Bombay High Court
SITARAM SUDAMA GUPTAversusTHE UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the applicant subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The applicant, Sitaram Sudama Gupta, sought bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with two ECIRs filed by the Enforcement Directorate for alleged violations of Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The applicant argued that he is merely the uncle of the principal accused, that only a single confessional statement implicates him, and that he has cooperated with the investigation, having already been granted bail in a predicate offence. The respondents contended that multiple confessional statements and the applicant's alleged role in illegal land‑usurpation and dummy transactions demonstrate his status as a key conspirator, invoking the twin conditions of Section 45(1) of the PMLA. The court examined the lack of additional incriminating material, the applicant's financial means, and his cooperation, and found prima facie grounds for bail. Accordingly, the court granted bail subject to stringent conditions, emphasizing that the order is limited to bail and does not address the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant satisfies the twin conditions of Section 45(1) of the PMLA for grant of bail.
- Whether the confessional statements against the applicant constitute sufficient material to deny bail.
- Whether the applicant's alleged involvement in illegal land transactions and dummy ownership warrants denial of bail.
- Whether the applicant's prior bail in a predicate offence and cooperation with the investigation justify bail in the present case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — s. 3, 4, 45(1), 50
Subjects
- bail
- PMLA
- money laundering
- confessional statement
- attachment of property
- twin conditions
- criminal procedure
- enforcement directorate
Judgment
30.BA.2347.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.2347 OF 2026
Sitaram Sudama Gupta .. Applicant
Versus
The Union of India and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Mithilesh Mishra, Ms.
Namasvi Bhanshali, Mr. Pritvraj Singh, Mr. Rushan Balsara and Ms.
Dnyaneshwari Hadawale for Applicant.
Mr. Chaitanya Pendse, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhawa, APP for Respondent No.2 – State.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 01, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Advocate for Applicant;
Mr. Pendse, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Nakhawa,
learned APP for Respondent No.2 – State.
2. This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with
E.C.I.R.MBZO-II/26/2023 dated 24.02.2023 and
ECIR/MBZO-II/10/2025 dated 21.02.2025 registered with
Enforcement Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai Zonal Office-II,
Mumbai for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘PMLA’).
3. After hearing Mr. Ponda, Senior Advocate on behalf of
1 of 8
30.BA.2347.2026.doc
Applicant on 24.08.2026, the following order was passed:-
“1. Heard Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Advocate for Applicant
and Mr. Nakhawa, learned APP for Respondent No.2.
2. Union of India has been issued notice and they have filed
their Reply. Essentially, the case of Applicant is that he has been
arraigned as Accused in view of he being the uncle of principal
protagonist who has been indicted for prinicipal offence.
3. Mr. Ponda would candidly inform the Court that at the
time of interrogation prior to Applicant been arrested he has made a
confessional statement that he has received Rs.15 Crores alongwith
principal Accused who is nephew of the Applicant. Applicant otherwise
is a Corporator and is also having his separate business.
4. To cut long story short, Mr. Ponda would persuade the
Court to consider one principal submission. He would submit that
property worth more than Rs.20 Crores of the Applicant have been
attached by Respondents. He would therefore submit that save and
except the confessional statement which has been held against
Applicant and there is no other incriminating material unearthed or
placed against Applicant by the prosecution.
5. Charge-sheet has been filed long back. Applicant is in
custody for 1 year and 1 month and therefore Applicant would
persuade that considering the limited charge levied by the prosecution,
Applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Prima facie, I find
substance in submissions made by Mr. Ponda.
6. I give one opportunity to Respondents to remain present
failing which this Court shall be constrained to determine the present
Application in accordance with law. Another reason which impels this
Court to pass this order is the fact that investigation is complete and no
process is issued, the fact of proving the charge against Applicant in
present facts and circumstances will undoubtedly be matter of trial. In
this view order is passed.
7. The Union of India is directed to ensure its presence
Advocate / Counsel on the next adjourned date.
8. Stand over to 01st September, 2026. To be placed under
the caption ‘First on Board’. To be treated as ‘Part-Heard’.”
4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, Mr. Pendse, learned
Advocate enters appearance on behalf of Union of India. Before I
advert to the submissions made by Mr. Pendse, Mr. Ponda would
persuade me to submit a couple of submissions. He would submit that
2 of 8
30.BA.2347.2026.doc
the date of arrest of the Applicant in the present case is 13.08.2025
and he is in incarceration for 12 and a half months. He would submit
that the case before the Trial Court is pending at the pre-cognizance
hearing stage.
5. That apart, he would also persuade me to consider the fact
that the Applicant was already granted bail in the predicate offence as
far back as on 25.10.2023 copy of which is annexed at page No.172
and the present E.C.I.R. notwithstanding it being registered on
24.02.2024 and the Applicant having cooperated with the investigation
thereafter, it is only subsequent to registration of the second E.C.I.R.
dated 21.06.2025 that the Applicant has been arrested. He would
submit that the core reason for arrest of the Applicant according to the
prosecution has already been noted by Court in the aforesaid order.
