Under the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA Act, a person accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees may be released on bail, overriding the general stringent conditions for bail under the Act.

CAV ORDER

8 05-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; learned APP for the State and Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement(E.D.)

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Special Trial (PMLA) Case No. 06 of 2018 arising out of ECIR No. PTZO-04/2016 registered for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

3. The case of the prosecution in short is that on the basis of information received from Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences, Unit-3, Patna Vide Letter No. 95/c dated 02.06.2016 and L.G. (Operations) Bihar Vide Letter No. 291/Operations dated 10.10.2017 and after investigation the present complaint Under Section 45 of the PMLA Act has been filed by the complainant against one Praduman Sharma @ Kundanji @ Lulha @ Saket @ Anish Ji and Pramod Sharma @ Prabhakar and other co-accused persons including the petitioner. It is alleged that Praduman Sharma @ Kundanji and Pramod Sharma @ Prabhakar Ji have indulged in scheduled offences covered under Para-1, 3, 4 and 5 of Part ‘A’ of the scheduled PMLA Act which are fully described in para-3 of the complaint petition. It is further alleged that above named both accused persons have acquired properties to the tune of Rs. 67,95,027/- from their criminal activities in the name of their family members including the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner has knowingly participated in acquisition of proceeds of crime.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the name of this petitioner has only been dragged because of his family background and the allegation on his father and uncle. It is next submitted that the property in question is a joint property bought in the name of the petitioner and his brother. The valuation of the property in question is Rs. 3,89,575/- and the same is not under the ambit of Section 45 of PMLA Act. It was further submitted that from the perusal of the FIR, it is quite evident that the petitioner is not directly named in the FIR nor is involved in any of the crime which led to this complaint. The name of this petitioner has been deliberately included in the case to harass and malign the image of the petitioner. The petitioner is in Judicial Custody since 13.05.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement has vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that the proceeds of crime generated by Pradumn Sharma and Pramod Sharma have been utilized to purchase immovable property/banks in his name and other family members. A plot of land registered vide sale deed no. 4806 dated 28.06.2016, jointly in the name of Barun Kumar and Tarun Kumar, was purchased through illegal and unaccounted cash, the source of which was not explained by them. Barun Kumar carried huge amount in cash of Rs. 22 lakhs, generated through proceeds of crime and attempted to merge the same with the mainstream economy after layering through banking channels 14 which shows that he knowingly involved in concealment of proceeds of crime acquired by Pradumn Sharma and Pramod Sharma so as to project the same as untainted. It is further argued that the petitioner has deliberately assisted his father in acquisition of property in the joint name of him and his brother Barun Kumar out of proceeds of crime. The petitioner is knowingly in possession of a land jointly with his brother Barun Kumar, which has been pur