30.BA.2347.2026.doc HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.) IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO.2347 OF 2026 Sitaram Sudama Gupta .. Applicant Versus The Union of India and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Mithilesh Mishra, Ms. Namasvi Bhanshali, Mr. Pritvraj Singh, Mr. Rushan Balsara and Ms. Dnyaneshwari Hadawale for Applicant.  Mr. Chaitanya Pendse, Advocate for Respondent No.1.  Mr. Yogesh M. Nakhawa, APP for Respondent No.2 – State. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 01, 2026 P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Advocate for Applicant; Mr. Pendse, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Mr. Nakhawa, learned APP for Respondent No.2 – State. 2. This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with E.C.I.R.MBZO-II/26/2023 dated 24.02.2023 and ECIR/MBZO-II/10/2025 dated 21.02.2025 registered with Enforcement Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai Zonal Office-II, Mumbai for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short ‘PMLA’). 3. After hearing Mr. Ponda, Senior Advocate on behalf of 1 of 8 30.BA.2347.2026.doc Applicant on 24.08.2026, the following order was passed:- “1. Heard Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Advocate for Applicant and Mr. Nakhawa, learned APP for Respondent No.2. 2. Union of India has been issued notice and they have filed their Reply. Essentially, the case of Applicant is that he has been arraigned as Accused in view of he being the uncle of principal protagonist who has been indicted for prinicipal offence. 3. Mr. Ponda would candidly inform the Court that at the time of interrogation prior to Applicant been arrested he has made a confessional statement that he has received Rs.15 Crores alongwith principal Accused who is nephew of the Applicant. Applicant otherwise is a Corporator and is also having his separate business. 4. To cut long story short, Mr. Ponda would persuade the Court to consider one principal submission. He would submit that property worth more than Rs.20 Crores of the Applicant have been attached by Respondents. He would therefore submit that save and except the confessional statement which has been held against Applicant and there is no other incriminating material unearthed or placed against Applicant by the prosecution. 5. Charge-sheet has been filed long back. Applicant is in custody for 1 year and 1 month and therefore Applicant would persuade that considering the limited charge levied by the prosecution, Applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Prima facie, I find substance in submissions made by Mr. Ponda. 6. I give one opportunity to Respondents to remain present failing which this Court shall be constrained to determine the present Application in accordance with law. Another reason which impels this Court to pass this order is the fact that investigation is complete and no process is issued, the fact of proving the charge against Applicant in present facts and circumstances will undoubtedly be matter of trial. In this view order is passed. 7. The Union of India is directed to ensure its presence Advocate / Counsel on the next adjourned date. 8. Stand over to 01st September, 2026. To be placed under the caption ‘First on Board’. To be treated as ‘Part-Heard’.” 4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, Mr. Pendse, learned Advocate enters appearance on behalf of Union of India. Before I advert to the submissions made by Mr. Pendse, Mr. Ponda would persuade me to submit a couple of submissions. He would submit that 2 of 8 30.BA.2347.2026.doc the date of arrest of the Applicant in the present case is 13.08.2025 and he is in incarceration for 12 and a half months. He would submit that the case before the Trial Court is pending at the pre-cognizance hearing stage. 5. That apart, he would also persuade me to consider the fact that the Applicant was already granted bail in the predicate offence as far back as on 25.10.2023 copy of which is annexed at page No.172 and the present E.C.I.R. notwithstanding it being registered on 24.02.2024 and the Applicant having cooperated with the investigation thereafter, it is only subsequent to registration of the second E.C.I.R. dated 21.06.2025 that the Applicant has been arrested. He would submit that the core reason for arrest of the Applicant according to the prosecution has already been noted by Court in the aforesaid order. 6. That apart, he would submit that save and except the confessional statement of the witness Arun Gupta, who is the nephew of the Applicant, copy of which is annexed at page No.413 of the Application wherein he has stated that the Applicant used to handle illegal constructions on Government land and the land belonging to the erstwhile Patel family, and he had received Rs.15 Crores in his Bank account, this being the only charge against the Applicant, there is no other charge whatsoever in the prosecution case. 7. He would submit that the Court should take into 3 of 8 30.BA.2347.2026.doc consideration the fact that the Applicant is also a man of means having his own independent properties. He would submit that the prosecution has in fact attached five properties belonging to the Applicant out of which four are land parcels and two are shops and total value of the attached properties is in excess of Rs.20 Crores. He would therefore persuade the Court to grant the Applicant bail in the present Application. 