The main legal point established is that the petitioner's qualification under the triple test of Section 45 of the PMLA, the timing of the FIR registration, and the petitioner's health condition were crucial in granting bail.

JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Sangwan, J. - Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case/FIR ECIR No. ECIR/JLZO/21/2021 dated 30.11.2021 for the offence under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'PMLA'), District Jalandhar.

2. Learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case; he is in custody for the last about 05 months, that is w.e.f. 03.02.2022, and the investigation in all respect is complete; a formal complaint is already filed before the competent Court of law, therefore, the petitioner is no more required for any further custodial investigation.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.05.2017, in an E-Auction conducted by the Mining Department, one Kudratdeep Singh was the successful bidder for Rs. 4.04 crores and was allotted a sand mine measuring 4.41 hectares in village Malikpur, District S. B. S. Nagar. Later on, finding that the location of the land is not clear, he got the same demarcated through Halqa Patwari on 16.08.2017 and found that the location of the land is on southern side of Satluj river and there is no proper passage from village Malikpur, where he was allotted the land and some illegal occupants in the village Dhulewal and Rod Majra in District Ludhiana are doing the illegal mining. On this account, Kudratdeep Singh represented various officials of the Mining and Industry Department as well as other higher authorities, however, his grievances were not redressed and on 06.02.2018, the General Manager-cum-Mining Officer, District Industry Centre, S. B. S. Nagar, Punjab suspended his mining license. Kudratdeep Singh filed a Civil Writ Petition before this Court, which was disposed of on 10.01.2020 by giving certain directions and he again filed a second writ petition praying that he may be permitted to surrender the mining site in village Malikpur as the same is not feasible at the spot. Thereafter, he did not perform any work at the said site.

4. Learned senior counsel further submitted that later on, FIR No. 26 dated 07.03.2018, under Sections 379, 420, 465,467, 468, 471 of the IPC and Sections 21(1) & 4(1) of the Mines & Minerals (Regulation of Development) Act, 1957 was registered against many persons with the allegations that when a team of the Mining Department and civil administration visited the spot, it was found that several mines have been excavated and illegal mining activities have been carried out at the spot and several machines like tipper/trucks, proclaim machines, JCB machines etc. were seized by the department. As per the FIR, the sand mine was allotted to Kudratdeep Singh on a representation given by him that he is not conducting any mining, however, it was found that majority of the numbers allotted to him were on the other side of Satluj river in District Ludhiana and, therefore, the mining operations were suspended by the department itself. Later on, the police submitted the challan under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. and Kudratdeep Singh was kept in Column No. 2, whereas the challan was presented against 56 persons.

5. Learned senior counsel further submitted that thereafter, the Directorate of Enforcement (for short 'ED') raided the premises of Kudratdeep Singh, petitioner Bhupinder Singh @ Honey and one Sandeep Kumar in January, 2022. From Kudratdeep Singh, no recovery of money was effected, however, a mobile phone was taken into possession. From petitioner Bhupinder Singh @ Honey, as per allegations, Rs. 8 crores (approx.) was recovered and from Sandeep Kumar, an amount of Rs. 1,99,17,200/- was recovered in cash. With regard to this money also, it is the case of the ED that this amount was given by the petitioner to Sandeep Kumar. It is further submitted that this recovery is effected on 18.01.2022, therefore, the same does not relate to the offence under FIR No. 26, which was registered on 07.03.