Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sharad Jaiswal vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 26 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
1 MCRC-42129-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 42129 of 2025
SHARAD JAISWAL AND OTHERS
Versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Appearance:
Shri Sankalp Kochar - Advocate for applicants.
Shri Vikram Singh - Advocate for respondent.
Reserved on : 06.02.2026
Pronounced on : 26.03.2026
.......................................................................................................................................................
ORDER
This is second application filed by the applicants under Section 483 of
B.N.S.S., 2023 for grant of regular bail relating to Crime
No.ECIR/BHZO/19/2024 registered at Police Station – Directorate of
Enforcement, Bhopal Zone, Bhopal (M.P.) for the offence punishable under
Section 3 & 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Applicant is
under custody since 10.02.2025.
The first application of applicant was dismissed as withdrawn vide
order dated 29.07.2025 passed in MCRC. No.3231/2025.
2. As per the prosecution story, FIR No.0195/2024 dated 19.12.2024
was registered against co-accused Saurabh Sharma under sections 13(2) r/w
13(1)(B) of P.C Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) by SPE Lokayukta, Madhya
Pradesh on allegation that he has acquired disproportionate assets in his
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
2 MCRC-42129-2025
name and in the name of his family members and his friend including the
present applicant while he was working as a Constable, MP Transport
Department. In that FIR, it is alleged that Smt. Divya Tiwari, wife of Saurabh
Sharma purchased a plot from Jiauddin for Rs.6,59,679/- on 07.09.2022. On
the same day, Chetan Singh Gaur (co-accused) who is friend and business
partner of Saurabh Sharma purchased another plot from Akhtar Jia for
Rs.5,28,255/-. Saurabh Sharma was establishing a branch of renowned
Jaipuria School in which he has made his mother Smt. Usha Sharma as
Chairperson and his wife Smt. Divya Tiwari as director. Saurabh Sharma has
made significant fixed deposit in the name of his son Aviral Sharma.
Additionally, M/s Aviral Building Construction Pvt. Ltd, incorporated in
2021 in which present applicant (Sharad Jaiswal) and Chetan Singh Gaur are
directors and Rohit Tiwari, brother-in-law of Saurabh Sharma is as
Additional Director. In this company, Saurabh Sharma allegedly amassed
substantial wealth through corrupt practices within the Transport
Department. This company was operated from the residence of accused
persons at E-7/78, Arera Colony, Bhopal.
3. In the search of Lokayukt, it is also found a ware house in the names
of the mother of co-accused Saurabh Sharma, Smt. Uma Sharma and his
friend and business partner Chetan Singh Gaur situated at Sukhi Sewania,
Bhopal, contracts for fisheries business at Govind Sagar Dam and Rajghat
Dam, Uttar Pradesh worth rupees several crores in the names of his wife
Divya Tiwari and his friend and business partner Chetan Singh Gaur, three
houses in Indore and a housing project near Dewas Naka in Indore in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
3 MCRC-42129-2025
name of Saurabh Sharma’s wife, Smt. Divya Tiwari, 18 acres land purchased
in the name of Smt. Divya Tiwari and Chetan Singh Gaur in Gwalior
Municipal Corporation, 1 Villa in Dubai worth Rs.150 crores under
M.R.Group Builders, four bungalows in Bhopal and an ongoing school
construction project in Kolar in the name of Smt. Uma Sharma. It is also
found that he acquired three petrol pumps in Hoshangabad Road and
Abdullahganj, spread over 5 acres, a Luxurious residence at E-7/78, Arera
Colony, Bhopal where large amounts of cash are reportedly kept. It is also
alleged that co-accused Saurabh Sharma is involved in Hawala deals. During
search of Lokayukta, on 19.12.2024 from the residence of co-accused
Saurabh Sharma, E-7/78 Arera Colony, a total amount of Rs.3.86 crore were
seized including cash of Rs.1,14,53,000/- gold jewellery to the tune of
Rs.50,37,425/- and other valuable items. During search operation of
Lokayukta, at the premises of co-accused Chetan Singh Gaur at E-7/657
Arera Colony, Bhopal on 19.12.2024 cash amount of Rs.1,687 crore and
silver of worth Rs.2.11 crores were seized. Co-accused Saurabh Sharma was
getting salary of Rs.28000/- per month. Present applicant was also arrayed as
an accused in this FIR and he was arrested on 28.01.2025.
4. On the basis of this FIR, respondent registered a case
ECIR/BHZO/19/2024 against the present applicant and other co-accused
persons under section 3 and 4 of PMLA. The ECIR/BHZO/19/2024 recites
that section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(B) of P.C Act is scheduled offence and the
allegations contained in the aforesaid FIR show that the accused persons
(including the applicant herein) have committed the offence under Section 3
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
4 MCRC-42129-2025
of PMLA which is punishable under Section 4 of the said act.
5. The applicant and other co-accused persons were summoned by the
respondent and their statement were recorded under Section 50(2) and (3) of
PMLA. Search was also made by the Income Tax Department in Innova Car
No.MP07BA0050 in which there was cash of Rs.11.60 crore and 51.893 kg
gold worth of Rs.40,27,43,902/-. The said Innova car is registered in the
name of the co-accused Chetan Singh Gaur but that vehicle was used by the
co-accused Saurabh Sharma. Applicant and other co-accused persons were
arrested and after investigation complaint was filed before the competent
Court. During the investigation conducted by ED, it is found that huge
amount and properties have been made by the present applicant, co-accused
persons, their family members, relatives, friends and company.
6. Learned counsel for applicants submits that applicants are innocent
and they have been falsely implicated in this case. They are not the main
accused. Co-accused Sourabh Sharma is the principal and main accused. It is
further submitted that main accused Saurabh Sharma was earlier arrested
under the Prevention of Corruption Act on 28.01.2025. In that case,
Lokayukt has not filed the charge-sheet in the prescribed period, therefore,
default bail was granted on 01.04.2025. Thereafter, ED has registered
ECIR/BHZO/19/2024. It is further submitted that charge-sheet under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, which is the scheduled offence, has not been
filed and therefore, proceeds of crime does not come in the picture. It is
further submitted that present applicant is the independent director of Aviral
Building Construction Pvt. Ltd. In this company, there are three directors
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
5 MCRC-42129-2025
namely Rohit Tiwari, Chetan Singh Gaur and the present applicant. It is
further submitted that allegation against the present applicant that Aviral
construction company has procured 9 properties valued of Rs.6,44,33,000/-.
