Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30350 B.A. NO. 10494 OF 2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 10494 of 2024 Kamlesh Kumar @ Kamlesh Kumar Singh, S/o Kiran Prasad, R/o House No. 51, Dipatoli, Badhgadi, P.O.- Dipatoli, P.S.- Bariatu, Ranchi ... Petitioner Versus Directorate of Enforcement. … Opposite Party ---- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, Adv. For the O.P. : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, R.C.-E.D. ---- Dated : 26/09/2025 CAV JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Learned Retainer Counsel-E.D. 2. The petitioner is an accused in connection with ECIR No. 05 of 2024 corresponding to ECIR/RNZO/14/24 pending in the court of learning Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that ECIR/RNZO/14/2024 was recorded on the basis of Gonda P.S. Case No. 174/2024 registered against the petitioner with respect to recovery of 100 live ammunitions on 21-06-2024 from a premise which is under the use and occupation of the petitioner and Gonda P.S. Case No. 120/2022 with an allegation for dishonestly cheating the complainant by inducing her to deliver a landed property measuring 5 decimals of Khata No. 101, Plot No. 2260, P.S. No. 53, Mauza- Nagri, Kanke, Ranchi. It has been alleged in the said case that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 24 lakhs Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30350 B.A. NO. 10494 OF 2024 2 to the accused persons for purchasing the property but later on, the said property was found to be a tribal land and no legal documents relating to ownership or possession were available with the vendor. Apart from these two FIRs, the other sources of information under PMLA, 2002 regarding illegal acquisition of land and related criminal activities of the petitioner are Kanke P.S. Case No. 117/2024 registered on the complaint of one Sanjay Sahu alleging therein that illegal construction of boundary wall was made by someone on his plot of land under Khata No. 89, Plot No. 972 measuring 96 acres and Plot No. 996, Khata No. 46 measuring 37 acres. The other First Information Report is Kanke P.S. Case No. 237/2020 which was on the complaint of one Ranjit Kumar, Revenue Sub- Inspector, Kanke, Ranchi for illegally cutting/digging soils from land pertaining to; (i), Khata No. 136, Plot No. 2308 and Plot No. 2381 and, (ii) Khata No. 142, Plot No. 2309 measuring an area of 0.82 acres gair mazarua malik land which has been acquired by Birsa Agricultural University in L.A. case No. 21/57-58 and three other lands of bakast bhuinhari pahani situated in the vicinity of Jumar river. The soil being dug up from the above stated lands was being used to fill/level the Jumar river. The ECIR bearing No. RNZO/25/2023 was recorded on the basis of FIR bearing No. 272/23 registered by Sadar P.S., Ranchi against Bhanu Pratap Prasad, Ex-Revenue Sub-Inspector, Badagain and this FIR was the outcome of the information shared with Jharkhand Government under Section 66(2) of PMLA, 2002 which was shared in another case being ECIR No. RNZO/18/2022. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as the allegations contained in Kanke P.S. Case No. 174 of 2024 is concerned, the cartridges seized by the complainant belongs to the Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30350 B.A. NO. 10494 OF 2024 3 security guard of the petitioner, namely, Kaushal Kumar Singh having a rifle with valid licence and the cartridges were purchased by him with appropriate documents in support thereof and the petition for release of the said seized cartridges has been filed by Kaushal Kumar Singh which is pending before the court for its disposal. So far as the recovery of Rs. 1,02,18,000/- by way of cash is concerned, no criminal complaint has been filed in respect thereto to consider the same to be the proceeds of crime. The petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 has explained the detailed sources of the cash amount which is contrary to what has been alleged against him Mr. Sarkhel submits that so far as the allegations contained in Gonda P.S. Case No. 120/2022 is concerned, it is not the case of the prosecution that he has received any money from the complainant and in absence of any money trail reaching the petitioner, the allegations against him are baseless and unfounded. Learned counsel submits that no final report/charge sheets have been filed till date by the predicate agency in the FIRs lodged in connection thereto and the commencement of the trial in the instant case is indefinite and uncertain as in the event the petitioner is found to be innocent in the predicate offence, on completion of investigation, no case under PMLA can survive against the petitioner. The case of the Enforcement Directorate is founded upon Kanke P.S. Case No. 174/24 and Gonda P.S. Case No. 120/2022, but the investigation has been made into certain unconnected allegations contained in Kanke P.S. Case No. 117/24 and Kanke P.S. Case No. 237/20 registered under the sections which are not categorised as “Scheduled Offence”. It has been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 26-07-2024 and there is no chance of the trial being concluded Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30350 B.A. NO. 10494 OF 2024 4 in the near future and, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 5. