2025:JHHC:37923 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M.P No. 1929 of 2025 --------------- Shri Rony Mondal aged about 47 years, son of Shri Nandalal Mondal, resident of Nonachandanpukur, Titagarh, Barrakpore, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal. PO+PS:- Nonachandanpukur, Dist :- North 24 Parganas, West Bengal, Kolkata; State (West-Bengal). ............Petitioner/Accused Versus Directorate of Enforcement represented through its Assistant Director, Ranchi Zonal Office, Plot No. 1502/B, Airport Road, P.O. & P.S. Hinoo, District Ranchi, Jharkhand (ed-ranchi@gov.in) ...... Opposite Party CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD For the Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Chandra, Advocate For the OP-ED : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate Mr. Varun Girdhar, Advocate Order No.06/Dated: 17th December, 2025 1. This application has been filed under section 528 of the BNSS Act, 2023 challenging the order dated 31.01.2025 passed in ECIR No.06/2024 arising out of ECIR-RNZO/17/2024 whereby and whereunder the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence committed under section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short, PML Act) as also under section 4 thereof. Factual Matrix 2. The prosecution story in brief as per the ECIR, as has been referred in the present petition, needs to be referred herein which reads under as: (i) That the petitioner has been arrayed as Accused No.1 in the prosecution complaint No.ECIR/6/2024 filed by the Enforcement Directorate before the Special Court. (ii) That the prosecution case has a nexus with the FIR No. 188 of 2024 Dated 4.06.2024 lodged by P.S. Bariyatu District Ranchi 2025:JHHC:37923 2 Jharkhand. As during the investigation of the said case only that the opposite party got the trail of the instant case. (iii) As per the aforesaid FIR, one Nipah Akhtar Khushi aged about 21 years hailing from Bangladesh was brought to Kolkata by a girl named Manisha Rai with the help of another girl named Jhuma on the midnight of 31.05.2024, by illegal crossing Bangladesh border from the jungle area, on the pretext of getting work. The said Nipah Akhtar Khushi was then brought to Ranchi by car where she was first kept at Bali Resort, Ranchi for two days with other girls (who were already kept there). The Bangladeshi girl namely Nipah Akhtar and another girl Hassi Akhtar alias Hasi Vishwas, also hailing from Bangladesh, were kept at one Apartment with two others different Bangladeshi girls Praveen and Jhuma. Jhuma had helped Nipah Akhtar Khushi in crossing the Bangladeshi border to enter into India. These girls were brought illegally there for prostitution. On 03.06.2024 taking advantage of the opportunity, the girl Nipah Akhtar Khushi sneaked away and somehow reached to the Police and lodged the complaint. (iv) After registering a complaint on 04.06.2024 at around 15:30 hrs, the police conducted raids and three girls out of which 2 girls hailing from Bangladesh were found inside one room at Bail Resort at Ranchi. It further revealed that the rooms were booked by one Manisha Rai and her guests were accommodated here. Further upon searching the rooms police recovered some mobile and a fake Aadhaar card which was meant to stay 2025:JHHC:37923 3 fraudulently in India by one Bangladeshi national connected to the above stated person. (v) The above F.I.R was registered under section 420,467,471 & 34 of IPC, 1860; Section 12 of Passport Act 1967 and 14 A of Foreigners Act, 1946. Since most of the act comes within the purview of schedule offences under PMLA,2002 the instant ECIR: RNZO/17/2024 was recorded for investigation under PMLA,2002. (vi) During the course of investigation under PMLA, 2002, the CDR analysis of mobile number used by suspects were investigated. It came to the notice of opposite party that SDR of one mobile number 9007934310 revealed that the sim card is registered in the name of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had frequent contacts and calls with 42 different Bangladeshi numbers out of which several were among those with whom Manisha Rai had frequent contacts. (vii) On having reason to believe that the accused person is knowingly indulged in illegal activities pertaining to facilitation of illegal activities of illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi nationals in India and use, acquisition and possession of proceeds of crime generated therefrom, searches were conducted on 12.11.2024 under section 17 of PMLA, 2002 in the instant ECIR at several premises under the use and occupation of the accused. (viii) At the premise of the accused/petitioner searches were conducted by opposite parties and several incriminating material records/documents including passport No. K 12228139 and H 2025:JHHC:37923 4 1728795 in the name of Rony Mandal cancelled by the passport seva Kendra, Kolkata along with unauthorized arms and ammunitions as well as cash amounting to Rs 5 Lacs were recovered along with gold jewellery were seized. Further, SCN issued by the Ministry of External Affairs, Govt of India was recovered from the said premises which reveals that the accused/Petitioner is a Bangladeshi National and has fraudulently acquired Indian Citizenship on the basis of false and fabricated documents. (ix) Since, no satisfactory explanation was received from the accused/petitioner with respect to cash, jewellery and ammunition hence the same was seized and accused was arrested and is in judicial custody or in custody of the Directorate of Enforcement 14.11.2024. (x) That subsequent to the same ED filed Complaint bearing No. ECIR/6/2024 before the Special Court on 31.01.2025. 3. The petitioner has been found to be involved in the alleged crime on the basis of the material collected in course of investigation as also based upon the statement recorded under section 50 of the PML Act, 2002. A charge-sheet was submitted and the learned trial Court before taking cognizance has posted the matter for hearing on the point of cognizance on 10.01.2025. 4. The cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offence said to be committed under section 3 of the PML Act, 2002 punishable under section 4 thereof on the basis of the materials collected and after taking into consideration the same by the concerned Court. 2025:JHHC:37923 5 5. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the opportunity of hearing as per the proviso contained in the Section 223 of BNSS Act, 2023 that prior to taking cognizance the opportunity of hearing is to be given to the accused persons. 6. The said opportunity, according to the petitioner, has been provided to him but the grievance of the petitioner is that providing the said opportunity has become meaningless due to non-supply of the police paper. 7. The order taking cognizance, on the aforesaid pretext, has been challenged by filing the present petition. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner 8. Mr. Praveen Chandra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the entire scheme of BNSS, 2023 is for the purpose of providing effect opportunity of hearing prior to the stage of cognizance and, as such, impliedly it is incumbent upon the concerned Court to put command upon the prosecuting agency to supply police paper in favour of the accused person so that the opportunity of hearing be said to be effective one for the purpose of achieving the object of proviso of section 223 of BNSS Act, 2023. