Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
2026:HHC:20650 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No. : 2898 of 2025 Reserved on : 07.05.2026 Decided on : 30.05.2026
Dr. Komal Khanna .......Applicant Versus Directorate of Enforcement Office ...Respondent
Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the applicant : Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Dinkar Bhaskar, Advocate For the respondent : Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI assisted by Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge Dr. Komal Khanna, has filed the present application, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS), before this Court as, she is apprehending her arrest in case No. ECIR/SHSZO/03/2023, dated 31.03.2023, registered under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PMLA’). 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 1
2026:HHC:20650
2. Since, the applicant is apprehending her arrest in the aforesaid case, as such, she has sought the indulgence of this Court to direct the I.O./ED to release her on bail in the event of her arrest, in the aforementioned case. 3. According to the applicant, she is innocent and has falsely been named as accused in the above titled case. 4. Necessary facts, for the registration of the present ECIR, as pleaded in the application are that the police of State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Solan registered the case FIR No.4/19, dated 21.08.2019, under Section 11 of Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’), against one Nishant Sareen. After completion of the investigation, report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC was submitted by the SV & ACB, Solan on 09.11.2021, before the Court of learned Special Judge, Solan. 4.1. As per the applicant, learned Special Judge, Solan has also taken the cognizance against the applicant for allegedly committing the offence punishable, under Section 12 of the PC Act. It was alleged in the said case that accused Nishant Sareen took undue advantage to the tune of 2
2026:HHC:20650 Rs.43,07,641/ by misusing his official position as Drugs Inspector and Assistant Drugs Controller. 4.2. It is the further case of the applicant that Jagbir Singh son of late Shri Om Pal, had entered into a partnership agreement, under the name and style of M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals, vide partnership deed dated 02.05.2016.
Both were 5050 partners, in the said partnership. After the constitution of the partnership, a sale deed, dated 22.07.2016, was executed. After execution of sale deed, M/s Zhenia Pharmaceutical purchased land for the purpose of carrying out the business of partnership for a total sale
consideration of Rs.98,00,000/. 4.3. Out of this sale consideration, a sum of Rs.37,72,102/ was paid by virtue of four cheques, as shown in the sale deed and the remaining amount of Rs.59,29,898/ was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed, which was paid through banker’s cheque No.3382 dated
06.07.2016. The applicant had raised the loan amount of Rs.60,27,464/, and EMI for the said loan was started on
04.08.2016. 3
2026:HHC:20650
4.4. According to the applicant, after the partnership, Jagbir Singh had not contributed anything towards the capital, whereas, the applicant had contributed Rs.52,40,102/. On 06.12.2018, the terms and conditions of the partnership were modified and the share of the petitioner in the partnership was increased to 95%, whereas, Jagbir Singh had agreed to 5% of the stake, in the partnership. 4.5. As per the applicant, after two years from the date of execution of the amended partnership deed dated 06.12.2018, Jagbir Singh lodged FIR No. 215 of 2022, dated 29.10.2022, with Police Station Sector20, Panchkula, Haryana, alleging therein, that the applicant had forged and fabricated a false unregistered agreement, modifying the partnership deed dated 06.12.2018. He has alleged in the said FIR that he had never executed any agreement, modifying the terms of partnership deed dated 06.12.2018, nor appended his signatures. Contrary to the said stand, Jagbir Singh has made a statement, under Section 164 CrPC, in FIR No.4 of 2019, which was registered against Nishant Sareen, under Section 11 of PC Act and against the applicant, under Section 12 of PC Act, stating therein that he was 4
2026:HHC:20650 threatened to sign the deed of M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals, in which, share was reduced to 5% from 50%. This fact has been highlighted by the applicant to show that the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC, in FIR No.4 of 2019, is totally contrary to the stand taken earlier. 4.6. According to the applicant, Jagbir Singh made an application to the Manager, HDB Financial Services, the Company, from which, the loan had been obtained, wherein he has conveyed that he was partner in Zhenia Pharmaceutical to the extent of 5% and the applicant to the extent of 95%. His application has been annexed as Annexure A9. 4.7. On the basis of FIR No.215, dated 29.10.2022, the present ECIR was registered, under the provisions of PMLA.