All the properties have been seized by the ED. It is further submitted that
Aviral company has been registered in 2021 whereas the properties which
have been attached by ED were purchased in 2018. It is further submitted
that Panchnama which was prepared during proceedings of ED vide
Annexures A/4 and A/5, does not contain anything against the present
applicant. It is further submitted that the Company where the present
applicant is the Director is paying regular tax vide Annexure A/8 and there is
audit of this company. The applicant’s company has not obtained unsecured
loan through co-accused Saurabh Sharma from various entities. Applicant’s
properties and bank accounts have been seized and there is no possibility of
tampering, alienation or destruction of evidence. The said Company is
regularly filing ITR.
6.1 It is further submitted that in this case, applicant is in jail since
10.02.2025, even during this period, cognizance has not been taken by the
learned Special Court due to the default of ED because ED has not filed all
the documents. It is further submitted that properties of the applicant which
were seized by ED have been acquired by the present applicant by the legal
income and he has shown the source of funds through which he acquired the
properties. It is well settled law that statement of co-accused cannot relied for
implicating the other co-accused persons. In this regard, he has placed
reliance in the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
6 MCRC-42129-2025
o f Prem Prakash Vs. Union of India 2024 (9) SCC 787 . It is further
submitted that in this case trial will take considerable time and there is no
likelihood or conclusion of trial within short span of time, therefore,
applicant should be enlarged on bail. In this regard, he has placed reliance in
the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Anwar
Dhebar Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Criminal Appeal No. 2669 of 2025
and Ramkripal Meena Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 SCC Online SC
2276. It is further submitted that provisions attachment order No.05/2025 has
already been passed and property has been attached thus, there is no
likelihood of applicant committing any such offence while on bail. He
further placed reliance in the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the cases of V.Senthil Balaji V. The Deputy Director, Directorate of
Enforcement (Criminal Appeal No.4011d of 2024), Arvind Kejriwar v.
Directorate of Enforcement (2025) 2 SCC 248, Dr. Natesha V. Directorate of
Enforcement (W.P.No.32956 of 2024), Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. V. Directorate
of Enforcement (2022) 238 AIC 398 and Mari Appa V. State of M.P 1990
MPLJ 621.
6.2 It is further submitted that if the allegation is one of a grave
economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case. In
this regard, has placed reliance upon the decisions of Apex Court in Sanjay
Chandra Vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 (para 28). It is further submitted that the
righ to bail in case of delay, coupled with incarceration for a long period,
depending on the nature of allegations, should be read into Section 439
Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of the PMLA, in this regard, he has placed reliance
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
7 MCRC-42129-2025
on Manish Sisodiya Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
1920 (para 37). He has also placed reliance upon in the cases of Vijay
Madanlal Chaudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India, (2022) SCC OnLine SC
929, P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791,
Sanjay Pandey Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 SCC OnLine Del
4279, Ramkripal Meena Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl.)
No.3205/2024 and Arvind Dham Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, decided on
06.01.2026 in SLP (Crl.) No.15478/2025.
6.3 The applicant has no previous criminal record. There is no chance
of tampering the witnesses. It is submitted that twin conditions for granting
of bail under Section 45 of P.M.L.A., 2002 have already been satisfied fully
as due opportunities have been granted to the respondent to oppose the bail
application. It is further submitted that the applicant cooperates at every stage
of the investigation and appears before the ED on multiple occasions as and
when he was required for investigation. There is reasonable grounds to
believe that the applicant is not guilty of such an offence of money
laundering. The applicant is a well reputed individual with having good
reputation in the society and community. He does not have any criminal
antecedent. He will be abide by all the conditions which may imposed by the
Court while granting bail to him with the undertaking that he will not tamper
with any evidence or to influence any witness of the case. The investigation
against the present applicant has been completed. Therefore, the applicant
may be enlarged on regular bail.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the bail
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
8 MCRC-42129-2025
application and has submitted that the present applicant being an associate to
co-accused Saurabh Sharma has acquired huge amount of assets i.e. movable
and immovable properties worth of crores of rupees in the name of M/s
Aviral Building Construction Pvt. Ltd. from the ill-gotten money of co-
accused Saurabh Sharma. Applicant has has actively assisted Saurabh
Sharma in laundering of the proceeds of crime acquired through corrupt
practices and used the same for purpose of purchasing properties in his name
and his company’s name and projecting the same as untainted. It is further
submitted that during investigation, bank accounts of applicant and his
company namely M/s Aviral Building Constructions Pvt. Ltd., were analyzed
and it is found that he got unsecured loans of Crores of rupees from Chetan
Singh Gaur, M/s Smriti Associates, M/s Mandodeep Nagrik Sahakari
Pratasthan, Vinay Haswani, Arvind Agrawal etc. without any agreement.
These unsecured loans were used for purchasing immovable properties in his
name and in his company, M/s./ Aviral Building Construction Pvt. Ltd.
7.1 He was involved in the process or activity connected with the
proceedes of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition, use
and projecting and claiming as untainted property. It is further submitted that
various immovable properties were acquired in the name of M/s Aviral
Building Constructions Private Limited. Present applicant was the Director
in the aforesaid Company. It is further submitted that source of funds for
purchase of the immovable properties in the name of the M/s. Aviral
Building Constructions Private Limited were arranged by co-accused
Saurabh Sharma either through unsecured loan in the name of M/s. Aviral
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
9 MCRC-42129-2025
Building Construction Pvt Ltd or through deposit of funds in the account of
M/s Aviral Building Construction Pvt Ltd. from the account of fisheries
business which is completely owned by co-accused Saurabh Sharma. It is
further submitted that present applicant and co-accused Chetan Singh Gaur
didn’t have the financial capability to purchase the properties in the name of
company, but co-accused Saurabh Sharma arranged the funds for them to
purchase the property. It is further submitted that this company has one bank
account in Central Bank of India, Shahpura Branch, Bhopal. On analysis of
the bank accounts, it is revealed that one Navodaya Cancer Hospital &
Research Centre, Bhopal had transferred funds to the tune of Rs. 5 Crores to
M/s Aviral Building Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 1.5 Crores to the present
applicant. This company had also received funds to the tune of
Rs.2,99,95,000/- in its bank account from Manodeep Nagarik Sahakari
Patsanshtna Maryadit (a credit cooperative society based in Pune). It is
further submitted that the said company was not doing any business and was
also not filing its mandatory returns. It is further submitted that company’s
directors present applicant and co-accused Chetan Singh Gaur knowingly
and actively involved in the offence of money laundering by ill-gotten
money of co-accused/main accused Saurabh Sharma.
