IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(Cr.) No. 80 of 2022

---------

M/s Highstreet Enterprises (P) Limited, a company incorporated

under the Indian Companies Act having its office at 302, 3^rd Floor,

Commerce House, Sharda Babu Street, Line Tank Road, PO-GPO &

PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi through its authorized signatory Sri

Vikram Kumar Singh, aged about 32 years, s/o late Ram Jivan

Singh Parasi, r/o Itkhori, Post Itkhori, PS-Itkhori, District-Chatra

… Petitioner

Versus

1. The Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India through

its Director officiating from Kaushalya Chambers II, Pee Pee

Compound, Main Road, Post Doranda, PS-Doranda, District-

Ranchi.

2. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government

of India officiating from Kaushalya Chambers II, Pee Pee

Compound, Main Road, Post Doranda, PS-Doranda, District-

Ranchi.

... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

For the Petitioner

: Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate

Mrs. Shatakshi, Advocate

For the Respondent-ED

: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate

Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate

---------

Order No. 16/Dated: 10

^th February 2023

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been filed by M/s Highstreet Enterprises (P) Limited for a

direction upon the respondents to release the property

admeasuring about 10 Kathas comprised within Khata No. 360 of

Khewat No. 15 in RS Plot No. 1133 (Sub Plot No. 1133/A) at

Misirgonda, Kanke Road, (PS No. 191) within the district of

Ranchi.

2.

Briefly stated, ECIR No. ECIR/RSZO/01/2015 was

registered by the ED on 30^th January 2015. Before that, on an

allegation that the accused persons had secured allotment of a

coal-block the CBI had registered RC/221/2014/E/0015 on 23^rd

July 2014 under sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

After the investigation, the CBI has submitted charge-sheet against

M/s Domco Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors on 22^nd December 2015. The

petitioner-company has produced a document at page 81 of the

2 W.P. (Cr.) No. 80 of 2022

supplementary affidavit which records name of the Directors of the

petitioner-company. In the complaint filed by the ED under section

45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short, PML

Act), or the provisional attachment order dated 31^st March 2018,

or the confirmation order dated 17^th September 2018, name of the

Directors of the petitioner-company does not appear anywhere

either as accused who have committed money-laundering or as

having been involved in any manner whatsoever with commission

of the offence under section 3 of the PML Act. Notwithstanding

that, the subject-property has been attached by the ED for “value

thereof” for an amount of Rs. 12 Lakhs.

3.

On behalf of the petitioner-company, it is submitted

that the subject-property was purchased by it through a registered

sale-deed dated 15^th June 2016 much before the provisional

attachment order was passed on 31^st March 2018 by the Deputy

Director of the Enforcement Directorate at Ranchi. The

petitioner-company or its Directors are not accused either in the

cases filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short, CBI) or

the Directorate of Enforcement (in short, ED). Mrs. Ritu Kumar,

the learned counsel for the petitioner-company therefore submits

that she is not questioning the legality of the provisional and final

attachment orders and all that the petitioner-company wants is

release of the subject-property which has been attached for

“value thereof”, on deposit of the “value thereof” amount by the

petitioner-company so that it can deal with the subject-

property in whatever manner it wants. It is submitted that

once the subject-property is released from