Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to liberty under Article 21; bail is the rule, and individual circumstances must be considered.

Order :

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with ECIR No.JPZO/29/2023 dated 21.08.2023 recorded at Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Jaipur Zonal Office, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PMLA’).

2. Learned Senior counsel Mr V.R. Bajava presents an argument, asserting that there is no substantial case against the petitioner under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). He firmly states that the petitioner has not generated funds through illicit activities. Even if the petitioner secured the tender without full eligibility and there are inaccuracies in the certification, it's essential to recognise that the petitioner actively executed various works under the contract of the Jal Jeevan Mission, investing significant resources to meet the obligations outlined in government-issued work orders. Moreover, the relevant department has deposited the amount in the petitioner's account accordingly.

3. While the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has yet to arrest the petitioner regarding the predicate offence, charge sheets have been filed against other co-accused individuals in the predicate offence. The petitioner has not been arrested nor charge sheeted in the predicate offence. Padam Chand Jain, the other co-accused, also received a contract based on an allegedly fraudulent IRCON certificate and has been granted bail due to prolonged detention and the unlikelihood of a trial. The petitioner’s circumstances, including the nature of the allegations, the duration of detention, and the likelihood of a timely trial, are similar to those of co- accused Padam Chand. Therefore, it is imperative to consider the provisions of Article 21 alongside Section 45 of the PMLA rather than viewing one as subservient to the other.

4. The petitioner is not merely seeking equality based on their role in the alleged offence; the focus remains on the excessive period of incarceration and the questionable prospects of a prompt trial. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. V.R. Bajava emphasises the reliance on the Apex court’s prior orders regarding granting bail to the other co-accused, Padam Chand, Piyush Jain and Sanjay Badaya. The learned senior counsel fortifies his arguments on the strength of the judgments passed in the matters of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and Kalvakuntla Kavitha Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 632

5. Contrarily, the learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) argues that the petitioner’s circumstances differ significantly from those of Padam Chand, asserting that this distinction undermines the application of the principle of parity in bail consideration. The Learned ASG Mr. R.D. Rastogi cites a Supreme Court judgment passed in the matter of Gajanand Agrawal Vs. State of Orissa, (2007) 14 SCC 537 to bolster this perspective.

6. Furthermore, the ASG argues that substantial evidence indicates that the petitioner actively persuaded officials to forge vital documentation necessary to secure the tender under the Jal Jeevan Mission. Allegations include a conspiracy between the petitioner and Shri Manoj Pathak, who allegedly created a fraudulent email identity at the petitioner’s behest and was involved in the forgery of the IRCON certificate. It is asserted that the petitioner provided a bribe of 16.5 lakh rupees to Manoj Pathak, supported by transaction records between the