Prabhat Kumar Singh, J. – The present application has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in connection with Special Trial (PMLA) Case No. 08/2023, arising out of ECIR No. PTZO/14/2023 dated 15.03.2023, for offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as “PMLA”). 2. As per the case of the opposite party /Enforcement Directorate (for short “E.D.”), some 20 F.I.Rs. were registered at the various Police Stations at Patna, Saran and Bhojpur Districts under Sections 38, 120B, 378, 379, 406, 409, 411, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, and under Section 39(3) of the Bihar Mineral, (Concession, Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rule, 2019. It was alleged inter alia that M/s Broad Son Commodities Private Ltd and its Directors were engaged in illegal mining and selling of sand without using the departmental pre-paid transportation E-challan, issued by the Mining Authority Bihar, and thus had caused revenue loss of Rs. 161,15,61,164/- to the Government Exchequer. Since the said FIRs contained Scheduled offences as defined under Section 2(1)(y) of the PMLA, an ECIR bearing No. ECIR/PTZO/14/2023 dated 15.03.2023, addendum ECIR No. ECIR/PTZO/14/2023 dated 08.11.2023 and dated 04.05.2024 came to be registered, and the investigation for the offences of Money Laundering was initiated. 3. During the course of investigation and pursuant to the information made available, search operations were carried out under Section 17 of PMLA at the various locations and premises related with the said Company and its Directors, including four premises of Radha Charan Sah (father of the petitioner). During the course of inquiry, the statements of the petitioner-Kanhaiya Prasad, being son of the co-accused Radha Charan Sah came to be recorded on 01.09.2023 and 04.09.2023 under Section 50 of the PMLA. 4. The Opposite Party/E.D., upon scrutiny of statement of the co-accused persons (Directors of M/s. Broadson Commodities Pvt. Ltd.), observed that the father of the petitioner is a syndicate member and holds 20% share in the profit. On the basis of the documents received from the Income Tax Department, which is alleged to be seized by the Income Tax Department from the premises of the father of the petitioner, it is alleged that this petitioner received cash generated by illegal sale of sand without using departmental Challans. On the basis of the documents received from the Income Tax Department, which is alleged to be seized by the Income Tax Department from the premises of the father of the petitioner, it is alleged that this petitioner received cash generated by illegal sale of sand without using departmental Challans. It is further alleged that this petitioner has assisted the co-accused Radha Charan Sah in layering and laundering of proceeds of crime generated out of the illegal sale of sand. Thus, it is alleged that this petitioner concealed the proceeds of crime by way of purchasing properties, carrying out renovation and construction work in the family owned trust property by using the said proceeds of crime. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations and facts, as stated in the complaint petition, Special Trial (PMLA) Case No. 08 of 2023, arising out of ECIR No. PTZO/14/2023 dated 15.03.2023, has been lodged alleging offences under Section 4 of the PMLA. 6. Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the present PMLA prosecution is concerned, it is premised on a total of 20 FIRs. that were registered by the Mining Authorities in the districts of Patna, Bhojpur (Ara), and Saran against the company, M/s. Broadson Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors. Petitioner was neither named nor arrayed as an accused in any of the 20 FIRs forming the foundation of the present PMLA prosecution. Out of these 20 FIRs, only 7 presently subsist, while the remaining have either been quashed by this Hon'ble Court or culminated in the submission of final reports. Consequently, the very substratum of the instant ED case no longer survives. With respect to the pending predicate FIRs, it is pertinent to note that, except for one, no charge-sheet has been filed in any of them despite their registration nearly 4-5 years ago. 7. Learned senior counsel further submits that petitioner is a law-abiding citizen and unnecessarily drawn into the present PMLA proceedings on unfounded allegations of layering proceeds of crime, allegedly generated by his father from the profits of sand mining undertaken by M/s Broadson Commodities Pvt. Ltd., purportedly as part of a syndicate. It is significant to note that petitioner's father has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 03.07.2024 passed in Cr.Misc. It is significant to note that petitioner's father has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 03.07.2024 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 15740 of 2024 (Radha Charan Sah vs. Union of India), which was subsequently affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 21.04.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 2067 of 2025 {arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5952 of 2025, Union of India vs. Radha Charan Sah}. Even assuming, without admitting, that any alleged wrongful gain accrued to M/s Broadson Commodities Pvt. Ltd., resulting in loss to the government exchequer, the liability, if any, would attach only to the said company as a distinct legal entity, and at most, to its directors, not to the petitioner, who has neither any proven role nor nexus therein. There exists no material on record to demonstrate the presence of any syndicate, much less to establish that the petitioner was a member thereof. As settled in criminal jurisprudence, criminal liability cannot be imposed merely on conjectures, surmises, or presumptions, particularly at the stage of consideration of bail. 8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further urged that it is alleged in the complaint petition that petitioner's father is the member of the syndicate member of the sale of sand of M/s Broadson Commodities Pvt. Ltd., which allegedly led to generation of funds and those funds were allegedly managed by petitioner. The basis of the allegation is the seizure of certain ledgers of M/s Broadson Commodities Pvt. Ltd. from the premises of the petitioner's father during an Income Tax search conducted during February 2023 under Income Tax Act. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the said premises had been rented to one Ashok Kumar, who was Director of M/s Broadson Commodities Pvt. Ltd., which is evident from the correspondence, addressed to him, at that very location. The mere recovery of such documents from a rented premises cannot, by any stretch, implicate this petitioner. 