8. PER CONTRA, Mr. Pendse, would oppose the grant of bail to the Applicant on both factual as well as legal grounds. On the factual ground, Mr. Pendse would persuade the Court to consider the confessional statements of the witnesses, copies of which are annexed at page No.422 (Vijendra Shukla), page No.421 (Radheshyam Sharma), and page No.413 (Arun Gupta) and would persuade me to consider what is stated therein. He would submit that the modus operandi implies that the Applicant used to handle illegal constructions on behalf of the principal perpetrator his nephew and usurp and construct on government land and also land belonging to the erstwhile Patel family. 9. He would submit that the Applicant is one of the key conspirators in usurping Government land, which is prima facie evident from the statement of Vijendra Shukla which states that the Applicant used to convince poor persons rather poor land owners, due 4 of 8 30.BA.2347.2026.doc to his convincing ability to part with their lands. 10. That apart, Mr. Pendse would vehemently and forcefully submit that the Applicant had created atleast 42 dummy owners and on the basis of sale of land to such dummy owners had received benefits out of such sale of land parcels. He would submit that the prosecution case, which is summarized from page No.591 of the Application, prima facie shows that the Applicant's share is to the extent of 50% in the profit that was generated to the extent of Rs.79 Crores and therefore, the impugned order annexed at page No.837 has been correctly passed. 11. On the aspect of law, Mr. Pendse would refer to rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others Vs. Union of India and Others1 and would draw my attention to paragraph No.317 to argue about the Court’s satisfaction of the twin conditions stipulated in Section 45 (1) of the PMLA Act and would submit that it would be incumbent upon the applicant to satisfy the said twin conditions. Prima facie, while answering the first condition, the Applicant appears to be a man of means having several properties and therefore, I do not think that Applicant shall run away or jump bail and refrain from attending the trial and therefore, I am of the clear opinion that in the event if the Applicant is released on bail, he will attend trial. 1 (2023) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1. 5 of 8 30.BA.2347.2026.doc 12. In so far as the factual submissions argued by Mr. Pendse are concerned, it is seen that save and except the confessional statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, there is no other statement for indictment of the Applicant. The timeline and the dates which are alluded to hereinabove prima facie make out a case on behalf of the Applicant for grant of bail. The Applicant was granted bail in the predicate offence in 25.10.2023. The first E.C.I.R. was registered on 24.02.2023 and second E.C.I.R. was registerd on 21.02.2025. Between the registration of the twin E.C.I.Rs., the Applicant has fully cooperated with the prosecution. It is seen that the Applicant has attended the office of the Enforcement Directorate on as many as seven occasions and recorded his statements. 13. That apart, the prosecution has also made multiple inquiries at the residences of the other co-accused persons and it is only after a hiatus of two and half years that the Applicant is arrested. The Applicant’s cooperation is prima facie seen to have been given to the prosecution. The Prosecution complaint has been filed and therefore, in the event if the prosecution requires any further interrogation, they can always summon the Applicant who can be put to appropriate terms. Having been incarcerated for 13 months and chargesheet also having been filed, I am inclined to release the Applicant on bail on all the aforesaid prima facie observations, which may be considered only as observations for the purpose of grant of the present Bail Application 6 of 8 30.BA.2347.2026.doc and nothing more. 14. Considering the aforesaid, Applicant has made out case for grant of bail subject to following conditions:- (i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from prison in connection with E.C.I.R.MBZO-II/26/2023 dated 24.02.2023 and ECIR/MBZO-II/10/2025 dated 21.02.2025; (ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) with one or two surety / sureties of the like amount; (iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at the concerned Police Station, once every month on the first Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.; (iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically exempted and will not take any unnecessary adjournments, if he does so it will entitle the prosecution to apply for revocation of this order; (v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra without prior permission of the Trial Court; 7 of 8 30.BA.2347.2026.doc (vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner; (vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed of his current address and mobile contact number and / or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time, as applicable; and (viii)Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation of bail granted to the Applicant. 15. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are limited for the purpose of granting Bail only and I have not made any observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made hereinabove in this order. 16. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] 8 of 8 HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Digitally signed by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date: 2026.09.01 19:48:05 +0530