30.03.2026 vs Yatin Yadav S/O Deshraj Yadav on 8 April, 2026

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Reserved On: 30.03.2026 vs Yatin Yadav S/O Deshraj Yadav on 8 April, 2026

                                                                               Sr. No.



         HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH                                     2026:JKLHC-JMU:985
                         AT JAMMU

Bail App No.99/2025
CrlM No.591/2025
                                                 Reserved on: 30.03.2026
                                                 Pronounced on: 08.04.2026
                                                 Uploaded on:- 08.04.2026.
                                                   Whether the operative part or
                                                full judgment is pronounced: Yes

     Assistant Director,
     Directorate of Enforcement
     5 A/C, Green Belt Park,
     Gandhi Nagar, Jammu                                             .....Applicant

                                Through :- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with
                                           Mr. Eishan Dadhichi, CGSC
         V/S
  1. Yatin Yadav S/O Deshraj Yadav,
     B/86 B, Vikas Nagar,
     Gali No. 5, Rewari, Haryana.
  2. Anil Kumar Yadav S/O Om Parkash
     R/O Village Lehroda, Tehsil Narnaul,
     District Mahendragarh, Haryana.                              .....Respondent(s)
                                Through :- Mr. Asheesh Singh Kotwal, Adv.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M A CHOWDHARY, JUDGE

                                  JUDGMENT

1. Applicant- Directorate of Enforcement, through this application

moved under Section 483(3) BNSS [Section 439(2) of CrPC] read with Section

528 of BNSS [Section 482 of CrPC], seeks setting aside the order dated

26.11.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge Anticorruption (CBI

cases) Specially Designated Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering

Act, 2002 (‘Special Court’), in Bail Application filed by respondent No.1- Yatin

Yadav in File No. 657/2024 and Respondent No. 2- Anil Kumar Yadav in File

No.658/2024 pertaining to ECIR Bearing No. ECIR/JMSZO/01/2023 dated

31.03.2023 arising out of FIR No. RC0042022A0008 dated 03.08.2022

registered by ACB, CBI Jammu, whereby both of them were admitted to regular

bail. It was prayed to cancel the bail granted in favour of the respondents.

Bail App No.99/2025 Page 1 of 9

2. Applicant has assailed the impugned order, on the grounds that 2026:JKLHC-JMU:985
the

same suffers from various infirmities, overlooking relevant facts and legal

positions as the Special Court has dived into merits of the case, at the stage of

consideration of bail and ignored the case established against the respondents

alongwith the possibility of tampering with the material evidence and

influencing the witnesses; that twin conditions laid down under Section 45 of

PML Act 2002, applicable to the bail, granting opportunity to Public Prosecutor

to oppose the bail plea and recording of satisfaction by the court regarding

reasonable grounds for believing that the person seeking bail is not guilty of

such offence and that he/she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail

are preconditions to be satisfied before grant of bail; that the burden to discharge

that application was not guilty of such offence is on the applicant and not the

prosecution, as wrongly observed by the Special Court, in terms of Section 23 of

PML Act; that both the respondents were directly involved in the leakage of

J&K Staff Selection Recruitment Board Examination for the posts of Police Sub

Inspectors, as money trail of the proceeds of the crime estimated at about

Rs.2.52 Crore was established against them for disseminating question papers

for money.

3. Pursuant to notice, reply/objections on behalf of respondents stand filed,

stating that the present application is not maintainable in law and is liable to be

dismissed, outrightly. The petition is misconceived, based on incorrect facts,

and amounts to an abuse of the process of law; that the respondents have

complied with all bail conditions and have neither violated any condition nor

misused the liberty granted to them; that the application under Section 582

BNSS is not maintainable as the bail order cannot be challenged under the said

provision; that the respondents are regularly appearing before the trial court in

the PMLA proceedings and are fully cooperating with the investigation. No

Bail App No.99/2025 Page 2 of 9
adverse conduct has been attributed to them. It is also submitted that the grounds
2026:JKLHC-JMU:985

raised are repetitive and no new circumstance has been shown to warrant

interference; that the earlier order of cognizance has been quashed by this Court

and fresh cognizance is underway, after filing of supplementary challan. Lastly,

it is prayed that the present application deserves to be dismissed.

4. Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI, learned counsel for the applicant, argued

that the specific role of the accused was ignored; that the impugned order does

not adequately consider the distinct and active roles attributed to the accused in

the distribution of leaked examination papers and in handling the proceeds of

crime; that material collected during investigation, including statements

recorded under Section 50 PMLA and the money trail, prima facie, indicates

their involvement; that the magnitude of the proceeds of crime and the nature of

allegations were not properly appreciated; that approach of the Court, therefore,

overlooks relevant material bearing on the culpability of the accused; that there

was non-compliance of twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA. It is further

submitted that the learned Special Court granted bail, without recording the

mandatory satisfaction required under Section 45 PMLA; that there is no proper

consideration of whether there were reasonable grounds to believe that the

accused were not guilty of the offence; that the likelihood of the accused

committing any offence while on bail was also not assessed; that the order

reflects a mechanical application of general bail principles, contrary to the

statutory mandate.