When, the grounds of arrest, under Section 19 of the PMLA, were supplied to Nishant Sareen, certain allegations were also raised/leveled against the applicant. 4.8. The relief has also been sought on the ground that the respondentED has examined certain persons, under Section 15 of the PMLA, who allegedly had stated that they have extended certain benefits to Nishant Sareen, directly or 5
2026:HHC:20650 through the applicant. It was alleged that M/s Zenia Pharmaceutical is being run by the applicant, as a proxy on behalf of Mr. Nishant Sareen. 4.9. In addition to this, statements of 13 individuals from different Pharma Companies were recorded wherein, it has been mentioned that certain business transactions have been carried out with Ms. Nia Pharma, which was proprietary concern of the applicant with M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals also. As per the applicant, both these establishments, i.e., M/s Nia Pharma and M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals are alleged to be owned by Mr. Sareen, whereas, the applicant is the only front face of the Company. 4.10. The star witness of the ED, Jagbir Singh, is stated to have made a fluctuating stand with respect to the amended partnership deed, reducing his interest therein, to the extent of 5%, whereas, according to the applicant, Jagbir Singh had filed a civil suit against the applicant, wherein, he has sought a decree of declaration that the agreement modifying the partnership deed dated 06.12.2018, reducing his share to the extent of 5% was illegal, null and void and result of fraud and 6
2026:HHC:20650 forgery committed by the applicant by getting his signatures on blank papers. 4.11. As per the further stand of the applicant, after registration of FIR No.4 of 2019, upto the merging of all FIRs in ECIR, Shri Jagbir, remained an important person, having also been turned into an approver and substantial part of accusations against her, is based upon his statements. 4.12.
In order to discredit the stand of Jagbir Singh, it has been pleaded that one Harmanpreet Singh, partner of Sunvet Pharma owed an amount of rupees ten lacs to M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals for supply of raw material to him. The said amount has been paid to Shri Jagbir Singh, as such, the applicant has filed petition, before MSME, upon which, Shri Harmanpreet Singh produced a ledger showing that the said amount has been paid to Shri Jagbir Singh, who is running the Company in the name and style of M/s Symbiosis Pharmaceutical. Accordingly, FIR No.95 of 2024 was registered against Jagbir Singh. 4.13. Another FIR No.393 of 2020 had also been registered against Jagbir Singh and others, for cheating, 7
2026:HHC:20650 pilfering of funds amounting to rupees eight crores and falsification of accounts etc., by Rajat Kumar Malotia. 4.14. Apart from this, FIR No. 62 of 2025, is also stated to have been registered against Shri Jagbir Singh, under Sections 115, 126, 351, 305 of the BNS. He has also been convicted by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurkheda for the offence punishable under Section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act read with Section 246 of Cr.PC. 4.15. According to the applicant, ED has recorded the statement of interested persons. In order to elaborate her stand, the applicant has stated that one of the witnesses, in this case, is Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, proprietor of M/s Vincent Pharma, who owed some amount to M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals and suit has been filed for recovery of Rs.54,53,060/, whereas, Paresh and Aditya, partners of M/s Anand Packaging, have some business dealings with Jagbir Singh. 4.16. All these facts have been pleaded to show that all the witnesses against her are interested witnesses.
Alleging against the star witness of the ED Jagbir Singh, it has been 8
2026:HHC:20650 pleaded that he has caused great loss to the firm M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals, as such, the applicant decided to work independently, and with the intervention of some common friends, the matter was settled between the applicant and Jagbir Singh and Jagbir Singh was to surrender his remaining 5% shareholding in the firm, M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals in favour of the applicant and memorandum of understanding was to be signed between them. Jagbir Singh also agreed to settle all pending liabilities of M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals and in lieu of that, the applicant issued a post dated cheque dated 11.11.2020, in the sum of Rs.25,00,000/, in favour of a Company of Shri Jagbir Singh. 4.17. The cheque was given to one Vinay Aggarwal, who has to hand over the cheque to Jagbir Singh, after the needful will be done, as per the settlement by Shri Jagbir Singh, however, he, in a clandestine manner, had stolen the cheque handed over to Vinay Aggarwal. Thereafter, he has tampered with the date of cheque and changed the date from 11.11.2020 to 11.02.2022. 4.18. The applicant came to know about the said act of Jagbir Singh, when the cheque was presented by him, with 9
2026:HHC:20650 his banker for encashment. Thereafter, the applicant lodged FIR No.42 dated 23.02.2022, under Sections 323, 379, 380, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of the IPC. 4.19. Lastly, it has been pleaded that the applicant had invested a sum of Rs.52,40,102/ in the firm as on 31.03.2007 and from the period 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018, an amount of Rs.62,81,169/, was added into the account of the firm by the applicant. The said amount has duly been depicted in the balance sheet. 4.20. All these facts, have been pleaded to show that the story of the investigating agency is false.
