Jharkhand High Court
Ram Prakash Bhatia vs Union Of India Through Directorate Of … on 13 September, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 4632 of 2024
Ram Prakash Bhatia, aged about 56 years, son of Late Hukum Chand,
resident of 2nd Floor 85- Sandesh Vihar, P.O. & P.S. Sandesh Vihar, District-
Delhi, Delhi-110035, permanent address- House No.215-2 Near Dhola
Kuan, Hansi, P.O. & P.S. Hansi, District- Haryana- 125033
... Petitioner
-Versus-
Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement ... Opposite Party
-----
PRESENT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
—–
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Naveen Malhotra, Advocate
Mr. Ritvik Malhotra, Advocate
For the ED : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
-----
C.A.V. on 06.09.2024 Pronounced on 13.09.2024
Heard Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh along with Mr. Naveen Malhotra and
Mr. Ritvik Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar
Das along with Mr. Saurav Kumar, learned counsel for the Enforcement
Directorate.
2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with ECIR Case
No.02 of 2023(A) arising out of ECIR/RNSZO/16/2020, registered for the
offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002, pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi.
3. Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh along with his associates submitted that
without any cogent and reliable evidence as against the petitioner, he has
been falsely implicated in the case. He submitted that the petitioner earlier
-1- B.A. No. 4632 of 2024
moved before this Court in B.A. No.10189 of 2023, which was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 23.02.2024. He submitted that the petitioner,
namely, Ram Prakash Bhatia has been arrayed as accused no.8 in the
supplementary complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate under
Section 44(2) read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002 for the commission of the offences defined under Section 3 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. He submitted that the main
complaint was filed against Veerendra Kumar Ram, Alok Ranjan, Raj Kumari
and Genda Ram in which the petitioner was not an accused. He further
submitted that the said ECIR case was registered on the basis of
information received from FIR No.13/2019, dated 13.11.2019 registered by
the ACB, Jamshedpur and subsequently Final Report has been submitted by
the ACB, Jamshedpur bearing No.01/2020 dated 11.01.2020 under Section
120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7(b) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused persons i.e. Alok
Ranjan and Suresh Prasad Verma. He then submitted that the Enforcement
Directorate has exceeded its jurisdiction in arraigning the petitioner as an
accused in the present case when he cannot even be remotely linked to the
predicate offence in the present case arising out of FIR No.13/2019 dated
13.11.2019, which was registered by the ACB, Jamshedpur. He submitted
that the said FIR was registered against Suresh Prasad Verma, which is not
even remotely connected to the petitioner. He also submitted that the co-
accused, namely, Alok Ranjan has been charged only for the offence under
Section 120B read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in the said FIR
-2- B.A. No. 4632 of 2024
case and in view of that, the present petitioner has no nexus with the
alleged recovery of money from the house of Surendra Prasad Verma, who
is the main accused in the said FIR. He submitted that even if the
prosecution complaint is read in its entirety, prima facie no case under
Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002, in as much as, such allegations fall short of the
essential ingredients for offence of money-laundering under Section 3 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. He submitted that the petitioner
has duly cooperated with the investigation and joined the investigation as
and when asked by the Investigating Agency. He further submitted that the
cognizance has been taken vide order dated 22.08.2023 and the
investigation qua the petitioner is complete and there is no likelihood of
concluding the trial shortly and in view of that, the petitioner deserves bail.
He then submitted that the ACB case was registered on the trap laid down
against Suresh Prasad Verma and the FIR No.13/2019 was arising out of the
said cause of action and in view of that, the petitioner is not remotely
connected with the said Suresh Prasad Verma and the prosecution against
the petitioner is bad and he has got no connection with the predicate
offence in the present ECIR case. He submitted that the ground of arrest in
writing is not informed to the petitioner, which is against the mandate of the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj
Bansal v. Union of India and others , reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576.
By way of inviting attention of the Court to paragraph 2 of the prosecution
complaint case, he submitted that with regard to FIR No.13/2019, Suresh
-3- B.A. No. 4632 of 2024
Prasad Verma and Alok Ranjan are named accused. He further drawn
attention of the Court to paragraph 2.8 of the complaint case and submitted
that it is alleged that on the basis of information shared under Section 66(2)
of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to the Commissioner of
Police, Delhi, Police Head Quarter on 03.03.2023 an FIR No.22/2023 was
registered by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Delhi against Veerendra
Kumar Ram, Mukesh Mittal and unknown others and the said FIR
No.22/2023 registered by EOW, Delhi was merged with the investigation of
ECIR No. RNSZO/16/2020. He submitted that the co-accused, namely,
Harish Yadav has been released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 3616 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No.6174 of 2024 vide order dated 30.08.2024. He further
submitted that Rajkumari and Genda Ram have been provided relief by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in light of Section 88 of Cr.P.C. in light of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Lal v.
Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office, reported in
(2024) 7 SCC 61. He submitted that interim relief of no arrest has been
granted in favour of the co-accused, namely, Mukesh Mittal by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2615 of 2024 arising out of Special
Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.3928 of 2024 vide order dated 22.03.2024.
He further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of
India and others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SCC 929 and referred
paragraph 88 of the said judgment and submitted that the Court is not
-4- B.A. No. 4632 of 2024
required to weigh evidence to find the guilt of the accused, which is of
course the work of the trial court, as has been held therein. He submitted
that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail to Manish Sisodia
on the ground of delay in trial in Criminal Appeal No. 3295 of 2024 arising
out of Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.8781 of 2024. He also
submitted that Prem Prakash has been granted bail in Criminal Appeal
No.3572 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5416
of 2024 vide order dated 28.08.2024. On these grounds, he submitted that
the petitioner may kindly be released on bail.
4. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the Enforcement
Directorate by way of inviting attention of the Court to para 7.4.20 of the
complaint case submitted that on instruction of Mukesh Mittal, entries were
provided by Ram Prakash Bhatia in the bank accounts of Rakesh Kumar
Kedia, Manish and Neha Shrestha and it was found that their accounts have
received majority of the funds from the bank accounts of three
proprietorship of one same person named Sachin Gupta. He submitted that
the statement of Tara Chand was also recorded under Section 17 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act on 21.02.2023, wherein, he stated that
he opened the bank accounts in the name of three firms of Sachin Gupta
and he also stated that Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal requested him in 2017
to open different bank accounts and provide bogus entry for which Neeraj
Mittal @ Niraj Mittal would give him commission. He was also found in the
possession of Rs.16.90 Lakhs cash during the search conducted on
21.02.2023 about which he stated that Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal
-5- B.A. No. 4632 of 2024
instructed him to keep the cash. He further submitted that Tara Chand has
also stated that Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal and Harish Yadav used to
operate all the bank accounts and only he could explain the transactions. By
way of inviting attention of the Court to paragraph 5.4.2 (ix) of the
supplementary complaint, he submitted that the statement of Tara Chand
was also recorded later under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, wherein he stated that he used to collect cash from Ram
Prakash Bhatia, to whom Mukesh Mittal used to hand over the cash of
Veerendra Kumar Ram, on the instructions of Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal
and the total funds of Rs.3.52 Crores that have been transferred to the bank
accounts of Rakesh Kumar Kedia, Manish and Neha Shrestha, which were
provided by Ram Prakash Bhatia and these are only fake business entries
given in lieu of commission. He further submitted that four bank accounts of
Tara Chand were operated by Harish Yadav on the instruction of Neeraj
Mittal @ Niraj Mittal. By way of referring para 5.4.2 (x) of the
supplementary complaint, he submitted that the Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal
has stated in his statement recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act that in the year 2022, Ram Prakash Bhatia
(petitioner) gave him bank accounts and asked him to provide entries
therein against the cash provided by Ram Prakash Bhatia. He further stated
that Tara Chand later provided him four bank accounts (three proprietorship
and one individual, accounts of Tara Chand) and he was well aware of the
fact that out of these four bank accounts, three were opened on the basis
of forged identity cards. He also stated that he transferred Rs.3.52 Crores,
-6- B.A. No. 4632 of 2024
which was proceeds of crime acquired by Veerendra Kumar Ram through
commission from the balance which were already available with the four
bank accounts on the instructions of Ram Prakash Bhatia and when asked
about the source of such balance he stated that these funds were deposited
by the farmers in lieu of purchasing crates, which he was supposed to give
to crate manufacturers i.e. seller of such crates. He used to receive cash
from Ram Prakash Bhatia in short duration after giving RTGS entries and
then such cash was given to crate manufacturer i.e. seller of such crates.
The whole findings of investigation regarding purchase-sale of crates and
transfer of funds in lieu of such transactions have been discussed therein.