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Retainer Counsel-E.D. has referred to the prosecution complaint while submitting that the documents which had been seized from the premises under the use and occupation of the petitioner at Flat No. 603, C-Block, Astor Green, Kanke Road, Ranchi, itself speaks about the involvement of the petitioner in money laundering. It has been submitted that in course of investigation, it has come to light that the petitioner has defrauded several persons by selling them non-saleable lands by making fake property documents to acquire large parcels of land at Kanke Anchal, Ranchi with the assistance of the officials of Circle Office, Kanke and has tampered with the online records and falsified Government records. A survey was conducted at Mauza- Chama, Anchal- Kanke, Ranchi, Jharkhand in the instant case which reveal about plotting of land fraudulently acquired and construction of boundary walls on the same and the villagers had also informed about the illegal acquisition of land made by the petitioner and his associates based on fraudulent documents. Mr. Das has submitted that not only has there been an illegal acquisition of land in Mauza- Chama, but also in the adjacent villages, namely, Bukru and Nagri of Kanke Anchal by the petitioner and his associates. In the statements under Section 50 of PMLA, 2002 recorded of Arvind Sahu and Pradeep Sahu, they could not provide any documents which would corroborate the ownership of the properties in connection with which they had executed sale deeds to various purchasers. They have also stated about they becoming the owners of the property on the directions of the petitioner after being promised monetary gains. In course of search at the residence of the petitioner, Cheque Book of HDFC Bank in the Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30350 B.A. NO. 10494 OF 2024 5 name of Arvind Kumar Sahu containing 27 leaves were seized, out of which three blank cheques were signed by Arvind Kumar Sahu, who has stated that he has no knowledge about the transactions and it was the petitioner who was involved in such transactions. 6. The role and activities of the petitioner in the offence of money laundering has been depicted at Para 8 of the prosecution complaint which reads as follows: “He is directly involved in acquisition of landed properties by making fake auction papers bearing (i). Nilami Case No. 77/1938-39 in name of Parsu Sahu for property admeasuring 38.87996 acres at Mauja Chama, Kanke Anchal, Ranchi worth Rs. 46.01 crores (ii). Nilami Case No. 819/1935-1936 in name of Mahavir Sahu for property admeasuring 11.43 acres at Mauja Chama, Kanke Anchal, Ranchi worth Rs. 14.73 crores and (iii). Nilami Case No. 898/1937-38 in name of Dukhan Sahu for property admeasuring 15.7 acres at Mauja Chama, Kanke Anchal, Ranchi worth Rs. 24.33 crores. In addition to the above, he was directly involved in and a party with the co- accused person Amrendra Kumar Dubey in acquiring proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 45,85,000/- from different persons (including the Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30350 B.A. NO. 10494 OF 2024 6 complainant of FIR no. 120/2022). Thus, the accused person was knowingly involved in the activities connected with making fake property documents and using them to acquire further proceeds of crime in movable and immovable form during the period 2020 to 2024, whose minimum aggregate worth is Rs. 85.53 crores (approx.). He was directly a party with the co-accused persons namely Amrendra Kumar Dubey, Jai Kumar Ram, the Circle Officer, Kanke, and Diwakar Prasad C. Dwivedi, the former Circle Officer, Kanke and others in the activities connected with the proceeds of crime (in form of deeds and instruments as well as the landed properties) including their acquisition, possession, use, concealment and projecting the said proceeds of crime (deeds and instruments and the landed properties) as untainted property. The accused person Kamlesh Kumar was actually involved and was a party with co-accused persons namely Jai Kumar Ram, Diwakar Prasad C. Dwivedi in tampering with the government records and falsifying them to create fictitious Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30350 B.A. NO. 10494 OF 2024 7 ownership of the properties. The accused person Kamlesh Kumar was knowingly a party with the co- accused person Amrendra Kumar Dubey in the activities related to cheating the intended buyers of the immovable properties (land) at Mauja Nagri and other criminal activities, which are schedule offences under PMLA, 2002 and luring them to pay money against the said properties which were not returned to them even the properties were not delivered. The accused person Kamlesh Kumar knowingly sold properties at Mauja Chama, Kanke Anchal by way of 15 sale deeds