Relevant documents of the present case are stated to be in the possession of the investigating agency. 4.21. The applicant has earlier approached this Court by way of Cr.MP(M) No.2554 of 2025, which was withdrawn. Thereafter, the applicant had approached the learned Special Judge, Shimla, however, her application has been dismissed by learned Special Judge, Shimla, on 24.11.2025. She has also filed Cr.MMO No. 486 of 2025, which is still pending adjudication before this Court. 10
2026:HHC:20650
4.22. Lastly, the applicant has pleaded that she has been cooperating with the investigating agency and has joined the investigation on 12 occasions, out of 15, for which, she has been called. On three dates, she could not attend the investigation, as she was suffering from acute migraine and was on continuous medication. 4.23. According to the applicant, she is single mother of two children, aged 15 and 17 years and no one is there to look after them. 5. On the basis of the above facts, the applicant has given certain undertakings, to which, she is ready to abide by in case, any direction under Section 482 of the BNSS is issued to the I.O./ED. CASE OF THE ED
6. When put to notice, ED has filed the reply, in which, the prayer, as made in the application, has been contested, on the ground, that the material collected during the investigation clearly established the active and conscious role in the commission of the offence under the PMLA with Nishant Sareen, a public servant. According to the respondentED, she is not entitled to the extraordinary relief. 11
2026:HHC:20650
6.1. The relief has also been opposed, on the ground, that the mandatory twin conditions, as envisaged under Section 45 of the PMLA, are not existing, in favour of the applicant, at this stage, as there is nothing on the file to demonstrate that she is not guilty of offence under the PMLA, nor, likely to commit any offence, while on bail.
According to the respondentED, the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA are also applicable to the anticipatory bail, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS. 6.2. On merits, the prayer has been opposed on the ground that after registration of the FIR No.4 of 2019, dated 21.08.2019, by the State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, under Section 11 of the PC Act, against Nishant Sareen, on 09.11.2021, charge sheet has been filed before the learned Special Judge, Solan, for the commission of offence under Section 11 of the PC Act and Section 201 of the IPC and against the applicant under Section 12 of the PC Act. 6.3. It is their further case that as per the investigation by the SV & ACB, it has been found that Nishant Sareen remain posted as Drugs Inspector, Nahan, during 10.03.2014 to 25.02.2016 and as Assistant Drugs Controller, Nahan from 12
2026:HHC:20650 18.03.2018 to 07.06.2019 and he had taken undue advantages from the owners/partners/directors of different pharmaceutical firms/units for himself and for his friends in the form of hotel bookings in JW Marriott/Taj etc., purchasing of air tickets, household material and had received cash from the owners/directors of pharmaceutical firms/ units. He had also used the debit cards of Mr. Jagbir Singh for shopping, worth Rs.3,45,000/, and cash withdrawals, amounting to Rs.7,20,000/, during the years 201819. Office premises of Nishant Sareen were searched in the month of August 2019 and a large number of documents pertaining to the various properties were seized. In addition to this, cash amounting to Rs.7,50,000/ was also recovered and seized from House No.1514, Sector 38B Chandigarh, which was registered in the name of his wife. 6.4. On the detailed analysis of the FIR and the chargesheet, the present ECIR was registered.
During investigation of the said ECIR, summons under Section 50 of PMLA were issued to various persons including Nishant Sareen, and applicant Komal Khanna, as well as, owners/ managers of pharmaceutical firms/entities, who, as per the 13
2026:HHC:20650 charge sheet filed by SV & ACB, had given favours to Mr. Nishant Sareen, including Mr. Jagbir Singh. These persons, in their statements, recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, have admitted that they had given favour to Mr. Nishant Sareen, in the shape of cash, hotel bookings, liquor etc. and through applicant Komal Khanna. 6.5. Investigating agency has also asserted that FIR No.215 dated 29.10.2022, was found to have been registered against the applicant, by complainant Jagbir Singh, wherein Nishant Sareen, Vinay Aggarwal and others, were also named as accused, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 177, 195, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 506 of the IPC. As per the allegations, Vinay Aggarwal threatened Jagbir Singh and forced him to transfer Rs.1,49,00,000/ in the former’s bank account. 6.6. According to the allegations, as contained, in the said ECIR, Nishant Sareeen pressurized and threatened Jagbir Singh to start a partnership firm with the applicant. Hence, Jagbir Singh started a partnership firm namely Zhenia Pharmaceutical Panchkula, along with applicant Komal Khanna, however, later the applicant allegedly forged the 14
2026:HHC:20650 partnership agreement falsely reducing the share of Jagbir Singh from 50% to 5%, without his consent. Jagbir Singh was also threatened by Nishant Sareen and the applicant to withdraw all the complaints. 6.7. Investigating agency further relied upon the statement of Jagbir Singh recorded on 3.12.2024, under Section 50 of the PMLA, in which, he has stated that the applicant used to handle the operations and daily affairs of M/s Zhenia Pharmaceutical on the directions of Mr. Nishant Sareen, whereas, the role of Jagbir Singh was limited to making an investment of Rs.45 crores in the partnership firm.
