2024 INSC 637 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 5416/2024)

PREM PRAKASH APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH

THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT RESPONDENT(s)

J U D G M E N T

K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1.Leave granted.

2.The present appeal challenges the judgment dated 22.03.2024

of the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in B.A. No. 9863 of 2023.

By the said judgment, the High Court dismissed the bail application

of the appellant. The appellant sought for regular bail in connection

with ECIR Case No. 5 of 2023 in ECIR-RNZO/10/2023 (hereinafter

referred to as ECIR Case No. 5 of 2023) registered for the offence

1

under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,

2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PMLA’) and pending before the

Court of Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi.

Brief Facts

3.The predicate offence on the basis of which ECIR No. 5 of

2023 was recorded on 07.03.2023 is an FIR bearing Sadar P.S. Case

No. 399 of 2022 registered on 08.09.2022 for offences punishable

under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 447, 504, 506, 341, 323 and 34 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). The appellant was not

named as an accused there.

4.In view of Section 420 and 467 of IPC, being Scheduled

Offences, ECIR No. 5 of 2023 was registered and investigation under

the PMLA was initiated. Even here the appellant was not named

though the ECIR did mention certain unknown persons being

involved. It is alleged that the investigation revealed falsification of

the original records in the Circle Office, Bargain, Ranchi and the

Office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata respectively and as such

custody of the original registers were taken in accordance with law.

2

5.The substratum of the allegation leading to the complaint

lodged under PMLA are as follows:- Umesh Kumar Gope

complained that Rajesh Rai, Imtiaz Ahmad, Bharat Prasad, Lakhan

Singh, Punit Bhargava and Bishnu Kumar Agarwal fraudulently

acquired one acre of land situated at Plot No. 28, Khata No. 37

Village Gari, Cheshire Home Road P.S. Sadar, Ranchi. The allegation

was that accused Rajesh Rai S/o Jagdish Rai illegally and

fraudulently made a Power of Attorney in the name of Imtiaz Ahmad

and accused Bharat Prasad and on the basis of said Power of

Attorney prepared a forged sale deed and sold the above-mentioned

parcel of land to accused Punit Bhargava, an accomplice of the

appellant for an amount of Rs. 1,78,55,800/-. It is further alleged that

the said land was transferred by accused Punit Bhargava to accused

Bishnu Kumar Agarwal vide two sale deeds dated 01.04.2021 for a

total amount of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- (Rs.1,02,60,000/- and

Rs.77,40,000). According to the Enforcement Directorate, accused

Bishnu Kumar Agarwal paid Rs. 1,78,20,000/- to accused Punit

Bhargava in the account of his firm Shiva Fabcons (Proprietorship

firm of accused Punit Bhargava) and out of which Rs. 1,01,57,400/-

3

was transferred to M/s Jamini Enterprises, which according to the

respondent-Investigating Agency, was a firm whose beneficial owner

is the appellant. The appellant was arrayed as Accused No.8 in the

Prosecution Complaint of the Investigating Agency.

6.According to the Investigating Agency, it was confirmed by the

Directorate of Forensic Science that Deed No. 184 of 1948, a

purported sale deed, by which the property was transferred by the

predecessors of Umesh Gope to Jagdish Rai, father of Rajesh Rai

was forged. A separate FIR bearing No. 137 of 2023 dated

10.05.2023 for offences under Sections 120-B, 465, 467, 468 and

471 of IPC came to be registered at Hare Street Police Station

Kolkata on the basis of the report of the Fact Finding Committee of

the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata. It is stated that the said FIR

was also merged into ECIR No. 5 of 2023.

7.It is alleged that it was on the directions of the appellant that

the sale deed was executed in favor of Punit Bhargava by Rajesh Rai

for an amount of Rs. 1,78,55,800/-; that only Rs. 25 lakhs were

transferred from Shiva Fabcons (Proprietorship firm of Punit

4

Bhargava) to Rajesh Rai although the consideration amount was Rs.

1,78,55,800/- and it was shown to have been paid in the sale deed;

that out of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 25 lakhs, an amount of Rs. 18

lakhs were transferred from the Bank account of Rajesh Rai to the

Bank account of Green Traders (Partnership firm under the control of

Md. Saddam Hussain); that Rs. 7 lakh cash was withdrawn through

cheques by Rajesh Rai; that on the directions of the appellant,

mutation of the property was done in the name of Punit Bhargava,

who was an accomplice of the appellant; that Punit Bhargava sold the

property to the Bishnu Kumar Agarwal within a span of two months

for Rs. 1.80 crore; that an amount of Rs.56,62,600/- was paid from

the account of M/s Chalice Real Estate (Company of Bishnu Kumar

Agarwal) on 05.04.2021 to Punit Bhargava’s bank account and on

24.06.2021 an amount of Rs. 1,01,57,400/- was transferred from the

account of Adarsh Heights Pvt Ltd (Company of Bishnu Agarwal) to

Punit Bhargav’s bank account; that the entire payment was made in

the month of April and June, 2021 but the registration was done on

1

st

April, 2021 before the receipt of consideration. Finally, it is

alleged that an amount of Rs.1,01,57,400/- was transferred to the

5

Bank account of M/s Jamini Enterprises, which is alleged to be a

firm controlled and beneficially owned by appellant - Prem Prakash.

8.It is alleged that the appellant conspired with the other accused

persons, namely, Afshar Ali @ Afsu Khan, Rajesh Rai, Lakhan

Singh, Imtiaz Ahmad, Bharat Prasad, Saddam Hussain, Punit

Bhargava, Chhavi Ranjan and Bishnu Kumar Agarwal in the

acquisition of proceeds of crime in the form of landed property. It is

specifically alleged that the appellant being an accomplice of Bishnu

Kumar Agarwal used his connections to assist Bishnu Kumar

Agarwal in acquiring the land and that Bishnu Kumar Agarwal

transferred the money to Punit Bhargava and the amount was further

transferred to Jamini Enterprises.

