Patna High Court
Sandip Kumar SinghversusThe Union of India through the assistant director, Directorate of enforcement, 1st Floor, Chandpura
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, holding that the prosecution had not demonstrated sufficient material to justify continued detention under the PMLA.
Summary
Sandip Kumar Singh, a low‑paid supervisory employee, applied for regular bail in a PMLA case (Special Trial No. 02 of 2025) arising from an ECIR alleging his involvement in money‑laundering of Rs 83.50 crore proceeds of crime. The Enforcement Directorate alleged that Singh, as owner of the firm N Dimension, received and routed large sums to associates of a fraudulent loan scheme. Singh contended he was falsely implicated, had no direct role, derived no benefit, and suffered from chronic diabetes, while his wife had a serious illness. The Court examined the evidentiary record, noted the lack of direct incriminating documents, Singh’s clean criminal record, his health conditions, and the prolonged pre‑trial detention, and considered extensive Supreme Court jurisprudence on bail under PMLA. Balancing these factors, the Court held that continued detention would violate the right to speedy trial and granted bail with standard conditions.
Issues considered
- The applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA in denying bail to the petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged transactions constitute participation in money‑laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA.
- Whether the petitioner’s health conditions and lack of direct evidence justify bail.
- Whether the anticipated duration of trial violates the petitioner’s right to speedy trial under Article 21.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 391, 436A, 438
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — s. 3, 4, 45
Subjects
- bail
- PMLA
- money laundering
- Section 45
- speedy trial
- economic offences
- health considerations
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51347 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2024 Thana- E.C.I.R (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
District- Patna
======================================================
Sandip Kumar Singh Son of Lal Bahadur Singh Resident of 3rd floor, 1/1A,
Motilal sen lane, Narkeldanga, P.S.- Narkeldanga, P.O- Narkeldanga, kolkata
700911 ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union of India through the assistant director, Directorate of enforcement,
1st Floor, Chandpura Place, Bank Road, West Gandhi Maidan road, Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Amit Anand, Advocate
Mr. Pushkar Prashant, Advocate
For the Respondent/UOI/ED : Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh (A.S.G.)
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Raghav Raj Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
CAV ORDER
5 22-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered in connection with Special Trial PMLA Case No. 02 of
2025, arising out of ECIR No. PTZO/05/2024, registered under
Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PMLA’).
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
petitioner made accused in this case ECIR/PTZ0/05/2024 dated
14.03.2024 relying upon three FIRs viz 1. FIR bearing No. 933
of 2023 dated 18.11.2023 of Nagar P.S. Vaishali, under Sections
409, 420, 67, 468, 471 and 120B 2. FIR No. 629/2023 dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
2/29
13/03/2023 relying upon three FIR's viz 1. FIR bearing No
933/23 dated 18/11/2023 of Nagar P.S. Vaishali, u/s
409,420,67,468,471/120B. 2. FIR No;- 629/2023 dated
13/03/2023 of Nagar P.S. Vaishali, u/s 379 & 420 and 3. FIR
No;- 785/23 dated 30/09/2023 registered in Nagar PS Vaishali,
u/s 409,420,467,468 & 471 of I.P.C.
4. A financial irregularity took place in the Vaishali
Shahri Vikas Cooperative Bank Ltd., Hajipur, wherein several
officials of the said bank, in collusion with private individuals
and entities, allegedly committed offences such as cheating,
forgery, criminal conspiracy, and misappropriation of public
funds, resulting in the generation of proceeds of crime to the tune
of approximately Rs. 83.50 Crores. The ED has alleged that the
petitioner along with others was involved in layering and
utilization of these alleged Proceed of Crime (in short ‘PoC’). It
has been further submitted by the learned advocate of the
petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
present case without any cogent or credible evidence linking him
to the commission of any offence under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act. Petitioner has no direct or indirect role in the
commission of the alleged scheduled offence nor he has been
named as an accused in any of the FIRs relied upon for the
registration of impugned ECIR/PTZO/05/2024.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
3/29
5. It is further submitted that petitioner has not derived
or obtained any monetary gain personal enrichment or pecuniary
advantage and petitioner does not own or possess any movable or
immovable property traceable to the alleged PoC. The petitioner
was merely working in a supervisory capacity in the firm RSDR
Agri Aqua Llp for a monthly remuneration of Rs. 25,000/- and
had no involvement in the decision making process or financial
control of the operation. No incriminating document has been
produced to indicate that petitioner derived any monetary benefit
or had any knowledge about the illicit origin of the funds. It has
been further submitted that the petitioner is a chronic diabetic
and requires daily insulin therapy, including subcutaneous
injections of long-acting insulin analogues and prandial insulin
and his wife is also suffering from uterine fibroid disease.