Jagbir Singh also used to provide furnished pharmaceutical products to M/s Zhenia Pharmaceutical, Panchkula from his pharmaceutical companies namely, M/s symbiosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. And M/s Saitech Medicare Pvt. Ltd., on the directions and pressure/threat of Mr. Nishant Sareen. Zhenia Pharmaceuticals, Panchkula being run as a partnership firm, is indirectly managed and handled by Mr. Nishant Sareen. 6.8. It is their further stand that while serving as Drugs Inspector and Assistant Drugs Controller, Nishant 15
2026:HHC:20650 Sareen pressurized Jagbir Singh to invest in M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals and to become a partner in the said firm along with Ms. Komal Khanna. All the business operations and financial transactions of M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals were managed and controlled by the applicant, under the directions of Mr. Nishant Sareen. 6.9. FIR No.215 of 2022, was registered in Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula, against Nishant Sareen and Komal Khanna (applicant), for committing forgery of partnership deed. Since, M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals was in the business of purchase and resale of pharmaceutical products, as such, the profits were diverted by Nishant Sareen and applicant Komal Khanna to their personal and related family bank accounts, including the accounts of another proprietary concern of Komal Khanna, namely M/s Nia Pharma Panchkula. During investigation, the police has sought information from the bank and it was found that in the bank account of M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals, maintained with Axis Bank, several transactions, by way of cash deposits, were made and as per the KYC, Komal Khanna (applicant) was the authorized signatory. Similarly, in the bank account 16
2026:HHC:20650 of Saroj Sareen, number of transactions of cash deposits, were found, including cash deposits of Rs.36,00,000/. 6.10. As per the reply filed by the ED, applicant Komal Khanna, played a pivotal role as the nominal owner and public face of Zhenia Pharmaceuticals, a partnership firm, whereas, during investigation, it was found that the effective control of the same was with Mr. Nishant Sareen.
She proclaimed her to be a partner of the firm, just to conceal the name of Mr. Nishant Sareen and to facilitate the laundering of illicit proceeds generated through corrupt activities. Her further role has been alleged that she, through Zhenia Pharmaceuticals, was involved in coercive business practices, including compelling other pharmaceutical companies to sell goods at below market prices. 6.11. By holding formal ownership and managerial roles, the applicant helped to obscure the money trail and provided a legal veneer to transactions that were, in reality, part of Nishant Sareen’s corrupt practices. M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals was nothing but instrumental in moving and disguising the flow of corrupt money, including bribes and 17
2026:HHC:20650 kickbacks, extracted through Nishant Sareen’s official powers. 6.12. On merits, the contents of the bail applications have been contested on the ground that from the perusal of the statement of Jagbir Singh, recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, as well as, statements of independent pharmaceutical manufacturers, it transpired that the partnership was structured under pressure exerted by Nishant Sareen, as, legally, he could not run a business. The applicant is stated to be integral part of the conceal system created by Nishant Sareen. 6.13. Highlighting the fact that the learned Special Judge has already recorded a prima facie satisfaction that M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals was operated by the applicant, as the nominal owner, whereas, the real controal, beneficial interest and ultimate decision making power was with Nishant Sareen, the ED has also given the details of the summons issued against the applicant, which are reproduced, as under: Sl. No. Date of summons Date of required appearance Status Remarks
1. 05.04.2024 23.04.2024 Appeared 18
2026:HHC:20650 (23.04.2024)
2. 12.06.2024 17.06.2024 Appeared (18.06.2024) The petitioner appeared one day after the scheduled date
3. 13.08.2022 18.08.2025 Appeared (18.08.2025
4. 29.09.2025 10.10.2025 Not appeared The petitioner sought an adjournment on 10.10.2025 citing medical grounds. Her request was accommodated and the appearance was rescheduled to
16.10.2025.
On 16.10.2025, she again sought an adjournment and the appearance was deferred to
27.10.2025. She appeared on 27.10.2025 and her statement was partially recorded. During the recording, she requested that the session be concluded for the day and undertook to appear on
29.10.2025. She did not appear thereafter and instead submitted a medical prescription claiming bed rest restricted travel. Upon verification, the concerned doctors confirmed 19
2026:HHC:20650 that although the petitioner suffered from certain medical issues, she was fit to travel up to 30 kilometers and capable of her recording her statement before the Directorate. To facilitate her participation, the Directorate offered her the option of appearing at the Chandigarh Zonal Office. In response, she sent an email seeking a fresh date after mid December. 6.14. All these facts have been relied upon to demonstrate that she has not joined the investigation, as on her request, she was accommodated to make statement by appearing before Chandigarh Zonal Office, however, she did not avail this facilitation. 6.15. Asserting the fact that custodial interrogation of the applicant is essential to retrieve the information withheld by her, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application. 7. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted 20
2026:HHC:20650 by Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate has prayed that the application may kindly be dismissed. 8. As stated above, the applicant has tried her luck by moving similar application before the Court of learned Special Judge, however, her application has been dismissed on 24.11.2025. 9.
