Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30354 B.A. NO. 10343 OF 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 10343 of 2024 Sanjay Kumar Tiwary @ Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, S/o Late Sheo Bilas Tiwary, R/o Flat No. 1008, Vasundhara Complex, 10th Floor, Near Mahi Restaurent, Argora, P.O. & P.S.- Argora, Dist.- Ranchi. ... Petitioner Versus Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement. … Opposite Party ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Sr. Adv. For the O.P. : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, R.C.-E.D. ---- Dated : 26/09/2025 CAV JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Retainer Council- Enforcement Directorate. 2. The petitioner in this application has prayed for grant of bail in connection with ECIR No. 03/2021 instituted for the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 pending before the learned Special Judge, CBI cum PMLA, Ranchi. 3. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court for grant of bail in B.A. No. 1804 of 2022 which, however, was rejected vide order dated 13-04-2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has moved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3794/2022 which was dismissed vide order dated 04-09-2023. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30354 B.A. NO. 10343 OF 2024 2 senior counsel for the petitioner that the entire gamut of allegations would suggest that it is a civil dispute. Learned senior counsel has submitted that the issue of the present case being a civil dispute is being raised for the first time. Learned senior counsel submits that at the behest of the Debts Recovery Tribunal, most of the amount in question has already been returned. The petitioner is in custody since 03-01-2021 and out of 45 witnesses, only 07 witnesses have been examined and there is no chance of the trial being concluded in the near future. 5. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Retainer Council-E.D. has submitted that in the predicate offence as well as in the present case, the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has been submitted that the petitioner has transferred huge amount in several bank accounts which are the proceeds of crime and also had purchased 53 vehicles which has come in course of investigation. The conduct of the petitioner has also been highlighted to the effect that the petitioner was granted interim bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for a period of 04 weeks from the date of release vide order dated 30-01-2023 to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 16.35 crores in the State Bank of India, Hatia Branch, Ranchi, Jharkhand and during the said period, the petitioner has sought time from the learned trial court for extensions and had submitted a forged COVID-19 Report on 25-03-2023 which was ascertained from a letter of the Department of Microbiology, RIMS wherein, it was stated that the COVID-19 Report produced by the petitioner is totally false. It has further been submitted that the plea of the petitioner that he was not aware about the amount of Rs. 100.01 crores which he received in the bank account of M/s Bhanu Constructions from Jharkhand State Mid-Day Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30354 B.A. NO. 10343 OF 2024 3 Meal Authority and in support of such claim, he had furnished a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 07-07-2017 which indicated that he was to receive Rs. 50 crores from a company named M/s Nabadurga Construction Pvt. Ltd. and he had also entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Birat Chandra Dagara representing M/s Nabadurga Construction Pvt. Ltd. on 07-07-2017 and as per the agreement Birat Chandra Dagara was to extend Rs. 50 crores for the business purpose to M/s Bhanu Construction and consequently, the petitioner claims to have received the said amount. However, in course of investigation, the statements of the Directors of M/s Nabadurga Construction Pvt. Ltd. and the witness in the Memorandum of Understanding was recorded under Section 50 of the PML Act, 2002 wherein, it has been specifically stated by Birat Chandra Dagara that he had never executed any agreement with the present petitioner or M/s Bhanu Construction. Similarly, the other Director has also stated about the Memorandum of Understanding being fake. It has, therefore, been submitted that considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner and his conduct, he does not deserve to be granted bail. 6. The allegations reveal that the Savings Bank Account No. “33954815459” of Jharkhand Rajya Madhayan Bhojan Pradhikaran was opened and maintained at State Bank of India Hatia Branch, Ranchi. On 04-08-2017, SBI Hatia Branch received total 06 number of debit advices dated 03-08-2017 from the Department of Jharkhand Rajya Madhayan Bhojan Pradhikaran for transfer of Rs. 120.31 crores from its Savings Account to multiple accounts maintained with different banks. As per advice, Rs. 20.29 crores were to be transferred to SBI accounts and Rs. 100.01 Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30354 B.A. NO. 10343 OF 2024 4 crores were to be transferred to other bank accounts. Accordingly, Rs. 20.29 crores were transferred to different SBI accounts on 05-08-2017 by debiting the aforesaid Savings Bank Account of Jharkhand Rajya Madhayan Bhojan Pradhikaran. It has been alleged that 04 bulk transfer through RTGS/NEFT Rs. 100.01 crores were debited from the said account of Jharkhand Rajya Madhayan Bhojan Pradhikaran and temporarily parked in Office/Suspense Account of the Branch, but due to failure in transaction, the entire amount got returned to the Office/Suspense Account of the Branch. The then Deputy Manager (Business Development Department), SBI instead of crediting back the amount of Rs. 100.01 crores to the Savings Bank Account of Jharkhand Rajya Madhayan Bhojan Pradhikaran, authorised the transfer of entire amount to the Current Account No. “36310149578” of M/s Bhanu Construction on 05-08-2017. The petitioner, who is one of the partners of M/s Bhanu Construction began to transfer the amount to different accounts from the account of M/s Bhanu Construction. It has been stated that out of Rs. 100.01 crores, SBI Hatia Branch, Ranchi has managed to recover an amount of Rs. 76,13,000/- till 20-11-2017 and an amount of Rs. 23,72,28,016/- could not be recovered from M/s Bhanu Construction which had resulted in a wrongful loss to the State Bank of India, Hatia Branch and corresponding wrongful gain to M/s Bhanu Construction. An ECIR was recorded and in course of investigation it was found that the petitioner was the sole signatory on behalf of M/s Bhanu Construction to operate all the accounts. It was also detected that the petitioner had dishonestly transferred the said amount to various accounts and misappropriated the same by keeping it as liquid security/margin for credit facility extended to them by Axis Bank Limited, Ashok Nagar Ranchi, Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30354 B.A. NO. 10343 OF 2024 5 HDFC Bank Limited, Ashok Nagar Branch, SREI Equipment Finance Limited Ranchi, Chola Mandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, Ranchi and had also purchased 53 vehicles out of the proceeds of crime. Many vehicles were confiscated and auctioned by SBI which further resulted in reduction of proceeds of crime to Rs. 19,60,17,457/-. 7. It has come in course of investigation about the manner in which the petitioner had embezzled a huge amount and though a recovery proceeding has been initiated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, but the same in no circumstances can categorise the present case to be a civil dispute as vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and consequently, we negate such submission. 8. So far as the allegations are concerned the same have already been considered by this Court which had rejected the prayer for bail of the petitioner and which was affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Save and except the period of custody which has been undergone by the petitioner and the submission that the allegation points to a civil dispute which I have already negated above, there is no other material which would implore this Court to consider grant of bail to the petitioner. In such circumstances, therefore, I am not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail and consequently, this application stands rejected. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 26th September, 2025 Preet/-