6. As against this the learned counsel for the ED has
vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the petitioner and has
submitted that Vipin Tiwari, the then Chief Executive Officer of
VSV, Sajeev Kumar, the then chairman of loan committee of
VSV, Saiyad Shahanwaz Wajih, the then manager of VSV and
others generated PoC by disbursing bank money through 383
fraud loans amounting to Rs. 83.50 Crores approx based on
fake/forged warehouse/LIC receipts and later on same was
transferred to the various suspected persons/entities who were
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
4/29
directly or indirectly connected to Vipin Tiwari, Sanjeev Kumar
and their associates and from the analysis of money trail it was
found that ICICI Bank Account No. 129205000838 in the name
of N Dimension were the major receivers from the VSV saving
Bank Account linked to the fraud accounts. Petitioner Sandip
Kumar Singh is the owner of N Dimensions and he received
Rupees 4.151 crores from the fraud loans disbursement and they
also layered the PoC through various other accounts and routed
the major part of fraud loan amount to the accounts related to the
Vipin Tiwari, the then CEO of VSV.
7. From perusal of materials available on the record it
is clear that three FIRs (supra) were filed and as a result of these
three FIRs, this ECIR was instituted . The allegation is that bank
officials conspired themselves and embezzled an amount of Rs.
83.50 Crores through cheating and forgery. During investigation
it was revealed that an amount of Rs.2.53 Crores was transferred
from the account of Mehra Travels and 74 lakhs from the account
of N Dimension to the different personal accounts of Vipin
Tiwari during the period December, 2021 to December, 2022.
8. From perusal of the brief summary of the outcome
of the investigation under PMLA against Sandeep Kumar Singh
it is clear that the petitioner Sandeep Kumar Singh is involved in
the transfer and layering of funds obtained fraudulently from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
5/29
VSV Co-operative Bank and he is the owner of N Dimension
which was a major beneficiary of these fraud loans. The ICICI
bank account No. 129205000838 held in the name of N
Dimension receives PoC through RTGS/NEFT from VSV Co-
operative Bank to the tune of Rs. 4,15,10,000/-. The petitioner
transferred PoC to the bank accounts of Vipin Tiwari, the then
CEO of VSV amounting to Rs.2,32,16,300/- and received routed
and layered PoC of Rs.11,87,400/- from Tiwari’s account. He
transferred PoC of Rs.30,50,000/- to the account of Nitin Mehra,
another accused and directly received PoC from VSV Co-
operative bank accounts. The petitioner transferred PoC of Rs.
28,00,000/- to Mandavi Singh, a VSV co-operative bank
employee and associate of Vipin Tiwari and received
routed/layered PoC of Rs.32,00,000/- from Mandavi Singh’s
bank account. He transferred PoC of Rs. Five lakh to Neeraj
Tiwari, a relative of Vipin Tiwari. Singh transferred PoC of
Rs.3,17,700/- to Jitendra Yadav, another associate of Vipin
Tiwari. He transferred PoC of Rs.5,24,500/- to the account
related to Anjani Kumar Mishra, another associate of Vipin
Tiwari for his travels and has transferred Rs.19,20,000/- in the
various accounts related to Vipin Tiwai maintained in Purvanchal
Co-operative Bank, Ghazipur. Rs. 1,4,69,190 was deposited into
the N Dimension account from various locations, with a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
6/29
significant amount in cash deposited from Hajipur, where VSV
Co-operative Bank was located, after RTGS and NEFT
transactions from VSV Co-operative Bank accounts. This cash is
believed to have been deposited by Vipin Tiwari and his
associates. Rs. 23,00,000 was debited to Al Simran Enterprises
on January 21, 2021. Sandeep Kumar Singh also withdrew Rs.
9,00,000 in cash from a Delhi ATM. This cash was used to
purchase a Toyota Fortuner for Vipin Tiwari's use. The vehicle
was later returned to Al Simran Enterprises, and the account
received a credit of Rs. 21,00,000. Singh is involved in the
fisheries business of Vipin Tiwari in M/S RSDR Agri aqua LLP.
He transferred PoC of Rs. 22,08,500 to the bank accounts of M/S
RSDR Agr iaqua LLP and received routed layered PoC and profit
arose in fisheries business, which is also a part of the PoC, of Rs.