By moving Cr.MP No. 578 of 2026, the applicant has placed on record the copy of order dated 12.02.2026, passed Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, in CrMM544112022 (O&M), titled as Komal Khanna versus State of Haryana, as well as, copy of cancellation report in FIR No.215 of 2022, dated 29.10.2022, registered under Sections 120B, 177, 195, 406 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of the IPC, which was got registered by Jagbir Singh son of late Shri Om Pal.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE APPLICANT
10. Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Dinkar Bhaskar, Advocate, appearing for the applicant has submitted that very base of the ECIR, in which, the applicant is seeking bail under Section 482 Cr.PC, is FIR No.215 of 2022, dated 29.10.2022 and the police has filed the 21
2026:HHC:20650 cancellation report in the said case, before the competent Court of law. It has fairly been conceded by learned Senior counsel that the cancellation report, although has not been accepted, but, from the factum of submission of cancellation report by the Police, it can be deduced, at this stage, that the very base of the present ECIR is no more available to the investigating agency.
10.1. In addition to this, a prayer has also been made that the star witness of the prosecutionJagbir Singh, has changed the version in different proceedings with regard to the alleged partnership with applicant in M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals. Heavily relying upon the provisions, added with Section 45 of the PMLA, a prayer has been made to allow the application.
10.2. Lastly, it has been argued that the applicant, being a female, is entitled to the relief, as sought in the application, on account of proviso to Section 45 of PMLA.
10.3. In addition to this, learned counsel for the application has also given certain undertakings, on behalf of the applicant, to which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in case, the bail application is allowed. 22
2026:HHC:20650
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ED
11. Per contra, Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, has opposed the prayer, so made, in the application, on the ground, that the ECIR is not solely based upon FIR No.215 of 2022, dated 29.10.2022, but, the same is based upon FIR No.4 of 2019, dated 21.08.2019, registered by the SV & ACB, Solan, under Section 11 of the PC Act, initially, against Nishant Sareen. After completion of the investigation, now charge sheet has been filed before the Special Court, Solan, against Nishant Sareen for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 11 of the PC Act, read with Section 201 IPC and against the applicant under Section 12 of the PC Act.
11.1. Highlighting the fact that as per the chargesheet filed in FIR No.4 of 2019, accused Nishant Sareen took undue advantage to the tune of Rs.43,07,641/ while posted as Drugs Inspector and Assistant Drugs Controller, it has also been argued by learned Deputy Solicitor General of India that the manner in which, Nishant Sareen, through applicant, coerced Jagbir Singh to enter into partnership deed by constituting partnership firm M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals 23
2026:HHC:20650 and initially their share was 50% each and later on, he was compelled to reduce down his share to 5%.
11.2. It has also been argued that the offence under the PMLA are class apart and the applicant is not able to make out a case in her favour. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
12. The applicant has been named as accused under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. The provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, are reproduced, as under:
3. Offence of moneylaundering. Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money laundering. 4. Punishment for moneylaundering. Whoever commits the offence of money laundering shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to five lakh rupees: Provided that where the proceeds of crime involved in money laundering relates to any offence specified under paragraph 2 of Part A of the Schedule, the provisions of this section shall have effect as if for the words "which may extend to seven years", the words "which may extend to ten years" had been substituted. 24
2026:HHC:20650
12.1. The present ECIR is stated to be based upon the FIR No.215 of 2022, dated 29.10.2022, registered under Sections 177, 195, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 506 IPC, with Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula, as well as, FIR No.4 of 2019, dated 21.08.2019, registered with SV & ACB, Solan under Sections 11 and 12 of the PC Act, read with Section 201 of the IPC. 12.2. It is not in dispute that the police has submitted the cancellation report in FIR No,215 of 2022, in the competent Court of Law, whereas, in FIR No.4 of 2019, dated 21.08.2019, registered with SV&ACB, Solan, after completion of investigation, the police has filed the charge sheet agianst accused Nishant Sareen, under Section 11 of the PC Act and Section 201 of the IPC against accused Nishant Sareen and under Section 12 of the PC Act against applicant Komal Khanna. 12.3. It is no longer res integra that while deciding the question of bail, either under Section 482 or 483 of BNSS, it is incumbent upon the Court to record findings in favour of 25
2026:HHC:20650 the applicant, as per Section 45 of PMLA. The provisions of Section 45 of PMLA, are reproduced, as under:
45.
