PMLA Section 45 Twin Conditions Not Met; Parity Denied Due to Different Roles: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Bail in Land Scam Case

Jharkhand High Court Denies Bail to Deed Searcher in PMLA Land Scam Case, Cites Stringent Section 45 Conditions

Ranchi, Jharkhand: The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad , has dismissed the regular bail application of Tapas Ghosh , an accused in a significant money laundering case linked to an alleged land scam involving fraudulent property deeds. The court held that Ghosh failed to satisfy the stringent twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

Case Background

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) registered the case (ECIR Case No.06 of 2023) based on predicate offences involving forgery and cheating related to land records (Sadar P.S. Case no. 272 of 2023). The ED alleged that Tapas Ghosh , working as a deed searcher at the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata, along with co-accused Sanjeet Kumar (a contractual sweeper/watchman), was part of a syndicate involved in creating fake land deeds.

The prosecution claimed Ghosh and Kumar supplied blank pages and original volumes from the Registrar's office to other members of the syndicate, like Irshad Akhtar, to facilitate the creation and planting of forged deeds for valuable properties in Ranchi. The ED identified Rs. 21,43,000/- credited to Ghosh 's bank account, allegedly as proceeds of crime for his assistance. Ghosh was arrested on May 9, 2024, and his initial bail plea was rejected by the Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Arguments ( Tapas Ghosh ): * Mr. Sunil Kumar Upadhyay, representing Ghosh , argued his client was innocent and falsely implicated. * He contended Ghosh , as a deed searcher, had no role in concealment, possession, or projecting tainted property. * It was argued that the ED failed to produce evidence proving Ghosh worked as a deed searcher or provided assistance. * The petitioner claimed parity with co-accused Hemant Soren , who was granted bail, stating Ghosh 's case stood on a better footing. * He argued that the predicate offences (forgery, cheating) were not made out against Ghosh , and conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC) was not part of the predicate FIR. * Ghosh has been in custody since May 9, 2024.

Respondent's Arguments (Directorate of Enforcement): * Mr. Amit Kumar Das, for the ED, countered that Ghosh had access to records and assisted accomplices. * He cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Pavana Dibbur to argue that being an accused in the predicate offence is not necessary for a PMLA prosecution, as money laundering is an independent offence. * The ED reiterated Ghosh 's role in supplying blank pages/volumes and receiving Rs. 21.43 lakh as proceeds of crime. * Regarding parity, the ED cited Tarun Kumar vs. Enforcement Directorate , arguing that individual roles must be assessed, and bail granted to a co-accused is not an automatic ground. Bail pleas of other co-accused ( Sanjeet Kumar , Md. Irshad ) were rejected. * Statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA corroborated Ghosh 's role.

Court's Analysis and Legal Principles

The High Court meticulously analyzed the PMLA framework, emphasizing its objective to combat money laundering, a serious threat to national integrity and financial systems.

Key Legal Principles Applied: * PMLA Offence (Section 3): The court highlighted the broad definition, including knowingly assisting or being involved in any process connected with proceeds of crime (concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projecting/claiming as untainted).

* Proceeds of Crime (Section 2(1)(u)): Explained that this includes property derived directly or indirectly from criminal activity related to a scheduled offence, or even the value of such property.

* Stringent Bail Conditions (Section 45): The court underscored the mandatory twin conditions: reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It cited the Supreme Court's emphasis on these rigours in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Tarun Kumar .

* Burden of Proof (Section 24): Noted the statutory presumption that proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering unless the contrary is proved by the accused.

* Admissibility of Section 50 Statements: Referred to Rohit Tandon to affirm that statements recorded by ED officials under Section 50 are admissible evidence.

* Independence of PMLA Offence: Affirmed that the PMLA offence is independent, and one need not be accused in the predicate offence to be prosecuted under PMLA if they knowingly assisted in dealing with proceeds of crime.

* Filing of Chargesheet: Cited Virupakshappa Gouda to state that filing a chargesheet doesn't automatically entitle an accused to bail or lessen the allegations.

Court's Findings on Petitioner's Role

Based on the prosecution complaint and investigation materials, the court found prima facie evidence against Ghosh : * He worked as a deed searcher and assisted co-accused (Afshar Ali, Md. Irshad ) in identifying volumes for creating fake deeds. * He was involved in procuring blank pages/original volumes and planting back the fake deeds. * Financial investigations revealed transactions (Rs. 21.43 lakh) linked to co-accused, considered proceeds of crime for his assistance. * Statements under Section 50 implicated Ghosh in activities connected to money laundering.

The court concluded: > "Thus, from aforesaid imputation and discussion prima-facie it appears that the involvement of present petitioner in alleged crime cannot be lightly brushed out."

Parity Argument Rejected

The court explicitly rejected the parity claim with Hemant Soren . It cited Ramesh Bhavan Rathod and Tarun Kumar , emphasizing that parity requires similar roles and facts, and cannot be claimed based on a potentially erroneous grant of bail to another (negative equality). The court found Ghosh 's alleged role (direct assistance in forging deeds as a deed searcher) distinct from the allegations against Soren .

> "...the case of the petitioner is quite distinguishable to that of case of the co-accused/petitioner of B.A No.4892 of 2024, therefore, it is considered view of this Court that it is not a fit case for applying the principle of parity herein."

Economic Offences

The court also referenced judgments like Y. S Jagan Mohan Reddy and Nimgadda Prasad , noting that economic offences form a distinct class requiring a stricter approach to bail due to their grave impact on the nation's economy.

Final Decision

Concluding that Tapas Ghosh failed to meet the twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA and finding sufficient prima facie material indicating his guilt, the Jharkhand High Court dismissed the bail application. The court clarified that its observations were prima facie and limited to the consideration of the bail plea.