1,09,91,934. He transferred PoC in the bank accounts of various
persons related to the fisheries business of Vipin Tiwari in M/S
RSDR Agriaqua LLP. Singh transferred PoC of Rs. 7,64,642
towards JCV Works and Rs. 10,59,328 in the accounts of West
Bengal Electricity Distribution Company for electricity bills
related to the works of M/S RSDR Agri aqua LLP. He received
Rs. 17,00,000 from Saurabh with respect to sales in fisheries
business. Singh transferred PoC to various automobile entities
for the maintenance and purchase of vehicles used by Vipin
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
7/29
Tiwari, including JSU Motors (Rs. 3,40,000), Speed Motors Pvt.
Ltd. (Rs. 2,13,000), SRM Motors Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 2,13,000),
Harlalka Tyre (Rs. 1,16,0000), and Buddha Motors (Rs.
1,00,000). He transferred PoC of Rs. 2,36,700 to Mahindra
Holiday Homes and Rs. 42,530 to Make My Trip for Vipin
Tiwari's tours/trips.
9. The learned counsel for the ED has further
submitted that from above statements it is clear that the petitioner
is punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA Act, 2002.
10. Learned counsel for the ED has further submitted
that in the PMLA cases once a person is accused under this act,
the burden of proving that the PoC are untainted shall be on the
accused.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that on a comprehensive consideration of the records it is evident
that the petitioners’ implication rests solely on conjecture and
association; there is no material to suggest that the petitioner
knowingly participated in or benefited from any process
connected with the alleged PoC. The petitioner has no previous
criminal antecedent.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on
following citations :-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
8/29
(I) Ramkripal Meena v. Enforcement Directorate,
2024 SCC Online SC 2276 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has
held in Paragraph ‘7’ as under :-
7. Adverting to the prayer for grant of
bail in the instant case, it is pointed
out by learned counsel for ED that the
complaint case is at the stage of
framing of charges and 24 witnesses
are proposed to be examined. The
conclusion of proceedings, thus, will
take some reasonable time. The
petitioner has already been in custody
for more than a year. Taking into
consideration the period spent in
custody and there being no likelihood
of conclusion of trial within a short
span, coupled with the fact that the
petitioner is already on bail in the
predicate offence, and keeping in
view the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, it seems to
us that the rigours of Section 45 of the
Act can be suitably relaxed to afford
conditional liberty to the petitioner.
Ordered accordingly.
(II) Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate,
2024 SCC Online SC 1920 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held in Paragraph ‘52’ as under :-
52. The Court also reproduced the
observations made in Gudikanti
Narasimhulu (supra), which read
thus:
"10. In the aforesaid context, we may
remind the trial courts and the High
Courts of what came to be observed
by this Court in Gudikanti
Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor,
High Court reported in (1978) 1 SCC
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
9/29
240. We quote:
"What is often forgotten, and
therefore warrants reminder, is the
object to keep a person in judicial
custody pending trial or disposal of an
appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v.
Rose, (1898) 18 Cox]:
"I observe that in this case bail was
refused for the prisoner. It cannot be
too strongly impressed on the,
magistracy of the country that bail is
not to be withheld as a punishment,
but that the requirements as to bail are
merely to secure the attendance of the
prisoner at trial.""
(III) Prem Prakash v. Enforcement Directorate,
(2024) 9 SCC 787 wherein in Paragraph ‘18’ of the judgment,
the Hon’ble Apex Court has quoted Vijay Madanlal Choudhary
v. Union of India case, (2023) 12 SCC 1 as under :-
"237. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
10/29
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
g 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 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 fact
about his involvement in any process
or activity connected therewith, by
producing evidence in that regard, the
legal presumption would stand the
rebutted.”
(IV) V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate,
2024 SCC Online SC 2626 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has
held in Paragraph ‘27’ of the judgment as under :-
“27. Under the Statutes like PMLA,
the minimum sentence is three years,
and the maximum is seven years. The
minimum sentence is higher when the
scheduled offence is under the NDPS
Act. When the trial of the complaint
under PMLA is likely to prolong
beyond reasonable limits, the
Constitutional Courts will have to
consider exercising their powers to
grant bail. The reason is that Section
45(1)(ii) does not confer power on the
State to detain an accused for an
unreasonably long time, especially
when there is no possibility of trial
concluding within a reasonable time.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
11/29
What a reasonable time is will depend
on the provisions under which the
accused is being tried and other
factors. One of the most relevant
factor is the duration of the minimum
and maximum sentence for the
offence. Another important
consideration is the higher threshold
or stringent conditions which a statute
provides for the grant of bail. Even an
outer limit provided by the relevant
law for the completion of the trial, if
any, is also a factor to be considered.”
