[2025:JHHC:13421] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 638 of 2025 Md. Afsar Ali @ Afshar Ali @ Afsu Khan, aged about 55 years, son of Late Abid Khan, resident of near Millat Colony, Bariatu Basti, P.O. and P.S.-Bariatu, District-Ranchi. ..... … Petitioner Versus Directorate of Enforcement, Zonal Office, Ranchi. ..... … Opposite Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate. : Ms. Sonal Sodhani, Advocate. For the ED : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate. : Mr. Sourav Kumar, Advocate. ----- 07/ 02.05.2025 Heard Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED). 2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail, in connection with ECIR Case No. 01/2023 arising out of ECIR/RNZO/18/2022, registered for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I-Cum-Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi. 3. Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that by the earlier order dated 30.08.2024 passed in B.A. No. 8244 of 2023, this court has rejected the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and thereafter the present petition has been filed seeking the regular bail. He submits that this petition has been directly filed before the High Court instead of filing before the learned trial court. He further submits that this aspect of the matter has already been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in [2025:JHHC:13421] -2- Twinkle Soni & Anr. Versus State of Jharkhand, reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Jhar 2008. He submits that on merits of the case, the prayer for regular bail of this petitioner has already been rejected by order dated 30.08.2024 passed in B.A. No. 8244 of 2023 and the present bail application has been filed only on the ground of the period of custody and also on the ground of delay in conclusion of the trial. He submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 14.04.2023. 4. Learned counsel submits that for the predicate offence, the case has been registered on 04.06.2022, being Bariatu P.S. Case No. 141 of 2022 and further ECIR Case No. 01 of 2023 was registered on 21.10.2022, however, the petitioner herein was not the accused in the Original ECIR and subsequently he was remanded on 14.04.2023 in that case. He further submits that in another ECIR case, being ECIR Case No. 05 of 2023, the petitioner was made accused and the bail application of this petitioner in that case has been rejected on 11.04.2025 in B.A. No. 3193 of 2024 by the co- ordinate bench of this court. He further submits that the petitioner was further made an accused in another ECIR, being ECIR Case No. 06 of 2023 and the bail application in that case of the petitioner was rejected on 10.02.2025 in B.A. No. 499 of 2025 by the co-ordinate bench of this court. 5. He submits that in light of the case of Manish Sisodia Versus Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, the long custody was the ground of granting bail, in view of that the earlier bail application of the petitioner was rejected observing that there was no assurance so far as the present case is concerned of conclusion of trial very soon and in the case of Manish [2025:JHHC:13421] -3- Sisodia (Supra), that submission was made by the ED, in view of that the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected saying that if the assurance is there and the trial is not concluded, then the ratio of that case may apply to the case of the petitioner. He submits that now the petitioner herein has remained in judicial custody more than 24 months, in view of that the petitioner deserves the regular bail and there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial, as only two witnesses have been examined by the ED till date and the last was examined on 27.09.2024. 6. He further submits that the case of V. Senthil Balaji Versus Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626, where in para-27, Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was considered and it has been held that for the indefinite period, nobody can be incarcerated with the custody and duration of minimum and maximum sentence for the offence is required to be considered and if there is no possibility of conclusion of trial, the accused is required to be released on bail. Relying on the said judgment, he submits that on the point of custody, the petitioner may kindly be released on bail. 7. Learned counsel has further relied in the case of Rajesh Rai Versus Directorate of Enforcement in Criminal Appeal No. 163 of 2025 [arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 17720 of 2024] and submits that only on the ground of custody in a PMLA Case, the said Rajesh Rai has been granted regular bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Based on Rajesh Rai Case (Supra), one Bharat Prasad in the case of Bharat Prasad Versus Union of India, has also been enlarged on bail in Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 2025 [arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 51604 of 2024] by the Hon’ble Supreme [2025:JHHC:13421] -4- Court. 8. Learned counsel further submits that one Virendra Kumar Ram was an accused in another ECIR case, was also granted regular bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the ratio of V. Senthil Bajaji (Supra) in the case of Virendra Kumar Ram Versus Union of India, in Criminal Appeal No. 4615 of 2024 [arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 12667 of 2024]. 9. On the ground of expeditious trial and on the ground of liberty and considering Article-21 of the Constitution of India, one Viajy Nair was granted regular bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Nair Versus Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3597. 10. On the point of incarceration, he relied in the case of Neeraj Singal Versus Directorate of Enforcement in SLP (Crl.) No. 8439-8440 of 2024 and submits that on the ground of judicial incarceration, he was also released on regular bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He submits that considering the case of Manish Sisodia (Supra), the case of Padam Chand Jain Versus Enforcement Directorate, in SLP (Crl.) No. 17476 of 2024 was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and he was granted regular bail considering the custody and large number of prosecution witnesses. 