Patna High Court
Robin YadavversusThe Union of India through the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner as no prima facie case or mens rea under the PMLA was established.
Summary
The petitioner, Robin Yadav, was arrested in connection with a PMLA case alleging his involvement in a cross‑border fraud that resulted in the transfer of €950 to an Indian bank account. He contended that no prima facie offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act, 2002 could be established, as there were no proceeds of crime attributable to him and no evidence of mens rea. The prosecution argued that his association with a co‑accused implicated him under the Act. The court examined the lack of direct evidence, the petitioner’s clean antecedents, his cooperation with investigators, and the precedent of bail granted to a co‑accused in a similar case. Concluding that the statutory conditions for denial of bail were not met, the court ordered his release on regular bail with a bond and sureties, subject to cooperation with the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under the Prevention of Money‑Laundering Act, 2002.
- Whether a prima facie case under Section 3 of the PMLA exists against the petitioner.
- Whether Section 45 of the PMLA, which restricts bail, is attracted in the present facts.
- Whether the precedent of bail granted to a co‑accused is applicable.
Legislation cited
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — s. 3, 4, 45, 70
Subjects
- regular bail
- PMLA
- money laundering
- prima facie case
- Section 3
- Section 45
- foreign fraud
- co‑accused precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61387 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2023 Thana- E.C.I.R (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
District- Patna
======================================================
Robin Yadav S/o- Late Umesh Yadav Resident of 127/A1, Satin Sen Sarani,
Near Ideal Building, P.S. Kankurgachi, District Kolkata (West Bengal)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union of India through the Assistant Director, Directorate of
Enforcement, Govt. of India Chandpura Place Bank Road West Gandhi
Maidan Dist- Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mohit Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Aman Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dr. K.N. Singh (A.S.G.)
For the E.D. : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Singh, Adv. (Retainer Counsel)
Mr. Raghaw Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR
PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
6 13-01-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection
with Special Trial (PMLA) Case No. 03 of 2024 (Supplementary
record of Special Trial (PMLA) Case No. 12 of 2023) arising out
of ECIR No. PTZO/27/2023, registered for the offences
punishable under Section 4 read with Section 70 of the PML Act,
2002.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.12.2021,
Ms. Carmel Fox, an Irish national, reported a fraud at Dungarvan
Garda Police Station, stating that she received a call from a person
posing as ‘Stephanie’ from Eircom Technological Service, who
induced her to provide laptop access through TeamViewer and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61387 of 2025(6) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
obtained her bank details on the pretext of a broadband refund. It
is alleged that an amount of 950 Euros was fraudulently debited
from her Visa credit card through the Rewire app, which she had
neither installed nor used. As per information received from NCB-
Ireland, the said amount was transferred from the Rewire account
to an HDFC Bank account in the name of Nitesh Kumar of Bihar,
India, who is arrayed as one of the accused.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
this case. No prima facie offence of money-laundering under
Section 3 of the PMLA is made out, as there are no established
proceeds of crime attributable to the petitioner. Mere allegation of
recovery of cash from the premises does not attract the offence,
particularly when the seized amount is stated to belong to the co-
accused. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he was
an associate of the co-accused, which by itself does not constitute
any offence. All records and electronic evidence have already been
seized and the petitioner has been interrogated at length, during
which nothing incriminating was recovered. No bank account,
mule account, or foreign remittance has been shown to be in the
name of or operated by the petitioner. The petitioner has fully
cooperated with the investigation and provided explanations for all
entries. In view of the settled law and absence of mens rea, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61387 of 2025(6) dt.13-01-2026
3/3
rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA are not attracted. He has further
submitted that the petitioner is a person of clean antecedent and
has been in custody since 04.05.2024. He has also submitted that
on exactly similar footing, co-accused Sagar Yadav has been
granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No.
52321 of 2024.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
Enforcement Directorate has opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and
circumstances, let the petitioner above-named, is directed to
furnish bail bond and on doing so, the court below shall release the
petitioner on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
Special Judge (PMLA)-cum-Special Judge, Patna/Concerned
Court in connection with Sessions (Trial) (PMLA) Case No. 03 of
2023, subject to the following conditions that the petitioner shall
cooperate in the disposal of trial and make himself available as
and when required by the court.
(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J)
Nirmal/-
U T
Checking your session…