5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the

impugned order overlooks the statutory presumption and reverse burden of proof

envisaged under Section 24 PMLA; that the burden shifts upon the accused to

demonstrate that the proceeds of crime are untainted, which was not considered.

The observations of the Court reflect a misinterpretation of the legal position

Bail App No.99/2025 Page 3 of 9
governing PMLA offences. This has resulted in an erroneous exercise2026:JKLHC-JMU:985
of

discretion while granting bail; that the learned Court ventured into a detailed

appreciation of facts and merits of the case, which is impermissible at the stage

of bail; that the selective consideration of certain aspects of the evidence led to a

premature assessment akin to a mini-trial; that the prima facie material on record

and the gravity of the offence were not given due weight. The potential risk of

witness tampering and interference with the investigation was also not properly

evaluated. Finally, it is prayed that the bail application be allowed and the

impugned order be set aside by cancelling the bail granted by the court below.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, ex adverso, argued that the

accused/respondents have been falsely implicated in the commission of offences

punishable with a sentence of imprisonment upto seven years; that after being in

incarceration during investigation, the respondents were admitted to regular bail

vide impugned order, after filing of the complaint U/S 44 r/w 45 PMLA; that

there is no circumstance pleaded or urged by the applicant that either of them

had misused the concession of bail, to thwart their prosecution or attempted in

any manner to influence the witnesses. It was further argued that once bail

having been granted can only be cancelled when any of the conditions while

granting bail, would have been violated by the accused and it was finally prayed

that the application seeking cancellation of bail, granted by the trial court be

dismissed.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the file and considered

the matter.

8. Factual background of the case is that, Case No.

ECIR/JMSZO/01/2023 was recorded on 31.03.2023, Sub Zonal Office in the ED

Jammu, on the basis of FIR No. RC0042022A0008 dated 03.08.2022, registered

by CBI, Jammu under Sections 120-B, 420 IPC, 1860, falling under Part A,

Bail App No.99/2025 Page 4 of 9
Paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the PMLA, 2002 being scheduled offences2026:JKLHC-JMU:985
as

defined u/s 2(1)(y) of PMLA, 2002; that CBI later filed charge-sheet No.09

dated 12.11.2022 against Anil Kumar, Yatin Yadav and other accused persons;

that the facts of the case relate to paper leak of examination dated 27.03.2022

conducted by J&K Services Selection Board (JKSSB) for the recruitment of

1200 Sub-Inspectors of J&K Police, against monetary benefits by the accused

persons, including the respondents herein; that the accused persons were also

involved in leaking other recruitment exams conducted by JKSSB in the month

of March 2022 viz. Account Assistant (Finance) exam and Junior Engineer

(Civil) Exam, along with Sub Inspectors (SI) Exam; that as per charge-sheet,

respondents along with other accused charged Rs. 10 lakhs per candidate from

Jammu based accused touts Ashwani Kumar and others for providing leaked SI

exam paper; that in respect of the payments collected against the leaked SI exam

paper, the touts collected the total amount charged by them from the candidates

immediately after the exam, mostly in cash; that the same was handed over by

Ashwani Kumar and others to the respondents and also part proceeds of crime

were routed via bank accounts, relating to the respondent no.2 were detailed.

9. ED case is that the proceeds of crime primarily dealt in cash were not

track-able and had been siphoned off by respondents, however, certain inter

connected transactions, routing the proceeds of crime were traced relating to

them; that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) filed a prosecution complaint on

22.08.2024 U/S 44 r/w 45 PMLA against respondents herein and others and the

trial court vide its order dated 30.09.2024 took cognizance of the offence of

money laundering as defined U/S 3 PMLA against the persons including

respondent no.2- Anil Kumar on the basis of prosecution complaint filed by ED;

that the respondents were arrested on 24.06.2024 and 10.07.2024 respectively

U/S 19 PMLA, 2002; that the prosecution complaint in the present matter under

Bail App No.99/2025 Page 5 of 9
investigation has been filed before the ld. Designated PMLA Special Court2026:JKLHC-JMU:985
on

22.08.2024 and cognizance on the same was taken on 30.09.2024. Both the non-

applicants were admitted to bail by the Designated PMLA Court on 26.11.2024.

