjoying the process of delay as such his release on bail would not only

be against the provisions of law but also would deter the progress of the

case. Further petitioner has failed to make out any case to avail any

remedy under Article 21 of the Constitution as he is in custody for about

six months and majority of the period of delay is because of the co-

accused persons stretching the time before the learned Trial

Court/Special Court.

33. It was further contended that it would be premature to hold

presently that the trial will not be concluded in near future as there are

no lack of efforts on behalf of the Investigating Agency or for that purpose

the prosecution would delay the trial. Lastly, learned advocate for the

Enforcement Directorate prayed for the rejection of the prayer for bail of

the petitioner.

34. I have taken into account the submissions advanced by the

learned advocate for the petitioner as well as the Enforcement Directorate

and the issues canvassed by them including the factum of the period of

detention suffered by the present petitioner.

18

35. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to quote the

provision of section 45 of the PMLA, 2002.

“45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable – (1) [Notwithstanding

anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 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 an 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”

36. As such the twin conditions which are required at this stage is for

this Court to come to a finding either that the petitioner is not guilty for

such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. In

this case an analysis of the facts reflect that the petitioner was employed

with ANSCBL as a Manager or Loan Manager. The prosecution case

reflects that during his employment his relations availed the facilities of

loan/over draft facilities by mortgaging assets, which according to the

prosecution were not proportionate to the loan amount and the property

valuation were inflated. It is also the prosecution case that the petitioner

was thickly connected in the process of facilitating the loans for which

there were involvement of commission/ kickback/ bribe/ illegal

gratifications.

37. The relations in this case happen to be not only the brother-in-law

and the mother-in-law of the present petitioner but the prosecution has

collected evidence to show the wife of the petitioner has also received

19

money from SB Construction/M/s Shalom on the instructions of her

brother T.Vinod for the purchase of house at Prothrapur, Sri Vijaya

Puram for a total consideration of Rs. 31.23 lakhs. There are documents

also which have been relied upon by the prosecution to show that in case

of sanctioning of overdraft facilities of Rs. 5 crores in favour of M/s

Amman Aryan General Store Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner signed a document

which is said to be the sanctioned order.

38. Having regard to the transactions which has taken place and the

allegations leveled against the petitioner being beneficiary in respect of

such transactions, at this stage it would not be possible for this Court to

hold in view of the provisions of section 24 of the PMLA that the

petitioner is ‘not guilty’ for the purposes of section 45 of the PMLA for

being released on bail. As such the prayer for bail of the petitioner is

rejected.

39. Consequently, CRM(SB)/5/2026 is dismissed.

40. All parties shall act on the server copy of this judgment duly

downloaded from the official website of this Court.

41. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be

supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

( Tirthankar Ghosh, J. )