Offences to be cognizable and non bailable. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years under Part A of the Schedule shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail: Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm, may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs: Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by— (i) the Director; or (ii) any officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or special order made in this behalf by that Government. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other provision of this Act, no police officer shall investigate into an offence under this Act unless specifically authorised, by the Central 26
2026:HHC:20650 Government by a general or special order, and, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. (2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in subsection (1) is in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.”
12.4.
As per the stand taken by the ED in the reply, the SV & ACB has filed the charge sheet against Nishant Sareen and applicant Komal Khanna, by stating therein that undue advantage, which has been taken by Nishant Sareen, was to the tune of Rs.43,07,641/. Admittedly, the said amount is lessor than the amount as mentioned, in proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA. 12.5. Now, the question, which arises for determination before this Court, is as to whether the applicant being woman is entitled to the relief, as claimed in the application. 12.6. This question has arisen before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saumya Chaurasia versus Directorate of Enforcement, Neutral citation No. 2023 INSC 1073. Relevant paragraphs 22 to 24 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:
22. The next question that falls for consideration before the Court is whether the appellant being a 27
2026:HHC:20650 woman should be granted the benefit of the first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA, which reads as under:
“45. Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable. (1) ………………………….. Provided that a person who is under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm [or is accused either on his own or along with other co accused of moneylaundering a sum of less than one crore rupees], may be released on bail, if the special court so directs: (2) ……………………………”
23. Recently, a ThreeJudge Bench of this Court in Enforcement Directorate vs. Preeti Chandra observed in the order dated 04.08.2023 in SLP (Crl.) No. 7409 of 2023 as under:
“The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 confers a discretion on the Court to grant bail where the accused is a woman. Similar provisions of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been interpreted by this Court to mean that the statutory provision does not mean that person specified in the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 437 should necessarily be released on bail. (See Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi and Another (2001) 4 SCC 280).”
24.
The use of the expression “may be” in the first proviso to Section 45 clearly indicates that the benefit of the said proviso to the category of persons mentioned therein may be extended at the discretion of the Court considering the facts and circumstances of each case, and could not be construed as a mandatory or obligatory on the part of the Court to release them. Similar benevolent provision for granting bail to the category of persons below the age of sixteen years, women, sick or infirm has been made in Section 437 Cr.P.C. and many other special enactments also, however by no stretch of imagination could such 28
2026:HHC:20650 provision be construed as obligatory or mandatory in nature, otherwise all serious offences under such special Acts would be committed involving women and persons of tender age below 16 years. No doubt the courts need to be more sensitive and sympathetic towards the category of persons included in the first proviso to Section 45 and similar provisions in the other Acts, as the persons of tender age and women who are likely to be more vulnerable, may sometimes be misused by the unscrupulous elements and made scapegoats for committing such Crimes, nonetheless, the courts also should not be oblivious to the fact that nowadays the educated and well placed women in the society engage themselves in the commercial ventures and enterprises, and advertently or inadvertently engage themselves in the illegal activities. In essence, the courts should exercise the discretion judiciously using their prudence, while granting the benefit of the first proviso to Section 45 PMLA to the category of persons mentioned therein. The extent of involvement of the persons falling in such category in the alleged offences, the nature of evidence collected by the investigating agency etc., would be material considerations. 12.7.
In view of the above decision, the decision to grant relief, on the basis of the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA, is left to the discretion of the Court, considering the facts and circumstances of each case. 12.8. The role, as alleged, against the applicant has already been highlighted, by this Court, in the preceding paragraphs. The role, which has been assigned to him is that 29
2026:HHC:20650 the applicant, on behalf of Nishant Sareen has entered into a partnership deed with Jagbir Singh and both of them had initially constituted a partnership firm by determining their share as 50% each. Later on, Jagbir Singh was forced to sign the partnership deed, by virtue of which, his share has been reduced to 5%. 12.9. The applicant has annexed the copy of FIR No.215 of 2022, dated 29.10.2022, registered with Police Station Sector 20 Panchkula, lodged by complainant Jagbir Singh, who is also stated to be the star witness of the ED, in the present case, alleging threat and pressure created by the accused persons. In the said FIR, it has been mentioned that the complainant started a partnership firm namely M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals with Dr. Komal Khanna. Thereafter, the said accused persons forced the complainant to deal with the firm namely Zhenia Pharmaceuticals situated at Industrial Shed No.456 HSIIDC, Industrial Estate Phase I, Panchkula, Haryana. 12.10. Later on, business dispute arose between these firms and M/s Zhenia stopped the due payment of M/s Symbiosis and M/s Saitech Medicare. During the course of 30
2026:HHC:20650 partnership business, applicant has forged and fabricated a false unregistered agreement, modifying the partnership deed, dated 06.12.2018, alleged to have been executed between the complainant and Dr. Komal Khanna (applicant) and attested by Notary Public, Panchkula, in which, the share of the applicant has been declared to the extent of 5% and share of Komal Khanna has been mentioned as 95 %.