9.The appellant was taken into custody on 11.08.2023. He was

already in custody from 25.08.2022 in ECIR No. 4 of 2022. His

application for bail was rejected by the Special Judge on 20.09.2023.

He preferred a bail application before the High Court. The High

Court has declined bail to the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant is

before us.

6

10.We have heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Learned Senior counsel for

the appellant, ably assisted by Mr. Indrajit Sinha and Mr. Siddharth

Naidu, learned advocates. We have also heard Mr. S.V. Raju, Learned

Additional Solicitor General, ably assisted by Mr. Zoheb Hussain

and Mr. Kanu Agarwal for the respondents. Learned Senior Counsels

on both sides have placed their respective contentions and also filed

detailed written submissions.

SECTION 45 PMLA-CONTOURS

11.Considering that the present is a bail application for the offence

under Section 45 of PMLA, the twin conditions mentioned thereof

become relevant. Section 45(1) of PMLA reads as under:-

“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:

Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is

a woman or is sick or infirm or is accused either on his own or

along with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than

7

one crore rupees, may be released on bail, if the Special Court so

directs:

Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of

any offence punishable under Section 4 except upon a complaint in

writing made by-

(i) the Director; or

(ii) any officer of the Central Government or a State Government

authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a

general or special order made in this behalf by that Government.”

In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs Union of India

and Ors. reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929, this Court

categorically held that while Section 45 of PMLA restricts the right

of the accused to grant of bail, it could not be said that the conditions

provided under Section 45 impose absolute restraint on the grant of

bail. Para 131 is extracted hereinbelow:-

“131. 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. …”

These observations are significant and if read in the context of the

recent pronouncement of this Court dated 09.08.2024 in Criminal

Appeal No. 3295 of 2024 [Manish Sisodia (II) Vs. Directorate of

8

Enforcement], it will be amply clear that even under PMLA the

governing principle is that “Bail is the Rule and Jail is the

Exception”. In para 53 of [Manish Sisodia (II), this Court observed

as under:-

“53…..From our experience, we can say that it appears that the

trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of

grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an

exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant

of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is

flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the

huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High

Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is

exception.”

All that Section 45 of PMLA mentions is that certain conditions are

to be satisfied. The principle that, “bail is the rule and jail is the

exception” is only a paraphrasing 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 of

PMLA by imposing twin conditions does not re-write this principle

to mean that deprivation is the norm and liberty is the exception. As

9

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.

12.Independently and as has been emphatically reiterated in

Manish Sisodia (II) (supra) relying on Ramkripal Meena Vs

Directorate of Enforcement (SLP (Crl.) No. 3205 of 2024 dated

30.07.2024) and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of

Maharashtra and Another, 2024 SCC online 1693, where the

accused has already been in custody for a considerable number of

months and there being no likelihood of conclusion of trial within a

short span, the rigours of Section 45 of PMLA can be suitably

relaxed to afford conditional liberty. Further, Manish Sisodia (II)

(supra) reiterated the holding in Javed Gulam Nabi Sheikh (Supra),

that keeping persons behind the bars for unlimited periods of time in

the hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive the

fundamental right of persons under Article 21 of the Constitution of

India and that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced

guilty ought not to be permitted to become the punishment without

trial. In fact, Manish Sisodia (II) (Supra) reiterated the holding in

10

Manish Sisodia (I) Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (judgment dated

30.10.2023 in Criminal Appeal No. 3352 of 2023) where it was held

as under:-

“28. 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. The right to bail in cases of delay, coupled

with incarceration for a long period, depending on the nature of the

allegations, should be read into Section 439 of the Code and

Section 45 of the PML Act. The reason is that the constitutional

mandate is the higher law, and it is the basic right of the person

charged of an offence and not convicted, that he be ensured and

given a speedy trial. When the trial is not proceeding for reasons

not attributable to the accused, the court, unless there are good

reasons, may well be guided to exercise the power to grant bail.

This would be truer where the trial would take years.”

It is in this background that Section 45 of PMLA needs to be

understood and applied. Article 21 being a higher constitutional

right, statutory provisions should align themselves to the said higher

constitutional edict.

Scope of Inquiry under Section 45 of PMLA

11

13.Coming back to the scope of inquiry under Section 45, Vijay

Madanlal Choudhary (Supra), while reiterating and agreeing with

the holding in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of

Maharashtra and Another reported in (2005) 5 SCC 294, held that

the Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail in

PMLA need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a

view of the Court based on the available material available on record

is required. It held that the Court is only required to place its view

based on probability on the basis of reasonable material collected

during investigation. The words used in Section 45 are “reasonable

grounds for believing” which means that 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. We deem it fit

to extract the relevant portion (Para 131) from Vijay Madanlal

Choudhary (supra):

“131. 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. While dealing with a similar

12

provision prescribing twin conditions in MCOCA, this court in

Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma (supra), held as under:

"44. The wording of section 21(4), in our opinion, does not lead to

the conclusion that the court must arrive at a positive finding that

the applicant for bail has not committed an offence under the Act.

If such a construction is placed, the court intending to grant bail

must arrive at a finding that the applicant has not committed such

an offence. In such an event, it will be impossible for the

prosecution to obtain a judgment of conviction of the applicant.