7.2 It is further submitted that 58 bank accounts relating to this crime
of applicant and co-accused persons have been frozen in this matter. Details
of those bank accounts have been mentioned in the complaint. It is further
contended that for granting the bail in the case of PMLA, 2002 compliance
of twin conditions mentioned under Section 45 of the Act is mandatory. At
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
10 MCRC-42129-2025
the time of considering the bail application in the PMLA, 2002 the
underlying principles of provisions of Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 must get
triggered. In this regard he has placed reliance in the case of Vijay
Mandanlal Chaudhary Vs. Union of India (2023) 12 SCC 1 in which in paras
162, 316 and 382.20 it is held as under:
“162. We must hasten to add that the nuanced distinction
must be kept in mind that to initiate “prosecution” for offence
under Section 3 of the Act registration of scheduled offence is a
prerequisite, but for initiating action of “provisional attachment”
under Section 5 there need not be a pre-registered criminal case in
connection with scheduled offence. This is because the machinery
provisions cannot be construed in a manner which would
eventually frustrate the proceedings under the 2002 Act. Such
dispensation alone can secure the proceeds of crime including
prevent and regulate the commission of offence of money-
laundering. The authorised officer would, thus, be expected to and,
also in a given case, justified in acting with utmost speed to ensure
that the proceeds of crime/property is available for being
proceeded with appropriately under the 2002 Act so as not to
frustrate any proceedings envisaged by the 2002 Act. In case the
scheduled offence is not already registered by the jurisdictional
police or complaint filed before the Magistrate, it is open to the
authorised officer to still proceed under Section 5 of the 2002 Act
whilst contemporaneously sending information to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
11 MCRC-42129-2025
jurisdictional police under Section 66(2) of the 2002 Act for
registering FIR in respect of cognizable offence or report
regarding non-cognizable offence and if the jurisdictional police
fails to respond appropriately to such information, the authorised
officer under the 2002 Act can take recourse to appropriate
remedy, as may be permissible in law to ensure that the culprits do
not go unpunished and the proceeds of crime are secured and dealt
with as per the dispensation provided for in the 2002 Act. Suffice
it to observe that the amendment effected in 2015 in the second
proviso has reasonable nexus with the object sought to be
achieved by the 2002 Act.
xxxxx
316. As a result, we have no hesitation in observing that in
whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of
proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or for that
matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court,
the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the 2002
must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned
to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special
legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for
combating the menace of money- laundering.
xxxxx
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
12 MCRC-42129-2025
382.20. As regards the prayer for grant of bail, irrespective
of the nature of proceedings, including those under Section 438 of
the 1973 Code or even upon invoking the jurisdiction of
Constitutional Courts, the underlying principles and rigours of
Section 45 may apply.”
7.3 It is further contended that economic offences come under category
of heinous offences and at the time of considering the bail application it
should not be considered as an ordinary offence. It is further submitted that
in case of an offence of corruption, the criminal activity and the generation
of the proceeds of crime are like Siamese twin and the acquisition of the
proceeds of crime in such cases would itself tantamount to money
laundering. In this regard, he has place reliance in the judgement delivered
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Y. Balaji Vs. Karthik Desari
and anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 645 . It is further submitted that in the present
case, Saurabh Sharma and another co-accused persons have also acquired the
huge amount of cash and property and also indulge actively in possessing,
concealing and using these properties. It is further submitted that at the time
of granting bail, Court should also consider the status of the accused and
gravity of the offence. In this regard, he placed reliance in the judgment
delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Vs. Amarmani
Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 and in the case of Gurcharan Singh Vs. State (
Delhi Administration) 1978 (1) SCC 118 . It is further stated that mandatory
provisions of Section 17 and 18 of the Act have been complied with. It is
further submitted that relevant date under PMLA, 2002 is not when schedule
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
13 MCRC-42129-2025
offence was committed but when the persons indulges in any process or
activity. The criminal activity may have been committed prior to the offence
being notified as schedule offence. It is further submitted that there are 2000
accused persons and 600 witnesses in V.Senthil Balaji (supra) and 210
witnesses in Arvind Dham (supra), but in the present case, there are only 6
witnesses and number of accused persons are also less, therefore, conclusion
of trial will not take enough time. Hence, the aforesaid judgments are not
applicable in the present case. It is further submitted that all the points which
have been argued in the present case, have been argued before this Court in
the bail application of co-accused Saurabh Sharma which was dismissed on
merits by passing a detailed order on 27.09.2025 in M.Cr.C. No.19270/2025.
All the points have also been argued before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
bail application of co-accused Saurabh Sharma, which was dismissed as
withdrawn on 22.11.2025 in SLP (Crl.) No.17044/2025 when the Hon’ble
Apex Court was not inclined to grant bail.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
9. For consideration of the bail application under PMLA, 2002 the
Court need not go deep inside the merits of the case but should consider the
prima facie material against the accused in the case. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary‘s case (supra) has observed
in para 303 of its judgment that:-
“303. We are in agreement with the observation made by the Court in
Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma [(2005) 5 SCC 294]. The Court whileSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2481814 MCRC-42129-2025
dealing with the application for grant of bail need not delve deep into the
merits of the case and only a view of the Court based on available material
on record is required. The Court will not weigh the evidence to find the guilt
of the accused which is, of course, the work of Trial Court. The Court is only
required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable
material collected during the investigation and the said view will not be taken
into consideration by the Trial Court in recording its finding of the guilt or
acquittal during trial which is based on the evidence adduced during the trial.
As explained by this Court in Nimmagadda Prasad [(2013) 7 SCC 466], the
words used in Section 45 of the 2002 Act are “reasonable grounds for
believing” which means the Court has to see only if there is a genuine case
against the accused and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge
beyond reasonable doubt.”
10. In the case of “Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh“, (2007) 11
SCC 195, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “at the stage of granting
of bail, the Court can only go into the question of prima facie case
established for granting bail, it cannot go into the question of credibility and
reliability of witnesses put up by the prosecution. The question of credibility
and reliability of prosecution witnesses can only be tested during trial.”
11. The Delhi High Court in its order dated 07-03-2024 passed in Bail
Application No. 3807/2022 (Sanjay Jain Vs. Enforcement Directorate) after
relying upon the observations made in the case of “Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary” (Supra) has observed in para 49 that:-
“49. It thus, emerges that at the stage of considering a bail
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2481815 MCRC-42129-2025
application under the PMLA, the Court has to bear in mind the
following aspects:
i. Whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea.
ii. The words used in Section 45 of the 2002 Act are
“reasonable grounds for believing” which means the Court has to
see only if there is a genuine case against the accused and the
prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable
doubt.
iii. A positive finding that the accused had not committed an
offence under the Act is not required to be recorded. A delicate
balance between a judgment of acquittal/conviction and an order
granting bail much before commencement of the trial is to be
maintained.
iv. The evidence is not to be weighed meticulously but a
finding is to be arrived at on the basis of broad probabilities with
reference to the material collected during investigation. The
weighing of evidence to find the guilt of the accused is the work
of Trial Court.
v. A finding is also required to be recorded as to the
possibility of the bail applicant committing a crime after grant of
bail. This aspect has to be considered having regard to the
antecedents of the accused, his propensities and the nature and
manner in which he is alleged to have committed the offence.”