9. So far as excess income alleged against this petitioner is concerned, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that sources of those income are from the legitimate business of the petitioner and petitioner had already disclosed the same before the Income Tax Department, vide letter dated 24.05.2023, much prior to the issuance of the first summon by the Enforcement Directorate. So far as excess income alleged against this petitioner is concerned, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that sources of those income are from the legitimate business of the petitioner and petitioner had already disclosed the same before the Income Tax Department, vide letter dated 24.05.2023, much prior to the issuance of the first summon by the Enforcement Directorate. Pursuant to a comprehensive assessment, the Income Tax Authorities, by a detailed order dated 31.03.2024, unequivocally held that such income had arisen from petitioner's lawful business operations, albeit with instances of inflated billing, and accordingly assessed the same. The petitioner has duly discharged from his tax liability. Therefore, prima facie, no "proceeds of crime", as alleged by the opposite party/E.D., can be attributed to this petitioner, since the disclosed income bears no nexus whatsoever with the business operations of the accused company. What the petitioner possesses is income derived from lawful business activities, and not proceeds of crime, as alleged by the Enforcement Directorate. 10. He further submits that with regard to the alleged sum of 5.36 crores linked to the MSD School at Ghaziabad, no show-cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner. Such notice was, instead, directed to co-accused person which fact is substantiated by the statement of Sudama Kumar, employee of Ashok Kumar (one Director of the company), recorded before the Income Tax Department. Both Sudama Kumar, in his deposition before the ED, and Ashok Kumar, in his statement dated 18.03.2023 before the Income Tax Authority have categorically stated that the petitioner had no connection with the said funds. Indeed, even the prosecution Complaint acknowledges that the sum was utilized by co-accused Radha Charan Sah and Ashok Kumar, not this petitioner. This itself demolishes the allegation against this petitioner. 11. Further, on the allegation regarding petitioner's father holding shares in M/s Broadson Commodities Pvt. Ltd., as part of an alleged "syndicate,", learned senior counsel humbly submits that this assertion is wholly unsubstantiated. It rests merely on statements under Section 50 of the PMLA, including from co-accused persons, without any corroborative material. In support of this submission, he relies upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Prakash vs. Enforcement Directorate, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 787 . The account statements of Broadson Commodities clearly reveal that there were no financial dealings whatsoever with either the petitioner or his father. In support of this submission, he relies upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Prakash vs. Enforcement Directorate, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 787 . The account statements of Broadson Commodities clearly reveal that there were no financial dealings whatsoever with either the petitioner or his father. In fact, even if it is assumed that M/s Broadson Commodities Pvt. Ltd. engaged in illicit sand mining, there is no evidentiary trail linking such alleged proceeds to the petitioner and in absence of same, any presumption of his involvement is speculative and unsustainable in law. 12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that R.K. Patania, proprietor of R.K. Patania & Co., who has been the statutory auditor of M/s Broadson Commodities Pvt. Ltd. for over a decade, in his sworn deposition dated 24.05.2023 under Section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, unequivocally stated that neither the petitioner nor his father had any association with the said company and its business transactions. He categorically denied any knowledge of the documents allegedly seized from the premises of the father of the petitioner and produced audited reports for FY 2015-16 to 2021-22, none of which reflects any involvement of the petitioner or his family in the business of the accused company. He reiterated the same in his multiple appearances before the ED under Section 50 of the PMLA in October and December 2023. This independent evidence entirely discredits the ED's allegation. 13. With respect to the petitioner's investment of around j 2.5 crores in Ganinath Ventures LLP, learned senior counsel submits that the LLP, incorporated on 15.02.2017 under LLPIN AAI-5701 and registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, comprises 142 partners with a total corpus of j 7 crores. The petitioner, being one of the two designated partners, made his contribution in strict conformity with the LLP Agreement executed in 2017, and the entity has been engaged in legitimate business of civil contracting and supply of construction material. All contributions, including that of the petitioner, have been duly disclosed and income tax returns filed. The ED's allegation that such investment is tainted is wholly baseless and contrary to record. 14. He further submits that the ECIRs in question are based on several FIRs, of which, only two FIR i.e. FIR No. 109/17 dated 05.04.2017 and FIR No. 523/17 dated 31.07.2017, predate the construction of the petitioner's properties. The ED's allegation that such investment is tainted is wholly baseless and contrary to record. 14. He further submits that the ECIRs in question are based on several FIRs, of which, only two FIR i.e. FIR No. 109/17 dated 05.04.2017 and FIR No. 523/17 dated 31.07.2017, predate the construction of the petitioner's properties. Significantly, no charge-sheet has been filed even in these two FIRs despite lapse of nearly nine years. Thirteen predicate FIRs cited by the ED stand either quashed or concluded by final form. As it is laid down at para no. 253 in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India through E.D. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 929, existence of a subsisting predicate offence is sine qua non for the very foundation of proceeds of crime. In the present case, the absence of any live predicate offence and the temporal disconnect of the FIRs with the Petitioner's investments render the entire proceedings legally untenable. While considering applications for grant of bail, the Court is required to form only a prima facie view and is not expected to meticulously weigh the evidence for the purpose of drawing inferences under the twin conditions stipulated in Section 45 of the PMLA. 15. He further submits that even, while dealing with bail under a special legislation such as the PMLA, governed by Section 45, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has unequivocally held that the rigors of the statute must be harmonized with the constitutional guarantees enshrined under Article 21. It has been consistently observed by the Supreme Court that while adjudicating bail, even under the PMLA, the Court is duty-bound to give due consideration to the fundamental right to life and personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial. 16. Learned senior counsel next submits that in this case, petitioner has remained in custody from 18.09.2023 to 15.05.2024 and thereafter, since 19.02.2025, he is in custody and thus, has completed about 15 months, as an under-trial prisoner. The Hon'ble High Court has quashed the FIRs and few FIRs are closed by the investigating authorities. In remaining FIRs, charge sheet has not yet been filed. The prosecution has cited 56 prosecution witnesses and the documents are running into more than 4000 pages. Further, prosecution complaint was filed on 9th November, 2023 and still charges have not been framed. The Hon'ble High Court has quashed the FIRs and few FIRs are closed by the investigating authorities. In remaining FIRs, charge sheet has not yet been filed. The prosecution has cited 56 prosecution witnesses and the documents are running into more than 4000 pages. Further, prosecution complaint was filed on 9th November, 2023 and still charges have not been framed. In this regard, he has relied upon paragraphs 49, 50, 53 and 54 of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920. Similarly, he has also placed reliance on Ramkripal Meena’s case, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2276, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed following in paragraph–7: – “7. Adverting to the prayer for grant of bail in the instant case, it is pointed out by learned counsel for ED that the complaint case is at the stage of framing of charges and 24 witnesses are proposed to be examined. The conclusion of proceedings, thus, will take some reasonable time. The petitioner has already been in custody for more than a year. Taking into consideration the period spent in custody and there being no likelihood of conclusion of trial within a short span, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is already on bail in the predicate offence, and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it seems to us that the rigours of Section 45 of the Act can be suitably relaxed to afford conditional liberty to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly.” 17. Besides above, learned senior counsel has also placed reliance on different paragraphs of V. Senthil Balaji vs. DoE, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine 2626 [: 2024 (6) BLJ 23 (SC)]. 18. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner next submits that as far as statement of the petitioner recorded during custody is concerned, such statements cannot be used against the petitioner and as far as the statement of co-accused against the petitioner is concerned, they do not bear/hold substantive evidence against the petitioner and may not be considered while consideration the bail application of the petitioner. In this regard, reliance can be placed on paragraph nos. 13, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 27, 30, 32 and 34 of Prem Prakash vs. Enforcement Directorate, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 787 . 19. In this regard, reliance can be placed on paragraph nos. 13, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, 27, 30, 32 and 34 of Prem Prakash vs. Enforcement Directorate, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 787 . 19. He further submits that investigation against the petitioner is complete and prosecution complaint dated 10.11.2023 pursuant to the completion of investigation has been filed therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. In this regard, reference can be made to Para 39, 40, 46 of Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 and Para 86, 89 of the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51 : 2022 (5) BLJ 206 (SC). 20. He further submits that petitioner has consistently demonstrated good conduct. He scrupulously complied with all bail conditions earlier imposed, surrendered before the Learned Special Judge on 19.02.2025 in adherence to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order, and has neither tampered with evidence nor influenced witnesses. He thus satisfies the "triple test/tripod test" for bail, viz. (i) not being a flight risk, (ii) not tampering with evidence, and (iii) not influencing witnesses, as reiterated at para no. 81 in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 [: 2020 (1) BLJ 189 (SC)]. 21. He next submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of recent decisions as elucidated above, has observed that the rigors of Section 45 of PMLA must be harmonized with constitutional guarantees, especially Article 21, taking into account factors such as prolonged incarceration, the stage of trial, and the conduct of the accused. The present case squarely falls within that category, making continued detention of the petitioner legally untenable. 22. He, therefore, submits that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner is entitled to be released on regular bail, as no prima facie offence is made out against him and the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA stand fully satisfied. The investigation insofar as it concerns the petitioner is complete; the prosecution complaint dated 10.11.2023 has already been filed, and all co-accused named therein have been granted bail. Charges, however, are yet to be framed. With respect to the predicate FIRs, the trial has not even commenced. The investigation insofar as it concerns the petitioner is complete; the prosecution complaint dated 10.11.2023 has already been filed, and all co-accused named therein have been granted bail. Charges, however, are yet to be framed. With respect to the predicate FIRs, the trial has not even commenced. The prosecution has cited as many as 56 witnesses and relied upon voluminous records exceeding 3,500 pages, rendering the conclusion of trial in the near future highly improbable. The petitioner has already undergone nearly 15 months of incarceration as an under-trial and in view of these circumstances, coupled with the settled principles of law, as discussed above, and the fundamental right to personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 23. On the other hand, Mr. Tuhin Shankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party / E.D. vehemently opposed the bail petition and submitted that registration of FIR in the predicate offence is merely a condition precedent for commencement of investigation under PMLA, however it is not necessary that every person, who is arrayed as accused in offence of money Laundering, should also be an accused in the predicate offence, and as such, attention is drawn to the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 15 of the case of Pavana Dibbur vs Directorate of Enforcement in Criminal Appeal no.2779 of 2023 wherein the Court has observed following: – “15. Coming back to Section 3 of the PMLA, on its plain reading, an offence under Section 3 can be committed after a scheduled offence is committed. For example, let us take the case of a person who is unconnected with the scheduled offence, knowingly assists the concealment of the proceeds of crime or knowingly assists the use of proceeds of crime. In that case, he can be held guilty of committing an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. To give a concrete example, the offences under Sections 384 to 389 of the IPC relating to "extortion" are scheduled offences included in paragraph - 1 of the Schedule to the PMLA. An accused may commit a crime of extortion covered by Sections 384 to 389 of IPC and extort money. To give a concrete example, the offences under Sections 384 to 389 of the IPC relating to "extortion" are scheduled offences included in paragraph - 1 of the Schedule to the PMLA. An accused may commit a crime of extortion covered by Sections 384 to 389 of IPC and extort money. Subsequently, a persons unconnected was the offence of extortion may assist the said accused in the concealment of the proceeds of extortion In such a case, the person who assists the accused in the scheduled offence for concealing the proceeds of the crime of extortion can be guilty of the offence of money laundering. Therefore, it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence. What is held in paragraph 270 of the decision of this Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary supports the above conclusion. The conditions precedent for attracting the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA are that there must be a scheduled offence and that there must be proceeds of crime in relation to the scheduled offence as defined in clause (u) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the PMLA.” 24. In this regard, learned counsel for the E.D. has submitted that the independent nature of the offence of money laundering and its connection to scheduled offences was explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v Union of India reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, wherein paragraph 42 reads thus: – “42. From the bare language of Section 3 of the 2002 Act, it is amply clear that the offence of money-laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. The process or activity can be in any form – be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so. Thus, involvement in any one of such process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime would constitute offence of money laundering. The process or activity can be in any form – be it one of concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so. Thus, involvement in any one of such process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime would constitute offence of money laundering. This offence otherwise has nothing to do with the criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence - except the proceeds of crime derived or obtained as a result of that crime.” 25. He has further submitted that recently, the Hon'ble Telangana High Court, in the case of Vem Krishna Keerthan vs Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Petition No.9314 of 2022, while dealing with a similar question of law has observed following in paragraph – 46: – "46. The petitioner also contended that as the proceedings in the predicate offence are stayed by the Supreme Court, the proceedings under the PMLA shall also be stayed. The said contention cannot be accepted. As held in Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary (supra), unless the accused in the scheduled offence "is finally absolved by a court of competent jurisdiction owing to an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case", the offence of money laundering is maintainable. In the present case, the proceedings in the predicate offence are merely stayed and such a stay cannot be extended to the proceedings under the PMLA" 26. It has been further argued by the learned counsel for E.D. that the investigations against petitioner have revealed that the petitioner concealed proceeds of crime by way of carrying out constructions in his family owned trust's property, carrying out renovation in the resort owned by a company where he and his brothers are Directors and by investing it through third parties in LLP where he and his brother are partners, therefore, he is in possession of proceeds of crime. Thus, he is found to be directly involved in concealing the proceeds of crime generated from the activities related with the scheduled offence and is guilty of the offence of the money laundering. 27. It is further contended that petitioner’s father Radha Charan Sah has acquired Mastiff Grand Manali Resort, Manali valued at Rs. 20.92 Crore (total value of resort) in the name of firm called Intercontinental Resort Pvt. Ltd where his sons viz. 27. It is further contended that petitioner’s father Radha Charan Sah has acquired Mastiff Grand Manali Resort, Manali valued at Rs. 20.92 Crore (total value of resort) in the name of firm called Intercontinental Resort Pvt. Ltd where his sons viz. Kanhaiya Prasod, Satendra Kumar and Basuki Nath Prasad are the share-holders. For the acquisition of the said resort in Manali, Radha Charan Sah routed cash of Rs. 8.93 Crore from his family members personal Bank Account and family owned LLP's account to the bank account of Maa Sharda Devi Buildings and construction, which was later used to acquire the said resort. Satendra Kumar (brother of petitioner) has stated in his statement recorded under Section 50 of PMLA that entire work of family owned LLP and of Maa Sharda Devi Buildings and Construction was handled by Kanhaiya Prasad. Both of these entities were used by Kanhaiya Prasad to route the proceeds of crime generated by his father to portray it as untainted. Kanhaiya Prasad also transferred Rs. 11,90,00,000/- cash received from his father through Hawala channel for further renovation