11. He further submits that in the case of Mohd. Enamul Haque Versus Directorate of Enforcement, in Criminal Appeal No. 3984 of 2024 [arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 11129 of 2024], he was granted regular bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering that the trial was not yet started and he was in custody for 2 ½ years. [2025:JHHC:13421] -5- 12. Learned counsel further submits that one Kanhaiya Prasad was granted regular bail by the Patna High Court, which was challenged by the ED before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India through the Assistant Director Versus Kanhaiya Prasad, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 306, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme court has been pleased to cancel the bail of the petitioner considering that he has remained in custody for seven months only, however, that case will not apply in the case of the petitioner, as in the present case, the petitioner has remained in custody more than two years. He submits that the case of Kanhaiya Prasad (Supra) was relied by the ED in the case of Udhaw Singh Versus Enforcement Directorate, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 357 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to grant bail to said Udhaw Singh considering that the Kanhaiya Prasad’s bail was cancelled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that only seven months incarceration was there, in view of that the said case is not applied in the case of Udhaw Singh and after that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to granted regular bail to said Udhaw Singh. 13. In light of the above submissions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the custody of the petitioner, he may kindly be allowed on regular bail. He draws the attention of the court to Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and submits that the petitioner is entitled for the regular bail. He also submits that one of the co-accused has also been granted regular bail in this case, as such, petitioner may kindly be allowed the regular bail. 14. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate has opposed the prayer [2025:JHHC:13421] -6- and submits that so far as merits of the case is concerned, that has already been considered by this court by a detailed order dated 30.08.2024 passed in B.A. No. 8244 of 2023, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner has already been rejected. He submits that serious allegations are there and he is accused in three ECIR cases besides other case. He submits that so far as ECIR Case No. 01 of 2023 is concerned, one another co-accused Talhan Khan’s regular bail has already been rejected by the co-ordinate bench of this court in B.A. No. 10272 of 2024 and his role was of assisting the petitioner and the petitioner is the main accused with regard to tampering of the deeds and that has also been done by way of manipulating the offices at Kolkata. 15. He further submits that another co-accused, being an IAS officer namely Chhavi Ranjan, his regular bail has also been rejected by the co-ordinate bench of this court in B.A. No. 9247 of 2023 and said Chhavi Ranjan is also incarceration since June, 2023. He also submits that further the prayer for regular bail of another co-accused, namely Amit Kumar Agrawal has been rejected by the co-ordinate bench in B.A. No. 7343 of 2023 and said Amit Kumar Agrawal is in custody since 19.06.2023. 16. On the above ground, learned counsel appearing for the ED submits that the petitioner has renewed his prayer for regular bail on the ground of period of custody. He submits that the petitioner may not be released on bail, as he is accused in three of the ECIR cases and in other cases related to the predicate offences. 17. He submits that the petitioner is also an accused in ECIR case No. 05 of 2023 and in that case, his regular bail has already been rejected by the co-ordinate bench in B.A. No. 3193 of 2024 by [2025:JHHC:13421] -7- the judgment dated 11.04.2023 and in ECIR case No. 06 of 2023, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was also rejected in B.A. No. 8380 of 2024 by the co-ordinate bench by the judgment dated 25.04.2025. 18. Relying on the above facts, he submits that on the ground of custody, the petitioner is also not deserving the concession of regular bail, as the allegations against him very serious in nature and he is the main accused, who has manipulated the things. He further draws the attention of the court to Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, particularly Sub-Section (2) of the said Section and submits that the said sub-section bars the bail, where an investigation, inquiry of trial in more than one offence or in multiple cases are pending against a person. He submits that the petitioner herein, even not completed his 1/3rd of the sentence, in view of that, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail. 19. Learned counsel appearing for the ED submits that ED has taken all efforts to conclude the trial as early as possible and all the witnesses are ready, however, there are many accused in the ECIR cases and one and another accused, everyday are filing one petition and another and that is the cause of delaying the evidence to be led by the ED. He submits that on 25.04.2025, the learned trial court has disposed of all these petitions, which have been preferred by the other co-accused before the learned trial court and now the ED has taken his all endeavour to examine the further witnesses and there is likelihood that witnesses will be examined and they will try to examine remaining 29 witnesses expeditiously subject to the co- operation of the accused persons. [2025:JHHC:13421] -8- 20. In view of the above, the court has gone through the materials on record and anxiously considered the arguments advanced by both the parties. It is an admitted position that the petitioner herein is an accused in three ECIR cases instituted by the ED and it was further pointed out that he is also the accused in the predicate offence and one IPC Sections case. 21. So far as predicate offence, being Bariatu P.S. Case No. 141 of 2022 corresponding to G.R. No. 2089 of 2024 is concerned, the prayer for regular bail of this petitioner has already been rejected by the co-ordinate bench of this court by order dated 10.02.2025 in B.A. No. 499 of 2025 along with other co-accused persons and further in two another ECIR cases, his regular bail has already been rejected by the co-ordinate bench by judgments dated 11.04.2025 and 24.04.2025 in B.A. Nos. 3193 of 2024 and B.A. No. 8380 of 2024 respectively by the co-ordinate bench of this court and on merits, this court has also rejected the prayer for regular bail of this petitioner on 30.08.2024 passed in B.A. No. 8244 of 2023. 22. Allegation against this petitioner is that he said to be the Government employee of RIMS, Ranchi and he was involved in preparation of the fake deeds at Kolkata and the number of deeds are 35 in numbers. He is involved in preparation of the said deeds, deliberately manufactured back dated deeds of the targeted landed property from Kolkata and implanted in original registers available at the office of Records of Registrar of Assurance, Kolkata and thereafter they used to take certified copies of those deeds and then they used to dispose of the said property in connivance with each other, wherein the petitioner is said to be the main conspirator of the said crime. [2025:JHHC:13421] -9- 23. In view of the above facts, it is crystal clear that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he is involved in three of the ECIR cases and also in the predicate offence of the case of IPC Sections. 