Order : 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. on behalf of the accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with ECIR No.HIU-II/05/2022 registered for the offence under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.M.L.A.’). 2. Learned counsel, Mr. Pankaj Gupta presents the argument asserting that there is no substantial case under Section 3/4 of the P.M.L.A., against the petitioner. He firmly states that the petitioner has not generated funds through illicit activities, and no amount was recovered from the behest of the petitioner. It is contended that in the predicate offences i.e. in the FIR No.298/2021 registered at Police Station Balghat, Karauli and FIR No.402/2021 registered at Police Station Ganga City, the same allegations were incorporated and subsequently charge-sheet have been submitted. As far as the investigation of the predicate offence is concerned, the Investigating Agency has arrested as many as 130 accused persons and have submitted 9 charge- sheets. The allegations as culled out against the petitioner are that Ramkripal Meena in connivance with Pradeep Parashar and Udaram Bishnoi hatched a criminal conspiracy to leak paper and Ramkripal Meena made a deal with Udaram Bishnoi and with the present petitioner to provide them the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers ("REET") exam paper. The main allegations of stealing the papers and receiving huge amount are against Ramkripal Meena and Udaram Bishnoi. The allegation that accused gave Rs.43,00,000/- in cash to Ramkripal Meena and amount of Rs.80,00,000/- is without any tenable proof. It is also contended that the statement recorded under Section 50 of the P.M.L.A. is not admissible. It is also argued that the criminal antecedents shown against the petitioner is irrelevant as no case is made out against him, and even if it is considered that the petitioner was involved in various offences then also the petitioner cannot be denied bail on that ground. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the following judgments:- i. Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2020 (11)SCC 648 , ii. Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashid Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2012 (2) SCC 382 , iii. Taket Jerang Vs. Arunachal Pradesh & Anr., Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11244/2023 iv. Jagan Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.9895/2024, v. Kaluram Bishnoi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2020 (11)SCC 648 , ii. Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashid Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., 2012 (2) SCC 382 , iii. Taket Jerang Vs. Arunachal Pradesh & Anr., Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11244/2023 iv. Jagan Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.9895/2024, v. Kaluram Bishnoi Vs. Union of India, in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.11765/2021, and vi. Prem Prakash Vs. Union of India, 2024 (9) SCC 787 . 4. It is also contended that the other co-accused, Ram Kripal Meena, Pradeep Parashar and Sita Ram have already been enlarged on bail. The case of the present petitioner is on better footing then the case of Ram Kripal Meena against whom, the main allegation of leaking the REET 2021 exam paper and receiving the huge amount from the other co-accused Udaram Bishnoi, have been levelled. It is further contended that the complaint filed against the petitioner contains voluminous documents and trial of the case may take considerable time, there is a long list of prosecution witnesses and there is no chances that the petitioner would temper the evidence as most of the witnesses are Government Officers and nature of the evidence are documentary. The main co-accused Ram Kripal Meena was enlarged on bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the twin condition enshrined under Section 45 of the P.M.L.A. along with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 , categorically held that; "over a period of time, the trial Courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial Courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial Courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and Jail is exception". 5. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial Courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and Jail is exception". 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court also after referring the judgment of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2024) 9 SCC 813 , Gudikanti Narasimhule & Ors. Vs. Public Prosecutor High Court of Andrapradesh, 1978 (1) SC 240, observed that; "if the State or any prosecuting agency including the Court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime". 6. After considering the entire judgmentory law, the Court allowed the bail application of Manish Sisodia, citing that the case involves thousands of pages of documents, having 493 witnesses and there is no remotest possibility of the trial being concluded shortly. The Court also held that keeping the appellant (Manish Sisodia) behind bars for an unlimited time in the hope of speedy trial completion would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that time and again, prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial. Therefore, in light of the above authoritative pronouncement, the petitioner's bail application should be allowed. It is further argued that the petitioner is not seeking equality based on his role in the alleged offence, "the focus remains on the excessive period of incarceration and questionable prospects of prompt trial". 