(V) P. Chidambram v. Directorate of
Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791 wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held as under :-
“A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 5. 439
Bail in economic offences involving
corruption and abuse of high public office
(of Union Finance Minister in present
case) - When can be given offences - It
would depend upon facts of each case -
Considerations for grant of bail in present
-Held, it is not a rule that bail (with
appropriate conditions) cannot be granted
in casebe such Case - Appellant directed to
be released on bail subject to executing
bail bonds for sum of Rs 2 lakhs with two
sureties of like sum produced to
satisfaction of Special Judge Other
conditions Petitioner shall not leave
country, shall make himself available for
interrogation, shall not tamper with
evidence, shall not attempt to intimidate
or influence witnesses and shall not give
any press interviews nor make any public
comment in connection with this case qua
him and other co-accused
- It is not a rule that bail should be denied
in case of economic offences – Basic
jurisprudence relating to bail is that bail is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
12/29
the rule and refusal is the exception - A
presumably Innocent person must have
freedom to enable him to establish his case
– He must have opportunity of seeking
fair trial - Though gravity of offence is an
important factor and economic offences as
in present case are considered grave,
considerations for grant of bail would
depend upon facts of each case - On facts,
appellant entitled to bail in present case”
(VI) Various judgment order of this Court in Cr.
Misc. Nos. 17036 of 2025 and 22880 of 2025 respectively.
14. As against this, learned counsel for the
Enforcement Directorate has relied on following citations :-
(I) Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union
of India & Ors., 2022 SCC Online SC 929 wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held in Paragraphs ‘269’ and ‘295’ as under :-
269. From the bare language of
Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply
clear that the offence of money-
laundering is an independent offence
regarding the process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime
which had been derived or obtained as
a result of criminal activity relating to
or in relation to a scheduled offence.
The process or activity can be in any
form- be it one of concealment,
possession, acquisition, use or
proceeds of crime as much as
projecting it as untainted property or
claiming it to be proceeds of crime
would constitute offence of money-
laundering. This offence is otherwise
has nothing to do with the criminal
activity relating to a scheduled offence
– except the proceeds of crime derived
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
13/29
or obtained as a result of that crime.
295. ….. The sweep of Section 5(1) is
not limited to the accused named in
the criminal activity relating to a
scheduled offence. It would apply to
any person (not necessarily being
accused in the scheduled offence), if
he is involved in any process or
activity connected with the procees of
crime. Such a person besides facing
the consequence of provisional
attachment order, may end up in being
named as accused in the complaint to
be filed by the authorized officer
concerning offence under Section 3 of
the PMLA Act, 2002.
(II) Pavanna Dibbur v. Enforcement Directorate,
(2023) SCC Online SC 1486 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
has held in Paragraphs 15, 17 and 18 as under :-
15. The condition precedent for the
existence of proceeds of crime is the
existence of a scheduled offence. On
this aspect, it is necessary to refer to
the decision of this Court in Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary. In para 109 of
the said decision², this Court held
thus: (SCC p. 166)
"109. Tersely put, it is only such
property which is derived or obtained,
directly or indirectly, as a result of
criminal activity relating to a
scheduled offence that can be
regarded as proceeds of crime. The
authorities under the 2002 Act cannot
resort to action against any person for
money laundering on an assumption
that the property recovered by them
must be proceeds of crime and that a
scheduled offence has been
committed, unless the same is
registered with the jurisdictional
police or pending inquiry by way of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
14/29
complaint before the competent
forum. For, the expression "derived or
obtained" is indicative of criminal
activity relating to a scheduled offence
already accomplished. Similarly, in
the event the person named in the
criminal activity relating to a
scheduled offence is finally absolved
by a court of competent jurisdiction
owing to an order of discharge,
acquittal or because of quashing of the
criminal case (scheduled offence)
against him/her, there can be no action
for money laundering against such a
person or person claiming through
him in relation to the property linked
to the stated scheduled offence. This
interpretation alone can be
countenanced on the basis of the
provisions of the 2002 Act, in
particular Section 2(1)(u) read with
Section 3. Taking any other view
would be rewriting of these provisions
and disregarding the express language
of definition clause "proceeds of
crime", as it obtains as of now."