Such cannot be the intention of the Legislature. Section 21(4) of

the MCOCA, therefore, must be construed reasonably. It must be

so construed that the court is able to maintain a delicate balance

between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order

granting bail much before commencement of trial. Similarly, the

court will be required to record a finding as to the possibility of his

committing a crime after grant of bail. However, such an offence

in futuro must be an offence under the Act and not any other

offence. Since it is difficult to predict the future conduct of an

accused, the court must necessarily consider this aspect of the

matter having regard to the antecedents of the accused, his

propensities and the nature and manner in which he is alleged to

have committed the offence.

45. It is, furthermore, trite that for the purpose of considering an

application for grant of bail, although detailed reasons are not

necessary to be assigned, the order granting bail must demonstrate

application of mind at least in serious cases as to why the applicant

has been granted or denied the privilege of bail.

46. 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. However, while dealing with a special statute like

MCOCA having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section

(4) of section 21 of the Act, the court may have to probe into the

matter deeper so as to enable it to arrive at a finding that the

materials collected against the accused during the investigation

may not justify a judgment of conviction. The findings recorded

by the court while granting or refusing bail undoubtedly would be

tentative in nature, which may not have any bearing on the merit

of the case and the trial court would, thus, be free to decide the

case on the basis of evidence adduced at the trial, without in any

manner being prejudiced thereby".

We are in agreement with the observation made by the court in

Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma (supra). The court while

13

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 (supra), 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.”

(emphasis supplied)

Importance of the foundational facts-under Section 24 PMLA

14.In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) dealing with Section 24

of the PMLA, the three-Judge Bench held as under:-

“97. Be that as it may, we may now proceed to decipher the purport

of section 24 of the 2002 Act. In the first place, it must be noticed

that the legal presumption in either case is about the involvement of

proceeds of crime in money-laundering. This fact becomes relevant,

only if, the prosecution or the authorities have succeeded in

establishing at least three basic or foundational facts. First, that the

criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence has been

committed. Second, that the property in question has been

derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a

result of that criminal activity. Third, the person concerned is,

directly or indirectly, involved in any process or activity

connected with the said property being proceeds of crime. On

establishing the fact that there existed proceeds of crime and

the person concerned was involved in any process or activity

connected therewith, itself, constitutes offence of money-

laundering. The nature of process or activity has now been

elaborated in the form of Explanation inserted vide Finance (No. 2)

Act, 2019. On establishing these foundational facts in terms of

14

section 24 of the 2002 Act, a legal presumption would arise that

such proceeds of crime are involved in money-laundering. The fact

that the person concerned had no causal connection with such

proceeds of crime and he is able to disprove the fact about his

involvement in any process or activity connected therewith, by

producing evidence in that regard, the legal presumption would

stand rebutted.

99. Be it noted that the legal presumption under section 24(a) of the

2002 Act, would apply when the person is charged with the offence

of money-laundering and his direct or indirect involvement in any

process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, is

established. The existence of proceeds of crime is, therefore, a

foundational fact, to be established by the prosecution, including

the involvement of the person in any process or activity connected

therewith. Once these foundational facts are established by the

prosecution, the onus must then shift on the person facing charge of

offence of money-laundering-to rebut the legal presumption that the

proceeds of crime are not involved in money-laundering, by

producing evidence which is within his personal knowledge. 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.

100. 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. In any case, in terms of section 114 of

the Evidence Act, it is open to the court to presume the existence of

any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had

to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public

and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular

case. Considering the above, the provision under consideration

[section 24(a)] by no standards can be said to be unreasonable much

less manifestly arbitrary and unconstitutional.”

15

(Emphasis supplied)

Importance of the counter to the bail application – filed in the

original Court

15.In view of the importance of the three basic foundational facts

that the prosecution needs to establish, the counter/response to the

bail application in the original Court is very significant in PMLA bail

matters. In cases where the Public Prosecutor takes a considered

decision to oppose the bail application, the counter affidavit of the

Investigating Agency should make out a cogent case as to how the

three foundational facts set out hereinabove are prima facie

established in the given case to help the Court at the bail application

stage to arrive at a conclusion within the framework laid down in

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra). It is only thereafter the

presumption under Section 24 would arise and the burden would

shift on the accused. The counter to the bail application should

specifically crystallize albeit briefly the material sought to be relied

upon to establish prima facie the three foundational facts. It is after

the foundational facts are set out that the accused will assume the

burden to convince the court within the parameters of the enquiry at

16

the Section 45 stage that for the reasons adduced by him there are

reasonable grounds to believing that he is not guilty of such offence.

Analysis and Reasons

16.The contention of the prosecution is that (i) the appellant

connived with accused persons, namely, Afshar Ali, Saddam Hussain

and others who created a forged Sale Deed No. 184 of 1948, and on

the strength of the sale deed the property was sold by Rajesh Rai

(associate of Afshar Ali) to Punit Bhargava a close associate of the

appellant; (ii) that Rs. 25 lakhs were transferred to the bank account

of Rajesh Rai and later Rs. 18 lakh (out of the 25 lakhs) was

transferred to the bank account of M/s Green Traders, a firm

controlled by Md. Saddam Hussain even though the sale

consideration was Rs. 1,78,55,800/-; (iii) that the appellant is aware

of the forgery committed by Afshar Ali & others and intentionally

acquired the property in the name of Punit Bhargava, who later sold

the property within 2 months to Bishnu Agarwal for Rs. 1.80 crore

and out of the said amount, Rs. 1,01,57,400/ - was transferred by

Punit Bhargava to M/s Jamini Enterprises, a firm controlled and

17

beneficially owned by the appellant; (iv) that the accused persons

had full knowledge of the transaction, inasmuch as though the sale

deed was executed in favor of Punit Bhargava through accused

Rajesh Rai on 06.02.2021, payment was made on 12.02.2021 and

that only 25 lakh was paid to Rajesh Rai and mutation was done and

thereafter sold to Bishnu Agarwal and all payments were received by

Punit Bhargava; (v) that no subsequent payments were to be made

further, as according to the prosecution, all concerned knew that the

deeds were fake, and (vi) that Bishnu Agarwal made the payment in

the month of April and June 2021, but the registration was done on

1

st

April, 2021 and as such the registration was done before

consideration. (Emphasis supplied)