and acquired proceeds of crime by keeping his persons at front and using their bank accounts. The accused person was directly involved in storage of ammunitions at his residential premises which were recovered during searches dated 21.06.2024. The said ammunitions and arms related to it were used in forceful acquisition of the landed properties of the villagers of Kanke Anchal, Ranchi which is also evident from the FIR no. 117/2024 dated 04.04.2024 registered by P.S. Kanke Ranchi Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30350 B.A. NO. 10494 OF 2024 8 under section 147, 148, 149, 448, 341, 323 and 379 of IPC 1860 against Kamlesh Kumar. Thus, the accused person namely Kamlesh Kumar is directly a party and is knowingly involved in the processes and activities connected with proceeds of crime including their acquisition, possession, concealment and use and projecting and claiming the said proceeds of crime as untainted property. As such, the accused person Kamlesh Kumar has committed the offence of money laundering as defined under section 3 of PMLA, 2002 and is liable to be punished under Section 4 of PMLA, 2002.” 7. In the case of V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2626, it has been held as follows: “26. There are a series of decisions of this Court starting from the decision in the case of K.A. Najeeb, which hold that such stringent provisions for the grant of bail do not take away the power of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India. We have already referred to paragraph 17 of Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30350 B.A. NO. 10494 OF 2024 9 the said decision, which lays down that the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed in a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. One of the reasons is that if, because of such provisions, incarceration of an undertrial accused is continued for an unreasonably long time, the provisions may be exposed to the vice of being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 27. Under the Statutes like PMLA, the minimum sentence is three years, and the maximum is seven years. The minimum sentence is higher when the scheduled offence is under the NDPS Act. When the trial of the complaint under PMLA is likely to prolong beyond reasonable limits, the Constitutional Courts will have to consider exercising their powers to grant bail. The reason is that Section 45(1)(ii) does not confer power on the State to detain an accused for an unreasonably long time, especially when there is no possibility of trial concluding within a reasonable time. What a Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30350 B.A. NO. 10494 OF 2024 10 reasonable time is will depend on the provisions under which the accused is being tried and other factors. One of the most relevant factor is the duration of the minimum and maximum sentence for the offence. Another important consideration is the higher threshold or stringent conditions which a statute provides for the grant of bail. Even an outer limit provided by the relevant law for the completion of the trial, if any, is also a factor to be considered. The extraordinary powers, as held in the case of K.A. Najeeb, can only be exercised by the Constitutional Courts. The Judges of the Constitutional Courts have vast experience. Based on the facts on record, if the Judges conclude that there is no possibility of a trial concluding in a reasonable time, the power of granting bail can always be exercised by the Constitutional Courts on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the statutory provisions. The Constitutional Courts can always exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 226, as the case may be. The Constitutional Courts have to bear in Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30350 B.A. NO. 10494 OF 2024 11 mind while dealing with the cases under the PMLA that, except in a few exceptional cases, the maximum sentence can be of seven years. The Constitutional Courts cannot allow provisions like Section 45(1)(ii) to become instruments in the hands of the ED to continue incarceration for a long time when there is no possibility of a trial of the scheduled offence and the PMLA offence concluding within a reasonable time. If the Constitutional Courts do not exercise their jurisdiction in such cases, the rights of the undertrials under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be defeated. In a given case, if an undue delay in the disposal of the trial of scheduled offences or disposal of trial under the PMLA can be substantially attributed to the accused, the Constitutional Courts can always decline to exercise jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs. An exception will also be in a case where, considering the antecedents of the accused, there is every possibility of the accused becoming a real threat to society if enlarged on bail. The jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs is always Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30350 B.A. NO. 10494 OF 2024 12 discretionary. 