of the said resort. Radha Charan Sah also carried out constructions worth Rs. 5.36 Crore in MSD World School run by his family owned trust Kamla Aggarwal Educational Society, Ghaziabad wherein he and his family members are trustees. Thus, this Rs. 8.93 Crore, Rs. 11.90 Crore, and 5.36 Crore cash used for acquisition of resort in Manali, carrying out renovation in the said resort, and carrying out construction in school respectively are nothing but proceeds of crime generated by Radha Charan Sah being a syndicate member in M/s. Broad Son Commodities Private Limited. These properties owned by the firm/trust which are actually controlled by the family members of Radha Charan Sah are used in concealing the proceeds of crime and therefore, are used in commissioning the offence of Money Laundering under PMLA, 2002. Further, 142 Bank Counterfoils were recovered from an Almirah in Hotel Regal which is owned by his father Radha Charan Sah. From those counterfoils, it is revealed that Rs. 2 Lakh each was deposited in these 142 persons’ bank account in Bihar Grameen Bank which is further transferred to the bank account of Ganinath Ventures LLP in which Kanhaiya Prasad is Director. Further, a WhatsApp conversation was retrieved from the mobile phone of Kanhaiya Prasad which was seized during ED search at his premises. 2 Lakh each was deposited in these 142 persons’ bank account in Bihar Grameen Bank which is further transferred to the bank account of Ganinath Ventures LLP in which Kanhaiya Prasad is Director. Further, a WhatsApp conversation was retrieved from the mobile phone of Kanhaiya Prasad which was seized during ED search at his premises. In the said WhatsApp conversation, transaction details of dealing with PoC amounting to Rs. 11,90,00,000/- has been retrieved. Further, during the course of investigation, staff of petitioner, working at Manali Resort admitted to have received funds in cash through Hawala routes towards renovation of Manali Resorts. 28. It has been further argued that summonses were issued to the accused-petitioner to appear before E.D. on 11.09.2023, however he failed to appear on the said date. He was again issued summon to appear on 12.09.2023. Again he failed to appear on the given date. The act of not answering the call of summons clearly shows that the petitioner has not cooperated with the investigation and thereby attempted to frustrate the proceedings of investigation under the PMLA, 2002 and on the basis of material available on record and investigations, the role of the petitioner in the offence of money laundering was gathered and accordingly, petitioner was arrested at Enforcement Directorate Patra Zonal Office, Bihar on 18.09.2023. On production of accused-petitioner before the Court, vide order dated 22.09.2023, the custody of petitioner was handed over to the Enforcement Directorate. 29. Learned counsel for E.D. has further urged that petitioner has utilized Rs. 11,90,00,000/- in cash to carry out renovation work in resort purchased by him in Manali. Kanhaiya Prasad (petitioner), in his statement, stated that the said resort was purchased by him in partnership with his brothers by purchasing all the shares of Intercontinental Resort Pvt. Ltd. Further, a WhatsApp conversation was retrieved from the mobile phone of Kanhaiya Prasad (petitioner), which was seized during ED search at his premise. In the said WhatsApp conversation, he has exchanged photos of 10 Rs/1 Re. note different dates during March 2020 to February 2021 and other cheque along with the details of cash transfer amounting to Rs. 10,90,00,000/- on transactions worth Rs. 19,11,68,000/-. After confrontation of the said WhatsApp conversation, Kanhaiya Prasad (petitioner) stated that for the said resort in Manali, Rs. 11.90 Crore was paid in cash through agent. 30. note different dates during March 2020 to February 2021 and other cheque along with the details of cash transfer amounting to Rs. 10,90,00,000/- on transactions worth Rs. 19,11,68,000/-. After confrontation of the said WhatsApp conversation, Kanhaiya Prasad (petitioner) stated that for the said resort in Manali, Rs. 11.90 Crore was paid in cash through agent. 30. He has further contended that main purpose of search by Income Tax department was regarding illegal sale of sand & illegal sand mining. Income Tax Department has calculated total revenue loss to the govt. exchequer to the tune of Rs. 940.84 Crores. Thus, the unexplained cash in the hands of the petitioner is nothing but proceeds of crime from illegal sand mining and illegal sale of sand. The findings of IT Department regarding illegal sale of sand and sand mining is corroborated with voluminous records both digital & physical, seized during the course of search action by Income Tax Department, however, no finding and evidences regarding inflation of bill, as claimed by petitioner, found during income tax raid. Disclosure of unexplained income before Income Tax Department by the petitioner is after-thought, as the same is without supporting evidences. It is also submitted that the alleged disclosure by the petitioner was not made during the course of search action on 07.02.2023. The alleged disclosure was made on 23.05.2023 without specifying the heads/source of income so disclosed and the alleged claim of having undisclosed income from inflation of bills was made on 24.05.2023, i.e., 3 months later the search action by IT department. It is pertinent to mention that the alleged disclosure is without any supportive documents showing inflation of bills and generation of undisclosed income from the same. Further, the appraisal report which contain the findings/outcome of search action by IT department, does not give any mention regarding the accused and his entities involved in inflation of bills. Furthermore, during the course of search proceedings by Income Tax Department no such records/documents indicating inflation of bills were found and seized. Whereas huge documentary and digital records containing the data related with illegal sand mining and sale of sand were found and seized. In view of the facts mentioned above, it is clear that the claim of the petitioner having undisclosed income from inflation of bills is merely an afterthought and without any basis, hence it is fit to be rejected. Whereas huge documentary and digital records containing the data related with illegal sand mining and sale of sand were found and seized. In view of the facts mentioned above, it is clear that the claim of the petitioner having undisclosed income from inflation of bills is merely an afterthought and without any basis, hence it is fit to be rejected. The unexplained income in the hands of the petitioner and associated entities is nothing but proceeds of crime. 31. Further, Mr. Tuhin Shankar, learned counsel has also submitted that Shri Ashok Kumar one of the Directors of M/s Broadson Commodities Pvt. Ltd., has allegedly disclosed unexplained income before Income Tax Department, but subsequently, he retracted the same before Income Tax Department. It clearly shows that accused person changed his stand as per his convenience and tried to escape from the clutches of law. 32. Learned counsel for E.D. further argued that the sum of Rs. 5.36 crores in cash was utilized in the construction of the school by Radha Charan Sah and Ashok Kumar, not the petitioner, it is submitted that this Directorate has leveled up the same allegation against the petitioner in the prosecution complaint that petitioner has assisted his father Radha Charan Sah in concealing proceeds of crime of cash of Rs. 5.36 crore by way of carrying out constructions in his family owned trust's property. It is submitted that Radha Charan Sah carried out constructions worth Rs. 5.36 Crore in MSD World School run by his family owned trust Kamla Aggarwal Educational Society, Ghaziabad wherein he and his family members are trustees and the petitioner concealed proceeds of crime by way of carrying out constructions in his family owned trust's property. These properties owned by the firm/trust, which are actually controlled by the family members of Radha Charan Sah, are used in concealing the proceeds of crime generated by Radha Charan Sah being a syndicate member in M/s Broad son Commodities Private Limited. Therefore, petitioner concealed proceeds of crime by way of carrying out constructions in his family owned trust’s property. 33. During the course of investigation it is revealed that 142 Bank counterfoils were recovered from an almirah in Hotel Regal, which is owned by Radha Charan Sah. From those counterfoils, it is revealed that Rs. 2 Lakh each was deposited in these 142 persons’ bank account in Bihar Grameen Bank. 33. During the course of investigation it is revealed that 142 Bank counterfoils were recovered from an almirah in Hotel Regal, which is owned by Radha Charan Sah. From those counterfoils, it is revealed that Rs. 2 Lakh each was deposited in these 142 persons’ bank account in Bihar Grameen Bank. He stated that, these persons are partners in Ganinath Ventures LLP. On being asked, why these 142 counterfoils were kept in almirah of Hotel Regal, he stated that they were kept as a proof of their investment. He could not give any details about the LLP, its incorporation, meetings, percentage of shares of partners, percentage of his own share in the said LLP, etc. He couldn't give any details about these 140 partners. From the investigation, it is revealed that, sons of Radha Charan Sah, Satendra Kumar and Kanhaiya Prasad (petitioner) are designated partners in Ganinath Ventures LLP. Kanhaiya Prasad (petitioner) in his statement dated 26.09.2023 recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, 2022 failed to identify any of these 140 members. He also failed to provide any details about the LLP. Further, Satendra Kumar in his statement dated 17.10.2023 recorded under Section 50 of PMLA. 2022 failed to identify any of these 140 members. He also failed to provide any details about the LLP It shows that Radha Charan Sah has used bank accounts owned by third parties. 34. He has also submitted that investigation revealed that period for generation of proceeds of crime by illegal sale of sand is from 2017 till 2021. During this period, Broadson Commodities Pvt. Ltd. & its syndicate members have generated proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 210.68 crore. From the documents seized from the premises and FIRs it is revealed that total proceeds of crime generated by Radha Charan Sah is 20% of 88% share of 210,68,92,651 Rs. 37,08,13,107/- during the period 2017-2021. Hence the averment made by the petitioner that only 02 FIRs were registered prior to the construction and renovation of the property is irrelevant as the period of generation of proceeds of crime is 2017-2021. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Rajinder Singh Chadha vs Union of India. 35. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Rajinder Singh Chadha vs Union of India. 35. Lastly, learned counsel for E.D. humbly submitted that even though, there is no absolute restraint on grant of bail when the person is tried for offence of money laundering, however, the grant of bail is subject to fulfilment of conditions prescribed under the law, in other words, person should be granted bail only if the twin conditions stipulated under Section 45 of PMLA are fulfilled. 36. From the perusal of Section 45 of PMLA, it is clear that the bail under PMLA is subject to fulfillment of twinconditions as prescribed under Section 45 of PMLA. He has submitted that investigation against petitioner has revealed that he has generated proceeds of crime and is involved in layering and laundering the same using hawala network by way of purchasing properties and carrying out constructions in family owned trust's property thereby used the said proceeds of crime and is in possession of proceeds of crime, hence petitioner has committed the offence of money laundering punishable under Section 4 of PMLA. 37. Thus, the Directorate of Enforcement, Patna Zone has already filed a prosecution complaint in this case, vide PMLASC- No. 08/2023 of 2023 under Sections 3 r/w 4 of the PMLA, 2002 before the learned Special Court (PMLA) on 10.11.2023 and the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No. 06 in the same and the proceeding is at the pre-trial stage i.e. ‘Hearing on Charge’. Therefore, his presence is required for framing of Charges and also for conducting trial in this case. If the Petitioner is granted bail at this stage, he will hamper the commencement of trial in an unjust manner, his release may make the impact that on the prosecution witnesses and on the society, likelihood of him tempering with the evidence and releasing the petitioner on bail may seriously jeopardize the agency's efforts in investigating the scam and securing the extradition of the main accused. 38. 38. Learned counsel for the opposite party / E.D. has relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), in which, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the conditions specified under Section 45 of PMLA are mandatory and need to be complied with while hearing an application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. In this context, he also relied upon a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Enforcement Directorate, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486. 