17.The prosecution relies on the statements under Section 50 of

the PMLA of Afshar Ali, Rajdeep Kumar, Md. Saddam Hussain,

Punit Bhargava and of the appellant himself. They also rely on the

call detail records of the other accused, namely, Afshar Ali and

Rajdeep Kumar. They also alleged that the appellant, with the help

of another accused person Chhavi Ranjan, by influencing the circle

18

officials got the land mutated and hence, according to the

prosecution, the role of the appellant is pivotal.

18.Learned ASG for the respondent has taken us through summary

of the statements of the persons mentioned hereinabove, as adverted

to in the complaint, filed by the Enforcement Directorate.

Admissibility of the Statement of the Appellant

19.In the oral submissions and also as elaborated in the detailed

written submissions by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate,

reliance is sought to be placed on the statements of the appellant.

This is stoutly resisted on the side of the appellant by contending that

the appellant was in custody from 25th August 2022 in ECIR No.

4/2022; that his arrest was shown in the present case on 11

th

August

2023 and it is submitted that statements recorded while in custody

(although in ECIR No.4/2022) will not be admissible and will be hit

by Section 25. The statement of the appellant-Prem Prakash, the

summary of which, as given in the complaint, reads as under:-

“8.23 Prem Prakash - In his statement dated 04.08.2023 (RUD

No.41) recorded in judicial custody at Birsa Munda Central Jail,

Hotwar, Ranchi, he stated that he knows Bishnu Kumar Agarwal as

a businessman and sometimes, he has met him during marriage

19

events. He further stated that Punit Bhargava is like his younger

brother and he is from his native place, so he knows him since

childhood.

From his statement dated 03.08.2023, (RUD No.40) it reveals those

three persons including Afshar Ali used to visit him for the Cheshire

Home Road property. He introduced them with Rajdeep Kumar and

got the property verified. After some time, with the consent of Punit

Bhargava, he got the property registered in the name of Punit

Bhargava and later this property was sold to Bishnu Kumar

Agarwal at a consideration price of Rs. 1.78 crores. His statement

also reveals that Rajdeep used to visit Chhavi Ranjan on his

instructions for the landed properties. However, in his statement

dated 15.08.2023, he started concealing facts regarding meeting

between Afshar Ali, Md. Saddam Hussain and others with Chhavi

Ranjan.

It may be mentioned that Rajdeep is a person who worked under

Prem Prakash as his employee and had visited the office of the

accused Chhavi Ranjan on directions of Prem Prakash with the

accused persons Afshar All and Md. Saddam Hussain. This fact has

also been admitted by Rajdeep Kumar in his statement under

section 50 of PMLA, 2002 recorded on 24.04.2023. (RUD No. 76)

Further, several calls have also been identified to have taken place

during the scrutiny of the CDR which have also been mentioned

below in the relevant para.”

(Emphasis supplied)

20.In his statement of 04.08.2023, he stated that he knew Bishnu

Kumar Agarwal and has met him during Marriage Events; that Punit

Bhargava was like his younger brother who hailed from his native

place, and he had known him since childhood. That in his statement

of 03.08.2023, he stated that persons including Afshar Ali used to

visit him for the Cheshire Home property and that he introduced him

to Rajdeep Kumar and got the property verified. That with the

consent of Punit Bhargava, he got the property registered in the name

20

of Punit Bhargava and later the property was sold to Bishnu Kumar

Agarwal at a consideration of Rs. 1.78 crore. The statement, as

summarized, taken as it is does not prima facie make out a case of

money laundering against the appellant. It also does not point to the

involvement of the appellant prima facie in the forgery.

21.Independent of the above, there is one important issue which

arises in this case. It has to be pointed out that the appellant has been

in judicial custody from 25.08.2022 in connection with another

ECIR, namely, ECIR No. 4 of 2022 and while in judicial custody his

arrest was shown in the current ECIR, namely, ECIR No. 5 on

11.08.2023. The statements of the appellant were recorded on

03.08.2023, 04.08.2023, 11.08.2023, 12.08.2023, 14.08.2023,

15.08.2023 and 30.08.2023.

22.The question that arises is when a person is in judicial

custody/custody in another case investigated by the same

Investigating Agency, whether the statements recorded (in this case

the statements dated 03.08.2023, 04.08.2023, 11.08.2023) for a new

case in which his arrest is not yet shown, and which are claimed to

21

contain incriminating material against the maker, would be

admissible under Section 50?

23.In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), addressing the scope of

Section 50, following has been held:-

“159….However, if his/her statement is recorded after a formal

arrest by the ED official, the consequences of Article 20(3) or

Section 25 of the Evidence Act may come into play to urge that

the same being in the nature of confession, shall not be proved

against him.’

(Emphasis supplied)

The three-judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) has

apart from Article 20(3) also adverted to Section 25 of the Evidence

Act. Section 25 of the Evidence Act reads as under:-

“25. Confession to police officer not to be proved.- No confession

made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused

of any offence.

24.Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) though held that the

authorities under the PMLA are not police officers, did anticipate a

scenario where in a given case, the protection of Section 25 of the

Evidence Act may have to be made available to the accused. The

Court observed that such situations will have to be examined on a

22

case-to-case basis. We deem it appropriate to extract Para 172 of

Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra).

