The twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory for grant of bail; the accused must establish reasonable grounds for believing he is not guilty and not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

1. The accused petitioner has filed the present bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with ECIR No.JPZO/16/2025 dated 08.09.2025 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement, Zonal Office, Jaipur, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 read with Section 70 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, ‘PMLA’).

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the arrest effected by the respondent- Directorate of Enforcement (for short, ‘DOE’) is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the PMLA. It is contended that regular banking transactions have been labelled as suspicious in the absence of any cogent material establishing generation, concealment, or projection of ‘proceeds of crime’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(u) read with Section 3 of the PMLA. It is submitted that the petitioner belongs to a modest background and was engaged in a small-scale restaurant business under the name ‘Dubai Darbar’ besides carrying out charitable and religious activities through ‘Al-Furkan Educational Trust.’ It is further contended that the deposits reflected in the accounts of the petitioner pertain to income generated from restaurant business, bona fide donations and routine financial dealings, which have been deliberately misconstrued by the respondent and labelled as proceeds of crime to implicate the accused petitioner in the instant case.

2.1. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner’s wife had cancer and substantial public contributions were collected towards her treatment. It is further submitted that statements of co-accused recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA cannot be treated as substantive evidence against the petitioner and there exists no nexus between the alleged scheduled offence and the purported proceeds of crime to attract Section 3 of the PMLA. It is also submitted that the investigation is already complete, the prosecution complaint has been filed, the petitioner has cooperated during the investigation and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence.

2.2. It is further contended that the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is not prima facie made out against the petitioner, as the respondent–DOE has failed to establish that the funds reflected in the accounts were derived from any scheduled offence. Learned counsel submits that though allegations under Section 27 of the Arms Act have been levelled and recovery of a country-made pistol is alleged to have been made from the possession of the petitioner, there exists no material connecting the petitioner with any illegal arms trade or supply of weapons. It is further argued that even if certain amounts are treated as unaccounted money, the same would at best attract proceedings under the Income Tax Act and not the provisions of the PMLA in the absence of any nexus with a scheduled offence.

2.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the present ECIR has been registered based on FIR Nos.44/2017, 404/2019, 13/2022 and 299/2025 registered at Police Station Gangashahar and Police Station Kotegate, Bikaner respectively. It is argued that FIR Nos.44/2017 and 404/2019 do not disclose any scheduled offence under the PMLA and therefore, could not legally form the basis for initiation of proceedings under the PMLA. It is further submitted that in FIR No.299/2025, the offences constituting the scheduled offences were added subsequently and no charge-sheet has yet been filed therein; therefore, subsequent addition of offences cannot retrospectively validate proceedings under the PMLA.

2.4. Learned counsel further submits that the principal reliance of the respondent–DOE is upon FIR No.13/2022 registered under Sections 307, 323, 341, 147, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) along with Section 27 of the Arms Act, which pertains to a s