It has also been alleged, in the said FIR, that neither the complainant has executed any unregistered agreement, modifying the partnership deed, dated 06.12.2018, nor, appended his signature, nor appeared before the Notary Public. 12.11. From the above stand, initial agreement of partnership is not disputed, by virtue of which, the partnership firm, namely M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals, has been created. 12.12. Statement of said Jagbir Singh has been recorded, in the present case, under Section 164 Cr.PC, in FIR No.4 of 2019, on 18.12.2020. In his statement, he has got recorded the following facts:
“…...I was threatened either I should sign another deed of Zhenia Pharmaceuticals in which my share was reduced to 5% from 50% or my license of Saitech Pvt. Ltd or Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt 31
2026:HHC:20650 Ltd. Would be suspended permanently. I had to sign the deed in such circumstances…. ”
12.13. Interestingly, said Jagbir has also filed suit for declaration before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula, titled as Jagbir Singh versus Komal Khanna, by virtue of which, he has sought the following relief :
“ It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the suit of the plaintiff may kindly be decreed and a decree for Dissolution of registered Partnership firm between the plaintiff and defendant running under the name and style of M/s. Zhenia Pharmaceuticals, situated at Indl. Plot No.456, HSIIDC, Phase I Indl. Estate, Panchkula for doing the business of Pharmaceuticals vide Partnership Deed dated 20052016; may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant alongwith costs of the suit.
It is further prayed that a decree for Rendition of Accounts and for distribution of assets and profits of the firm as per share of the plaintiff and defendant to the extent of 50:50 as per registered partnership deed dated 20052016 including the Indl.Shed No.456, HSIIDC, Phase I, Indl.Area Panchkula and for rendering the accounts on account of selling the pharmaceuticals goods to different persons without the permission and consent of the plaintiff and for recovery of the amount which would be ascertained as due against the defendant to the plaintiff as well as for rendering the account statement qua the rent received by the defendant from the tenants of Indl. Plot No.456, situated at HSIIDC, Phase I, Indl.Area Panchkula, may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant alongwith costs of the suit. 32
2026:HHC:20650 It is further prayed that a decree for Declaration to the effect that the alleged unregistered Agreement Modifying the Partnership Deed dated 06122018 alleged to be executed between the plaintiff and defendant and allegedly attested by Notary Public, Panchkula by declaring the share of the plaintiff to the extent of only 5% is totally wrong, illegal, null and void abinitio and is a result of fraud and forgery committed by the defendant by forging the alleged Modifying the Partnership Deed dated 06122018 on the blank signed papers of the plaintiff lying in the office of the plaintiff as the plaintiff neither appended any signature on the alleged Modifying the Partnership Deed dated 06 122018 nor appeared before the Notary Public Panchkula for attestation of the same at any point of the time as such, the same is liable to be set aside/cancelled; may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant alongwith costs of the suit. It is further prayed that a decree for Permanent Injunction, restraining the defendant herself or through her agents, servants or assignees from alienating the assets/goods of partnership firm without the consent and permission of the plaintiff and further restraining the defendant fror alienating the Indl. Plot No.456, HSIIDC, Phase I, Indl.
Estate, Panchkula by way of sale, transfer and mortgage in any manner whatsoever and further restraining the defendant obstructing the plaintiff from entering into Indl. Plot No.456, HSIIDC, Phase I, Indl. Estate, Panchkula and further restraining the defendant from letting any further portion of the Indl. Plo No.456, HSIIDC, Phase I, Indl. Estate, Panchkula to any other person, may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant alongwith costs of the suit. It is further prayed that a decree for Separate Possession by way of partition of Indl. Shed No.456, HSIIDC, Phase I, Indl. Estate, Panchkula, may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff 33
2026:HHC:20650 and against the defendant alongwith costs of the suit.”