(emphasis in original and supplied)
17. Coming back to Section 3 PMLA,
on its plain reading, an offence under
Section 3 can be committed after a
scheduled offence is committed. For
example, let us take the case of a
person who is unconnected with the
scheduled offence, knowingly assists
the concealment of the proceeds of
crime or knowingly assists the use of
proceeds of crime. In that case, he can
be held guilty of committing an
offence under Section 3 PMLA. To
give a concrete example, the offences
under Sections 384 to 389 IPC relating
to "extortion" are scheduled offences
included in Para 1 of the Schedule to
PMLA. An accused may commit a
crime of extortion covered by Sections
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
15/29
384 to 389 IPC and extort money.
Subsequently, a person unconnected
with the offence of extortion may
assist the said accused in the
concealment of the proceeds of
extortion. In such a case, the person
who assists the accused in the
scheduled offence for concealing the
proceeds of the crime of extortion can
be guilty of the offence of money-
laundering. Therefore, it is not
necessary that a person against whom
the offence under Section 3 PMLA is
alleged must have been shown as the
accused in the scheduled offence.
What is held in para 135 of the
decision of this Court in Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary supports the
above conclusion. The conditions
precedent for attracting the offence
under Section 3 PMLA are that there
must be a scheduled offence and that
there must be proceeds of crime in
relation to the scheduled offence as
defined in clause (u) of sub-section (1)
of Section 3 PMLA.
18. In a given case, if the prosecution
for the scheduled offence ends in the
acquittal of all the accused or
discharge of all the accused or the
proceedings of the scheduled offence
are quashed in its entirety, the
scheduled offence will not exist, and
therefore, no one can be prosecuted
for the offence punishable under
Section 3 PMLA as there will not be
any proceeds of crime. Thus, in such a
case, the accused against whom the
complaint under Section 3 PMLA is
filed will benefit from the scheduled
offence ending by acquittal or
discharge of all the accused. Similarly,
he will get the benefit of quashing the
proceedings of the scheduled offence.
However, an accused in PMLA case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
16/29
who comes into the picture after the
scheduled offence is committed by
assisting in the concealment or use of
proceeds of crime need not be an
accused in the scheduled offence.
Such an accused can still be
prosecuted under PMLA so long as the
scheduled offence exists. Thus, the
second contention raised by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the appellant on the ground that the
appellant was not shown as an accused
in the charge-sheets filed in the
scheduled offences deserves to be
rejected.
(III) Tarun Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate,
(2023) SCC Online SC 1486 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
has held in Paragraphs 13 to 15 as under :-
13. The first and foremost contention
raised by the learned Senior Counsel
Mr Luthra would be that the appellant
was not named in the FIR nor in first
three prosecution/supplementary
complaints and has been implicated
only on the basis of the statements of
witnesses recorded pursuant to the
summons issued under Section 50 of
the PML Act, without there being any
material in support thereof.
14. In our opinion, there is hardly any
merit in the said submission of Mr
Luthra. In Rohit Tandon v.
Enforcement Directorate, a three-
Judge Bench has categorically
observed that the statements of
witnesses/accused are admissible in
evidence in view of Section 50 of the
said Act and such statements may
make out a formidable case about the
involvement of the accused in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
17/29
commission of a serious offence of
money laundering. Further, as held in
Vijay Madanlal, the offence of money
laundering under Section 3 of the Act
is an independent offence regarding
the process or activity connected with
the proceeds of crime which had been
derived or obtained as a result of
criminal activity relating to or in
relation to a scheduled offence. The
offence of money laundering is not
dependent or linked to the date on
which the scheduled offence or
predicate offence has been
committed. The relevant date is the
date on which the person indulges in
the process or activity connected with
the proceeds of crime. Thus, the
involvement of the person in any of
the criminal activities like
concealment, possession, acquisition,
use of proceeds of crime as much as
projecting it as untainted property or
claiming it to be so, would constitute
the offence of money laundering
under Section 3 of the Act.
15. So far as facts of the present case
are concerned, as transpiring from the
supplementary complaint filed against
the appellant, apart from the
statements of witnesses recorded
under Section 50 of the said Act, there
has been sufficient material collected
in the form of documents which
prima facie show as to how the
appellant was knowingly a party and
actually involved in the process and
in the activities connected with the
proceeds of crime, and how he was
projecting/claiming such proceeds of
crime as untainted and how he was
the beneficiary of the proceeds of
crime acquired through the criminal
activities relating to the scheduled
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
18/29
offences.