12. The issue of grant or denial of bail in offences under the PML Act
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
16 MCRC-42129-2025
is regulated under Section 45 thereof, which, succinctly stating, mandates for
giving an opportunity to the prosecutor to oppose the bail application and
further embodies twin mandatory conditions for allowing bail to the accused:
(i) that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not
guilty of the offence of money laundering; and (ii) that the accused is not
likely to commit any offence while on bail. However, proviso to Section 45
also confers discretion on the Special Court under the PML Act to admit on
bail an accused under the age of sixteen years, or a woman, or sick or infirm
or is accused of money laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees.
Remaining portion of Section 45 is not relevant for present purposes.
12.1 In the case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary (supra), the Supreme
Court traversed through the laudable purpose behind enactment of the PML
Act and observed thus:
“286. Considering the purposes and objects of the
legislation in the form of 2002 Act and the background in which it
had been enacted owing to the commitment made to the
international bodies and on their recommendations, it is plainly
clear that it is a special legislation to deal with the subject of
money laundering activities having transnational impact on the
financial systems including sovereignty and integrity of the
countries. This is not an ordinary offence. To deal with such
serious offence, stringent measures are provided in the 2002 Act
for prevention of money laundering and combating menace of
money-laundering, including for attachment and confiscation ofSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2481817 MCRC-42129-2025
proceeds of crime and to prosecute persons involved in the process
or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. In view of the
gravity of the fallout of money laundering activities having
transnational impact, a special procedural law for prevention and
regulation, including to prosecute the person involved, has been
enacted, grouping the offenders involved in the process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime as a separate class from
ordinary criminals. The offence of money-laundering has been
regarded as an aggravated form of crime “world over”. It is,
therefore, a separate class of offence requiring effective and
stringent measures to combat the menace of money laundering.
xxxxx
300. Thus, it is well settled by the various decisions of
this Court and policy of the State as also the view of international
community that the offence of money-laundering is committed by
an individual with a deliberate design with the motive to enhance
his gains, disregarding the interests of nation and society as a
whole and which by no stretch of imagination can be termed as
offence of trivial nature. Thus, it is in the interest of the State that
law enforcement agencies should be provided with a proportionate
effective mechanism so as to deal with these types of offences as
the wealth of the nation is to be safeguarded from these dreaded
criminals. As discussed above, the conspiracy of money-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
18 MCRC-42129-2025
laundering, which is a three-staged process, is hatched in secrecy
and executed in darkness, thus, it becomes imperative for the State
to frame such a stringent law, which not only punishes the
offender proportionately, but also helps in preventing the offence
and creating a deterrent effect.
xxxxx
12.2 There is plethora of judicial pronouncement, not being repeated
herein for brevity that existence of the twin conditions stipulated under
Section 45 of the PML Act is mandatory before the court exercises discretion
to release on bail a person accused of the offence of money laundering; and
that the belief qua the accused being guilty of money laundering has to be
tested on “reasonable grounds”, which means something more than “prima
facie” grounds. Equally well settled is the scope of Section 24 of the PML
Act that unless contrary is proved, the Court shall presume involvement of
proceeds of crime in money laundering; and that burden to prove that the
proceeds of crime are not involved is on the accused.
12.3 Further, it is trite that economic offences constitute an altogether
distinct class of offences. That being so, in spite of the salutary doctrine of
“bail is the rule and jail is an exception”, matters of bail in cases involving
socio-economic offences have to be visited with a different approach, as held
in State of Bihar & Anr. vs Amit Kumar (2017) 13 SCC 751 .
12.4 As held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Y.S.Jagan
Mohan Reddy vs CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439:
“34) Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2481819 MCRC-42129-2025
be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The
economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving
huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and
considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country
as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health
of the country.
35) While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof,
the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and
other similar considerations.”
12.5 On the aspect of bail in cases involving socio-economic offences,
differential treatment in consideration unlike conventional crimes has been
the law of land, reiterated in a plethora of judicial pronouncement flowing
from apex court. Reference, to cite a few may be drawn from Rohit Tandon
vs Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 11 SCC 46; Serious Fraud
Investigation Office vs Nitin Johari, (2019) 9 SCC 165; and Nimmagadda
Prasad vs CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466.
13. This Court shall now proceed to examine the present matter.
14. It is a settled position of law that statements recorded under
Section 50 of the PMLA hold evidentiary value and are admissible in legal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
20 MCRC-42129-2025
proceedings. The Honble Supreme Court, while emphasizing the legal
sanctity of such statements, has time and again observed that they constitute
valid material upon which reliance can be placed to sustain allegations under
the PMLA. In a recent judgment, the Honble Supreme Court in Abhishek
Banerjee v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 9 SCC 22 has made such
observations which are as under:
“21. …Section 160 which falls under Ch. XII empowers the
police officer making an investigation under the said chapter to
require any person to attend within the limits of his own or
adjoining station who, from the information given or otherwise
appears to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the
case, whereas, the process envisaged by Section 50 PMLA is in
the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not
“investigation” in strict sense of the term for initiating
prosecution; and the authorities referred to in Section 48 PMLA
are not the police officers as held in Vijay Madanlal [Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1].
22. It has been specifically laid down in the said decision
that the statements recorded by the authorities under Section 50
PMLA are not hit by Article 20(3) or Article 21 of the
Constitution, rather such statements recorded by the authority in
the course of inquiry are deemed to be the judicial proceedings in
terms of Section 50(4), and are admissible in evidence, whereas
the statements made by any person to a police officer in the course
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
21 MCRC-42129-2025
of an investigation under Ch. XII of the Code could not be used
for any purpose, except for the purpose stated in the proviso to
Section 162 of the Code. In view of such glaring inconsistencies
between Section 50 PMLA and Sections 160/161CrPC, the
provisions of Section 50 PMLA would prevail in terms of Section
71 read with Section 65 thereof.”
14.1 The Supreme Court in the caes of The Union of India through the
Assistant Direcvtor Vs. Kanhaiya Prasad decided on 13.02.2025 in SLP
(Crl.) No.7140/2024, has held thus:
“18. Though it was sought to be submitted by learned senior
Advocate Mr. Ranjit Kumar for the respondent that the appellant
had relied upon the statements of the respondent recorded under
Section 50 of the Act which were inadmissible in evidence, the
said submission cannot be accepted in view of the position of law
settled by this Court in Vijay Madanlal (supra) in which it has
been held inter alia that the person summoned under Section 50(2)
is bound to attend in person or through authorized agents before
the authority and to state truth upon any subject concerning which
he is being examined or is expected to make statements and to
produce the documents as may be required by virtue of sub-
section (3) of Section 50. It has been further observed that Article
20(3) of the Constitution would not come into play in respect of
the process of recording statement pursuant to such summon
issued under sub-section (2) of Section 50. The phrase used in
Article 20(3) is “to be a witness” and not to “appear as a witness”.
