JUDGMENT : RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Naveen Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned retainer counsel, Enforcement Directorate. 2. The petitioner is an accused in connection with ECIR Case No. 01/2023 arising out of ECIR-RNZO/18/2022 registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 (hereinafter referred to as PMLA, 2002) pending in the court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that ECIR bearing no. 18/22 was recorded on the basis of an F.I.R being Bariyatu P.S. Case No. 141/2020 against Pradeep Bagchi on the basis of complaint of one Dilip Sharma, Tax Collector, Ranchi Municipal Corporation for submission of forged papers i.e. Aadhar Card, Electricity Bill and Possession letter for obtaining holding number 0210004194000A1 and 0210004031000A5. Investigation revealed that by submitting the forged documents, a holding number was obtained in name of Pradeep Bagchi for property at Morabadi Mouza, Ward No. 21/19, Ranchi having an area of the plot measuring 455.00 decimals approx. Investigation further revealed that the above property belonged to Late B.M. Laxman Rao which was given to the Army and had been in the possession and occupation of the defence/Army since independence. Investigation revealed that by way of creating a fake owner (Pradeep Bagchi) of the above said property, it was sold to one company M/s Jagatbandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd and the consideration amount was shown Rs. 7 crores which was highly under-valued. Out of this amount Rs. 7 crores payment amounting to Rs. 25 lakhs only was made into the account of said Pradeep Bagchi and rest of the money was falsely shown to be paid through cheques in the deed no.-6888 of 2021. In this case it came to notice of the investigating officer that records available at the C.O. Bargain, Ranchi along with the office of Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata have been altered and records have been modified. The survey of Circle Office Bargain as well as Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata transpires that documents have been tampered to create fictitious owners of the above properties. Some other properties have also been identified during investigation which are non-saleable Govt. land and have been acquired by forging the records and creating fraudulent documents and by tampering the records available at the concerned land record authorities. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Some other properties have also been identified during investigation which are non-saleable Govt. land and have been acquired by forging the records and creating fraudulent documents and by tampering the records available at the concerned land record authorities. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Naveen Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution has to examine 31 witnesses and has to exhibit a large number of documents from which it could be gathered that there is no probability of the trial being concluded in the near future. The petitioner has been incarcerated in judicial custody since 14.04.2023. It has been submitted that charge sheet has not been filed in the predicate offence and the petitioner cannot be convicted till the predicate offence reaches its logical conclusion. Learned counsel has relied upon the case of V. Senthil Balaji versus Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2626. It has been submitted that the view taken in the case of V. Senthil Balaji (Supra) has been followed in the case of Veerendra Kumar Ram versus Union of India in Criminal Appeal No. 4615/2024 and Ram Prakash Bhatia versus Union of India in Criminal Appeal No. 5123/2024. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has completed 1/3rd of the maximum period of imprisonment and he has never been convicted. As such, Section 4 79(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 will be squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner. It has, therefore, been submitted that considering the overall conspectus of the case the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. 5. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned Retainer Counsel ED has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and has submitted that this is a predicate offence. In course of investigation it was revealed that the petitioner is a member of the racket and all the accused persons had obtained two holding numbers for one property at plot number MS 557 Morabadi Mauja Ward No.21/19 having an area of 455.00 decimals at Ranchi and they had also made a fake sale deed and planted it into the original records available at the office of Registrar of Assurances (Records), Kolkata. The said plot was later on sold by Pradeep Bagchi to M/s Jagat Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. represented by its Director, Dilip Kumar Ghosh. Mr. The said plot was later on sold by Pradeep Bagchi to M/s Jagat Bandhu Tea Estate Pvt. Ltd. represented by its Director, Dilip Kumar Ghosh. Mr. Das has copiously referred to Para 9.6.3 of the prosecution complaint which demarcates the modus operandi adopted by the accused persons in preparation of false deeds. The proceeds of crime so far as the petitioner is concerned is demonstrated at Para 8.9 of the prosecution complaint. The accused Dilip Kumar Ghosh though has been granted bail but his role was limited to that of being the purchaser of the illegally acquired property. Mr. Das has submitted that the prayer for bail of several accused persons have been rejected by this Court in B.A. No. 638 of 2025, B.A. No. 10272 of 2024 and B.A. No. 9247 of 2023. 6. In the case of V. Santhil Balaji versus the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (Supra), it has been held as follows: “26. There are a series of decisions of this Court starting from the decision in the case of K.A. Najeeb2, which hold that such stringent provisions for the grant of bail do not take away the power of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India. We have already referred to paragraph 17 of the said decision, which lays down that the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed in a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. One of the reasons is that if, because of such provisions, incarceration of an undertrial accused is continued for an unreasonably long time, the provisions may be exposed to the vice of being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 27. Under the Statutes like PMLA, the minimum sentence is three years, and the maximum is seven years. The minimum sentence is higher when the scheduled offence is under the NDPS Act. When the trial of the complaint under PMLA is likely to prolong beyond reasonable limits, the Constitutional Courts will have to consider exercising their powers to grant bail. 27. Under the Statutes like PMLA, the minimum sentence is three years, and the maximum is seven years. The minimum sentence is higher when the scheduled offence is under the NDPS Act. When the trial of the complaint under PMLA is likely to prolong beyond reasonable limits, the Constitutional