(IV) Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of
Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46 wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held in Paragraph 31 as under :-
31. Suffice it to observe that the
appellant has not succeeded in
persuading us about the inapplicability
of the threshold stipulation under
Section 45 of the Act. In the facts of
the present case, we are in agreement
with the view taken by the Sessions
Court and by the High Court. We have
independently examined the materials
relied upon by the prosecution and
also noted the inexplicable silence or
reluctance of the appellant in
disclosing the source from where such
huge value of demonetised currency
and also new currency has been
acquired by him. The prosecution is
relying on statements of 26
witnesses/accused already recorded,
out of which 7 were considered by the
Delhi High Court. These statements
are admissible in evidence, in view of
Section 50 of the 2002 Act. The same
makes out a formidable case about the
involvement of the appellant in
commission of a serious offence of
money laundering. It is, therefore, not
possible for us to record satisfaction
that there are reasonable grounds for
believing that the appellant is not
guilty of such offence. Further, the
courts below have justly adverted to
the antecedents of the appellant for
considering the prayer for bail and
concluded that it is not possible to
hold that the appellant is not likely to
commit any offence ascribable to the
2002 Act while on bail. Since the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
19/29
threshold stipulation predicated in
Section 45 has not been overcome, the
question of considering the efficacy of
other points urged by the appellant to
persuade the Court to favour the
appellant with the relief of regular bail
will be of no avail. In other words, the
fact that the investigation in the
predicate offence instituted in terms of
FIR No. 205/2016 or that the
investigation qua the appellant in the
complaint CC No. 700 of 2017 is
completed; and that the proceeds of
crime are already in possession of the
investigating agency and provisional
attachment order in relation thereto
passed on 13-2-2017 has been
confirmed; or that charge-sheet has
been filed in FIR No. 205/2016
against the appellant without his
arrest; that the appellant has been
lodged in judicial custody since 2-1-
2017 and has not been interrogated or
examined by the Enforcement
Directorate thereafter; all these will be
of no consequence.
(V) Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors vs. Union
of India & Ors, (2022) SCC Online SC 929 wherein the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held in Paragraphs 412, 413 and 416 as under :-
412. As a result, we have no
hesitation in observing that in
whatever form the relief is couched
including the nature of proceedings,
be it under Section 438 of the 1973
Code or for that matter, by invoking
the jurisdiction of the Constitutional
Court, the underlying principles and
rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 must
come into play and without exception
ought to be reckoned to uphold the
objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a
special legislation providing for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
20/29
stringent regulatory measures for
combating the menace of money-
laundering.
413. There is, however, an exception
carved out to the strict compliance of
the twin conditions in the form of
Section 436A of the 1973 Code, which
has come into being on 23.6.2006 vide
Act 25 of 2005. This, being the
subsequent law enacted by the
Parliament, must prevail, Section
436A of the 1973 Code reads as under:
[436A. Maximum period for
which an undertrial prisoner can be
detained. - Where a person has,
during the period of investigation,
inquiry or trial under this Code of an
offence under any law (not being an
offence for which the punishment of
death has been specified as one of the
punishments under that law)
undergone detention for a period
extending up to one-half of the
maximum period of imprisonment
specified for that offence under that
law, he shall be released by the Court
on his personal bond with or without
sureties:
Provided that the Court may,
after hearing the Public Prosecutor
and for reasons to be recorded by it in
writing, order the continued detention
of such person for a period longer
than one-half of the said period or
release him on bail instead of the
personal bond with or without
sureties:
Provided further that no such
person shall in any case be detained
during the period of investigation,
inquiry or trial for more than the
maximum period of imprisonment
provided for the said offence under
that law.
Explanation.- In computing the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
21/29
period of detention under this section
for granting bail, the period of
detention passed due to delay in
proceeding caused by the accused
shall be excluded.]"
416. The Union of India also
recognized the right to speedy trial
and access to justice as fundamental
right in their written submissions and,
thus, submitted that a limited situation
right of bail can be granted in case of
violation of Article 21 of the
Constitution. Further, it is to be noted
that the Section 436A of the 1973
Code was inserted after the enactment
of the 2002 Act. Thus, it would not be
appropriate to deny the relief of
Section 436A of the 1973 Code which
is a wholesome provision beneficial
to a person accused under the 2002
Act. However, Section 436A of the
1973 Code, does not provide for an
absolute right of bail as in the case of
default bail under Section 167 of the
1973 Code. For, in the fact situation
of a case, the Court may still deny the
relief owing to ground, such as where
the trial was delayed at the instance of
accused himself.
