BA.3607.2026.doc Ajay 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. 3607 OF 2026 Mr. Y. Shiva Reddy, S/o. Late Gopal Reddy .. Applicant Versus The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. .. Respondents ....................  Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Kathyaeni Ramshetty, Mr. D. Vignesh Reddy, Mr. Y. Soma Srinath Reddy, Mr. D. Shashi Preetham and Mr. Shreyas Kaushal, Advocates i/by Pravada Raut for Applicant.  Ms. Shilpa G. Talhar, APP for Respondent – State. ......…........... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 09, 2026. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocate for Applicant and Ms. Talhar, learned APP for Respondent No.2 - State. 2. Present Bail Application is filed by Applicant under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) seeking enlargement on bail in connection with ECIR/MBZO-II/10/2025 in Special Case No.2109 of 2025. 3. Applicant was Deputy Director Town Planning, Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation (VVMC) between 2019 and 2023 when he was alleged to have issued Commencement Certificate and Occupancy 1 of 7 BA.3607.2026.doc Certificate to certain builders and developers in respect of 41 buildings within the jurisdiction of VVMC. Furthermore, it is prosecution’s case that Applicant turned a blind eye to illegal constructions and failed to demolish the same. FIR No.330 of 2025 was registered on 01.08.2025 against Applicant at Achole Police Station and he was arrested on 13.08.2025. Prosecution Complaint dated 10.10.2025 was filed before PMLA Special Court, Mumbai. Applicant filed Bail Application at Exhibit 46 before PMLA Special Court seeking enlargement on bail which came to be rejected by order dated 31.08.2026. Hence present Application. 4. Mr. Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Applicant would submit that his arrest is flagrant violation of the settled position of law and there is no material on record to show the proceeds of crime that it originates from scheduled offence. He would submit that the investigation is documentary in nature which is in possession of the prosecution and there is no reason for the Accused to have access or remain in custody for the same. He would submit that properties of the Accused which is alleged of proceeds of crime are also seized. He would submit that Accused has co-operated with the investigation prior and post after his arrest and his statement under Section 50 of PMLA is recorded. He would submit that Applicant did not evade his arrest and in future will not abscond and is ready to abide by all the conditions for grant of bail imposed by this Court. 2 of 7 BA.3607.2026.doc 4.1. He would submit that Applicant has fulfilled the twin conditions from grant of bail as contemplated under Section 45 of the PMLA. He would submit that that first of twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA have been satisfied as Applicant is not guilty of the offence under Section 3 of the said Act. He would submit that Applicant is not named in the first FIR out of four predicate offences under ECIR/MBZO-II/10/2025. He would submit that ECIR has been filed after 06 years of the 1st predicate offence and 03 years after the alleged other predicate offences and the chargesheets of the said predicate offences are pending in the court of JMFC Vasai and there is no material on record to believe to proceed with search against the present Accused. He would submit that his is named in one predicate offence of the ECIR and same is not connected with any scheduled offence and the act of demolition of illegal buildings and structures is falsely attributed to him. He has no role in illegal constructions of 41 buildings. He would submit that there is no nexus of the property seized and the crime registered, that property of the Accused seized is not the proceeds of crime, that there is no money trial for the prosecution to show against the Accused. He would submit that there is no evidentiary value of the WhatsApp chats and other record allegedly seized by the investigation agency. He has co-operated the investigation of the offence against him and is not at flight risk. No proceeds of crime are identified against and attributed to him. 3 of 7 BA.3607.2026.doc 5. Ms. Talhar would strongly resist the grant of bail by vehemently arguing that the cash and jewelry recovered i.e. proceeds of crime are of exuberant value of almost Rs.30 crores and therefore there is a very real chance that Applicant would jump bail if he is granted the same. She would submit that the proceeds of crime recovered were disproportionate to his income and he has no proper explanation for the same. She would submit that there is reasonable ground to believe that Applicant will dispose his assets, tamper evidence and hamper the trial. On the basis of these submissions, she would urge this Court to dismiss the present Application. 6. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and with their able assistance, perused the record of the case. Submissions made by learned Advocates at the bar have received due consideration of the Court. 7. It is seen that one of the co-accused, namely one Sitaram Gupta was granted bail in respect of the predicate offences under the very same ECIR being ECIR/MBZO-II/10/2025. It is seen that prosecution complaint records that there is no connection of the Applicant herein with the 41 illegal constructions. It is seen that Applicant herein was not named in 4 FIRs registered between 2019 and 2023 and charge sheets have been filed in three FIRs in which the Applicant is not named and only FIR in which the Applicant was 4 of 7 BA.3607.2026.doc named is FIR No.330/2025 and the only contention of prosecution is that there is a disproportionate assets FIR and the assets seized were clearly explained by the Applicant and the investigation is pending in this FIR. Prima facie there is no material on record to disclose any nexus between the seized property and the scheduled offences and that seized property constitutes proceeds of crime. It is seen that quantification of Rs.51.77 crore being the proceeds of crime is based on inference from statement of one of the witnesses, but the said quantification is not based on any identified transaction or money trail. 8. It is seen that WhatsApp chats relied upon lack independent corroboration. Prima facie it is seen that Applicant had also furnished detailed explanation regarding the seized cash and jewellery to the Adjudicating Authority on 10.08.2025 and he has fully cooperated with the investigation, having appeared before the ED on 26 occasions. It is seen that investigation against the Applicant herein is complete and the prosecution complaint filed therefore presence and custody of Applicant is not required. 9. It is seen that investigation is complete against only 4 out of 18 Accused and investigation in predicate offences in FIR No.195 of 2022 and FIR No.330 of 2025 is still pending and there is no wherewithal of trial. It is seen that Applicant herein has undergone pre-trial incarceration of over year and has been in custody since 5 of 7 BA.3607.2026.doc 13.08.2025 and since the investigation is complete against the Applicant herein, there is no justification for further incarceration. 10. Hence, in view of above prima facie observations and findings, Bail Application of Applicant is allowed subject to the following terms and conditions:- (i) Applicant – Y. Shiva Reddy is directed to be immediately released from prison in connection with ECIR/MBZO-II/10/2025; (ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like amount; (iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at concerned Police Station, once every month, on the first Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. until commencement of trial and thereafter shall attend all dates of hearing before the Trial Court; (iv) Applicant shall cooperate with the conduct of the trial and remain present before the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically exempted. Applicant shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Any such conduct shall entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail; (v) Applicant shall not leave the country without prior 6 of 7 BA.3607.2026.doc permission of the Trial Court; (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 residential address and mobile telephone number and shall forthwith inform the Investigating Officer of any change in his residential address or mobile telephone number, as and when such change occurs; and (viii)Any breach or infraction of any of the aforesaid conditions shall entail cancellation of the bail granted to the Applicant. 11. 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. 12. Bail Application is allowed and disposed in the above terms. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 7 of 7 HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Digitally signed by HARSHADA HANUMANT SAWANT Date: 2026.09.11 16:07:33 +0530