Bail under PMLA not cancellable without supervening circumstances like liberty misuse, bail condition violation, or evidence tampering; special court validly applied Section 45 twin conditions absent prosecution satisfaction via recoveries.

JUDGMENT :

M A CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Applicant- Directorate of Enforcement, through this application moved under Section 483(3) BNSS [Section 439(2) of CrPC] read with Section 528 of BNSS [Section 482 of CrPC], seeks setting aside the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge Anticorruption (CBI cases) Specially Designated Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘Special Court’), in Bail Application filed by respondent No.1- Yatin Yadav in File No. 657/2024 and Respondent No. 2- Anil Kumar Yadav in File No.658/2024 pertaining to ECIR Bearing No. ECIR/JMSZO/01/2023 dated 31.03.2023 arising out of FIR No. RC0042022A0008 dated 03.08.2022 registered by ACB, CBI Jammu, whereby both of them were admitted to regular bail. It was prayed to cancel the bail granted in favour of the respondents.

2. Applicant has assailed the impugned order, on the grounds that the same suffers from various infirmities, overlooking relevant facts and legal positions as the Special Court has dived into merits of the case, at the stage of consideration of bail and ignored the case established against the respondents alongwith the possibility of tampering with the material evidence and influencing the witnesses; that twin conditions laid down under Section 45 of PML Act 2002, applicable to the bail, granting opportunity to Public Prosecutor to oppose the bail plea and recording of satisfaction by the court regarding reasonable grounds for believing that the person seeking bail is not guilty of such offence and that he/she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail are preconditions to be satisfied before grant of bail; that the burden to discharge that application was not guilty of such offence is on the applicant and not the prosecution, as wrongly observed by the Special Court, in terms of Section 23 of PML Act; that both the respondents were directly involved in the leakage of J&K Staff Selection Recruitment Board Examination for the posts of Police Sub Inspectors, as money trail of the proceeds of the crime estimated at about Rs.2.52 Crore was established against them for disseminating question papers for money.

3. Pursuant to notice, reply/objections on behalf of respondents stand filed, stating that the present application is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed, outrightly. The petition is misconceived, based on incorrect facts, and amounts to an abuse of the process of law; that the respondents have complied with all bail conditions and have neither violated any condition nor misused the liberty granted to them; that the application under Section 582 BNSS is not maintainable as the bail order cannot be challenged under the said provision; that the respondents are regularly appearing before the trial court in the PMLA proceedings and are fully cooperating with the investigation. No adverse conduct has been attributed to them. It is also submitted that the grounds raised are repetitive and no new circumstance has been shown to warrant interference; that the earlier order of cognizance has been quashed by this Court and fresh cognizance is underway, after filing of supplementary challan. Lastly, it is prayed that the present application deserves to be dismissed.

4. Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI, learned counsel for the applicant, argued that the specific role of the accused was ignored; that the impugned order does not adequately consider the