It follows that the protection afforded to an accused insofar as it is
related to the phrase “to be a witness” is in respect of testimonial
compulsion in the court room, and it may also extend to compelled
testimony previously obtained from him. It is available therefore
to a person against whom a formal accusation relating to the
commission of an offence has been levelled, which in the normal
course may result in a prosecution”
14.2 The Supreme Court in the case of Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant
Director, Directorate of Enforcement decided on 20.11.2023 in SLP (Crl.)Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2481822 MCRC-42129-2025
No.9431/2023, has held thus:
“15.In our opinion, there is hardly any merit in the said submission
of Mr. Luthra. In Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement7, a
three Judge Bench has categorically observed that the statements
of witnesses/ accused are admissible in evidence in view of
Section 50 of the said Act 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. Further, as
held in Vijay Madanlal (supra), the offence of money laundering
under Section 3 of the Act 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 offence of
money laundering is not
dependent or linked to the date on which the scheduled offence or
predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date is the
date on which the person indulges in the process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime. Thus, the involvement of
the person in any of the criminal activities like concealment,
possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as
projecting it as
untainted property or claiming it to be so, would constitute the
offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Act”
15. The Honble Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgment
underscored that such statements, being recorded in the course of an inquiry
rather than an investigation, are not subject to the restrictions under Article
20(3) and Article 21 of the Constitution. Instead, they are deemed to be
judicial proceedings under Section 50(4) of the PMLA and, therefore,
admissible as evidence in proceedings under the PMLA.
16. At this stage, it is to be determined whether the applicant is
exempted from the rigors of the twin conditions of bail, if not, then whether
the applicant has satisfied the twin mandatory conditions under Section 45 of
the PMLA. In light of the same, it is imperative to carefully examine the
prosecution complaint, statements of the applicant and co-accused personsSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2481823 MCRC-42129-2025
alongwith the relevant documents.
17. Accordingly, this Court is referring to the statement of applicant
and co- accused persons, relevant gist of which are as under:
(i) Statement of Chetan Singh Gaur recorded under Section 50 of
PMLA:
In the present case, statement of co-accused Chetan Singh Gaur who is
friend and partner of the main accused Saurabh Sharma was recorded under
Section 50 of PMLA, 2002 in which he has disclosed that co-accused
Saurabh Sharma had offered him a job to manage the business. He used to
operate following businesses of Saurabh Sharma:
a) Two petrol pumps operating in the name of style of M/S Aviral
Energies (earlier Benika Auto) and M/s Banskuwar Auto.
b) A fisheries dam located in Lalitpur, Uttar Pradesh which is
registered under his name.
c) M/S Aviral Building Construction Private Limited, a construction
company.
The M/s Aviral Building Construction Pvt Ltd was incorporated
around 2021 and he and present applicant (Sharad Jaiswal) are the directors
of the said company; that this company was opened by co-accused Saurabh
Sharma and he was made director by Saurabh Sharma and the company was
incorporated to deal in sale and purchase of land. He also disclosed that
funds to purchase properties/assets in the name of M/s. Aviral Building
Construction Pvt. Ltd. were arranged by co-accused Saurabh Sharma either
through unsecured loans in the name of M/s. Aviral Building Construction
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
24 MCRC-42129-2025
Pvt. Ltd. from various persons like Gautam Rai Rally, M/s Arihant
Associates, Ram Raja filling station and other persons or through deposit of
funds in the account of M/s Aviral Building Construction Pvt Ltd.
(ii) Statement of Shri Rohit Tiwari recorded under Section 50 of
PMLA:
Shri Rohit Tiwari has disclosed that Sourabh Sharma is the husband of
his cousin sister Smt. Divya Tiwari. He stated that in the nine companies or
firms he is director/partner. He knows Chetan Singh Gaur through Saurabh
Sharma and he was made Additional Director in M/S Aviral Building
Construction Pvt. Ltd for four months in which present applicant and Chetan
Singh Gaur are the main directors.
(iii) Statement of Shri Vinay Haswani recorded under Section 50 of
PMLA:
Vinay Haswani, who is the cousin brother-in-law of co-accused
Saurabh Sharma, has stated that present applicant was introduced by Saurabh
Sharma as his business partner. He has given Rs.31 Lakhs to the applicant as
unsecured loan on the guarantee of Saurabh Sharma through ICICI Bank
account.
(iv) Statement of Smt. Divya Tiwari recorded under Section 50 of
PMLA:
Smt. Divya Tiwari who is wife of co-accused Saurabh Sharma has
disclosed that she was also the director of the M/s. Aviral Building
Construction Pvt. Ltd. She further disclosed that present applicant used to
work under her cousin brother Rohit Tiwari and thereafter the applicantSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
25 MCRC-42129-2025
became friend of her husband Saurabh Sharma. Present applicant and his
mother both were her business partners.
(v) Statement of the present applicant recorded under Section 50 of
PMLA:
The applicant has stated in his statement that he is director/partner in
following companies/partnership firms:
a) M/s Aviral Building Constructions Private Limited- It is in the
business of Real Estate and company main business was to purchase land and
develop it and then sold it. He is director of the company along with co-
accused Chetan Singh Gaur.
b) Core fit Gym- It is a partnership firm which is opened by him with
his known Vijay Amma Gopalan.
The applicant has stated that Smt. Divya Tiwari W/o co-accused
Saurabh Sharma is also director of M/s Aviral Building Constructions Private
Limited. He knows Chetan Singh Gaur through Saurabh Sharma as Chetan
Singh Gaur was his friend. Applicant and Chetan Singh Gaur incorporated a
company namely M/s Aviral Building Constructions Pvt. Ltd. He borrowed
an amount of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- from Chetan Singh Gaur in his bank account
no. 011993600002182 maintained with Yes Bank for the purchase of 02
properties in Indore from M/s Emaar India Pvt. Ltd. for the consideration
amount of Rs.7.90 crores and he had not repaid the same till date.