Courts will have to consider exercising their powers to grant bail. The reason is that Section 45(1)(ii) does not confer power on the State to detain an accused for an unreasonably long time, especially when there is no possibility of trial concluding within a reasonable time. What a reasonable time is will depend on the provisions under which the accused is being tried and other factors. One of the most relevant factor is the duration of the minimum and maximum sentence for the offence. Another important consideration is the higher threshold or stringent conditions which a statute provides for the grant of bail. Even an outer limit provided by the relevant law for the completion of the trial, if any, is also a factor to be considered. The extraordinary powers, as held in the case of K.A. Najeeb2, can only be exercised by the Constitutional Courts. The Judges of the Constitutional Courts have vast experience. Based on the facts on record, if the Judges conclude that there is no possibility of a trial concluding in a reasonable time, the power of granting bail can always be exercised by the Constitutional Courts on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the statutory provisions. The Constitutional Courts can always exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 226, as the case may be. The Constitutional Courts have to bear in mind while dealing with the cases under the PMLA that, except in a few exceptional cases, the maximum sentence can be of seven years. The Constitutional Courts cannot allow provisions like Section 45(1)(ii) to become instruments in the hands of the ED to continue incarceration for a long time when there is no possibility of a trial of the scheduled offence and the PMLA offence concluding within a reasonable time. If the Constitutional Courts do not exercise their jurisdiction in such cases, the rights of the undertrials under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be defeated. If the Constitutional Courts do not exercise their jurisdiction in such cases, the rights of the undertrials under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be defeated. In a given case, if an undue delay in the disposal of the trial of scheduled offences or disposal of trial under the PMLA can be substantially attributed to the accused, the Constitutional Courts can always decline to exercise jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs. An exception will also be in a case where, considering the antecedents of the accused, there is every possibility of the accused becoming a real threat to society if enlarged on bail. The jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs is always discretionary. 29. As stated earlier, the appellant has been incarcerated for 15 months or more for the offence punishable under the PMLA. In the facts of the case, the trial of the scheduled offences and, consequently, the PMLA offence is not likely to be completed in three to four years or even more. If the appellant's detention is continued, it will amount to an infringement of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of speedy trial.” 7. In the case of Union of India versus K. A. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 , it has been held as under:- “17. It is thus clear to us that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution. Indeed, both the restrictions under a statute as well as the powers exercisable under constitutional jurisdiction can be well harmonised. Whereas at commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.” 8. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.” 8. The role of the petitioner has been depicted at paragraph-11 of the prosecution complaint which reads as follows: Mohammad Saddam Hussain (Accused no.7) The accused was a party with accused no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 & 11 in activities connected with proceeds of crime Including its acquisition, possession, use, concealment and projecting tainted property as untainted property. The accused was instrumental and actively assisted the accused no. 6 and accused no. 5 in manufacturing fake deeds of various landed properties and disposing them for acquiring proceeds of crime. The accused knowingly assisted accused no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in acquiring landed properties worth Rs 20,75,84,200 in form of landed property, measuring 4.55 acres (455 decimals) at MS Plot no. 557, Mauja Morabadi whose present commercial value is around Rs. 41,51,68,390/- which had been under the possession of the defence since independence. He was also knowingly involved and was actually a party in acquiring proceeds of crime by selling illegally a land admeasuring 3.81 acres situated at Plot no. 891, 893 and 903, Khata no. 256, Bargain, Ranchi. The accused was also a party with the accused no. 8 and both of them were director of a company F2R Constructions Pvt. Ltd. through which both of the accused persons carried huge transactions with the accused Talha Khan @ Sunny. The accused operated a firm in name of Green Traders and carried number of transactions with other accused persons and his associates for laundering proceeds of crime acquired by illegal sale of landed properties. Hence, the accused person was knowingly a party with the other accused persons and was actually involved in activity connected with the fixed by District Registrar, Ranchi, effective from 01.08.2021. He and Afshar Ali gave Rs. 1 crore to the accused Chavi. Ranjan for obtaining undue favours. proceeds of crime i.e. its acquisition, use and projected and claiming the proceeds of crime as untainted property. Thus, the accused person has committed the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of PMLA, 2002 and is liable to be punished under section 4 of PMLA, 2002. Property having Commercial value of Rs. Ranjan for obtaining undue favours. proceeds of crime i.e. its acquisition, use and projected and claiming the proceeds of crime as untainted property. Thus, the accused person has committed the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of PMLA, 2002 and is liable to be punished under section 4 of PMLA, 2002. Property having Commercial value of Rs. 41,51,68,390/- situated at MS Plot No. 557, Mauja Morabadi, Ranchi admeasuring 4.55 acres as per the minimum effective value per decimal 9. What would transpire from the role assigned to the petitioner is of his involvement along with the other accused persons including Dilip Kumar Ghosh who has been arrayed as A-2 in the prosecution complaint. The said Dilip Kumar Ghosh has been granted bail in B.A. No. 7233 of 2023. The petitioner has remained in custody since 14-04-2023 i.e. about 2 years 6 months. There is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future. As observed in V. Senthil Balaji (supra) ‘If the appellant's detention is continued, it will amount to an infringement of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of speedy trial’. 10. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I–In-charge, Ranchi in connection with ECIR Case No. 01/2023 arising out of ECIR-RNZO/18/2022. 11. This application stands allowed.