6. That apart, he would submit that save and except the
confessional statement of the witness Arun Gupta, who is the nephew
of the Applicant, copy of which is annexed at page No.413 of the
Application wherein he has stated that the Applicant used to handle
illegal constructions on Government land and the land belonging to the
erstwhile Patel family, and he had received Rs.15 Crores in his Bank
account, this being the only charge against the Applicant, there is no
other charge whatsoever in the prosecution case.
7. He would submit that the Court should take into
3 of 8
30.BA.2347.2026.doc
consideration the fact that the Applicant is also a man of means having
his own independent properties. He would submit that the
prosecution has in fact attached five properties belonging to the
Applicant out of which four are land parcels and two are shops and
total value of the attached properties is in excess of Rs.20 Crores. He
would therefore persuade the Court to grant the Applicant bail in the
present Application.
8. PER CONTRA, Mr. Pendse, would oppose the grant of bail to
the Applicant on both factual as well as legal grounds. On the factual
ground, Mr. Pendse would persuade the Court to consider the
confessional statements of the witnesses, copies of which are annexed
at page No.422 (Vijendra Shukla), page No.421 (Radheshyam
Sharma), and page No.413 (Arun Gupta) and would persuade me to
consider what is stated therein. He would submit that the modus
operandi implies that the Applicant used to handle illegal constructions
on behalf of the principal perpetrator his nephew and usurp and
construct on government land and also land belonging to the erstwhile
Patel family.
9. He would submit that the Applicant is one of the key
conspirators in usurping Government land, which is prima facie
evident from the statement of Vijendra Shukla which states that the
Applicant used to convince poor persons rather poor land owners, due
4 of 8
30.BA.2347.2026.doc
to his convincing ability to part with their lands.
10. That apart, Mr. Pendse would vehemently and forcefully
submit that the Applicant had created atleast 42 dummy owners and
on the basis of sale of land to such dummy owners had received
benefits out of such sale of land parcels. He would submit that the
prosecution case, which is summarized from page No.591 of the
Application, prima facie shows that the Applicant's share is to the
extent of 50% in the profit that was generated to the extent of Rs.79
Crores and therefore, the impugned order annexed at page No.837 has
been correctly passed.
11. On the aspect of law, Mr. Pendse would refer to rely upon
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary and Others Vs. Union of India and Others1 and would draw
my attention to paragraph No.317 to argue about the Court’s
satisfaction of the twin conditions stipulated in Section 45 (1) of the
PMLA Act and would submit that it would be incumbent upon the
applicant to satisfy the said twin conditions. Prima facie, while
answering the first condition, the Applicant appears to be a man of
means having several properties and therefore, I do not think that
Applicant shall run away or jump bail and refrain from attending the
trial and therefore, I am of the clear opinion that in the event if the
Applicant is released on bail, he will attend trial.
1 (2023) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1.
5 of 8
30.BA.2347.2026.doc
12. In so far as the factual submissions argued by Mr. Pendse are
concerned, it is seen that save and except the confessional statement
recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, there is no other statement for
indictment of the Applicant. The timeline and the dates which are
alluded to hereinabove prima facie make out a case on behalf of the
Applicant for grant of bail. The Applicant was granted bail in the
predicate offence in 25.10.2023. The first E.C.I.R. was registered on
24.02.2023 and second E.C.I.R. was registerd on 21.02.2025. Between
the registration of the twin E.C.I.Rs., the Applicant has fully cooperated
with the prosecution. It is seen that the Applicant has attended the
office of the Enforcement Directorate on as many as seven occasions
and recorded his statements.
13. That apart, the prosecution has also made multiple inquiries
at the residences of the other co-accused persons and it is only after a
hiatus of two and half years that the Applicant is arrested. The
Applicant’s cooperation is prima facie seen to have been given to the
prosecution. The Prosecution complaint has been filed and therefore,
in the event if the prosecution requires any further interrogation, they
can always summon the Applicant who can be put to appropriate
terms. Having been incarcerated for 13 months and chargesheet also
having been filed, I am inclined to release the Applicant on bail on all
the aforesaid prima facie observations, which may be considered only
as observations for the purpose of grant of the present Bail Application
6 of 8
30.BA.2347.2026.doc
and nothing more.
14. Considering the aforesaid, Applicant has made out case
for grant of bail subject to following conditions:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from
prison in connection with E.C.I.R.MBZO-II/26/2023
dated 24.02.2023 and ECIR/MBZO-II/10/2025 dated
21.02.2025;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh
only) with one or two surety / sureties of the like
amount;
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at the
concerned Police Station, once every month on the first
Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m.;
(iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and
attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically
exempted and will not take any unnecessary
adjournments, if he does so it will entitle the
prosecution to apply for revocation of this order;
(v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
7 of 8
30.BA.2347.2026.doc
(vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of his current address and mobile contact number and /
or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from
time to time, as applicable; and
(viii)Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicant.
15. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are
limited for the purpose of granting Bail only and I have not made any
observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on
the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being
uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made
hereinabove in this order.
16. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
by HARSHADA
HARSHADA HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2026.09.01
19:48:05 +0530
8 of 8
Checking your session…