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent 9. While, on the other hand, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel appearing for the OP-Enforcement Directorate, while defending the impugned judgment, has submitted that as provided under the Statute particularly under the proviso to section 223 of the BNSS Act, 2023 the petitioner had been given an opportunity of hearing by posting the case for hearing on the point of taking cognizance on 10.01.2025. 2025:JHHC:37923 6 10. The Court after providing the aforesaid opportunity, as per the scheme of the proviso to section 223 of the BNSS, 2023, has found the ample material against the petitioner for attracting the ingredient of section 3 of PML Act, 2002 punishable under section 4 thereof and, as such, has taken cognizance under the aforesaid provision. 11. It has been submitted that once it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that at the stage of cognizance the police paper is to be supplied, the same is not the provision provided under BNSS Act, 2023 and even it was not there in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), rather the stage of police paper/report is subsequent to the order taking cognizance but prior to framing of charge, i.e., prior to proceeding further trial the police paper/report is to be supplied as provided under section 207 of the Cr.P.C pari- materia thereto under section 230 of the BNSS Act, 2023. 12. 12. It has been contended that if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, then the same will be contrary to the statutory provision as provided both under Cr.P.C and BNSS and further the same cannot be said to be just and proper otherwise if the police report will be considered by the Court at the stage of cognizance itself, then for what purpose the trial will go on. 13. The trial in the aforesaid circumstances will be a futile exercise and the defence will be prejudiced since all the defence at the stage of cognizance itself is available on record. 14. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid submission, has submitted that the order taking cognizance, therefore, suffers from no error and the ground which is being taken in challenging the order taking cognizance 2025:JHHC:37923 7 is not worth to be considered for the purpose of passing any positive direction. Analysis 15. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned order as also the averment made in the petitioner and the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the OP-Enforcement Directorate. 16. The issue which requires consideration in the present case as to whether the order taking cognizance dated 31.01.2025 suffers from impropriety due to non-supply of the police paper/report at the stage of order taking cognizance. 17. This Court, in order to consider the aforesaid issue, needs to refer herein the provision of cognizance which is to be taken under the Section 190 of the Cr.P.C prior to its repealment, as also the pari- materia provision as provided under the Section 210 of BNSS Act, 2023, for ready reference both the provisions are being referred herein which read as under: “190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence— (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence; (b) upon a police report of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try.” 2025:JHHC:37923 8 210. Cognizance of offences by Magistrate.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2), may take cognizance of any offence— (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts, including any complaint filed by a person authorised under any special law, which constitutes such offence; (b) upon a police report (submitted in any mode including electronic mode) of such facts; (c) upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his competence to inquire into or try. 18. It is evident from the provisions as referred hereinabove that the stage of police paper/report is after the order taking cognizance. Although in the Cr.P.C no provision was there having an opportunity to the accused person to be heard at the stage of taking cognizance. The departure has been made in the BNSS Act, 2023 in order to make the criminal jurisprudence fairer and more transparent one and, as such, the thoughtful consideration has been taken for the purpose of providing opportunity to the accused persons at the time of taking cognizance. The BNSS Act, 2023, therefore, has contained with the provision under proviso to section 223 that no Court shall take cognizance without providing opportunity of hearing to the accused person. 19. Opportunity of hearing does not mean that the accused persons are to be provided the police paper prior to taking cognizance. The reason for this is that if the police paper at that stage is to be supplied and if it has been considered at the stage of pre-cognizance, then what remains to be considered by the trial Court at the consequent stage of trial. 2025:JHHC:37923 9 20. The collection of documents in course of investigation depends upon the appreciation by the concerned Court, but prior to that the document is to be confronted to the witnesses for proving it either by the prosecution or by the defence, as the case may be. 21. The stage of police paper is the part of the trial and without supplying the police paper it cannot be imagine that the trial is allowed to be proceeded, but at time of order taking cognizance which is initiated by taking cognizance of an offence by the concerned Court having jurisdiction to take cognizance, supply of police paper/report to the accused is not required. 22. This is being said herein for the reason that suppose the cognizance has been taken, but before framing the charge there remains chances of discharge, based upon the discharge application which is to be filed by one of other accused persons, and that is the reason the cognizance is not the stage to say that the trial has commenced fully because the charge is yet to be framed depending upon the discharge petition, if filed on behalf of one or the other accused persons. 23. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case, this Court is of the view that the opportunity of hearing had already been given at the stage of cognizance which is not in dispute as also would be evident from the impugned order, but what has been contended that the opportunity is said to be there only after supply of police paper/report but it is considered view of this Court based on the discussion made hereinabove is of the view that such contention cannot be accepted . 2025:JHHC:37923 10 24. Further, it has been submitted on behalf of the OP-Enforcement Directorate that subsequently the police paper has also been supplied, charge has been framed and now the evidences are going on. 25. Considering the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the order impugned dated 31.01.2025 does not want any interference and, accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. 26. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Dated:17.12.2025 Sudhir A.F.R.