[2025:RJ-JP:40204] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1695/2025 Mahmood Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Flat No. 803, 8Th Floor, Emerald, Plot No. C-11 And 12, Ashok Vihar, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Directorate of Enforcement, through its Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, (The Prevention Of Money Laundering Act, 2002) Government Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue Jaipur Zonal Office, 2Nd Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-Ii, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora with Mr. Sahaj Veer Baweja For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ASG (Sr. Advocate) with Mr. Akshaya Bhardwaj & Mr. Devesh Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 26/09/2025 1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Mahmood Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as ECIR No.JPZO/011/2020 dated 10.08.2020 registered by Directorate of Enforcement, Jaipur for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 4 of PMLA, 2002. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more [2025:RJ-JP:40204] (2 of 19) [CRLMB-1695/2025] required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with trial, which will take time. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present bail application is filed on behalf of the petitioner-accused who was charged by respondent in the case of PMLA bearing No. ECIR No.JPZO/011/2020 dated 10.08.2020 wherein the present petitioner was arrested on 10.09.2024 and since then he is in custody and the criminal case is at preliminary stage, after filing of complaint. He further referred the material and submitted that FIR No.162/2022 dated 25.02.2020 was registered at Shipra Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur in relation to a Cyber fraud wherein the petitioner accused was granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 04.02.2022 whereas another FIR No.11/2020 was registered on 17.03.2020 at Police Station Cyber Crime for alleged offence in involvement of Cyber criminal activity and present petitioner was released on bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan First on 23.11.2021. He further submitted that in both these matters, investigation is concluded and a charge-sheet has been filed, wherein more than 55 witnesses are listed in each of the case and still not a single witness has been examined so far. He further submitted that on basis of these two predicate offence, respondent-ED has registered one ECIR and after investigation filed a complaint [2025:RJ-JP:40204] (3 of 19) [CRLMB-1695/2025] before the Special Court with a list of 46 witnesses, and recording of 46 witnesses will take time. He further submitted that in the instant case four arrested accused Shanawaz Jeelani, Viraj Singh Kuntal, Rafiq Khan and Vipin Kumar released on bail. He further submitted that presently the present petitioner is facing charge similar to other accused and on ground of parity, he is entitled to be released on bail. 4. Learned counsel further submits that as per report Shanawaz Jeelani and present petitioner were named as kingpin of the entire network of Cyber criminal activity, as alleged by Enforcement Directorate but Shanawaz Jeelani was already released on bail. The case of the present petitioner is squarely covered with the order of Shahawaz Jeelani dated 22.04.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court. He referred the charge as leveled by ED and submitted that the offence for which the present petitioner is charged is having maximum punishment of three years to seven years and there are no likelihood that the petitioner may flee from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He referred Article 21 of the Constitution of India and submitted that unnecessary incarceration is sufficient to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA Act, 2002. He further referred the material on record that there is no allegation of continuing the predicate offence and identically charged accused are already released on bail so that twin condition under Section 45 of PMLA is satisfied. He further referred Section 19 of PMLA and further the ground of arrest [2025:RJ-JP:40204] (4 of 19) [CRLMB-1695/2025] as mentioned in order dated 10.09.2024 and submitted that the ground does not require actual incarceration of the present petitioner but still he has been arrested by the ED without any justification. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment in case of Anwar Debar Vs. ED :(Criminal Appeal No.2669/25, order dated 19.05.2025), Manish Sisodia Vs. Enforcement Directorate :(2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920), V. Senthil Balaji Vs. Deputy Director, ED : (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626), Ramkripal Meena Vs. Directorate of Enforcement :(SLP No.3205/2024, order dated 30.07.2024), Padam Chand Jain Vs. Enforcement Directorate :(SLP No.14746/2024, order dated 16.01.2025), Mahesh Mittal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement :(S.B. Cr. Bail Application No. 13676/2024, order dated 04.02.2025), Pradeep Parashar Vs. ED :(S.B. Cr. Bail Application No.14017/2024, order dated 20.12.2014), Arvind Kejriwal Vs. ED (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1703), Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244) and Bijender Vs. State of Haryana (SLP Criminal No.1079/2024). He also placed reliance upon judgment in case of Sharukh Vs. State of MP (SLP Criminal 1830/2023, vide order dated 27.04.2023) and submitted that while claiming parity, a liberal approach has to be adopted and not a hyper technical view. Learned counsel has further submitted that out of two people similarly charged, one has already enlarged on bail and he is [2025:RJ-JP:40204] (5 of 19) [CRLMB-1695/2025] seeking parity on same ground. He further submitted that the period of custody is almost one year and same is sufficient in a case where punishment provided is three years to seven years. He also referred list of 110 witnesses in both the predicate offence and around 46 witnesses in current case requiring time to examine. Lastly, he pleaded that there is no apprehension against the petitioner for continuing of predicate offence as no case thereafter was registered against the petitioner accused. He referred details about the material forwarded by ED in charge-sheet showing role and involvement of the present petitioner. 6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondent- Enforcement Directorate on the ground that at the time of arrest, the present petitioner was informed about detailed ground and the grounds are sufficient to detain the petitioner accused for custodial interrogation. He further submitted that the present petitioner is kingpin and out of total proceed of rupees sixty one crore involved in the current case the present petitioner has received rupees forty crores and he has greater role than other co-accused such as Shanawaz Jeelani. He further referred bail orders of four accused persons Vipin Kumar Sharma, Shahnawaz Ahmed Jeelani, Rafiq Khan and Viraj Singh Kuntal and distinguished them from case of present petitioner. He further submitted that in predicate offence, the present petitioner, was released on bail but same is not sufficient to seek bail in a case relating to ED, as both are distinct offence. He further [2025:RJ-JP:40204] (6 of 19) [CRLMB-1695/2025] referred the provision of law and submitted that mere period of incarceration is not a ground to seek bail by any petitioner accused in case of PMLA Act. He further submitted that on earlier occasion, the statement of present petitioner was recorded by under Section 50 ED and during investigation, the statement was not found correct and ultimately on ground mentioned in the notice of ground of arrest, the petitioner accused was arrested. He also submitted that twin conditions as provided under Section 45 of PMLA Act are mandatory before granting the bail and if twin condition has not been satisfied then the bail cannot be granted to any accused. He submitted that whenever any bail is granted by the High Court, the same is canceled by the Supreme Court. He further submits that the material on record clearly indicate involvement of present petitioner and same is sufficient to reject the bail of present petitioner. 7. Learned Additional Solicitor General has placed reliance upon judgments in case of Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary Vs. Union of India : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Aditya Tripathi : (2023 SCC Online SC 619), The Union of India through ED Vs. Kanhaiya Prasad : (Criminal Appeal No.728/2025 Date of Judgment 13.02.2025), Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate (SLP Criminal No.9431/2023 Date of Judgment 20.11.2023), Rajuram @ Iram Vs. ED (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.352/2025 Date of Judgment 10.02.2025) and Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Mohit [2025:RJ-JP:40204] (7 of 19) [CRLMB-1695/2025] Aggarwal (Criminal Appeal Nos.1001-1002 of 2022 DOJ 19.07.2022) and submitted that before grant of bail, the Court has to satisfy reasonable ground for believing the accused that he has not committed any offence and not likely to commit offence while on bail. He submitted that all four accused who were released on bail were not kingpin rather the present petitioner is main kingpin who siphoned of more than 80% of the money collected from foreign nationals by committing predicate offence. He also submitted that before granting bail, the Hon’ble Court has to consider prima facie case in favour of the present petitioner after evaluating material on record. He referred and relied upon several judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court about principle to grant bail. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent-ED. Perused the material as placed on record and also the judgments as referred by both the parties. 9. The facts of the case are that police has registered two FIRs, first FIR No.162/2020 dated 25.02.2020 registered at Police Station Shipra Path, Mansarovar for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and second FIR No.11/2020 dated 17.03.2020 registered at PS Cyber Crime SOG under Sections 419, 420, 406 & 120-B of IPC and Sections 66C and 66D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The petitioner accused Mahmood Khan is arrested in both the [2025:RJ-JP:40204] (8 of 19) [CRLMB-1695/2025] matters and released on bail on 04.02.2022 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and learned Additional Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-First, respectively. Police has already filed charge-sheet in both the matters and a list of witnesses in each of the case which are more than 55, thus, the total witnesses are more than 110 witnesses. 