[2025:RJ-JP:40254] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6343/2025 Pukhraj S/o Shri Raghunatharam Vishnoi, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Hemaguda P.s. Jhab, District Jalore, Rajasthan. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus Directorate Of Enforcement, (Through Assistant Director Mr. Mukesh) Enforcement Directorate, Govt. Of India. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6344/2025 Anil Kumar @ Sher Singh S/o Shri Gopal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Dola Ka Baas, Kaladera, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus Directorate Of Enforcement, Through Special Pp ----Respondent And S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7175/2025 Arun S/o Shri Sawarmal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, Vijay Colony, Opposite Railway Station, Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj.) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In High Security Jail, Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus Directorate Of Enforcement, (Through Assistant Director Mr. Mukesh) Govt. Of India. ----Respondent And S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7346/2025 Bhupendra S/o Shri Paburam, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Parawa, Police Station Chitalwana, District Sanchor (Rajasthan) (Presently Lodge In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus [2025:RJ-JP:40254] (2 of 9) [CRLMB-6343/2025] Directorate Of Enforcement, Through Special PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Jain with Mr. Arpit Gupta and Mr. Prashant Khandelwal Mr. Sudhir Jain Mr. Prince Pal Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj with Mr. Ashutosh Ranga HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 26/09/2025 1. The present bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS are filed by the applicants-accused Pukhraj S/o Shri Raghunatharam Vishnoi, Anil Kumar @ Sher Singh S/o Shri Gopal, Arun S/o Shri Sawarmal and Bhupendra S/o Shri Paburam, seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as ECIR No.JPZO/03/2023 dated 08.02.2023 for the offence under Sections 3 r/w Section 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (hereinafter referred as “PMLA”) 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against them is complete and they are no more required in investigation. They further submit that there are no chance of fleeing of applicants accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. They also submits that the applicants undertake not to repeat offence and cooperate with trial, which will take time. [2025:RJ-JP:40254] (3 of 9) [CRLMB-6343/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that six cases were registered against petitioner accused Anil Kumar, fourteen cases against Bhupendra, two against Pukhraj and three against Arun and on basis of their involvement in predicate offence, Enforcement Directorate (ED) has registered current ECIR. They further submitted that Anil Kumar is in custody since 15.09.2023, Bupendra is in custody since 09.10.2023, Pukhraj is in custody since 24.12.2022 and Arun is in custody since 11.01.2024 and on ground of custody they are entitled for bail. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that as per facts of the case Babulal Katara (RPSC Member) was named as main accused who made available papers relating to public examinations and provided to Anil Kumar, who made it available to Bupendra Saran and also to Arun Kumar but there is no involvement of Pukhraj in the entire claim of events. They also submitted that not a single iota of evidence is available to show that all these accused have conspired with each other to work in an organised manner to help each other in generating wealth from commission of predicate offence. They also submitted that before making arrest, it is necessary for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to serve a notice to show of ground of arrest as mandated under Section 19 of PMLA Act but in the instant case, the grounds as mentioned are not sufficient to draw a conclusion for justification of arrest. They also submitted that the predicate offence for which these petitioners were charged [2025:RJ-JP:40254] (4 of 9) [CRLMB-6343/2025] are triable by Magistrate First Class and it is not likely to conclude the trial within reasonable time. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred judgments in case of Anita Kumari @ Anita Meena Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7726/2025., order dated 14.07.2025) and submitted that she was granted bail after dismissal of bail by this Hon’ble Court on 07.05.2025. He further referred judgment in case of Suresh Kumar Vs. Directorate of Enforcement : SLP (Criminal) No.4308/2025 (order dated 21.05.2025) and submitted that bail was granted after dismissal of bail by this Hon’ble Court on 07.03.2025. 6. Learned counsel has further submitted that the maximum punishment for which these petitioners are charged are ranging from 3 years to 7 years, therefore, considering the judgments in case of Arvind Kejriwal Vs. ED (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1703), Manish Sisodia Vs. Enforcement Directorate :(2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920) and Kalvakuntla Kavitha Vs. Directorate of Enforcement : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2269, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. 7. Learned counsels further submitted that these petitioners are in custody since quite long time and till date trial has not begun and there is long list of witnesses and it is not possible for prosecution to conclude the trial within a period of 3 to 5 years. He further submitted that the evidence on record is also not sufficient to presume involvement of present petitioners as they were only charged on basis of [2025:RJ-JP:40254] (5 of 9) [CRLMB-6343/2025] surmises and conjunctures. They further submitted that three accused were already granted bail in the instant case and they are seeking bail on ground of parity. 8. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned special counsel appearing on behalf of ED and he placed reliance upon judgment in case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 and submitted that without satisfaction of twin conditions under Section 45(1) of PMLA Act, no Court can grant bail to any accused charged under the PMLA Act. He further submitted that the statement of Bhupendra Saran, Anil Kumar @ Sher Singh, Arun Sharma and Pukhraj were recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA Act by the ED and the Statement clearly indicate that these petitioners have accumulated wealth generated through proceeds of crime from predicate offence. He further referred list of cases against these petitioners indicating role and involvement of these petitioners on basis of statement and other material collected by E.D. He submitted that these petitioners are involved in cheating, using unfair means, paper leak etc. in public examination and on basis of search conducted by ED after collecting record of predicate offence, initially a complaint was filed against three persons later against other persons. He submitted that the offences are of very serious nature and without considering general principle of law, particularly, in relation to twin conditions under Section 45(1) of PMLA Act, present petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail. [2025:RJ-JP:40254] (6 of 9) [CRLMB-6343/2025] 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned special counsel appearing for ED. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 10. The material on record clearly indicate that a Co-ordinate Bench has initially considered bail application of Suresh Kumar and Peera Ram on 07.03.2025 and granted bail to Pera Ram under Section 483 of BNSS who was charged for involvement and participation in distribution of paper leak and use of unfair means in generating money. Suresh Kumar has approached Hon’ble Supreme Court and he was granted bail on 21.05.2025 in SLP (Crl.) No.4308/2025. The order indicate that the petitioners Suresh Kumar and Peera Ram were behind bars since 11.01.2024 and charge-sheet comprising of 200 witnesses (1100 pages) were filed before the trial Court. 11. A Co-ordinate Bench has considered judgment in case of Manish Sishodia Vs. ED (supra), Kalvakuntla Kavitha Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) on behalf of petitioners and also judgment in case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) and Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate : 2023 INSC 1006, filed by ED. 12. Thereafter, another bail application of Anita Kumari @ Anita Meena Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) was considered by a Co-ordinate Bench and same was dismissed on 07.05.2025 after considering judgment in case of V. Senthil Balaji Vs. Deputy Director, ED : (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626) and Shashi Bala Vs. ED : SLP [2025:RJ-JP:40254] (7 of 9) [CRLMB-6343/2025] (Criminal) No.6260/2024 dated 15.01.2025. Anita Kumari @ Anita Meena was also granted bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 14.07.2025, who was in custody since 24.07.2024. 13. Having considered the entire material and also the judgments as referred and relied by both the parties, I am of considered view that it is necessary for this Court to consider twin conditions as mentioned under Section 45 of PMLA Act. These conditions are :- (i) Reasonable ground for believing the accused is not guilty, (ii) Accused in not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 14. On basis of 14 predicate offence against the petitioner Bhupendra Saran in different public examination, registered at different places, the present petitioner accused Bhupendra was found as one of the main member of syndicate involved in leak of papers relating to public examinations. The petitioner accused Bupendra Saran is in custody since 11.01.2024 and the prosecution complaint has been filed against him. 15. Second accused who is also actively associated with the syndicate is Anil Kumar and he is now in this predicate offence relate to paper leak in Rajasthan Public Examination and further laundering the money earned from committing offence. He also acquired properties as mentioned by ED. Anil Kumar is arrested on 15.09.2023 though he was arrested by SOG on 06.04.2023 and complaint has already been filed against him. [2025:RJ-JP:40254] (8 of 9) [CRLMB-6343/2025] 16. Third accused is Arun Sharma who is involved in fake railway recruitment scheme in year 2019 and allegedly generated huge proceeds of crime to the tune of approximate ₹2.25 crores and further involved in leaking of question paper of recruitment examination of Second Grade Teacher Examination, 2022. As per material, three cases were registered against him and he is in custody since 11.01.2024. 17. Accused Pukhraj was named by ED as he is involved with another accused Suresh and Peera Ram in Senior Teacher Second Grade Paper Examination. Two cases [predicate offence] were registered against him. He is in custody since 11.01.2024. 18. In case of Rajuram Vs. ED : SLP (Crl.) No.2914/2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed bail appeal of Rajuram, while he was in custody since July, 2024. 19. The material on record clearly indicate that these petitioners are charged on basis of their active role in paper leak of public examinations which meant for recruitment for selection on public posts. It is also evident on record that in predicate offence, charge-sheet has been filed against all these petitioners though current status is not made available on record by learned counsels but looking to numbers of witnesses, the trial may take time. As in current case, these petitioners are in custody for more than 18 months and the trial is not begun till date though the investigation / inquiry has been concluded against them. [2025:RJ-JP:40254] (9 of 9) [CRLMB-6343/2025] 20. Having considering the totality of facts and circumstances, particularly, gravity and seriousness of charges and involvement of petitioners in an organized manner with other accused, I am of considered view that there is no ground in favour of the petitioners to presume satisfaction about conditions under Section 45(i) of PMLA Act. The period of custody itself is not sufficient when the offence are so grave in nature, where youths were cheated by systematic acts of these individuals. 21. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicants are 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 applicants accused on bail. 22. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail applications of the applicants accused at this stage. 23. Accordingly, the applications for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by the applicants-accused Pukhraj S/o Shri Raghunatharam Vishnoi, Anil Kumar @ Sher Singh S/o Shri Gopal, Arun S/o Shri Sawarmal and Bhupendra S/o Shri Paburam are hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/37 to 40