Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Pat) 97

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SONI SHRIVASTAVA, J.
Parmanand Sinha @ Parmanand Singh S/o Jagdeo Prasad – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement,
Patna Zonal Office, Patna. – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49660 of 2025 WITH CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 51358 of 2025
Decided On : 25-02-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rashid Izhar, Advocate Mr. Adil Abbas, Advocate Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, Advocate Ms. Aditi Hansaria, Advocate
Mr. Keshav Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Tuhin Shankar, Advocate

PMLA Section 45 twin conditions yield to Article 21 where prolonged pre-trial detention exceeds reasonable time without trial progress, converting detention to punishment; bail granted as rule when evidence documentary and investigation complete.

Headnote:
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 45 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 [Section 483 of BNSS] – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Bail application – Constitutional Courts cannot allow provisions like Section 45(i)(ii) to become instruments in hands of ED to continue prolonged incarceration with no possibility of trial concluding within a reasonable time – Object of bail is to secure attendance of accused in trial, as such, consideration for granting of bail would also be probability of party cooperating in trial but State/Prosecuting agency including Court, has duty to protect fundamental right of accused to have speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution – Merely giving evasive replies or not giving reply as desired by E.D., would not amount to non-cooperation, as cooperating with investigation does not extend to violation of constitutional right against self-incrimination – Petitioners cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period in hope of conclusion of trial – Bail granted. (Paras 19, 22, 23, 25 and 27)

Table of Content
1. pmla case originates from cbi rct fraud investigation (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. petitioners claim minimal role, cooperation, prolonged trial justifies bail (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. ed alleges conspiracy siphoning; pmla section 45 twin conditions mandatory (Para 14 , 15)
4. prolonged detention under pmla violates article 21; bail is rule (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. bail granted subject to conditions and sureties (Para 27 , 28 , 29)

ORDER :

As both these cases arise out of the same ED (Directorate of Enforcement) case, vide case No. ECIR/PTZO/08/2023, with consent of the parties, they have been heard together for final disposal at this stage itself.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

3. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereinafter referred as PMLA), 2002.

4. The case of the prosecution is based upon a written information given by Shri S.K. Tyagi, Executive Director, Railway Board, New Delhi. The C.B.I. conducted a preliminary enquiry, bearing no. PE 03/18, regarding allegations of large-scale irregularity committed in the filing, processing and decisions at Railway Claims Tribunal (R.C.T), Patna. Such preliminary investigation disclosed that in between 2015-2017, some unknown public servants of Railway conspired with the claimants’ advocates and their team and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, cheated the claimants as only a part of the decreed amount was given to the claimants while a major part thereof was siphoned off by the conspirators i.e., the accused persons.

5. As a consequence of the preliminary enquiry, CBI registered RC Case No. 002(A) of 2020 and RC Case No. 003(A) of 2020, under section 403/420/120 B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C) and 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act on 30-01-2020 and after investigation, a charge-sheet/final report bearing No. 21/2022 dated 31-12-2022 was submitted by the C.B.I revealing that an amount of Rs. 29,84,707/- was cheated from 23 claimants by the accused persons.

6. On the basis of the two FIRs lodged by C.B.I (ACB), Patna, ECIR/PTZO/08/2023 was registered by the Enforcement Directorate on 23-01-2023 for an offence under sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, against the accused persons with allegations of mass scale irregularity in the death claim cases at Railway Claims Tribunals (R.C.T), Patna.

7. Learned counsel Mr. Rashid Izhar appearing on behalf of the petitioner Parmanand Sinha, has submitted at the outset, that the thrust of the allegation is upon one Bidyanand Singh, an advocate, of siphoning off a part of the claim money and deposited in his bank account and the petitioner Parmanand Singh, who happens to be the full brother of Bidyanand Singh living in a joint family, was made an accused as some part of the money later got transferred in his account too, but the same was on account of some family affairs. It is pointed out that the petitioner, who was arrested in the predicate offences in the two C.B.I Cases on 4-12-2023, was granted bail on 08-12-2023 and 15-12-2023 after remaining in custody for a total period of 11 days only, considering that the petitioner had co-operated during investigation, which subsequently came to a close.

8. Further submission is that no complaint against the petitioner has ever been received by any beneficiaries of the award of the claim and the petitioner was arrested without any summon or enquiry on 22-01-2025, when raid was conducted in the ancestral house of Bidyanand.

9. The learned counsel Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal with regard to the petitioner, Vijay Kumar has submitted that the petitioner was not an advocate and at the relevant time, he was only a clerk/employee in the legal firm of Shri Bidyanand Singh (B.N. Singh). The learned counsel in support of his argument relies at para 7.3 (