10. The Enforcement Directorate (respondent) after receiving an information has conducted search at various place across the country in a case of fraud with the foreign nationals by mastermind Shahnawaj Ahmed Jeelani, Mahmud Khan and others. During search, it was noticed that two call centers, were running by them, who indulged in cheating foreign nationals. It was found that the syndicate opened virtual entity in USA in the name of dummy persons of India by impersonating them. After the raid, one ECIR was registered and investigation was conducted by ED. During investigation, ED has found role and involvement of several persons namely present petitioner Mahmood Khan and Shahnawaj Ahmed Jeelani. The statement of present petitioner was recorded under Section 50 of PMLA Act but at that time no coercive action was taken against present petitioner. Another accused Shahnawaj Ahmed Jeelani was arrested by ED, who was released on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench on 22.04.2025. Other accused Rafiq Khan was released on bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 07.03.2025 whereas Viraj Singh Kuntal on 02.09.2024 and Vipin Kumar by another Co- ordinate Bench on 17.07.2025. After serving detailed ground of arrest to present petitioner by the Assistant Director of ED [2025:RJ-JP:40204] (9 of 19) [CRLMB-1695/2025] on 10.09.2024, he has been arrested by ED and since then he is in custody. 11. The material on record as referred by learned Additional Solicitor General indicate that the present petitioner is directly involved in business and affairs of M/s Skyway I-Net Solutions Pvt. Ltd, M/s. Skiral Services Pvt. Ltd, M/s Dewan Solutions as director/Proprietor and he received more than 19 crores from said entities. He also referred M/S. Skyway I-Net Solutions Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Sthenic Solutions, M/s. Hirise Solution, M/s. S.S. Consultancy, M/s. Simplona Solutions and submitted that these were controlled by the present petitioner and around ₹20 crores were received by the present petitioner. The present petitioner has received more than ₹38 crores from said entities by way of direct and indirect control and supervision of said firms. 12. In the instant case, after filing of first charge-sheet, two supplementary complaints were filed before the ED with the material on record sufficient to nail the present petitioner. The material on record clearly indicate that the present petitioner was named as main person behind the entire network of cheating with foreign nationals. Shahnawaj Ahmed Jeelani was arrested on 28.06.2023 and was granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench on 22.04.2025 on the ground that similarly placed person Rafiq Khan was granted bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court and also that despite custody of 18 months, the trial has not begin in the case. Accused Rafiq Khan was granted bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 07.03.2025 on ground that the allegation upon Rafiq Khan is [2025:RJ-JP:40204] (10 of 19) [CRLMB-1695/2025] of laundering money to the extent of nearly ₹ 3.2 crore and the petitioner is in custody for nearly one year. 13. In case of Shahrukh @ Banti Vs. The State of Madhya Prakesh (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered parity in a sense that once a charge-sheet is filed and the co-accused released on bail, then the only question before the Court is whether the continued detention of one accused is necessary despite the release of the co-accused. 14. In case of Anwar Dhebar Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail after considering the judgment in case of V. Senthli Balaji Vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement : 2024 INSC 739, as there are no possibility of commencing of trial in near future and the number of witnesses are more than 40 in the list submitted by ED. In case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) wherein case involves thousands of pages of documents and there is not even remotest possibility of the trial being concluded in near future and keeping the accused behind the bars for an unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy completion of trial would result in deprivation of fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 15. In case of Kalvakuntla Kavitha Vs. Directorate of Enforcement : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2269, Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering Section 45 of PMLA Act in light of judgment in case of Manish Sisodia (supra) and further considering judgment in case of Saumya Chaurasia [2025:RJ-JP:40204] (11 of 19) [CRLMB-1695/2025] Vs. Directorate of Enforcement : 2023 INSC 1073 has granted bail to Kalvakuntla Kavitha. 