39. Lastly, he submits that case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the case of other accused persons, who have already been enlarged on bail, on the ground that the petitioner was instrumental in actively facilitating the process of money laundering by utilizing the bank channels and other financial institutions to conceal the proceeds of crime. 40. Heard the submissions, so advanced by Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Mr. Tuhin Shankar, learned counsel for opposite party/E.D. and perused the materials available on record. 41. It is settled law that at the stage of consideration of application for bail of an accused under the PMLA, the Court has to see the materials available against the petitioner from the charge-sheet to form an opinion that there exists reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such a person is prima facie true. At this stage, the Court is not supposed to weigh the evidence meticulously, but to arrive at a finding based on broad probabilities. If a charge-sheet is already filed, the Court has to examine the material forming a part of charge-sheet for deciding the issue. 42. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), while reiterating and agreeing with the holding in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra held that the Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail in PMLA need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the court based on the material available on record is required. It held that the Court is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material collected during investigation. It held that the Court is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material collected during investigation. The words used in Section 45 PMLA are “reasonable grounds for believing” which means that the Court has to see only if there is genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. 43. In view of settled legal proposition, I have to consider the material placed against the petitioner to form an opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such a person is prima facie true. 44. Perusal of the chargesheet indicates that the material relied upon by the opposite party / E.D. against petitioner is in the form of documents, communications, correspondence letters, certain ledgers etc., alleged to have been seized/recovered from the houses of co-accused persons and in none of the documents, there is any reference about this petitioner. 45. So far as the allegation that M/s Broadson Commodities Pvt. Ltd. were engaged in illegal mining and selling of sand without using departmental Challan and thereby caused revenue loss of Rs. 161,15,61,164/- to the Government Exchequer is concerned, even if, it is assumed that the alleged wrongful gain resulted in loss to the Government Exchequer, the liability, if any, would be on M/s Broadson Commodities Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors, not on the petitioner, who was neither Director of the company nor in any way associated with the affairs of the company and its business transactions. There exists no material on record to demonstrate that petitioner was in any way beneficiary of the alleged transaction. 46. So far as allegation that this petitioner invested crime proceeds of j 2.5 crores in Ganinath Ventures LLP is concerned, the same is based simply on the ground that 142 counterfoils were recovered from the almirah of Hotel Regal, owned by the father of the petitioner. During investigation, none of the 142 partners were either summoned or noticed and without hearing them or making any effort to ascertain the identity and contributions made by those members/partners, it has been concluded that Ganinath Ventures LLP was established by the petitioner with the money of the crime proceeds. During investigation, none of the 142 partners were either summoned or noticed and without hearing them or making any effort to ascertain the identity and contributions made by those members/partners, it has been concluded that Ganinath Ventures LLP was established by the petitioner with the money of the crime proceeds. Entire allegation is based on conjectures and surmises and there is no reasonable ground to come to this conclusion that the money, which was invested by the petitioner in the alleged ventures, was of the crime proceeds. 47. There is no documentary evidence establishing any direct or indirect nexus between the petitioner and his father in the mining business. The prosecution's claim regarding the existence of such a "syndicate" is based solely on the statements of coaccused persons recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, which remain uncorroborated by any independent material evidence. Mere inference, based solely on the uncorroborated statements of co-accused, is insufficient to establish culpability. In the present case, there exists no material to suggests any nexus between the petitioner and his father and the generation of proceeds of crime, nor is there any evidence indicating his involvement in the acquisition, concealment, layering, or laundering of such proceeds. On the contrary, the funds invested by the petitioner in his properties had already been voluntarily disclosed to the Income Tax Department through a detailed reply dated 24.05.2023. The Income Tax authorities duly acknowledged and accepted these funds as income derived from legitimate business activities of the petitioner and his family members. This acknowledgment was made even before the petitioner's name first appeared in the final prosecution complaint under the PMLA. All the documents, which were found at the rented premises of the co-accused, who was also conducting business operations of Balajee Wire goes to show that official correspondences addressed to Balajee Wire, including communications from the Sales Tax and GST Departments, were regularly directed to that premises and Ashok Kumar was in actual occupancy of the said premises. Therefore, the petitioner was no way linked with these documents in any way. Therefore, the petitioner was no way linked with these documents in any way. This petitioner voluntarily disclosed an additional income of j 18 crores to the Income Tax Department well before the filing of the Enforcement Directorate's prosecution complaint, which were earned though the business of hotel resort and rice mill business of petitioner and as such, it establishes that the disclosure was made independently and not as a consequence of any proceedings under the PMLA. Therefore, any suggestion that the disclosure was prompted by the allegations under PMLA stands wholly unfounded. 