“172. In other words, there is stark distinction between the scheme

of the NDPS Act dealt with by this court in Tofan Singh (supra) and

that in the provisions of the 2002 Act under consideration. Thus, it

must follow that the authorities under the 2002 Act are not

police officers. Ex-consequenti, the statements recorded by the

authorities under the 2002 Act, of persons involved in the

commission of the offence of money-laundering or the witnesses

for the purposes of inquiry/investigation, cannot be hit by the vice

of article 20(3) of the Constitution or for that matter, article 21

being procedure established by law. In a given case, whether the

protection given to the accused who is being prosecuted for the

offence of money-laundering, of section 25 of the Evidence Act

is available or not, may have to be considered on case-to-case

basis being rule of evidence.”

(Emphasis supplied)

25.This Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) anticipated

the myriad situations that may arise in the recording of the Section

50 statement and discussed the parameters for dealing with them. In

Rajaram Jaiswal vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 828, a judgment

quoted in extenso in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), this Court

observed that the expression "police officer " in Section 25 of the

Evidence Act is not confined to persons who are members of the

regularly constituted police force. Further, setting out the test for

determining whether an officer is a "police officer " for the purpose

of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, this Court in Rajaram Jaiswal

23

(supra) held (quoted from para 165 of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary

(supra)

“165(ii) It may well be that a statute confers powers and imposes

duties on a public servant, some of which are analogous to those of

a police officer. But by reason of the nature of other duties which he

is required to perform he may be exercising various other powers

also. It is argued on behalf of the State that where such is the case

the mere conferral of some only of the powers of a police officer on

such a person would not make him a police officer and, therefore,

what must be borne in mind is the sum total of the powers which he

enjoys by virtue of his office as also the dominant purpose for

which he is appointed. The contention thus is that when an officer

has to perform a wide range of duties and exercise correspondingly

a wide range of powers, the mere fact that some of the powers

which the statute confers upon him are analogous to or even

identical with those of a police officer would not make him a police

officer and, therefore, if such an officer records a confession it

would not be hit by S. 25 of the Evidence Act. In our judgment

what is pertinent to bear in mind for the purpose of

determining as to who can be regarded a ‘police officer’ for the

purpose of this provision is not the totality of the powers which

an officer enjoys but the kind of powers which the law enables

him to exercise. The test for determining whether such a person is a

“police officer” for the purpose of S. 25 of the Evidence Act would,

in our judgment, be whether the powers of a police officer which

are conferred on him or which are exercisable by him because he is

deemed to be an officer in charge of police station establish a direct

or substantial relationship with the prohibition enacted by S. 25,

that is, the recording of a confession. In other words, the test

would be whether the powers are such as would tend to

facilitate the obtaining by him of a confession from a suspect or

delinquent. If they do, then it is unnecessary to consider the

dominant purpose for which he is appointed or the question as

to what other powers he enjoys. These questions may perhaps

be relevant for consideration where the powers of the police

officer conferred upon him are of a very limited character and

are not by themselves sufficient to facilitate the obtaining by

him of a confession .”

(Emphasis supplied)

24

26.Four decades ago, V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. in his inimitable style,

speaking for this Court in Nandini Satpathy Vs P.L. Dani and

Another, (1978) 2 SCC 424 observed as under:-

“50. We, however, underscore the importance of the specific

setting of a given case for judging the tendency towards guilt.

Equally emphatically, we stress the need for regard to the

impact of the plurality of other investigations in the offing or

prosecutions pending on the amplitude of the immunity. “To

be witness against oneself” is not confined to particular

offence regarding which the questioning is made but extends

to other offences about which the accused has reasonable

apprehension of implication from his answer. This conclusion

also flows from “tendency to be exposed to a criminal

charge”. “A criminal charge” covers any criminal charge

then under investigation or trial or which imminently

threatens the accused.”

(Emphasis supplied)

“57. We hold that Section 161 enables the police to examine the

accused during investigation. The prohibitive sweep of Article

20(3) goes back to the stage of police interrogation- not, as

contended, commencing in court only. In our judgment, the

provisions of Article 20(3) and Section 161(1) substantially cover

the same area, so far as police investigations are concerned. The

ban on self-accusation and the right to silence, while one

investigation or trial is under way, goes beyond that case and

protects the accused in regard to other offences pending or

imminent, which may deter him from voluntary disclosure of

criminatory matter. We are disposed to read ‘compelled

testimony’ as evidence procured not merely by physical

threats or violence but by psychic torture, atmospheric

pressure, environmental coercion tiring interrogative

prolixity, overbearing and intimidatory methods and the like

– not legal penalty for violation. So, the legal perils following

upon refusal to answer, or answer truthfully, cannot be regarded

as compulsion within the meaning of Article 20(3). The prospect

of prosecution may lead to legal tension in the exercise of a

constitutional right, but then, a stance of silence is running a

25

calculated risk. On the other hand, if there is any mode of

pressure, subtle or crude, mental or physical, direct or

indirect, but sufficiently substantial, applied by the

policeman for obtaining information from an accused

strongly suggestive of guilt, it becomes ‘compelled testimony’,

violative of Article 20(3).”

(Emphasis supplied)

27.In the facts of the present case, we hold that the statement of

the appellant if to be considered as incriminating against the maker,

will be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act since he has given the

statement whilst in judicial custody, pursuant to another proceeding

instituted by the same Investigating Agency. Taken as he was from

the judicial custody to record the statement, it will be a travesty of

justice to render the statement admissible against the appellant.

28.The appellant accused cannot be told that after all while giving

this statement:- "you were wearing a hat captioned 'ECIR 5/2023'

and not the hat captioned 'ECIR 4/2022' ".