He stated that his average annual income from all sources is Rs.10-12
lakhs for last five years. His main source of income is from construction
activities, commission from real estate business, monthly rent of Rs.20,000/-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
26 MCRC-42129-2025
etc. He met Vinay Haswani through Saurabh Sharma and received Rs.31
lakhs in his bank account maintained with Yes Bank from Vinay Haswani
for purchase of properties. He had also borrowed Rs.55,00,000/- from
Arvind Agrawal for the purpose of purchase of properties from M/s. Emaar
India Pvt. Ltd. Applicant met with Arvind Agrawal in 2023 through co-
accused Saurabh Sharma. M/s. Aviral Building Construction was engaged in
the. business of real estate and develépment project and no books of accounts
wére prepared for the last-02 fiinaneial years and no- audit was done for the
same; that accounting wark of this company was looked after by one
accountant namely Ankit Saraf. Source of funds of the immovable properties
purchased in the name of M/s Aviral Buiiding Constructions Private Limited
was from unsecured loans taken from Chetan Singh Gaur, construction work
agreement for sale of land and also unsecured loan taken from Murali
Patidar, Aditya Pratap Singh. M/s. Aviral Building Construction Pvt. Ltd.
executed an angreement with M/s. Mandodeep Nagrik Sahkari Pratastha,
Pune for sale of land situated at Bhairopur; that he was not aware the amount
for which the said agreement for sale of land was entered as the said deal was
looked after by Saurabh Sharma.
He further disclosed that M/s Rajmata Bharat Mata Shiksha Avam
Samaj Seva Samiti has six members namely Smt. Umar Sharma (President),
Deepak Arora (Vice President), Chetan Singh Gaur (Treasurer), Rohit Tiwari
and Shubham Tiwari (Members) and the present applicant is Secretary till
September, 2024. When he was asked about Rajmata Bharat Mata Shiksha
Avam Samaj Seva Samiti, he stated that he was looking after supervision of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
27 MCRC-42129-2025
construction work of school at Shahpura, that Rs.2 to 2.5 crore were spent by
Rajmata Bharat Shiksha Avam Samaj Seva Samiti as on date and
construction contract was given to one M/s Sanjay Constructions, near ISBT,
Bhopal. That he knows Pyare Lal Kewat as he is driver of Saurabh Sharma.
That last time he spoke with Pyare Lal Kewat on 19.12.2024 regarding
construction of Jiapuria School at Shahpura, Bhopal. That M/s Aviral
Building Construction Pvt. Ltd had purchased a property from Jagpreet
Singh Arora, Jasbir Singh Arora, Rajendra Singh Mac and Smt. Avinash
Kaur Mac for a consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/- and no cash for the
purchase of this property was utilized. That Chetan Singh Gaur is the owner
of Innova Car having registration no.MP-07-BA-0050. That Saurabh Sharma
used this car for his office related work.
He further disclosed that M/s Sanjay Constructions was looking after
the constructione work of the school; that an amount of Rs:. 30-40 lakhs
were incured for construction of school by M/s Rajitiata Bharat Mata
Shiksha Avam Seva, Bhopal and an amount of Rs.2 Crore (approx)
arepayable to M/s Sanjay Coristructions by M/s. Rajitiata Bharat Mata:
Shiksha Avam Seva, Bhopal. M/s Rajmata Bharat Mata Shiksha Avam Seva,
Bhopal is constructing a school and the trust had paid Rs.25 lakhs to
Jaipuria School Management for obtaining franchise from them. Murli
Patidar had given an unsecured loan to M/s. Rajmat Bharatmata Shiksha
Avam Samaj Kalyan Samiti Bhopal to the tune of Rs.15 lac.
(vi) Statement of Saurabh Sharma recorded under Section 50 of
PMLA:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
28 MCRC-42129-2025
Saurabh Sharma (main accused) has stated that his brother-in-law
Rohit Tiwari introduced him with the present applicant in the business of
construction. He has taken a house at E-7/78, Arera Colony Bhopal on rent
from his brother-in-law Rohit Tiwari. Pyarelal Kewat is known to present
applicant (Sharad Jaiswal) and used to look after his construction business
and he used to call him as and when requires for any household or car
driving work. He helped the present applicant in obtaining unsecured loan of
Rs.1 Crore 45 Lac from his frined Chetan Singh Gaur on his personal
gurantee and this amount has been taken by the present applicant for the
purpose of purchasing the property from M/s Emaar India Pvt. Ltd. He
knows Vinay Haswani who has given loan of Rs.31 lac to the present
applicant on his personal guarantee and this amount has been taken by the
present applicant for the purpose of purchasing the property from M/s Emaar
India Pvt. Ltd.
(vii) Statement of Krishna Jaiswal recorded under Section 50 of
PMLA:
Smt. Krishna Jaiswal, mother of present applican, has disclosed that
her main source of income is from rental house from the shop situated at
Mansarovar Colony and house at Machana Colony Bhopal. She is one of the
directors in M/s. Aviral Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., but she does not know the
details of other directors. Her son (present applicant) used to look after day
to day affairs of this company. Her son was also one the directors in M/s
Aviral Building Constructions Private Limited.
18. Upon the perusal of the requisite documents, including the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
29 MCRC-42129-2025
statements of the applicant quoted hereinabove, co-accused and the relevant
bank statements, the following inferences can be drawn with respect to the
issues under consideration.
19. During the search conducted by SPE Lokayukta Police, Madhya
Pradesh at the residence of co-accused Saurabh Sharma at E-7/78 Arera
Colony, Bhopal on 19.12.2024 a total seizure amounting to Rs.3.86 crores
which includes cash of Rs.1,14,53,000/-, gold jewelry of Rs.50,37,425/- and
other valuable items of Rs.2,21,12,400/-. On the same day, from Chetan
Singh Gaur at E-7/657 Arera Colony, Bhopal on 19.12.2024, cash of
Rs.1.687/- and silver of Rs.2.11 crores were also seized.
20. During investigation it is found that 9 immovable properties were
purchased in the name of M/s. Aviral Building Constructions Pvt. Ltd. from
03.10.2022 to 11.10.2023 total worth of Rs.6,44,33,000/- (detailed
description of which is available in complaint filed by E.D. Present applicant
and Chetan Singh Gaur, who are co-accused in this case, are business
partners of co-accused Saurabh Sharma and Directors of this company.
Chetan Singh Gaur and present applicant have no financial capability to
invest huge amount in the company and to purchase property worth crores of
rupees. The amount has been managed by co-accused/main accused Saurabh
Sharma through his friends and relatives.
21. M/s. Aviral Building Construction Pvt. Ltd. has bank account
bearing Account No.5241305831 in Central Bank of India. In this account
Rs.5 crores have been transferred by Navodaya Cancer Hospital & Research
Centre, Bhopal and Rs. 1.50 crores to present applicant (Sharad Jaiswal) in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
30 MCRC-42129-2025
his bank account No.510341000695162.