29. As stated earlier, the appellant has been incarcerated for 15 months or more for the offence punishable under the PMLA. In the facts of the case, the trial of the scheduled offences and, consequently, the PMLA offence is not likely to be completed in three to four years or even more. If the appellant's detention is continued, it will amount to an infringement of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of speedy trial.” 8. In Chanpreet Singh Rayat v. Enforcement Directorate reported in 2024 SCC online Delhi 6264, it has been held as follows: “16. The petitioner has asserted that the investigating agency has erred and employed a pick and choose method while arresting the accused persons. No pattern or formula has been followed while arresting the accused persons and the Hawala Agents and the statements of the Hawala Agents and the other accused persons have been named as credible and reliable Public Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30350 B.A. NO. 10494 OF 2024 13 Witnesses on whose testimony the petitioner has been arrested. 17. The Petitioner has referred to Ramesh Manglani v. ED, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3234 wherein it was observed that considering all the offences wherein the gravamen of the offence is that several persons acting in concert have siphoned off and laundered money then it is manifestly arbitrary for the ED to have made selective arrests. Reliance has also been placed on Sanjay Jain v. ED bearing Bail Application No. 3807/2022. 56. In Vijay Madanlal (Supra) the Apex Court has explicitly provided that what is required to be seen is a prima facie case and not to look into the test of guilt. The delicate balance between the judgment of acquittal and conviction and an Order granting bail before commencement of trial, needs to be maintained. The Court cannot meticulously examine the evidence and cannot hold a mini trial at this stage. The Court is only required to examine the case on the basis of broad probability. Similar have been the observations made by the Apex Court in Ranjit Singh Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30350 B.A. NO. 10494 OF 2024 14 Brahmjeet Singh (supra).” 9. In the case of Prem Prakash v. Union of India reported in (2024) 9 SCC 787, it has been held as under: “19. In view of the importance of the three basic foundational facts that the prosecution needs to establish, the counter/response to the bail application in the original court is very significant in PMLA bail matters. In cases where the Public Prosecutor takes a considered decision to oppose the bail application, the counter-affidavit of the investigating agency should make out a cogent case as to how the three foundational facts set out hereinabove are prima facie established in the given case to help the court at the bail application stage to arrive at a conclusion within the framework laid down in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1]. It is only thereafter the presumption under Section 24 would arise and the burden would shift on the accused. The counter to the bail application should specifically crystallise albeit briefly the material sought to be relied upon to establish prima facie Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30350 B.A. NO. 10494 OF 2024 15 the three foundational facts. It is after the foundational facts are set out that the accused will assume the burden to convince the court within the parameters of the enquiry at the Section 45 stage that for the reasons adduced by him there are reasonable grounds to believing that he is not guilty of such offence. 38. We have no hesitation in holding that when an accused is in custody under PMLA irrespective of the case for which he is under custody, any statement under Section 50 PMLA to the same investigating agency is inadmissible against the maker. The reason being that the person in custody pursuant to the proceeding investigated by the same investigating agency is not a person who can be considered as one operating with a free mind. It will be extremely unsafe to render such statements admissible against the maker, as such a course of action would be contrary to all canons of fair play and justice.” 10. What would fall from the findings recorded by the investigating agency is of the fraudulent activities of the petitioner in illegally acquiring properties which include non- saleable lands and thereafter selling them to the purchasers. The petitioner has given an explanation with respect to the Neutral Citation 2025:JHHC:30350 B.A. NO. 10494 OF 2024 16 various allegations made in the First Information Report which led to the institution of ECIR/RNZO/14/2024. The petitioner is in custody since 26-07-2024 and there is no chance of the trial being concluded in the near future. On consideration of the period of detention of the petitioner, I am inclined to admit the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi in connection with ECIR No. 05/2024 corresponding to ECIR/RNZO/14/2024. 11. This application stands allowed. 12. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 26th Day of September, 2025 Preet/N.A.F.R.