16. In case of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India : (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1244 considering the judgment in case of Vijay Madanlal Vs. Union of India : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, in light of Section 19(1) of PMLA Act laid down that to give true meaning and purpose about the constitutional and statutorily mandate, it is necessary to inform the arrested person about the ground of arrest and a copy of such written ground of arrest be furnished to arrested person as a matter of course and without exception. 17. In case of Bijender Vs. State of Haryana :(SLP Criminal No.1079/2024), a Junior Engineer (Electrical) was released on bail. On earlier also, in case of Arvind Kejriwal Vs. ED (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the judgments in case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), V. Senthil Balaji (supra), Pankaj Bansal (supra), granted bail. These judgments were considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in case of Dilbag Singh Vs. Union of India and Anr. : 2024 SCC OnLine P&H 2705 while granting the bail. In the judgments referred by learned counsel for the petitioner in case of Ramkripal Meena Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra), Padam Chand Jain Vs. ED (supra), Pradeep Parashar Vs. ED (supra), bail was granted to accused. 18. In cases of Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary Vs. Union of India (supra), Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Aditya [2025:RJ-JP:40204] (12 of 19) [CRLMB-1695/2025] Tripathi (supra), The Union of India through ED Vs. Kanhaiya Prasad (supra), Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate (supra), and Rajuram @ Iram Vs. ED (surpa), Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that twin conditions enshrined under Section 45 of PMLA are required to be fulfilled before grant of bail and these conditions are in addition to general principle of bail required to be considered at the time of grant of bail to any accused charged under the PMLA Act. 19. Learned Additional Solicitor General has placed heavy reliance upon judgment in case of Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary Vs. Union of India (supra), Shyam Sundar Singhvi Vs. Union of India : SLP (Crl.) No.784/2020, Pavana Dibbur Vs. ED [SLP (Criminal) Appeal No.2779/2023, order dated 29.11.2023] wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that despite bail order in predicate offence, the offence under the PMLA act is a stand alone and independent outcome of predicate offence which means the offence under the PMLA Act is independent and the prosecuting agency is free to take action as authorised under the law. 20. This Court has considered several judgments, laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering bail of 53 accused in a matter relating to direct recruitment of Sub Inspector which was a public examination conducted by RPSC and there were charges of mass scale cheating and use of unfair means including paper leak etc. In said case order dated [2025:RJ-JP:40204] (13 of 19) [CRLMB-1695/2025] 1.09.2025 we have considered several judgments and grounds required to be considered before grant of bail. 21. In case of The State of Karnataka vs Sri Darshan Etc. 2025 INSC 979 Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred the judgment in case of Pinki Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2025 INSC 482, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the broad principles for grant of bail. The Supreme Court underscored that while personal liberty is a cherished constitutional value, it is not absolute, liberty must yield where it poses a threat to the collective interest of society. No individual can claim a liberty that endangers the life or liberty of others, as the rational collective cannot tolerate anti-social or anti-collective conduct. Emphasizing that bail jurisprudence is inherently fact-specific, the Supreme Court reiterated that each bail application must be decided on its own merits, in light of the well-settled parameters governing grant or denial of bail. 22. In case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Others v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: - “7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor and the nature of the evidence also is pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. [2025:RJ-JP:40204] (14 of 19) [CRLMB-1695/2025] 8. Another relevant factor is as to whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being [ Patrick Devlin, The Criminal Prosecution in England (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.] 9. Thus the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record — particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (Emphasis supplied) 23. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi & Anr. reported in (2001) 4 SCC 280, Hon’ble Supreme Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of wellsettled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the 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, behaviour, means and standing 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 or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and [2025:RJ-JP:40204] (15 of 19) [CRLMB-1695/2025] that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. […]” (Emphasis supplied) 24. In case of Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh reported in (2002) 3 SCC 598, Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail, has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, and observed as follows: “3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order — but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though may be considered but that by itself cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail and the same should and ought always to be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (Emphasis supplied) 25. In case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528, Hon’ble Supreme Court Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. [2025:RJ-JP:40204] (16 of 19) [CRLMB-1695/2025] 26. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496, Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 27. Section 45(1) of the PMLA Act provides that the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of such offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These are referred to as the 'twin bail conditions', which are more stringent than those under general criminal law. Therefore, the burden shifts upon the petitioner to demonstrate their role and involvement while showing his bona fides. 28. The judgments referred by learned counsel for the petitioner indicate that Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail on the ground that the documents with charge-sheet are to be matched and also looking to witnesses it is not likely to continue to conclude the trial reasonably in possible time and the petitioner accused is in custody. Thus, after [2025:RJ-JP:40204] (17 of 19) [CRLMB-1695/2025] balancing the provision of Article 21 of the Constitution of India with right of the petitioner accused was granted bail. 29. Herein the petitioner accused is in custody for last 11 months and out of four persons, who were granted bail 3 Viraj Singh Kuntal, Rafiq Khan and Vipin were not having parity with the present petitioner. The only person whose act may be compared with the present petitioner is Shanawaz Jeelani. The bail order passed in favour of Shanawaz Jeelani indicate that he was arrested on 28.06.2023 and total period of custody is more than 18 months and trial was not begin. The seriousness of allegations were not considered while granting bail to the petitioner accused, Shanawaz. 30. A copy of complaint filed on record indicate that out of total collection of crime proceed of ₹61 crores, ₹40 crores were allegedly siphoned of by the present petitioner (lion’s share). It is also clear that in some of the entities Shanawaz Jeelani was named as main person but in fact these entities were controlled by the present petitioner. In the ground of arrest, the ED has mentioned that ₹19.77 crore of proceed were in fact received by the present petitioner. The present petitioner was given an opportunity to confront the statement in presence of Shahawaz Ahmed Jeelani but the petitioner has failed to appear. The material on record clearly indicate that the case of present petitioner is different and more serious and grave then Shanawaz Jeelani. Therefore, the present petitioner is not entitled to claim parity with Shahawas Jeelani. [2025:RJ-JP:40204] (18 of 19) [CRLMB-1695/2025] 31. Having considered the material as referred by ED that out of total proceeding of crime of ₹ 61 crores, the present petitioner has received ₹40 crore and his case is totally distinct from other accused. Therefore, twin conditions under Section 45 is not satisfied from the grounds as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. 32. Herein, the ED has already filed three sets of investigation report before the trial Court which includes supplementary investigation report even after arrest of present petitioner. The list of dates available on record clearly indicate that ECIR was registered on 10.08.2020 and prosecution complaint was filed on 24.08.2023 against Shahnawaz Jeelani, Viraj Singh Kuntal and Vipin Kumar, thereafter the order of cognizance against these persons were passed on 02.03.2024. A supplementary prosecution complaint was filed against the Rafiq Khan on 26.04.2024 and after arrest of petitioner accused on 10.09.2024, second supplementary prosecution complaint is filed against the present petitioner and other co-accused on 08.11.2024. The petitioner accused is in custody for nearly one year and we may direct that the trial Court may give priority to the case, but, looking to gravity of charge and also the factum of crime relating to financial involvement, I am of considered view that in the instant instant case, the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA are not satisfied and the period of custody is not sufficient to draw a conclusion in favour of present petitioner. 33. The judgments as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner are not helpful to buttress the grounds as [2025:RJ-JP:40204] (19 of 19) [CRLMB-1695/2025] advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly, when the case of present petitioner is far more aggravated than Shanawaz Jeelani (supra). 34. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. 35. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage. 36. Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by the applicant-accused Mahmood Khan S/o Late Ibrahim Khan is hereby dismissed. The trial Court is expected to expedite the proceedings and try to conclude the matter as early as possible. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/36