22. During investigation, it is found that said immovable property has
been purchased from total Rs.6.50 crores by aforesaid company. The said
company also received Rs.2,99,95,000/- in the said bank account from
Manodeep Nagarik Sahakari Patsanshtna Maryadit (a credit cooperative
society based in Pune) but during search no such society was found at its
registered office.
23. In the investigation, it is found that Aviral Building Constructions
Pvt. Ltd. was not doing any business and filing its mandatory annual returns.
It is also found that the co-accused Saurabh Sharma was constructing school
on the two immovable properties worth Rs.13,35,48,832/- belongs to M/s.
Rajmata Bharatmata Shiksha Avam Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Bhopal. It is also
found that Smt. Uma Sharma, mother of co-accused Saurabh Sharma, was
made President and Smt. Divya Tiwari, present applicant and Chetan Singh
Gaur were appointed as Vice President, Treasurer and Secretary etc. of said
society. Smt. Uma Sharma, present applicant, Saurabh Sharma and Chetan
Singh Gaur are authorized signatories of bank account No.5296814006 of
Central Bank of India belongs to M/s. Rajmata Bharatmata Shiksha Avam
Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Bhopal, therefore it seems that these are the
beneficiaries and owners of said committee and the society was used by
them for laundering the proceeds of crime acquired by present applicant and
co-accused persons. It is pertinent to mention here that Manodeep Nagarik
Sahakari Patsanshtna Maryadit has also transferred money to M/s. Aviral
Building Construction Pvt. Ltd. which shows that all these are connected
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
31 MCRC-42129-2025
with each other. It is found that Rohit Tiwari is brother-in-law of co-accused
Saurabh Sharma and he was also made Additional Director in M/s. Aviral
Building Construction Pvt. Ltd. for four months and he gave Rs.86 lacs to
co-accused Chetan Singh Gaur as unsexured loan on the guarantee of co-
accused Saurabh Sharma.
24. In the investigation, it is also found that Smt. Krishna Jaiswal,
mother of present applicant, was also Director in M/s. Aviral Enterprises Pvt.
Ltd. Vinay Haswani, who is cousin brother-in-law of Saurabh Sharma had
given Rs.31 lacs to present applicant as unsecured and interest free loan
through ICICI bank account on the instructions of co-accused Saurabh
Sharma. The present applicant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,45,00,000/- from
co-accused Chetan Singh Gaur in his account No.011993600002182
maintained with Yes Bank for purchase of two properties in Indore from
M/s. Emaar India Pvt. Ltd., Indore for consideration of Rs.7.90 crores.
24.1 During investigation it is also found that M/s Aviral Building
Constructions Pvt. Ltd had also received funds to the tune of Rs.
2,99,95,000/- in its bank account no. 5241305831 maintained with Central
Bank of India, Shahpura Branch, Bhopal from one Manodeep Nagarik
Sahakari Patsanshtna Maryadit (a credit cooperative society based in Pune)
from its bank account no.610000000006881 maintained with Saraswat Co-
operative Bank Limited, Kharadi branch, Pune. During investigation it is also
found that no society by the name of Manodeep Nagarik Sahakari
Patsanshtna Maryadit (a credit cooperative society based in Pune) was found
at its registered address.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
32 MCRC-42129-2025
25. Having considered the legislative intent behind Section 45 and the
judicial precedents interpreting its application, this Court shall now proceed
to apply the established principles to the facts of the present case to assess as
to whether the applicant can claim benefit of proviso to Section 45 of the
PMLA.
26. The material on record demonstrates that the accused persons
operated in a highly coordinated and systematic manner, with clear
understanding and collaboration among them to facilitate the offence. The
evidence shows deliberate concealment of the origin of funds.
27. The respondent has provided a detailed representation of the
modus operandi of the present applicant and other co-accused persons in the
form of a graphic illustration:
28. In Saumya Chaurasia v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 6 SCC
401, the Honble Supreme Court has stated that the Courts should be mindful
in keeping the evidence of movement of funds acquired out of the syndicate
and utilization of the proceeds of crime to judge whether the individual is a
part of the syndicate. The relevant part of the said judgment is herein below:
“19. As stated hereinabove, the supplementary complaint
was filed against the appellant along with the other accused on 30-
1-2023, in which the summary of investigative findings against
each of the accused persons have been recorded in Para 8 thereof.
The details of the investigation conducted by the respondent ED
have been stated in Para 9 and the role of each accused including
the appellant in the commission of alleged offence of moneySignature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2481833 MCRC-42129-2025
laundering has been stated in Para 10 thereof, which reads as
under:
“10. Role of accused in the offence of money laundering
A. Evidences of offence of money laundering against Smt
Saumya Chaurasia–
Mrs Saumya Chaurasia is an officer of the Chhattisgarh State
Civil Services who was posted as the Deputy Secretary in the
Office of Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh and was working as an
OSD to CM. Despite being relatively very junior in the
bureaucratic hierarchy, she enjoyed unprecedented power and
control because of her direct access to higher political powers.
Information shared by the Income Tax Department and analysis of
documents and digital devices seized during the searches
conducted under Section 17 PMLA, 2002 revealed that Smt
Saumya Chaurasia, Deputy Secretary working in the Chief
Minister’s Office, is one of the key persons increation of the
syndicate headed by Shri Suryakant Tiwari. An extortion racket of
this magnitude and nature was possible only when multiple State
agencies fell in place and everyone supported the illegal acts of
Suryakant Tiwari. This was made possible by Saumya Chaurasia
so that pliant officers were posted in the coal mining districts who
would listen to Suryakant Tiwari. Also, it was an unwritten rule
that instructions of Suryakant Tiwari meant the voice of Saumya
Chaurasia and the powers to be. The fact that Suryakant TiwariSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2481834 MCRC-42129-2025
had personal and close official dealings with her and was carrying
her instructions to the officers, made it possible for Suryakant
Tiwari to also command senior district level officers. This illegal
authority was essential for him to run his empire of illegal
extortion from coal & iron pellet transportation. Without his
concurrence, no NOC was issued by the district machinery. All
this was made possible by the fact that he was in the good books
of Mrs Saumya Chaurasia. Therefore, she has directly indulged in
the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3
PMLA, 2002 being actually involved in the process of money
laundering by way of possession, concealment, use, acquisition
and projecting the proceeds of crime as untainted property.
As per the findings of the investigation, it can be inferred that
Saumya Chaurasia has directly acquired “proceeds of crime” as
defined under Section 2(l)(u) PMLA, 2002 to an extent of more
than Rs 30 crores. ED’s investigation makes it evident that
although all the money of extortion on coal & iron pellet
transportation was collected by the syndicate of Suryakant Tiwari,
he was not the final beneficiary of this scam. He did utilise large
amounts of money for purchasing benami assets, but big chunks of
the money were transferred to Saumya Chaurasia, spent on
political funding and transferred as per the instructions of higher
powers.
