Patna High Court

Tarun KumarversusThe Directorate of Enforcement, Patna Zonal Office, Patna.

Decided: 5 February 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The court granted bail to the petitioner, finding reasonable grounds to believe he is not guilty and that the amount involved falls below the one‑crore threshold of Section 45.

Summary

Tarun Kumar, accused in a Special Trial (PMLA) case, sought bail alleging that he was falsely implicated due to his family background and that the property in question, jointly owned with his brother, was valued at Rs. 3,89,575 and thus fell below the one‑crore threshold of Section 45 of the PMLA. The Directorate of Enforcement opposed bail, contending that the land was purchased with proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 67,95,027 and that the petitioner knowingly assisted his father in laundering illicit funds. The court examined the Supreme Court’s decision in Manish Sisodia v. DE (2024) and prior High Court judgments emphasizing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 and the discretion to grant bail under Section 45. It noted that the alleged amount was less than one crore and that the prosecution had not demonstrated a likelihood of the petitioner committing further offences. Accordingly, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

The petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 45 of the PMLA given the alleged amount involved is less than one crore rupees.
Whether the right to a speedy trial and fundamental rights under Article 21 justify granting bail despite the seriousness of the alleged money‑laundering offence.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 436-A, 439
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — s. 4, 45, 50

Subjects

bail
PMLA
Section 45
money laundering
speedy trial
fundamental rights
pre‑trial detention
property acquisition

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52407 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2016 Thana- E.C.I.R (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
District- Patna
======================================================
Tarun Kumar S/O Parduman Sharma R/O Village- Rustampur, P.S-
Hulashganj, District- Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Directorate of Enforcement, Patna Zonal Office, Patna. Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh (A.S.G.)
Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate, E.D.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
CAV ORDER

8 05-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned

APP for the State and Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, learned counsel for

the Directorate of Enforcement(E.D.)

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection

with Special Trial (PMLA) Case No. 06 of 2018 arising out of

ECIR No. PTZO-04/2016 registered for the offence punishable

under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,

2002.

3. The case of the prosecution in short is that on the

basis of information received from Superintendent of Police,

Economic Offences, Unit-3, Patna Vide Letter No. 95/c dated

02.06.2016 and L.G. (Operations) Bihar Vide Letter No.

291/Operations dated 10.10.2017 and after investigation the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52407 of 2025(8) dt.05-02-2026
2/12

present complaint Under Section 45 of the PMLA Act has been

filed by the complainant against one Praduman Sharma @

Kundanji @ Lulha @ Saket @ Anish Ji and Pramod Sharma @

Prabhakar and other co-accused persons including the

petitioner. It is alleged that Praduman Sharma @ Kundanji and

Pramod Sharma @ Prabhakar Ji have indulged in scheduled

offences covered under Para-1, 3, 4 and 5 of Part ‘A’ of the

scheduled PMLA Act which are fully described in para-3 of the

complaint petition. It is further alleged that above named both

accused persons have acquired properties to the tune of Rs.

67,95,027/- from their criminal activities in the name of their

family members including the petitioner. It is alleged that the

petitioner has knowingly participated in acquisition of proceeds

of crime.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no

offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned

counsel for the petitioner has stated that the name of this

petitioner has only been dragged because of his family

background and the allegation on his father and uncle. It is next

submitted that the property in question is a joint property

bought in the name of the petitioner and his brother. The
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52407 of 2025(8) dt.05-02-2026
3/12

valuation of the property in question is Rs. 3,89,575/- and the

same is not under the ambit of Section 45 of PMLA Act. It was

further submitted that from the perusal of the FIR, it is quite

evident that the petitioner is not directly named in the FIR nor is

involved in any of the crime which led to this complaint. The

name of this petitioner has been deliberately included in the

case to harass and malign the image of the petitioner. The

petitioner is in Judicial Custody since 13.05.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement

has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail of the

petitioner and submits that the proceeds of crime generated by

Pradumn Sharma and Pramod Sharma have been utilized to

purchase immovable property/banks in his name and other

family members. A plot of land registered vide sale deed no.

4806 dated 28.06.2016, jointly in the name of Barun Kumar and

Tarun Kumar, was purchased through illegal and unaccounted

cash, the source of which was not explained by them. Barun

Kumar carried huge amount in cash of Rs. 22 lakhs, generated

through proceeds of crime and attempted to merge the same

with the mainstream economy after layering through banking

channels 14 which shows that he knowingly involved in

concealment of proceeds of crime acquired by Pradumn Sharma
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52407 of 2025(8) dt.05-02-2026
4/12

and Pramod Sharma so as to project the same as untainted. It is

further argued that the petitioner has deliberately assisted his

father in acquisition of property in the joint name of him and his

brother Barun Kumar out of proceeds of crime. The petitioner is

knowingly in possession of a land jointly with his brother Barun

Kumar, which has been purchased by Pramod Sharma and has

signed the property of documents, knowing fully well that he

and his family members do not have any legitimate source of

such huge funds.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance

on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in

Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 12

Supreme Court Cases 660 in paragraph nos. 35, 26, 20 and 7

which reads as under:-

35. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52407 of 2025(8) dt.05-02-2026
5/12

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.
26. A perusal of the aforesaid
would reveal that this Court was
concerned about the prolonged
period of incarceration suffered
by the appellant. After
considering various earlier
pronouncements, this Court
emphasized that the right to
speedy trial is a fundamental right
within the broad scope of Article
21 of the Constitution. Relying on
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v.
Union of India 16 this Court
observed that Section 436-A
CrPC should not be construed as
a mandate that an accused should
not be granted bail under the
PMLA till he has suffered
incarceration for the specified
period. This Court recorded the
assurance given by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52407 of 2025(8) dt.05-02-2026
6/12

prosecution that they shall
conclude the trial by taking
appropriate steps within next 6-8
months. This Court, after
recording the said submissions,
granted liberty to the appellant to
move a fresh application for bail
in case of change in
circumstances or in case the trial
was protracted and proceeded at
a snail's pace in next three
months. This Court observed that
if any application was filed, the
same would be considered by the
trial court on merits without being
influenced by the dismissal of the
earlier bail applications including
its own judgment. It further
observed that the observations
made regarding the right to
speedy trial will be taken into
consideration.
“20. The right to life and personal
liberty is the most sacrosanct
fundamental right guaranteed
under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of
the Constitution of India. Any
attempt to encroach upon this
fundamental right has been
frowned upon by this Court in a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52407 of 2025(8) dt.05-02-2026
7/12

catena of decisions. In this
regard, we may refer to following
observations made by this Court
in Roy V.D. v. State of Kerala21:
(SCC p. 593, para 7)
‘7. The life and liberty of an
individual is so sacrosanct that it
cannot be allowed to be interfered
with except under the authority of
law. It is a principle which has
been recognised and applied in
all civilised countries. In our
Constitution Article 21
guarantees protection of life and
personal liberty not only to
citizens of India but also be
aliens.”
7. Perused the case records.

8. From perusal of the case of the prosecution, it is clear

that the allegation against the petitioner is that he and his

brother Barun Kumar are having a sale deed in joint name

consideration amount of which is 3,89,575/- and that this piece

of land was purchased with the proceeds of crime.

9. It is further alleged that six sale deeds have been

executed within three months i.e., from 04.04.2016 to

04.07.2016 for consideration of Rs. 29,83,196/- and all the

payments were done in cash and during statement under Section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52407 of 2025(8) dt.05-02-2026
8/12

50 the of PMLA Act, Pramod Sharma and his family members

could not provide any evidence regarding source of acquisition

of above mentioned properties. They do not have PAN and do

not file ITRs. From perusal of the case of the prosecution, it is

also significant that the entire allegation is against Pramod

Sharma (the father of the petitioner).

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a

judgment passed in SLP (Criminal) No. 15478 of 2025

wherein their lordships have held in para 15 and 16 which read

as under:-

“15. We have given our
thoughtful consideration to the
rival submissions and have
carefully perused the record. The
court while dealing with the
prayer for grant of bail has to
consider gravity of offence, which
has to be ascertained in the facts
and circumstances of each case.
One of the circumstances to
consider the gravity of offences is
also the term of sentence i.e.,
prescribed for the offence, the
accused is alleged to have
committed. The court has also to
take into account the object of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52407 of 2025(8) dt.05-02-2026
9/12

special Act, the gravity of offence
and the attending circumstances
along with period of sentence. All
economic offences cannot be
classified into one group as it
may involve various activities
and may differ from one case to
another. Therefore, it is not
advisable on the part of the Court
to categorize all the offences into
one group and deny bail on that
basis. It is well settled that if the
State or any prosecuting agency
including, the court, concerned
has no wherewithal to provide or
protect the fundamental right of
an accused, to have a speedy trial
as enshrined under Article 21 of
the Constitution, then the State or
any other prosecuting agency
should not oppose the plea for
bail on the ground that the crime
committed is serious. Article 21
of the Constitution applies
irrespective of the nature of the
crime. The aforesaid proposition
was quoted with approval by
another two-Judge Bench of this
Court and it was held that long
period of incarceration for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52407 of 2025(8) dt.05-02-2026
10/12

around 17 months and the trial
not even having commenced, the
appellant in that case has been
deprived of his right to speedy
trial.

16. A two-Judge Bench of this
Court in V. Senthil Balaji's case?
has held that under the statutes
such as PMLA, where maximum
sentence is seven years,
prolonged incarceration pending
trial may warrant grant of bail by
Constitutional Courts, if there is
no likelihood of the trial
concluding within a reasonable
time. Statutory restrictions
cannot be permitted to result in
indefinite pretrial detention in
violation of Article 21.”
11. It is also pertinent to mention here Section 45 of the

PMLA Act. Section 45 of the PMLA Act which reads as under:-

“45. Offences to be cognizable

and non-bailable. - (1)

[Notwithstanding, person

accused of an offence funder this

Actl shall be released on bail or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52407 of 2025(8) dt.05-02-2026
11/12

on his own bond unless-]

(1) 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 one crore rupees] may be

released on bail, if the Special

Court or directs:”

12. Coming back to the facts of this case, in this case,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52407 of 2025(8) dt.05-02-2026
12/12

the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his

brother are having a joint sale deed, the consideration of which

is Rs. 67,95,027/- which is much less than one crore.

13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court

is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named

petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail

bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties

of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned

Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, (PMLA), Patna in

connection with Special Trial (PMLA) Case No. 06 of 2018

arising out of ECIR No/ PTZO-04/2016.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 21.01.2026
Uploading Date 05.02.2026
Transmission Date 05.02.2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…