(VI) State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamajli
Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has
held in Paragraph ‘5’ as under :-
5. The next question which arises is as
regards the request made by the
learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for
adducing additional evidence in order
to prove letter Ex. 26 received from
the Mint Master certifying that the
article in question was made of gold of
the purity of 99.60. The request was
made in order to invoke the powers of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
22/29
the court under Section 391 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
which inter alia provides that in
dealing with any appeal under Chapter
29 the appeal court, if it thinks
additional evidence to be necessary,
shall record its reasons and may either
take such evidence itself or ask it to be
taken by a Magistrate. The High Court
rejected the prayer on the ground that
it did not consider it "expedient in the
interests of justice to open a new vista
of evidence" in view of the fact that
the offence had taken place six years
back. The mere fact that six years had
elapsed, for which time -lag the
prosecution was in no way
responsible, was no good ground for
refusing to act in order to promote the
interests of justice in an age when
delays in the court have become a part
of life and the order of the day. Apart
from the fact that the alleged lacuna
was a technical lacuna in the sense
that while the opinion of the Mint
Master had admittedly been placed on
record it had not been formally proved
the report completely supported the
case of the prosecution that the gold
was of the specified purity To deny the
opportunity to remove the formal
defect was to abort a case against an
alleged economic offender. Ends of
justice are not satisfied only when the
accused in a criminal case is acquitted.
The community acting through the
State and the Public Prosecutor is also
entitled to justice. The cause of the
community deserves equal treatment
at the hands of the court in the
discharge of its judicial functions. The
community or the State is not a
persona-non-grata whose cause may
be treated with disdain. The entire
community is aggrieved if the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
23/29
economic offenders who ruin the
economy of the State are not brought
to book. A murder may be committed
in the heat of moment upon passions
being aroused. An economic offence is
committed with cool calculation and
deliberate design with an eye on
personal profit regardless of the
consequence to the community. A
disregard for the interest of the
community can be manifested only at
the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith
of the community in the system to
administer justice in an even-handed
manner without fear of criticism from
the quarters which view white collar
crimes with a permissive eye
unmindful of the damage done to the
national economy and national
interest. The High Court was therefore
altogether unjustified in rejecting the
application made by the learned
Assistant Public Prosecutor invoking
the powers of the Court under Section
391 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. We are of the opinion that
the application should have been
granted in the facts and circumstances
of the case with the end in view to do
full and true justice. The application
made by the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor is therefore granted. The
High Court will issue appropriate
directions for the recording of the
evidence to prove the report of the
Mint Master under Section 391 CrPC
when the matter goes back to the High
Court and is listed for directions. The
appeal is therefore allowed. The order
of acquittal is set aside. The matter is
remitted to the High Court for
proceeding further in accordance with
law in the light of the above said
directions.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
24/29
(VII) Union of India vs. Kanhaiya Prasad, (2025)
SCC Online SC 306 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held in Paragraph ‘21’ as under :-
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 crime and without
considering the rigours of Section 45,
cannot be vindicated.
15. After hearing learned counsels for the parties, I
would like to quote Paragraphs 25 to 29 of the judgment of
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V. Senthil Balaji (supra) as
under :-
25. Considering the gravity of the
offences in such statutes, expeditious
disposal of trials for the crimes under
these statutes is contemplated.
Moreover, such statutes contain
provisions laying down higher
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
25/29
threshold for the grant of bail. The
expeditious disposal of the trial is also
warranted considering the higher
threshold set for the grant of bail.
Hence, the requirement of expeditious
disposal of cases must be read into
these statutes. Inordinate delay in the
conclusion of the trial and the higher
threshold for the grant of bail cannot
go together. It is a well-settled
principle of our criminal jurisprudence
that "bail is the rule, and jail is the
exception." These stringent provisions
regarding the grant of bail, such as
Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA,
cannot become a tool which can be
used to incarcerate the accused
without trial for an unreasonably long
time.
26. There are a series of decisions of
this Court starting from the decision
in the case of K.A. Najeeb², which
hold that such stringent provisions for
the grant of bail do not take away the
power of Constitutional Courts to
grant bail on the grounds of violation
of Part III of the Constitution of India.