Aggrieved of the impugned order dated 26.11.2024, granting bail to

respondents- Yatin Yadav and Anil Kumar, the petitioner has approached this

court seeking cancellation of bail granted to them.

10. A three-Judge Bench of Apex Court in a judgment dated 20.05.2022

passed in ‘Deepak Yadvav V/S State of U.P. & anr.’ observed that the Apex

Court has reiterated in several instances that bail once granted, should not be

cancelled in a mechanical manner, without considering whether any supervening

circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the

accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concessions of bail during trial,

held that in case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming

circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail. A two-

Judge Bench of the Apex Court in ‘Dolat Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana’

reported as (1995) 1 SCC 349 laid down the grounds for cancellation of bail

which are:-

(i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of

administration of justice;

(ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice;

(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner;

           (iv)       possibility of accused absconding;

           (v)        likelihood of/actual misuse of bail; and

           (vi)       likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or

                      threatening witnesses.

11. The Apex Court in a case ‘Himanshu Sharma V. State of M.P.’

reported as 2024 INSC 139 has held that bail to accused can only be cancelled if

Bail App No.99/2025 Page 6 of 9
the Court is satisfied that after being released on bail, (a) the accused 2026:JKLHC-JMU:985
has

misused the liberty granted to him; (b) flouted the conditions of bail order; (c)

that the bail is granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the powers

of the Court to grant bail; (d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation

or fraud.

12. Applying the aforesaid observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court

to the facts of the case on hand, it is observed that none of the aforesaid

conditions have been made out by the applicant for cancellation of bail in view

of the above deliberations.

13. The Apex Court in ‘Neeru Yadvav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr’

reported as (2014) 16 SCC 508 observed that it is well settled in law that

cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted

himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation

have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting

bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse.

14. The applicant- Enforcement Directorate has not alleged or sought

cancellation of bail granted in favour of the respondents for any supervening

circumstances, which may have resulted into violation of conditions of bail or

having made any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any

manner.

15. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the

Special Court has not considered the rigor of bail under Section 45 of PMLA,

which provided that the bail can be granted only on a satisfaction by the Court

that the accused are not guilty of offence punishable under the PMLA of 2002.

The Special Court, while dealing with this argument that the respondents had

been admitted to bail in the predicate offences that against claim of Rs.2.5 crores

having been transacted as money realized from sale of leakage of question

Bail App No.99/2025 Page 7 of 9
paper, only an amount of Rs. 25 lakhs was recovered and seized by the CBI
2026:JKLHC-JMU:985

from accused Suresh Kumar Sharma and Amit Kumar Sharma, who had not

been arrested and despite the two respondents herein having been remanded to

ED custody for 14 days, it has not been able to extract even a single penny or get

it recovered from the respondents or at their behest.

16. The Special Court, while relying upon the law laid down in Vijay

Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. and Ranjitsing case

came to the conclusion that it is now legally established that the duty o the Court

at the stage of grant and refusal of bail is not to weigh the evidence meticulously

but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities and in doing so, the

finding recorded at the time of bail would be tentative in nature and which may

not have any bearing on the merits of the case which has to be decided on the

strength of evidence led.

17. In the considered opinion of this court, the Special Court has rightly

came to the conclusion that the foundational facts which require to be

considered in apropos to Section 45 of the PMLA of 2002 require to be satisfied

by the prosecution and it has to produce the material by which the Court can

draw satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is

guilty of such offence, and that he is likely to commit such offences while on

bail. The Special Court on the basis of the fact that nothing had been recovered

from the respondents-accused during their custody, the accused were held

entitled to bail as the prosecution had not been able to satisfy the rigors followed

under Section 45 of the PMLA.

18. On a consideration of the matter, the Special Court appears to have

dealt with the matter with regard to the rigor of Section 45 PMLA on the basis

of the evidence that had been collected by the applicant against the respondents

and on a prima facie view, the court had come to the conclusion that the

Bail App No.99/2025 Page 8 of 9
prosecution had not been able to satisfy the rigors provided under Section 452026:JKLHC-JMU:985
of

the PMLA. The Special Court has, thus, pass the order following the precedents

of the judgments passed by the Apex Court on the subject and cannot be stated

to have not followed the law by passing the impugned order granting bail in

favour of the respondents.

19. As already pointed out, no supervening circumstances of

contravention of any bail condition or tampering with the evidence has been

pleaded or urged, therefore, bail granted in favour of the respondents by the

Special Court requires no interference by this Court.

20. Viewed thus, the petition is dismissed and the impugned order is

upheld.

(M A Chowdhary)
Judge

JAMMU
08.04.2026.

Raj Kumar

Whether the order is speaking: Yes
Whether the order is reportable: Yes

Bail App No.99/2025 Page 9 of 9