2025:UHC:1843 Reserved on:10.03.2025 Delivered on:18.03.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL FIRST BAIL APPLICATION No. 719 of 2024 Rajpal Walia ......Applicant Vs.

State of Uttarakhand …..Respondent Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. S.C. Dumka, learned AGA for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Anil Kumar Dabral, learned counsel for the Buyer-Mr. Devashish Shaily.

Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for the informant-Ms. Kavita Bhatia.

Mr. Atul Bahuguna, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J (Oral)

The present bail application arises out of proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in connection with S.S.T. No. 82/2023, ECIR/DNSZO/01/2021, registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

3. The case originates from multiple predicate offences registered against the applicant under FIR Nos. 93/2020, 112/2020, and 88/2021, alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

4. These predicate offences pertain to allegations of financial irregularities in the real estate projects developed by M/s Pushpanjali Realms & Infratech Ltd., wherein several homebuyers claimed that they were induced into booking flats, but the projects remained incomplete.

5. The applicant, Rajpal Walia, was a director and investor in M/s Pushpanjali Realms & Infratech Ltd., which undertook real estate projects, including Eminent Heights and Orchid Park. It is alleged that substantial amounts were collected from homebuyers and subsequently misappropriated.

6. The Enforcement Directorate initiated proceedings under PMLA, contending that the funds collected from homebuyers constituted the proceeds of crime and that the applicant was involved in money laundering. Based on the investigation, the applicant was taken into custody on 10.10.2023, and a State complaint was filed before the Hon’ble Special Court under PMLA. The applicant has approached this Court seeking bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), read with Section 45 of PMLA.

7. He has remained in judicial custody since 10.10.2023 in connection with the present case under PMLA, except for a seven- day short-term interim bail granted by the court's order dated 30.12.2024,which was aimed at facilitating a settlement that ultimately did not materialise. Although the interim bail period was extended, no further extension was granted to the applicant by Court order dated 11.02.2025.

8. The applicant is represented by his learned counsel, Mr. Aditya Singh. Mr Rakesh Negi represents the respondents, learned Brief Holder for the State; Mr Atul Bahuguna, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate (ED); and Mr Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for the informant, Ms Kavita Bhatia.

9. Additionally, Mr. Devashish, who has posed himself as an investor, appeared through video conferencing (VC) and also opposed the bail application.

10. At the outset, the applicant submits that the offence alleged against him does not constitute a scheduled offence under the PMLA. The predicate offences registered against him under FIR Nos. 93/2020, 112/2020, and 88/2021 primarily pertain to allegations under Section 406 of the IPC, which is not included in the Schedule of the PMLA.

11. The applicant contends that a bare perusal of the Enforcement Directorate’s complaint reveals that the entire proceedings under PMLA are based on these predicate offences. Since the foundation of the PMLA case rests upon offences that do not fall within the ambit of scheduled offences, the invocation of Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA is ex-facie unsustainable.

12. The applicant further submits that the State has failed to establish a legal basis for treating the present case under PMLA, rendering his continued incarceration wholly unjustified. The financial records and documentary evidence establish that the applicant invested significantly