12.14. In the said suit, Jagbir Singh, the star witness of the ED, has taken a defence that unregistered agreement, modifying the partnership deed, dated 06.12.2018, alleged to have been executed between the complainant and the applicant and allegedly attested by Notary Public, Panchkula, by declaring the share of the complainant to the extent of 5% only, is totally wrong, illegal, null and void ab initio and is a result of fraud and forgery committed by the applicant. Whereas, the allegations of exerting the pressure by the applicant and other persons, who were named as accused in FIR No.215 of 2022, due to which, the applicant had entered into the partnership deed with him, have not been mentioned in the suit. In the FIR, he has also taken the defence that he has not signed the deed dated 6.12.2018, whereas, in the statement under Section 164 Cr.PC, he has taken the defence that he was forced to sign the deed, by virtue of which, his share has been reduced to 5%, whereas, these facts have not been mentioned in the civil suit filed by the said star witness. 34
2026:HHC:20650
12.15.
If the above facts are seen in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saumya Chaurasia’s case supraapplicant is able to make out a case for exercising the discretion in her favour, as per proviso to Section 45 of PMLA. 12.16. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saumya Chaurasia’s case supra has also been taken into
consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalvakuntla Kavitha versus Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2269, and held that in view of the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA, woman is entitled to special treatment, while considering the question of granting the relief of bail. Relevant paragraphs 13 to 17 and 24 to 28 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under :
13. We had also reiterated the wellestablished principle that “bail is the rule and refusal is an exception”. We had further observed that the fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution is superior to the statutory restrictions. 14. We are further of the view that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA would entitle a woman for special treatment while her prayer for bail is being considered. 15. The said proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA reads thus: 35
2026:HHC:20650
“Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm, or is accused either on his own or along with other co accused of moneylaundering a sum of less than one crore rupees, may be released on bail, if the special court so directs:”
16. A perusal of the above proviso would thus reveal that the proviso permits certain category of accused including woman to be released on bail, without the twin requirement under Section 45 of the PMLA to be satisfied. No doubt that, as argued by the learned ASG, in a given case the accused even if a woman may not be automatically entitled to benefit of the said proviso and it would all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 17. However, when a statute specifically provides a special treatment for a certain category of accused, while denying such a benefit, the Court will be required to give specific reasons as to why such a benefit is to be denied. 24. A perusal of the judgment of this Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia (supra) would show that this Court has observed that the Courts need to be more sensitive and sympathetic towards the category of persons included in the first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA and similar provisions in the other Acts.
The Court observes that the persons of tender age and women who are likely to be more vulnerable may sometimes be misused by unscrupulous elements and made scapegoats for committing such crime. 25. No doubt that this Court observes that nowadays the educated and wellplaced women in the society engage themselves in commercial ventures and enterprises and advertently or inadvertently engage themselves in the illegal (2024) 6 SCC 401 : 2023 INSC 1073 activities. The Court therefore puts a caution that the Courts, while deciding such matters, should exercise the discretion judiciously using their prudence. 36
2026:HHC:20650
26. This Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia (supra), while paraphrasing proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA stated in paragraph 23 as follows:
“23. ….. No doubt the courts need to be more sensitive and sympathetic towards the category of persons included in the first proviso to Section 45 and similar provisions in the other Acts, as the persons of tender age and women who are likely to be more vulnerable, may sometimes be misused by the unscrupulous elements …….”
27. This Court, in the carefully couched paragraph extracted above used the phrase “persons of tender age and woman who are likely to be more vulnerable, may sometimes be misused by the unscrupulous elements”. This is vastly different from saying that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA applies only to “vulnerable woman”. Further, this Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia (supra) does not say that merely because a woman is highly educated or sophisticated or a Member of Parliament or a Member of Legislative Assembly, she is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA. 28. We, therefore, find that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has totally misdirected herself while denying the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA.”
13.
If the facts, as discussed above, i.e., stand of the star witness Jagbir Singh, is seen in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred above, then, applicant is entitled to the relief, as sought in the present application. 37
2026:HHC:20650
14. In view of the discussion made above and considering the fact that the applicant is permanent resident of Panchkula, Haryana, it cannot be apprehended that in case, she is released on bail, she may not be available for the trial. 15. Considering all these facts, the interim order dated 11.12.2025, passed by this Court, is hereby made absolute. Therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail, in the event of her arrest, in case ECIR/SHSZO/03/2023, dated 31.03.2023, registered, under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA with Directorate of Enforcement, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond, in the sum of 5 ₹ 0,000/, with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. This order, however, shall be subject to the following conditions : a) That the applicant shall join the investigation of the case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating Officer, in accordance with law; b) That the applicant shall not leave India, without prior permission of the Court; c) That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as 38
2026:HHC:20650 to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Investigating Officer or the Court; and d) That the applicant shall regularly attend the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and if prevented by any reason to do so seek exemption from appearance by filing appropriate application. 16. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the disposal of the present application. 17. It is made clear that the respondentED is at liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the bail conditions, is found violated by the applicant.
( Virender Singh ) Judge May 30, 2026 (ps)
39