29.A complete reading of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary (supra),

particularly, paragraphs 159, 165 and 172 mandate us to ask

ourselves the query: Is a reasonable inference legitimately

possible that, due to the vulnerable position in which the appellant

was placed and the dominating position in which the

26

Investigating Agency was situated, in view of the arrest in the other

proceeding that, there obtained a conducive atmosphere to obtain a

confession? We certainly think so. The question is not whether it

actually happened. The question is could it have been possible.

30.We are supported in this view by two old judgments of the

Madras High Court. In Re Elukuri Seshapani Chetti (ILR 1937 Mad

358) Justice Mockett following the judgment of Justice Jackson In

Kodangi V. Emperor, (AIR 1932 Mad 24.) held as under:-

“In my judgment this is clearly a confession, as I have already

said, and, as has been pointed out by Jackson J. In Kodangi V.

Emperor, (AIR 1932 Mad 24.) a confession made to the Police in

the course of investigating crime A, although it relates to

another crime B, is equally inadmissible. The whole spirit of

section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act is to exclude confessions

to the police and, the moment a statement is found to amount to

a confession, I do not think it matters in the slightest of what

crime it is said to be a confession.”

(Emphasis supplied)

31.We feel that the principle laid down there on is applicable. In

fact, the three-Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary (supra),

in the para extracted hereinabove, expressly refers to Section 25 of

the Evidence Act while dealing with statements recorded when the

person is in custody.

27

32.We have no hesitation in holding that when an accused is in

custody under PMLA irrespective of the case for which he is under

custody, any statement under Section 50 PMLA to the same

Investigating Agency is inadmissible against the maker. The reason

being that the person in custody pursuant to the proceeding

investigated by the same Investigating Agency is not a person who

can be considered as one operating with a free mind. It will be

extremely unsafe to render such statements admissible against the

maker, as such a course of action would be contrary to all canons of

fair play and justice.

33.We also draw support from the way Section 50 is structured.

Section 50 reads as under:-

“Section 50. Powers of authorities regarding summons,

production of documents and to give evidence, etc.

(1) The Director shall, for the purposes of section 13, have the

same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while trying a suit in respect of the

following matters, namely:--

(a) discovery and inspection;

(b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer

of a reporting entity and examining him on oath;

(c) compelling the production of records;

(d) receiving evidence on affidavits;

(e) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses and

documents; and

(f) any other matter which may be prescribed.

28

(2) The Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy

Director or Assistant Director shall have power to summon any

person whose attendance he considers necessary whether to give

evidence or to produce any records during the course of any

investigation or proceeding under this Act.

(3) All the persons so summoned shall be bound to attend in

person or through authorised agents, as such officer may direct,

and shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting

which they are examined or make statements, and produce such

documents as may be required.

(4) Every proceeding under sub-sections (2) and (3) shall be

deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section

193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

(5) Subject to any rules made in this behalf by the Central

Government, any officer referred to in sub-section (2) may

impound and retain in his custody for such period, as he thinks

fit, any records produced before him in any proceedings under

this Act:

Provided that an Assistant Director or a Deputy Director shall

not--

(a) impound any records without recording his reasons for so

doing; or

(b) retain in his custody any such records for a period exceeding

three months, without obtaining the previous approval of the

Joint Director.”

Section 50 (1)(b) speaks of enforcing the attendance of any person,

Section 50 (2) speaks of the authorized officials having the power to

summon any person whose attendance they consider necessary

whether to give evidence or to produce any records during the course

of any investigation or proceeding under the Act. Section 50 (3)

states that all persons so summoned shall be bound to attend in

person or through authorized agents, as such officer may direct, and

shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which

29

they are examined or make statements, and produce such documents

and Section 50(4) states that every proceeding under sub-Sections (2)

and (3) shall be deemed to be in judicial proceeding. A person in

judicial custody being not a free person cannot be summoned and

any statement to be recorded will be after obtaining the permission of

the Court which has remanded him to the judicial custody in the

other case.

34.In view of the above and keeping the salutary principle of

Article 21 in mind, we hold that since the words ‘procedure

established by law’ occurring in Article 21 has to be a reasonable and

valid procedure, the statement of the appellant under Section 50

cannot be relied upon against the appellant in ECIR No. 5 of 2023

even though the appellant was at that point in custody in ECIR No. 4

of 2022.

Statement of Afshar Ali - Co-accused

35.The appellant was not named in FIR No. 399 of 2023. It

appears from the complaint of the respondent-Enforcement

Directorate at para 6 that Afshar Ali, Saddam Hussain, Imtiaz Ahmad

30

were arrested on 14.04.2023 in ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 though in the

summary of the statements at para 8.12 it is mentioned that Afshar

Ali was arrested on 14.04.2023 read with prayer (c) of the complaint

it appears that the arrest that is referred to in para 8.12 is the arrest in

ECIR/RNZO/18/2022.

36.Accused Afshar Ali was arrested on 14.04.2023 in

ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 (a different ECIR) and his statement was

recorded on 17.04.2023 in the present ECIR. Afshar Ali is supposed

to have stated that since he came to know that the land was under

vigilance by the Police and the land had certain disputes. He met

with the appellant and the appellant was informed about the disputes

and the vigilance of the Police. According to the statement of Afshar

Ali, the appellant took stock of the status of the land and called the

then Deputy Commissioner - Chhavi Ranjan and told him that the

registry of the Cheshire Home property was to be done after

removing the vigilance observed by the Police. Thereafter, the

appellant fixed the consideration of Rs. 1.5 crores and after accepting

the consideration as fixed, he requested the appellant to arrange for

unblocking the two plots of land, which were blocked by the Deputy

31

Commissioner Office. That the appellant demanded Rs. 1 crore for

the above work and the amount was adjusted in the said

consideration and that it was appellant who asked to do the

registration in the name of Punit Bhargava. He also stated that it was

the appellant who fixed the deal with Bishnu Kumar Agarwal.