7. Contrarily, the learned Additional Solicitor General, Mr. R.D. Rastogi, argues that the petitioner’s circumstances differs significantly from the other co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail. In the case of Pradeep Parasar in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14017, wherein this Court observed that prima facie, the petitioner was able to show that he was not involved in the alleged crime. R.D. Rastogi, argues that the petitioner’s circumstances differs significantly from the other co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail. In the case of Pradeep Parasar in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14017, wherein this Court observed that prima facie, the petitioner was able to show that he was not involved in the alleged crime. Similarly, in the case of Ramkripal Meena (supra), by which the Hon'ble Apex Court enlarged the co-accused on bail, is also distinguishable as the petitioner is a habitual offender, and against him, 35 cases about the offences under Sections 19/54 of the Excise Act, Section 307 of the IPC, Section 379 of the IPC, Sections 420, 485, 487 and 120-B of IPC, Section8/18 of the N.D.P.S. Act, Section 395 of the IPC, Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, Section 8/15 of the N.D.P.S. Act, Section 364-A of the IPC and Sections 420, 120-B of IPC read with Sections 3/6, 4/6 of the Rajasthan Public Services Examination Act are pending. The list of the cases are catalogued in the reply, which substantiate that out of 35 cases pending against the petitioner, in two cases, the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Section 299 of Cr.P.C., as he remained absconded in the trial; therefore, on the sole criteria of pendency of cases, strong likelihood that petitioner may repeat the offence, the bail application of the petitioner deserves dismissal. 8. It is also contended that the substantial evidence indicates that the petitioner provided the leaked paper to the Reet- examinee through messages are sufficient to suggest that the petitioner being a syndicate of the planned crime, facilitated the examinee with the leaked question papers. The investigation has clearly revealed that the present petitioner Rajaram @ Iram being one of the conspirator for leaking the REET 2021 paper along with Udaram Bishnoi. The petitioner entered into a deal of Rs.5,00,00,000/- with Ram Kripal Meena and handed over him Rs.43,00,000/- as an advance. During the investigation Rajuram @ Iram accepted forwarding and making arrangement for tutoring the leaked paper. The petitioner-Rajuram @ Iram also accepted that he made a deal of forwarding/tutoring/showing the leaked paper to various candidates in exchange for Rs.10,00,000/- from each candidate. The petitioner could not receive the said amount as the entire matter was disclosed & REET paper 2021 stands cancelled. The petitioner-Rajuram @ Iram also accepted that he made a deal of forwarding/tutoring/showing the leaked paper to various candidates in exchange for Rs.10,00,000/- from each candidate. The petitioner could not receive the said amount as the entire matter was disclosed & REET paper 2021 stands cancelled. Thus, the petitioner has knowingly assisted in the process connected with the proceeds of crime, like concealment, possession, acquisition, used and transferred of the proceeds of crime and production of the same as untainted. 9. It is vehemently argued that the provision of Section 45 of the P.M.L.A. are mandatory and the Court must deny the bail until determine that there is insufficient evidence against the petitioner regarding the alleged crime. 10. Learned Additional Solicitor General places reliance upon the following judgments :- (i) Jaibunisha Vs. Meharban, (2022) 5 SCC 465 (ii) Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Directorate Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486 (iii) Rohit Tandon Vs. Directorate of Enforcement , (2018) 11 SCC 46 . 11. Heard and perused the material available on the record. Factual matrix:- 12. The investigation strongly indicates that after receiving the leaked paper from the other co-accused, the petitioner facilitated the leaked paper to the various examinees. The petitioner and the other co-accused, in their statement under Section 50 of the P.M.L.A., have categorically stated that they were the syndicate members and that the petitioner provided the leaked papers to the examinee. 13. Section 3 of the P.M.L.A. enumerates that; "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 including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property shall be guilty of the offence of money-laundering". 14. From the evidence concluded, it is apparent that the petitioner was directly indulged in the process connected with the proceeds of the crime. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he is innocent of the charges. 15. The criminal antecedents of the petitioner are enough to indicate that the petitioner is a person of a criminal nature. 16. This Court is fully conscious of the law regarding the issue of parity in deciding bail applications. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he is innocent of the charges. 15. The criminal antecedents of the petitioner are enough to indicate that the petitioner is a person of a criminal nature. 16. This Court is fully conscious of the law regarding the issue of parity in deciding bail applications. It is crucial to consider the specific facts of each case, the role of the accused in the alleged crime, the nature and severity of the offence, and its broader implication over the society. Additionally, the commission method, the court's legitimate concerns about potential tempering, the likelihood of the accused re-offending, and the accused prior record must all be considered. The petitioner's criminal record places him differently from the other co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail. 17. As far as admissibility of statements recorded under Section 50 of the P.M.L.A. is concerned, the law is no more res integra. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Rohit Tandon Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Supra) and Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate (Supra), have categorically held that "the statements of witnesses/accused are admissible in evidence and such statements may make out a formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the commission of a serious offence of money laundering". The law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Prem Prakash (supra) is entirely different, as in that case the statements recorded under Section 50 of the P.M.L.A. and other case were taken into consideration and to that aspect the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "any statement under Section 50 of the P.M.L.A., made to the same investigating agency is inadmissible against the maker". Therefore, the law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner on facts is entirely different. 18. Section 45(1)(ii) further enumerates that; "no person accused of an offence shall be released on bail or his bond unless the Court is satisfied that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail". This Court is not satisfied that the petitioner will not commit any offence while on bail. The criminal history of the petitioner itself is enough to suggest the criminal nature of the petitioner and there is reasonable apprehension in the mind of the Court that if the petitioner's bail application is allowed then the petitioner may abscond and affect the smooth trial. The criminal history of the petitioner itself is enough to suggest the criminal nature of the petitioner and there is reasonable apprehension in the mind of the Court that if the petitioner's bail application is allowed then the petitioner may abscond and affect the smooth trial. In the case of Manish Sisodia (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering that the trial of the case may take considerable time and the accused has remained in lengthy incarceration, enlarged him on bail. The situation in the present case is distinguishable and not akin to the case of Manish Sisodia (supra), but the extended custody of the petitioner itself is not grounds for enlarging the petitioner on bail. In the case of Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Directorate Enforcement (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the conditions specified under Section 45 of the P.M.L.A. are mandatory, and the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused. The parity is also misconceived, and the apprehension of the trial is likely to take a long time, and the accused would be incarcerated for an indefinite period, is also not well founded as the economic offences constituted a class apart and need to be visited with different approaches in the matter of bail. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Jaibunisha Vs. Meharban (2022) 5 SCC 465 , also held that on the ground of the criminal antecedents of the accused, the bail application may be dismissed. The Court observed that: "As evident from the judgments of this Court referred to above, a court deciding a bail application cannot grant bail to an accused without having regard to material aspects of the case such as allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the accused". 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Prabhakar Tewari (supra), Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashid (supra), Taket Jerang (supra), Jagan Gurjar (supra), Kaluram Bishnoi (supra) and Prem Prakash (supra). These cases are entirely different from the present case. 19. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Prabhakar Tewari (supra), Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashid (supra), Taket Jerang (supra), Jagan Gurjar (supra), Kaluram Bishnoi (supra) and Prem Prakash (supra). These cases are entirely different from the present case. In the present case the Department has prima facie able to show that the petitioner was involved in money laundering offence and the petitioner provided the leaked paper to the other examinee in lieu of Rs.10,00,000/- each and as a part payment also paid Rs.43,00,000/- to the main accused Ramkripal Meena. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari the matter pertains to offence committed under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of IPC, whereas the present matter pertains to offence committed under Section 3/4 of the P.M.L.A. Act. Similarly, in the matter of Maulana Mohammed Amir Rashid (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court enlarged the accused on bail and observed that the role of the accused in that case was not established, therefore, despite the criminal antecedents, the Court enlarged the accused on bail. In the case of Taket Jerang (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court granted bail to the accused, despite there been evidence that the accused is involved in 92 other cases of similar nature, although in that case the facts are not being mentioned. However, in the present case the role of the accused is being pointely mentioned and prima facie established by the prosecution and the accused petitioner has already committed an offence under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992. This Court in the matter of Jagan Gurjar (supra) granted the bail to the accused after observing that the petitioner was involved solely on the statements of the other co-accused and there was no call details available on the record indicating the involvement of the accused regarding hatching conspiracy and providing arms to the main accused. Similarly, in the case of Kaluram Bishnoi (supra) the Co-ordinate Bench granted the bail under Section 3/4 of the P.M.L.A., as the bail application of the other co-accused were granted without considering the impact of mandatory condition enshrined under Section 45(1)(ii) of P.M.L.A. Therefore, the judgments referred by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of instant case. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not satisfied that the petitioner shall appear before the trial and there is strong likelihood that if the petitioner is released on bail then it may effect the trial and the petitioner may also commit criminal offences. Therefore, considering the above aspects, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 20. Accordingly, the instant bail application of the petitioner is hereby dismissed.