24. So far the case of Manish Sisodia (Supra), on which, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is concerned, in that case, he was involved in one case and in that view of the matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has found that the trial is not going to be concluded shortly and thereafter granted regular bail to him. 25. This court while rejecting the regular bail application of the petitioner, while distinguishing the said judgment of Manish Sisodia (Supra), has only observed that once the ED informed the court and thereafter the trial is not concluded, in that view of the matter, the Manish Sisodia’s case (Supra), may help to the petitioner, however, that was only by way of only observation and there was not the definite direction that if the trial is not concluded, the petitioner can make a regular bail before this court. In the case of Manish Sisodia (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme court has given the liberty to file the regular bail before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 26. It has been pointed out that two of the witnesses have already been examined by the ED and further 29 witnesses are remained to be examined, the court finds force in the submission of Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the ED that the accused persons are trying to delay the trial by way of filing one petition to another petition and finally the petitions filed by the other accused persons in the present ECIR case, all have been disposed of by the learned trial court on 25.04.2025. Thus, prima facie, not examining other witnesses by the ED, fault of the ED cannot be held and it is [2025:JHHC:13421] -10- the accused persons, who are trying to delay the trial by way of filing one or another petition. 27. In the judgments relied by Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the cases of Manish Sisodia, V. Senthil Balaji, Rajesh Rai, Bharat Prasad, Virendra Kumar Ram, Vijay Nair, Neeraj Singhal, Padam Chand Jain and Udhaw Singh (supras) they were accused in only one case, except in the case of V. Senthil Balaji. 28. In regard to limitation under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the limitation of granting bail was considered in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Versus Rajesh Ranjan, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528, where in para-11, it has been held as under:- “11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non- application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of [2025:JHHC:13421] -11- conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge." 29. Before proceeding further, it is also necessary to remind the scope of jurisdiction to be exercised while granting bail in the economic offence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy versus CBI, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 528 at paras-34 and 35, held as under: “34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations." 30. Section 479 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, [2025:JHHC:13421] -12- 2023 stipulates as under:- “479. Maximum period for which undertrial prisoner can be detained. (1)Where a person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Sanhita of an offence under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death or life imprisonment has been specified as one of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be released by the Court on bail: Provided that where such person is a first- time offender (who has never been convicted of any offence in the past) he shall be released on bond by the Court, if he has undergone detention for the period extending up to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for such offence under that law: Provided further that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than one-half of the said period or release him on bail bond instead of his bond: Provided also that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the said offence under that law. Explanation.-In computing the period of detention under this section for granting [2025:JHHC:13421] -13- bail, the period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded. (2)Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (1), and subject to the third proviso thereof, where an investigation, inquiry or trial in more than one offence or in multiple cases are pending against a person, he shall not be released on bail by the Court. (3)The Superintendent of jail, where the accused person is detained, on completion of one-half or one-third of the period mentioned in sub-section (1), as the case may be, shall forthwith make an application in writing to the Court to proceed under sub-section (1) for the release of such person on bail.” 31. In view of the above, it transpires that in light of the proviso of Sub-Section (1) of Section 479, one can be released on bail for the period extending, if he has incarcerated in custody up to one-third of the maximum period of punishment, specified for such offence under that law. 32. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is an accused in three of ECIR cases and in other IPC Section Case, as pointed out and the investigation has already been completed in those cases, in view of sub-Section-(2) of Section 479, the investigation, inquiry or trial in more than one offence or in multiple cases are pending against a person, there is a bar of releasing that person on bail, in view of that Section, as such, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner so far as Section 479 is concerned, that is being not accepted by this court. 33. In view of the above facts, reasons and considering that [2025:JHHC:13421] -14- so far as the judgment relied by Mr. Nilesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein on the point of period of custody, the petitioner shall be released on bail, is distinguishable in the facts of the present case, as discussed hereinabove, as the petitioner is an accused in three ECIR cases and other in IPC Section case and further he has played a key role in manipulating the deeds and further in two of the ECIR cases, the co-ordinate bench has already rejected the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and further in IPC Section case also there against him and the prayer for bail of this petitioner has already been rejected by the co-ordinate bench, as noted hereinabove. 34. In light of the above, this court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner, named above. As such, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is rejected. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/-