37.Being a co-accused with the appellant, his statement against the

appellant assuming there is anything incriminating against the

present appellant will not have the character of substantive evidence.

The prosecution cannot start with such a statement to establish its

case. We hold that, in such a situation, the law laid down under

Section 30 of the Evidence Act by this Court while dealing with the

confession of the co-accused will continue to apply. In Kashmira

Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1952] SCR 526, this Court

neatly summarized the principle as under:-

“…. The proper way to approach a case of this kind is, first, to

marshal the evidence against the accused excluding the confession

altogether from consideration and see whether, if it is believed, a

conviction could safely be based on it. If it is capable of belief

independently of the confession, then of course it is not necessary to

call the confession in aid. But cases may arise where the judge is

not prepared to act on the other evidence as it stands even though, if

believed, it would be sufficient to sustain a conviction. In such an

event the judge may call in aid the confession and use it to lend

assurance to the other evidence and thus fortify himself in believing

32

what without the aid of the confession he would not be prepared to

accept.”

Hence, insofar as Afshar Ali’s statement is concerned, the

Investigating Agency will have to first marshal the other evidence

and can at best look at the statement for lending assurance.

Independently, the statement of Afshar Ali does not prima facie

indicate anything about the role of the appellant in the forgery of sale

deed and other documents or being involved in the offence of money

laundering.

Statement of Rajdeep Kumar

38.We have perused the statement, as summarized in the

complaint, of Rajdeep Kumar. Rajdeep Kumar merely states that he

worked for the appellant and has met Afshar Ali after the appellant

introduced him at the house of the appellant regarding dealing of a

land situated at Cheshire Home. He further states that he has met

Saddam Hussain at the house of the appellant on the above stated

land. He further adds that he has also seen Imtiaz Ahmed and Bharat

Prasad, close associates of Afshar Ali and Saddam Hussain. Prima

33

facie, we conclude that there is hardly any evidence to implicate the

appellant for the offence under Section 3 and 4 of PMLA.

Statement of Md. Saddam Hussain – Co-accused

39.Md. Saddam Hussain was arrested on 14.04.2023 also in

ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 (a different ECIR), in his statement of

26.04.2023, in the present ECIR he only speaks of knowing Rajdeep

Kumar and meeting him for the purpose of unblocking a piece of

land measuring 3.81 acres and about Rajdeep Kumar arranging a

meeting with the then Deputy Commissioner - Chhavi Ranjan. His

statement like that of Afshar Ali will not have the status of being a

substantive evidence and will be of the same character as Afshar’s

insofar as the co-accused are concerned. In the complaint, the

prosecution infers that it was Rajdeep Kumar who was the link

between the Deputy Commissioner, Chhavi Ranjan and Prem

Prakash and who acted on the instructions of the appellant - Prem

Prakash and helped Saddam Hussain for unblocking the land. Prima

facie, in our opinion, this statement carries the case of the

prosecution no further. The corroboration drawn from his further

34

statement of 29.08.2023 recorded in judicial custody of the above

statement adds nothing further to support the prosecution apart from

the fact that the statement of 29.08.2023 lacked the character of

substantive evidence.

Statement of Punit Bhargava

40.Insofar as the statement of Punit Bhargava is concerned, it was

recorded on 09.12.2022. He is supposed to have stated that he knew

Bishnu Agarwal since March, 2021 when on the directions of

appellant, he sold 1 acre of land to Bishnu Agarwal. He is supposed

to have further stated that he had bought the piece of land under the

supervision of Prem Prakash and that under the instructions of Prem

Prakash, he acquired a land in his name and accordingly on the

instructions of the appellant, he sold it to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal. He

stated that on the directions of the appellant, he gave Rs. 25 lakhs to

Rajesh Rai through cheque after which the registration and mutation

of the property was done but, further added that six post-dated

cheques were given for encashing the balance amount later. He is

supposed to have stated further that he was not aware as to why rest

35

of the payment was not made even after the registration and mutation

and that appellant could perhaps, give a reply. On being asked as to

why the property was purchased in his name when it was sold within

two months to Bishnu Agarwal, he stated that it was only done on the

instructions of Prem Prakash.

41.The statement mentions that apart from 25 lakhs, six post-dated

cheques were also given. Thereafter, it only speaks of the appellant

advising the purchase and sale of the land. Prima facie, they do not

detract from the reasonable grounds of belief that we entertain to the

effect that the appellant is not guilty of the offence under Section 3

and 4.

Bishnu Kumar Agarwal (A9) on bail – Order has attained

finality

42.We, prima facie, find that from the statements of the appellant

and also from the other statements and other material relied upon by

the investigating agency, there is nothing to indicate that the

petitioner was involved in the creation of the forged deed nor had

any knowledge of the forged sale deed of 1948. In the order

36

enlarging Bishnu Kumar Agarwal on bail it was observed that-it was

a plausible view to hold that Bishnu Kumar Agarwal was a bonafide

purchaser of the property concerned in the present matter. It has also

been held therein that no criminality could have been found against

Bishnu Kumar Agarwal in the making of the sale consideration later

and registration of the sale earlier. Support has been drawn from

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. The same order also

makes a reference to para 10.6.6 of the complaint filed by the ED

where it has been mentioned that the investigation of the

Enforcement Directorate has revealed that complainant in FIR No.

399 of 2022, Umesh Kumar Gope was himself frivolously exerting

his claim over the said property. Be that as it may, the order of bail

granted to Bishnu Kumar Agarwal has attained finality.