48. Thus, in this case, no money trial or financial records demonstrate that the petitioner received or laundered alleged proceeds of crime. On the basis of aforesaid documents, it is not established that this petitioner facilitated the process of money laundering by purchasing properties, carrying out renovation and construction work in the family owned trust property. 49. From perusal of the materials on record and looking into the facts of the case and after considering the argument made at bar and law, as laid down by the Supreme Court in several decisions, this Court is of the view that at this stage, there is no reasonable ground to believe that petitioner was actually involved in the process of concealing, layering and laundering of crime proceeds. 50. There are a series of decisions of this Court starting from the decision in the case of K.A. Najeeb i.e. Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 {: 2021 (2) BLJ 142 (SC)}, which hold that such stringent provisions for the grant of ball 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. In paragraph 17 of the said decision, it has been laid 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. 51. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary’s (supra), the Supreme Court categorically held that while Section 45 PMLA restricts the right of the accused to grant of ball, it could not be said that the conditions provided under Section 45 impose absolute restraint on the grant of bail. Para 302 is extracted hereinbelow: – "302. 51. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary’s (supra), the Supreme Court categorically held that while Section 45 PMLA restricts the right of the accused to grant of ball, it could not be said that the conditions provided under Section 45 impose absolute restraint on the grant of bail. Para 302 is extracted hereinbelow: – "302. It is important to note that the twin conditions provided under Section 45 of the 2002 Act, though restrict the right of the accused to grant of bail, but it cannot be said that the conditions provided under Section 45 impose absolute restraint on the grant of bail. The discretion vests in the court, which is not arbitrary or irrational but judicial, guided by the principles of law as provided under Section 45 of the 2002 Act." 52. These observations are significant and if read in the context of the recent pronouncement of this Court dated 09.08.2024 in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Enforcement Directorate, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 [: 2023 (6) BLJ 129 (SC)], it will be amply clear that even under PMLA, the governing principle is that "Bail is the Rule and Jail is the Exception". In paragraph 52 of Manish Sisodia’s case (supra), the Supreme Court has observed following: – “52. ..... 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 straightforward 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 recognise the principles that “bail is rule and jail is exception.” 53. In this case, the petitioner is in custody for about 15 months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Charge-sheet has already been submitted. Till date, charge has not been framed. Other co-accused persons have already been released on bail. In this case, prosecution has cited 56 witnesses and document of more than 4000 pages and as such, trial of this case is not likely to be concluded in near future. 54. Charge-sheet has already been submitted. Till date, charge has not been framed. Other co-accused persons have already been released on bail. In this case, prosecution has cited 56 witnesses and document of more than 4000 pages and as such, trial of this case is not likely to be concluded in near future. 54. So far as possibility of tampering of evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the present case depends upon documentary evidence, which has already been seized by the prosecution and as such, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as investigation with regard to petitioner is concerned, it is completed and therefore, by imposing some stringent condition, the petitioner can be bailed out. 55. Here, it is also relevant to mention that in this case, sufficient time was given to the learned counsel for opposite party/E.D. to file counter affidavit and as such, opposite party/E.D. was granted sufficient time to oppose the bail petition both by way of filing counter affidavit and by way of making oral submission. In this scenario, this Court holds that the petitioner has satisfied the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA and the Court is further satisfied that the petitioner is not likely to commit any offence if he is enlarged on bail. 56. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this bail petition is allowed and the petitioner namely Kanhaiya Prasad is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bait bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, PMLA-cum-District & Sessions Judge, Patna in connection with Special Trial (PMLA) Case No. 8 of 2023, arising out of ECIR No. PTZO/14/2023, subject to the following conditions: – (i) The petitioner shall regularly and punctually remain present before the Special Court (PMLA) and shall cooperate with the Court for early disposal of the case. (ii) The petitioner shall not leave the country during the bail period and surrender his passport at the time of release before the Trial Court. (iii) The petitioner shall provide his mobile number to the ED authority concerned at the time of release, which shall be kept in working condition at all times and he shall not switch off or change the same without prior intimation to the ED authority concerned, during the period of bail. (iii) The petitioner shall provide his mobile number to the ED authority concerned at the time of release, which shall be kept in working condition at all times and he shall not switch off or change the same without prior intimation to the ED authority concerned, during the period of bail. (iv) In case, petitioner changes his address, he will inform the ED as well as to the concerned Court. (v) The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activity during the bail period. (vi) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly attempt to contact or communicate with the prosecution witnesses. If it is found that the petitioner directly or indirectly made even an attempt to contact any prosecution witness, it will be a ground to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. (vii) If the petitioner seeks adjournments on non-existing or frivolous grounds or creates hurdles in the early disposal of the case, the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled. 57. Accordingly, the present bail application is, hereby, allowed with the aforesaid conditions.