Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1710
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Sanjeev Kumar Lal, S/o Late Braj Kishore Lal - Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Opp. Parties
B.A. No. 47 of 2025
Decided On : 13-08-2025
For the Petitioner:Md. Imran Kashif, Advocate Mr. Diwakar Sippy, Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party :Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate, Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Varun Girdhar, Advocate
The court ruled that evidence shows significant involvement in money laundering, rejecting bail based on established statutory requirements and the severity of economic crimes.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3 and 4 - Grant of bail - Petition denied due to substantial evidence indicating the petitioner's involvement in a money laundering scheme that includes proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 56 crores - The petitioner, as personal secretary to a minister, received commissions for tender allocations and engaged in forwarding illicit funds, including working closely with co-accused to conceal crime proceeds. (Paras 3, 11, 19, 23, 150, 154)
(B) Bail Application - The court emphasized the serious nature of economic offences and the necessity for stringent scrutiny in such cases - Highlighted that mere completion of investigation does not grant entitlement to bail and that the burden to establish innocence lies with the accused. (Paras 30, 35, 137, 141)
(C) Principle of Parity - Consideration of co-accused must take into account the differing roles in the alleged criminal activity and that the applicant's direct involvement was substantiated with more considerable evidence, distinguishing his case from that of others given bail. (Paras 138, 140, 144)
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer:
1. The instant application has been filed under Sections 4 83 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for grant of bail in connection with ECIR Case No. 2 of 2023 arising out of ECIR/RNSZO/16/2020 dated 17.09.2020 for the offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as PML Act, 2002] punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, based on FIR bearing No. 13/2019 registered by ACB, Jamshedpur under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (amended as on 2018) [hereinafter referred to as P.C. Act, 2018] and F.I.R No.22/2023 registered by Economic Offence Wing, Delhi pending in the court of learned Special Judge CBI-cum- PML Act, Ranchi.
Factual Matrix of the Case
2. An ECIR bearing No. ECIR/RNSZO/16/2020 was recorded on 17.09.2020 based on the FIR bearing No. 13/2019 dated 13.11.2019, registered by ACB Jamshedpur, under section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (amended as on 2018). Subsequently, Charge-sheet dated 11.01.2020 was submitted by ACB against Alok Ranjan and Suresh Prasad Verma under Section 7 (b) of P.C. Act, 2018 and under Sections 120B and 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , which are scheduled offences under Part-A, Paragraph 1 of the PML Act, 2002.
3. During the course of investigation upon co-accused Veerendra Kumar Ram and his close associates, several searches were conducted under Section 17 PML Act 2002 to investigate the role of the accused persons and their close associates, wherein it was found that part of the proceeds of crime is acquired in the form of commission/bribe in lieu of allotment of tenders by Veerendra Kumar Ram, the then Chief Engineer in Rural Works Department, Jharkhand. The said bribe money was getting routed by the Delhi based CA Mukesh Mittal to the bank accounts of family members of said Veerendra Kumar Ram with the help of bank accounts of Delhi based Mukesh Mittal’s employees/relatives.
4. It is also alleged that Veerendra Kumar Ram used to give cash to CA Mukesh Mittal who with the help of other entry providers used to take entries in the bank accounts of his employees and relatives and then such fund was transferred by Mukesh Mittal into the bank accounts of the co-accused Rajkumari (wife of Veerendra Kumar Ram) and Genda Ram (father of Veerendra Kumar Ram).
5. Further, it is also alleged that some bank accounts, opened (at Delhi) on the basis of forged documents, were also being used in such routing of funds. Therefore, findings related to such routing of funds were shared with the Delhi Police under Section 66 (2) of the PML Act, 2002 by the I.O. Further, on the basis of the information shared U/s 66(2) of PML Act, 2002, an FIR No. 22/2023 was registered by Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Delhi against (i) Veerendra Kumar Ram, (ii) Mukesh Mittal and (iii) unknown Others under Sections 419 , 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 473, 474, 476, 484, and 120-B of IPC, 1860 and under Sections 7 and 5 of Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017.
6. Consequently, in the light of additional facts emerging out of investigation, FIR No.22/2023 registered by the EOW, Delhi was merged with the investigation of ECIR No. RNSZO/16/2020 on 05.04.2023.
7. A prosecution complaint vide ECIR Case No. 02/2023 was filed before the learned Special Court, (PMLA), Ranchi on 21.04.2023 against Veerendra Kumar Ram; Alok Ranjan, Rajkumari and Genda Ram and cognizance of the same was taken by the learned Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi on 29.04.2023.
8. Further, a supplementary prosecution complaint vides ECIR Case Number 02/2023 under Section 44 (ii) r/w section 45 of PML Act, 2002 was filed before the learned Special Court (PMLA), Ranchi on 20.08.2023 against Veerendra Kumar Ram, Alok Ranjan, Rajkumari, Genda Ram, Mukesh Mittal, Tara Chand, Neeraj Mittal, Ram Prakash Bhatia, Harish Yadav and Hirdya Nand Tiwari and the cognizance of the same is taken on 22.0