He further stated that he used to give Rs.25,000/- per month of Harish
Yadav to operate the aforesaid bank accounts and make RTGS entries. By
way of referring 5.4.2 (xi) of the supplementary complaint, he submitted
that Ram Prakash Bhatia (petitioner) in his statement recorded under
Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act stated that he knows
Mukesh Mittal for last 2.5 to 3 years and there was a deal that Mukesh
Mittal would provide him cash and he would provide the RTGS entries to the
bank accounts provided by Mukesh Mittal. He used to take a commission of
0.75% from Mukesh Mittal and 0.2% from Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal He
also stated that he has taken RTGS entries of Rs.4 Crores between
December, 2022 to February, 2023 from Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal. He
made these RTGS entries in the bank accounts of Manish, Rakesh Kumar
Kedia and Neha Shrestha on the instruction of Mukesh Mittal. He then
submitted that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner and there
-7- B.A. No. 4632 of 2024
is every likelihood that the trial may complete soon. He submitted that so
far as Mukesh Mittal is concerned, he has been granted bail by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court considering his burn injury. According to him, Harish Yadav
is the employee of Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal and Raj Kumari and Genda
Ram have been given benefit of Section 88 of Cr.P.C. in light of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Lal (supra). He submitted that
those cases are distinguishable in the facts of the present case. He further
submitted that the bail application of Veerendra Kumar Ram has been
rejected by this Court in B.A. No.11948 of 2023 and the bail application of
Tara Chand has been rejected in B.A. No.11095 of 2023. On these grounds,
he submitted that the regular bail application, so far as the petitioner is
concerned, may kindly be rejected.
5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the
allegation made against the petitioner and finds that so far as Ram Prakash
Bhatia is concerned, he was the main person who was managing all the
things and how money transactions were made that have been disclosed in
paras 5.4.2(ix), 5.4.2(x) and 5.4.2(xi) of complaint (supra). Mukesh Mittal
used to hand over the cash of Veerendra Kumar Ram on the instruction of
this petitioner and total funds of Rs.3.52 Crores have been transferred in
the bank accounts of Rakesh Kumar Kedia, Manish and Neha Shrestha,
which were provided by Ram Prakash Bhatia and operated by Harish Yadav
on instruction of Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal and that has come in the
complaint case. Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal has stated in his statement that
-8- B.A. No. 4632 of 2024
for entries purpose, he asked Tara Chand to provide some bank accounts for
which he would provide Tara Chand a handsome amount. He has further
stated that Tara Chand later provided him four bank accounts (three
proprietorship and one individual accounts of Tara Chand) and he was well
aware of the fact that out of those four bank accounts, three were opened
on the basis of forged identity cards.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Chidambaram v.
Central Bureau Investigation, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 337 has
come up with triple test under Section 439 of Cr.PC, while dealing with
cases involving economic offences. The principles that were summarized in
this judgment is extracted hereunder:
“21. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on
the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the
facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors
are to be taken into consideration while considering an
application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the
severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the
nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution;
(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the
witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or
the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the
presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood
of his abscondence; (iv) character, behaviour and standing
of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to
the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State
and similar other considerations.”
7. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation Vs Santosh Krnani and Another , reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 427 has observed that corruption poses a serious threat to our
society and must be dealt with iron hands. The relevant paragraph of the
aforesaid judgment is being referred as under:-
“31. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence should
-9- B.A. No. 4632 of 2024
have been kept in mind by the High Court. Corruption poses
a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron
hands. It not only leads to abysmal loss to the public
exchequer but also tramples good governance. The
common man stands deprived of the benefits percolating
under social welfare schemes and is the worst hit. It is aptly
said, ―Corruption is a tree whose branches are of an
unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere; and the dew
that drops from thence, Hath infected some chairs and
stools of authority. Hence, the need to be extra conscious.”
8. In paragraph no.284 of the judgment passed in the case of Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) , it
has been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute a
person for offence of money laundering only if it has reason to believe,
which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in
possession of “proceeds of crime”. Only if that belief is further supported by
tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the
person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of
crime, action under the Act can be taken forward for attachment and
confiscation of proceeds of crime and until vesting thereof in the
Central Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process.
So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 is
concerned, at paragraph-412 of the judgment rendered in the case of Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) , it
has been held therein that rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 must come into
play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of
the 2002 Act.
