Bail is a rule, but denial is justified when serious allegations and criminal history indicate a likelihood of re-offending and tampering with evidence.

Order :

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. on behalf of the accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with ECIR No.HIU-II/05/2022 registered for the offence under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.M.L.A.’).

2. Learned counsel, Mr. Pankaj Gupta presents the argument asserting that there is no substantial case under Section 3/4 of the P.M.L.A., against the petitioner. He firmly states that the petitioner has not generated funds through illicit activities, and no amount was recovered from the behest of the petitioner. It is contended that in the predicate offences i.e. in the FIR No.298/2021 registered at Police Station Balghat, Karauli and FIR No.402/2021 registered at Police Station Ganga City, the same allegations were incorporated and subsequently charge-sheet have been submitted. As far as the investigation of the predicate offence is concerned, the Investigating Agency has arrested as many as 130 accused persons and have submitted 9 charge- sheets. The allegations as culled out against the petitioner are that Ramkripal Meena in connivance with Pradeep Parashar and Udaram Bishnoi hatched a criminal conspiracy to leak paper and Ramkripal Meena made a deal with Udaram Bishnoi and with the present petitioner to provide them the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers ("REET") exam paper. The main allegations of stealing the papers and receiving huge amount are against Ramkripal Meena and Udaram Bishnoi. The allegation that accused gave Rs.43,00,000/- in cash to Ramkripal Meena and amount of Rs.80,00,000/- is without any tenable proof. It is also contended that the statement recorded under Section 50 of the P.M.L.A. is not admissible. It is also argued that the criminal antecedents shown against the petitioner is irrelevant as no case is made out against him, and even if it is considered that the petitioner was involved in various offences then also the petitioner cannot be denied bail on that ground.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the following judgments:-

i. Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2020 (11)SCC 648,

ii. Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashid Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2012 (2) SCC 382,

iii. Taket Jerang Vs. Arunachal Pradesh & Anr., Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11244/2023

iv. Jagan Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.9895/2024,

v. Kaluram Bishnoi Vs. Union of India, in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.11765/2021, and

vi. Prem Prakash Vs. Union of India, 2024 (9) SCC 787.

4. It is also contended that the other co-accused, Ram Kripal Meena, Pradeep Parashar and Sita Ram have already been enlarged on bail. The case of the present petitioner is on better footing then the case of Ram Kripal Meena against whom, the main allegation of leaking the REET 2021 exam paper and receiving the huge amount from the other co-accused Udaram Bishnoi, have been levelled. It is further contended that the complaint filed against the petitioner contains voluminous documents and trial of the case may take considerable time, there is a long list of prosecution witnesses and there is no chances that the petitioner would temper the evidence as most of the witnesses are Government Officers and nature of the evidence are documentary. The main co-accused Ram Kripal Meena was enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the twin condition enshrined under Section 45 of the P.M.L.A. along with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'bl