43.Moreover, there is no material placed on record to show as to

on what basis it is claimed that the beneficial interest in M/s Jamini

Enterprises lies with the appellant. Hence, the statements relied upon

do not prima facie make out a case of money laundering against the

appellant.

37

44.The complaint also adverts to two other transactions with

which Bishnu Kumar Agarwal is being investigated. Nothing can be

elicited from the record about the involvement of the appellant and

as to the initiation of any proceeding against him with regard to the

other transactions with which Bishnu Kumar Agarwal is involved.

45.In this scenario, we hold that the appellant has satisfied the

twin conditions under Section 45. Inasmuch as from the material on

record, this Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for

believing that the appellant is not guilty of the offence of Money

Laundering as alleged under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA and the

Court is further satisfied that the appellant is not likely to commit

any offence, if enlarged on bail.

Arguments about criminal antecedents.

46.The Investigating Agency have also referred to ECIR No. 4 as a

criminal antecedent. A reference was made to ECIR No. 4 of 2022

pertaining to illegal Stone Mining and related activities in Saheb

Ganj, Jharkhand, where the petitioner was arrested on 25.08.2022

and the prosecution complaint was filed on 16.09.2022. Insofar as

38

the bail pertaining to ECIR No. 4 of 2022, which is pending in this

Court in SLP (Criminal) No. 691 of 2023, at the after notice stage,

the merits of the bail in that case will be independently examined.

Having examined the facts of the present case arising out of ECIR

No. 5 of 2023 and in view of the findings recorded hereinabove, we

do not think that the appellant can be denied bail based on the

pendency of the other matter. We say so in the facts and

circumstances of the present case as we do not find any justification

for his continued detention. The appellant has already been in

custody for over one year. The Trial is yet to commence. There is a

reference to one more ECIR which the Investigating Agency refers to

in their counter, namely, ECIR/RNZO/18/2022 but nothing is

available from the record as to whether any proceedings have been

taken against the appellant.

Allegation of misuse of Jail facilities by the Appellant

47.Elaborate contentions have been made on the conduct of the

appellant about certain facilities having been extended to him in jail.

We do not comment on them and if at all there is any violation of the

39

prison Rules, the Investigating Agency ought to take up with the

higher officials of the Jail. On the facts of the present case, they are

not reasons enough to deny the appellant his liberty.

48.For the reasons stated above, while allowing the appeal, we set

aside the judgment dated 22.03.2024 of the High Court of Jharkhand

at Ranchi in B.A. No. 9863 of 2023. We clarify that the observations

made in this judgment are only for the purpose of disposing of the

bail application and they shall not influence the Trial Court, which

would proceed in accordance with law and on the basis of the

evidence on record.

Conclusion

49.In the result, we pass the following order:-

(i) The appeal is allowed and impugned order dated 22.03.2024 is

quashed and set aside.

(ii)The Trial Court is directed to release the appellant on bail in

connection with ED Case No. ECIR No. 5 of 2023 on furnishing bail

bonds for a sum of Rs. 5 lakh with 2 sureties of the like amount.

40

(iii)The appellant shall surrender his passport with the Trial Court

and the appellant shall report to the Investigating Officer on every

Monday and Thursday between 10 and 11 A.M.

(iv)The appellant shall not make any attempt to influence the

witnesses and tamper with the evidence.

Pending applications shall stand disposed of.

………........................J.

[B.R. GAVAI]

……….........................J.

[K. V. VISWANATHAN ]

New Delhi;

28

th

August, 2024.

41

1

ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-A

(For Judgment)

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5416/2024

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-03-2024

in BA No. 9863/2023 passed by the High Court Of Jharkhand At

Ranchi)

PREM PRAKASH Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH

THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT Respondent(s)

Date : 28-08-2024 This matter was called on for pronouncement of

today.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Adv.

Ms. Sneh Singh, Adv.

Ms. Anusuya Sadhu Sinha, Adv.

Mr. Sowjhanya Shankar, Adv.

Mr. Harsh Yadav, Adv.

Mr. Siddharth Naidu, Adv.

M/S. KSN & Co., AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Suryaprakash V.Raju, A.S.G.

Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv.

Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv.

Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv.

Mr. Mrigank Pathak, Adv.

Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Adv.

Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv.

Mr. Hitarth Raja, Adv.

Mr. Harsh Paul Singh, Adv.

Mr. Gaurav Sarkar, Adv.

Mr. Animesh Upadhyay, Adv.

Mr. Sathvik Reddy, Adv.

Ms. Abhipriya, Adv.

Mr. Kartik Sabarwal, Adv.

Mr. Vivek Gaurav, Adv.

Mr. Kshitiz Agarwal, Adv.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

2

1. Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan

pronounced the judgment comprising the Bench of

Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and His Lordship.

2. Leave granted.

3. The appeal is allowed; the impugned order is

quashed and set aside and; the Trial Court is

directed to release the appellant on bail in terms

of the signed reportable judgment.

4. The operative portion of the judgment, inter

alia, held as under:-

“ 49.In the result, we pass the

following order:-

(i) The appeal is allowed and impugned

order dated 22.03.2024 is quashed and set

aside.

(ii) The Trial Court is directed to

release the appellant on bail in connection

with ED Case No. ECIR No. 5 of 2023 on

furnishing bail bonds for a sum of Rs. 5

lakh with 2 sureties of the like amount.

(iii) The appellant shall surrender his

passport with the Trial Court and the

appellant shall report to the Investigating

Officer on every Monday and Thursday

between 10 and 11 A.M.

(iv) The appellant shall not make any

attempt to influence the witnesses and

tamper with the evidence.”

3

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

(SNEHA DAS) (ANJU KAPOOR)

SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)