9. The investigation disclosed that Mukesh Mittal contacted Ram Prakash
Bhatia (petitioner), who is engaged in the illegal business of providing
-10- B.A. No. 4632 of 2024
entries in lieu of commission for taking the entries into the bank account of
Genda Ram. Subsequently, Ram Prakash Bhatia provided those entries with
the help of his associate Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal. There was a deal
between the petitioner and Mukesh Mittal by which Mukesh Mittal promised
to give Rs.7 Lakhs to the petitioner as commission for the entries and
provide bills for purchase of foodgrains/pulses in the name of Manish,
Rakesh Kumar Kedia and Neha Shrestha to disguise the transfer of illicit
money into the bank account of Genda Ram, however, Mukesh Mittal just
paid him Rs.4.5 Lakhs as petitioner could not provide the bills. A person of
the petitioner used to collect cash from Mukesh Mittal’s premises as and
when the same was received from the hawala operators and entires were
received against the cash in the bank accounts of Rakesh Kumar Kedia,
Neha Shrestha and Manish. It was also seen that the bank accounts of
Genda Ram received high-valued funds from the bank accounts of Rakesh
Kumar Kedia, Manish and Neha Shrestha, who are relatives of Mukesh
Mittal, which were used in purchasing immovable property in the name of
Genda Ram. Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal regularly instructed Tara Chand to
collect cash from Ram Prakash Bhatia, who used to receive the same from
Mukesh Mittal. It prima facie appears that the petitioner was found to be
involved in the hawala operations as various currency notes in the
denomination of Re.1, Rs.2, Rs.5 and Rs.10 total worth Rs.293/- in small
denominations which were used as tokens for hawala transactions were
seized from his premises during the course of search under Section 17 of
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act on 23.06.2023. The petitioner was
-11- B.A. No. 4632 of 2024
found to be engaged in the illegal business of money transfer and providing
entry, in lieu of commission. The petitioner has received commission to the
tune of 0.75% of the total amount from Mukesh Mittal in lieu of providing
entries as well as to the tune of 0.2% from Neeraj Mittal in lieu of providing
cash. The petitioner was found to be directly involved or assisted in the
process or activity which are related to proceeds of crime to the tune of
Rs.4.545 Crores and he received commission of Rs.4.5 Lakhs from Mukesh
Mittal for providing entries into the bank accounts of Rakesh Kumar Kedia,
Manish and Neha Shrestha.
10. Further, the cases of Veerendra Kumar Ram and Tara Chand have
already been dismissed by this Court in B.A. No.11948 of 2023 and B.A.
No.11095 of 2023 respectively.
11. So far as Mukesh Mittal is concerned, he has been granted bail on the
ground of health issue.
12. The allegation against Harish Yadav is that he was acting on the
advise of Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal. Thus, he is found to be an employee
of Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal and the Hon’ble Supreme Court found that
prima facie the role of Harish Yadav is not direct and in view of that, he has
been granted bail.
13. So far as Raj Kumari and Genda Ram are concerned, they have been
given benefit of Section 88 Cr.P.C. in light of the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of
Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office (supra) . Thus, those orders are
on different footing.
-12- B.A. No. 4632 of 2024
14. So far as Prem Prakash is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held
that it does not prima facie indicate any role of Prem Pakash and
considering that aspect Prem Pakash has been granted bail. In view of
above facts, the case of the present petitioner is distinguishable with the
case of Prem Prakash, as such, the case of Prem Prakash is further not
helping the petitioner.
15. So far as the case of Manish Sisodia is concerned, this Court finds
that in the case of Manish Sidsodia in the earlier the Directorate of
Enforcement had informed the Hon’ble Supreme Court that within the
stipulated period the trial will be concluded however the trial was not
concluded and Sidsodia was behind bar since 17 months and on these
grounds Manish Sisodia was granted bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The
fact in the present case is otherwise.
16. When a serious offence of such a magnitude mere fact that accused
was in jail for long time inconsequential besides such casual approach would
undermine trust of public in integrity of Investigating Agency. Further, bail is
the rule and jail is an exception but competing forces need to be carefully
measured before enlarging the accused on bail. Socio economic
offences constituted a class apart and need to be visited with different
approach in the matter of bail since socio economic offences have deep-
rooted conspiracies affecting moral fibre of society and causing irreparable
harm. Moreover, investigating agency was in process of expediting the trial.
A reference may be made to the judgment passed in the case of State of
Bihar v. Amit Kumar, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 751. Paragraphs 8 to
-13- B.A. No. 4632 of 2024
15 of the said judgment are as under:
“8. A bare reading of the order impugned discloses that
the High Court has not given any reasoning while granting
bail. In a mechanical way, the High Court granted bail more
on the fact that the accused is already in custody for a long
time. When the seriousness of the offence is such the mere
fact that he was in jail for however long time should not be
the concern of the courts. We are not able to appreciate
such a casual approach while granting bail in a case which
has the effect of undermining the trust of people in the
integrity of the education system in the State of Bihar.
