HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34881 of 2025 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by applicant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Sushant, learned counsel for Enforcement Directorate and Sri Rajeev Dhar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State. 3. By way of instant application following prayer has been made:- "In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased- 1. To expunge the unwarranted and baseless remarks made against the Investigating Officer in the order passed in Bail Application No. 2312 of 2025 by the Ld. Court of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, C.B.I., Ghaziabad, and pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. II. And/or to pass such other and further order / orders which this honorable court may deem fit and proper under the fact and circumstances of the present case, so that justice may be done with the Applicant." 4. Learned counsel for E.D. submitted that E.D. is aggrieved with only second last paragraph of page no.5 of the impugned order dated 03.07.2025 by which although, learned court concerned granted bail to the accused Gian Chand but while granting bail court concerned made following observations:- "Thus, the above facts shows that proper investigation was not done by Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sushant Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Directorate Of Enforcement .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. .....Opposite Party(s) the IO of ED in respect to present complaint under PMLA. Even the filing of the ECIR was defective because 4 cases, which are shown as the Predicate Offence, already came to an end against the applicant/accused before registration of ECIR, so these cases cannot be the part of the ECIR. It shows mechanical and unprofessional approach of the ED, while the ED is completely dedicated department for the exclusive purpose of investigation in the money laundering cases. Thus the matter is to be reported to the Director, ED for necessary action against the concerned authorities of the ED" 5. He further submitted that while deciding the bail application, there was absolutely no need for the court concerned to pass such remarks against Investigating Officer of E.D. and Department. He further submitted that as per procedure, whenever an information is received then E.D. first register ECIR and thereafter when it reveals that the alleged predicate offences have already decided then during investigation these facts are noted and at any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that either intentionally or due to unprofessional approach, ECIR of the case was registered. 6. He further submitted that even before passing above remarks no opportunity was given either to the I.O. or E.D., therefore, the above remarks passed against the E.D. should be expunged. 7. Learned AGA also submitted that while granting bail such remarks were not required and even it reflect, before passing such remarks court concerned did not give any opportunity to E.D. to explain the concern expressed by the court concerned and, therefore, above remarks may be expunged. 8. I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. 9. The instant application has been filed by E.D. with the prayer to expunge the remarks made by the court concerned while granting bail to one of the accused Gian Chand. The Enforcement Directorate is aggrieved with the following remarks:- "Thus, the above facts shows that proper investigation was not done by the IO of ED in respect to present complaint under PMLA. Even the filing of the ECIR was defective because 4 cases, which are shown as the Predicate Offence, already came to an end against the applicant/accused before registration of ECIR, so these cases cannot be the part of the ECIR. It shows mechanical and unprofessional approach of the ED, while the ED is completely dedicated department for the exclusive purpose of NA528 No. 34881 of 2025 2 investigation in the money laundering cases. Thus the matter is to be reported to the Director, ED for necessary action against the concerned authorities of the ED." 10. From the order passed by the court concerned, it reflects, before passing such remarks opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to E.D. 11. Further, this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of E.D. that at the time of disposal of bail application such remarks were not necessary. 12. Therefore, considering the above facts, remarks made by the court concerned in last second paragraph of page no.5 of the order dated 03.07.2025 against the Investigating Officer and E.D. are hereby expunged. 13. The instant application stands allowed. September 24, 2025 KK Patel NA528 No. 34881 of 2025 3 (Sameer Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- KRISHN KANT PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad