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
hasmisused 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