9. We are conscious of the fact that the accused is
charged with economic offences of huge magnitude and is
alleged to be the kingpin/ringleader. Further, it is alleged
that the respondent-accused is involved in tampering with
the answer sheets by illegal means and interfering with the
examination system of Bihar Intermediate Examination,
2016 and thereby securing top ranks, for his daughter and
other students of Vishnu Rai College, in the said
examination. During the investigation when a search team
raided his place, various documents relating to property and
land to the tune of Rs 2.57 crores were recovered besides
Rs 20 lakhs in cash. In addition to this, allegedly a large
number of written answer sheets of various students,
letterheads and rubber stamps of several authorities, admit
cards, illegal firearm, etc. were found which establishes a
prima facie case against the respondent. The allegations
against the respondent are very serious in nature, which are
reflected from the excerpts of the case diary. We are also
conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved,
may jeopardise the credibility of the education system of
the State of Bihar.
10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent claimed parity with twenty-eight (28) other
accused persons in the same case who have already been
granted bail. We find that though some of the accused are
released on bail most of them are teachers who performed
the invigilation duty and members of the Managing
Committee against whom the charges are not so serious. It
is not appropriate to compare the case of the respondent-
accused, with those who were on bail, as the respondent is
alleged to be the kingpin of the entire crime.
11. Although there is no quarrel with respect to the legal
propositions canvassed by the learned counsel, it should be
noted that there is no straitjacket formula for consideration
of grant of bail to an accused. It all depends upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. The Government’s interest
in preventing crime by arrestees is both legitimate and
compelling. So also is the cherished right of personal liberty
envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is the bail-14- B.A. No. 4632 of 2024
provision, places responsibility upon the courts to uphold
procedural fairness before a person’s liberty is abridged.
Although “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is well
established in our jurisprudence, we have to measure
competing forces present in facts and circumstances of each
case before enlarging a person on bail.
12. We are of the considered opinion that Sanjay Chandra
[Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 : (2012) 1 SCC
(Cri) 26 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 397] , as relied upon by the
learned counsel for the respondent, is distinguishable from
the case at hand as the charges in that case carried a
maximum punishment for a term which may extend to
seven years. In the present case, charge-sheet has been
submitted, inter alia, for the offences under Sections 409
[ Which carries punishment of imprisonment for life, or
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend up to ten years and shall also be liable for a fine.] ,
465, 467 [ Which carries punishment of imprisonment for
life or with imprisonment of either description which may
extend up to a term of ten years and shall also be liable to a
fine.] , 468, 471, 188, 201, 212 and 120-B of the Penal
Code, 1860 and Sections 8 [ Which carries punishment of
imprisonment for minimum of three years and may extend
up to seven years with fine.] , 9 [ Which carries punishment
of imprisonment for minimum of three years and may
extend up to seven years with fine.] , 13(1)(c)/(d) read with
Section 13(2) [ Which carries punishment of imprisonment
for minimum of four years and may extend up to ten years
with fine.] of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [ It is
to be noted that Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was
amended by ‘the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013’, Act 1 of
2014 (w.e.f. 16-1-2014). This amendment has increased the
minimum prescribed punishment under Sections 8, 9, 13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act.] . Therefore, Sanjay
Chandra [Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 : (2012)
1 SCC (Cri) 26 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 397] provides no
assistance for the respondent herein.
13. We are also conscious that if undeserving candidates
are allowed to top exams by corrupt means, not only will
the society be deprived of deserving candidates, but it will
be unfair for those students who have honestly worked hard
for one whole year and are ultimately disentitled to a good
rank by fraudulent practices prevalent in those
examinations. It is well settled that socio-economic offences
constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a
different approach in the matter of bail [Nimmagadda
Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 575;
Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 : (2013)
3 SCC (Cri) 552] . Usually socio-economic offence has deep-
rooted conspiracies affecting the moral fibre of the society
and causing irreparable harm, needs to be considered
seriously.
-15- B.A. No. 4632 of 2024
14. Further, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the
investigating agency is going to file additional charge-sheet.
Therefore, the respondent’s presence in the custody may be
necessary for further investigation. Furthermore, we cannot
approve the order of the High Court, in directing the
investigating authority concerned to file the charge-sheet
within a month, as the case involves almost 32 accused and
a complex modus operandi.
15. Having bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the
gravity of the offence and several other crucial factors which
are discussed in detail in preceding paragraphs, we are of
the opinion that it is not advisable to release the
respondent-accused on bail at this stage. Accordingly,
without expressing any opinion on final merits of the case,
we set aside the order of the High Court. The appeal stands
allowed.”
17. In view of the above facts and considering that there is direct
allegation against the petitioner and he is involved in proceeds of crime, as
such, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
18. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated: the 13th day of September, 2024
Ajay/ A.F.R.
-16- B.A. No. 4632 of 2024