We have already referred to paragraph
17 of the said decision, which lays
down that the rigours of such
provisions will melt down where
there is no likelihood of trial being
completed in a reasonable time and
the period of incarceration already
undergone has exceeded a substantial
part of the prescribed sentence. One
of the reasons is that if, because of
such provisions, incarceration of an
undertrial accused is continued for an
unreasonably long time, the
provisions may be exposed to the vice
of being violative of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
27. Under the Statutes like PMLA,
the minimum sentence is three years,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
26/29
and the maximum is seven years. The
minimum sentence is higher when the
scheduled offence is under the NDPS
Act. When the trial of the complaint
under PMLA is likely to prolong
beyond reasonable limits, the
Constitutional Courts will have to
consider exercising their powers to
grant bail. The reason is that Section
45(1)(ii) does not confer power on the
State to detain an accused for an
unreasonably long time, especially
when there is no possibility of trial
concluding within a reasonable time.
What a reasonable time is will depend
on the provisions under which the
accused is being tried and other
factors. One of the most relevant
factor is the duration of the minimum
and maximum sentence for the
offence. Another important
consideration is the higher threshold
or stringent conditions which a statute
provides for the grant of bail. Even an
outer limit provided by the relevant
law for the completion of the trial, if
any, is also a factor to be considered.
The extraordinary powers, as held in
the case of K.A. Najeeb², can only be
exercised by the Constitutional
Courts. The Judges of the
Constitutional Courts have vast
experience. Based on the facts on
record, if the Judges conclude that
there is no possibility of a trial
concluding in a reasonable time, the
power of granting bail can always be
exercised by the Constitutional Courts
on the grounds of violation of Part III
of the Constitution of India
notwithstanding the statutory
provisions. The Constitutional Courts
can always exercise its jurisdiction
under Article 32 or Article 226, as the
case may be. The Constitutional
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
27/29
Courts have to bear in mind while
dealing with the cases under the
PMLA that, except in a few
exceptional cases, the maximum
sentence can be of seven years. The
Constitutional Courts cannot allow
provisions like Section 45 (1)(ii) to
become instruments in the hands of
the ED to continue incarceration for a
long time when there is no possibility
of a trial of the scheduled offence and
the PMLA offence concluding within
a reasonable time. If the
Constitutional Courts do not exercise
their jurisdiction in such cases, the
rights of the undertrials under Article
21 of the Constitution of India will be
defeated. In a given case, if an undue
delay in the disposal of the trial of
scheduled offences or disposal of trial
under the PMLA can be substantially
attributed to the accused, the
Constitutional Courts can always
decline to exercise jurisdiction to
issue prerogative writs. An exception
will also be in a case where,
considering the antecedents of the
accused, there is every possibility of
the accused becoming a real threat to
society if enlarged on bail. The
jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs
is always discretionary.
28. Some day, the courts, especially
the Constitutional Courts, will have to
take a call on a peculiar situation that
arises in our justice delivery system.
There are cases where clean acquittal
is granted by the criminal courts to
the accused after very long
incarceration as an undertrial. When
we say clean acquittal, we are
excluding the cases where the
witnesses have turned hostile or there
is a bona fide defective investigation.
In such cases of clean acquittal,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
28/29
crucial years in the life of the accused
are lost. In a given case, it may
amount to violation of rights of the
accused under Article 21 of the
Constitution which may give rise to a
claim for compensation.
29. As stated earlier, the appellant has
been incarcerated for 15 months or
more for the offence punishable under
the PMLA. In the facts of the case, the
trial of the scheduled offences and,
consequently, the PMLA offence is not
likely to be completed in three to four
years or even more. If the appellant's
detention is continued, it will amount
to an infringement of his fundamental
right under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India of speedy trial.
16. The petitioner is in custody since 12.01.2025 and
in predicate offence, there is no direct allegation against him and
he is on bail in predicate offence. No material to show that he has
received any part of POC in his account. He was just and
employee getting Rs.25,000/- per month as salary and from
perusal of the order of the learned trial court it is clear that the
trial has still not started. The petitioner is also suffering from
diabetes and he is on insulin and his wife is also suffering from
uterine fibroid disease.
17. Considering the above facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with
the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial; shall
not leave the country; shall deposit his passport in the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51347 of 2025(5) dt.22-01-2026
29/29
trial court and shall regularly appear in the trial on each and
every date.
18. The above named petitioner is directed to be
released on bail in connection with Special Trial PMLA Case No.
02 of 2025, arising out of ECIR No. PTZO/05/2024 on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Additional Sessions Judge-XVI-cum-Special Judge, PMLA,
Patna.
19. Accordingly, the present bail application of the
petitioner stands allowed with the conditions stated above.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Durgesh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 17.12.2025
Uploading Date 22.01.2026
Transmission Date 22.01.2026
Checking your session…