Mr Manish Upadhyay, a relative of Mr Suryakant Tiwari, is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2481835 MCRC-42129-2025
a close associate of both Mrs Saumya Chaurasia & Mr Suryakant
Tiwari. ED investigation has established that Mr Manish
Upadhyay was inserted in as an extra layer of protection for cash
dealings between Mr Suryakant Tiwari and Mrs Saumya
Chaurasia. He used to transport cash from Mr Suryakant Tiwari to
Mrs Saumya Chaurasia.
ED investigation has established that Mrs Saumya Chaurasia and
her family went on a spree of acquiring immovable assets during
the period which coincided with the coal levy scam. These assets
of which she is the real beneficial owner were identified and
attached by issuance of provisional attachment orders(s) as
detailed in succeeding paragraphs.
20. The evidence relating to strong relations between the
appellant and Mr Suryakant Tiwari, between the appellant and Mr
Manish Upadhyay, and between the appellant and Mr Anurag
Chaurasia; the evidences of movement of funds acquired out of
extortion syndicate run by Mr Suryakant Tiwari to Manish
Upadhyay, proxy of the appellant; the utilisation of proceeds of
crime and acquisition of properties by the appellant in the name of
her mother Shanti Devi and cousin Mr Anurag Chaurasia along
with the details of the said properties, etc. have been detailed in
the said prosecution complaint, which leave no doubt in the mind
of the Court that prima facie the appellant has been found involved
in the commission of the offence of money laundering as definedSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2481836 MCRC-42129-2025
in Section 3 of the said Act.”
29. As the Honble Supreme Court has emphasized in a catena of
judgments, the offence of money laundering must be viewed in the context
of the entire criminal enterprise rather than in isolation with respect to
individual roles. The collective nature of the operations, the financial
interlinks between the accused persons and the fraudulent intent evidenced
through sustained unlawful activity, leave no doubt that the applicant was an
integral part of the broader scheme to launder proceeds of crime.
30. As per the investigation conducted by Directorate of Inforcement
the applicant actively participated in multiple stages of the laundering
process, including the purchase of movable and immovable properties in the
name of dummy companies, family members, relative, friends/business
partners and integration of ilicit funds into the legitimate economy. Seizure
of the cash amount, gold, jewelleries and other valuable items from present
applicant and co-accused persons financial transactions, his association with
co-accused individuals, and his involvement in acquiring the immovable
properties indicate a deeper level of complicity beyond mere business
dealings.
31. In the Saumya Chaurasia (Supra), the Honble Supreme Court has
also emphasized that although the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA
confers discretion on the Court to grant bail where the accused falls within
the conditions of the proviso, it does not mean that the person specified in the
said proviso should necessarily be released on bail. The relevant part of
Saumya Chaurasia (Supra) is reproduced herein below:
“23. The use of the expression “may be” in the first proviso to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:2481837 MCRC-42129-2025
Section 45 clearly indicates that the benefit of the said proviso to
the category of persons mentioned therein may be extended at the
discretion of the court considering the facts and circumstances of
each case, and could not be construed as mandatory or obligatory
on the part of the court to release them. Similar benevolent
provision for granting bail to the category of persons below the
age of sixteen years, women, sick or infirm has been made in
Section 437CrPC and many other special enactments also,
however by no stretch of imagination could such provision be
construed as obligatory or mandatory in nature, otherwise all
serious offences under such special Acts would be committed
involving women and persons of tender age below 16 years. No
doubt the courts need to be more sensitive and sympathetic
towards the category of persons included in the first proviso to
Section 45 and similar provisions in the other Acts, as the persons
of tender age and women who are likely to be more vulnerable,
may sometimes be misused by the unscrupulous elements and
made scapegoats for committing such crimes, nonetheless, the
courts also should not be oblivious to the fact that nowadays the
educated and well placed women in the society engage themselves
in the commercial ventures and enterprises, and advertently or
inadvertently engage themselves in illegal activities. In essence,
the courts should exercise the discretion judiciously using their
prudence, while granting the benefit of the first proviso to Section
45 PMLA to the category of persons mentioned therein. The
extent of involvement of the persons falling in such category in
the alleged offences, the nature of evidence collected by the
investigating agency, etc. would be material contradictions.”
32. Now this Court shall decide as to the applicant has successfully
discharged the burden of proving that he is not guilty of the alleged offence
and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail.
33. It is well settled, as reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (Supra) and Manish Sisodia (Supra), that while
the stringent twin conditions under Section 45 restrict the right to bail, they
do not impose an absolute bar. The discretion of the court in granting bail
remains judicial and must be exercised in accordance with the settled legal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
38 MCRC-42129-2025
principles. The governing principle that “bail is the rule, and jail is the
exception” must be harmonized with the legislative mandate that requires
satisfaction of the conditions laid down under Section 45 before bail can be
granted.
34. From the statements of Chetan Singh Gaur, Rohit Tiwari, Vinay
Haswani, Smt. Krishna Jaiswal, Tiwari, Smt. Divya Tiwari, present applicant
(Sharad Jaiswal), Sourabh Sharma and from the analysis of the cash,
jewelleries and other documents recovered from the present applicant and
other co-accused persons, there is sufficient prima facie evidence against the
applicant that he is involved in the commission of the offence of money
laundering.
35. The applicants have acquired the properties in the name of shell
company/firm with other co-accused persons. Generating the proceeds of
crime as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA, 2002. The the record and
evidence available in this case and from the statements recorded under
Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 clearly establishes the link of the present
applicant with the illegal income and the generation of proceeds of crime
through it. The overall evidence shows the applicant’s active involvement,
making it difficult to satisfy the first condition that the applicant is innocent.
36. For the second condition of Section 45 of the PMLA, the pattern of
transactions between the present applicants and other co-accused persons and
active involvement of his family members, friends and relatives in
purchasing and acquiring the properties suggest that the applicant had a well-
structured setup. The involvement of multiple bank accounts, cash
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
39 MCRC-42129-2025
transactions indicate a high risk of continued engagement in similar activities
if released.
37. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective
parties and also from the material produced in the present case, it is not
acceptable that the present applicants did not know about the transaction.
Denial by the accused itself is not sufficient to consider prima facie that there
is no mens rea of the applicants for the said offence under the PMLA, 2002.
Although the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 is
required to be tested at the time of trial but, for the purpose of consideration
of bail application the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA,
2002 can be considered against the applicants.
38. Considering the nature of allegation against the present applicants
and also the material collected during the investigation and further the
gravity of the offence, the benefit of the judgments cited by the learned
counsel for the applicants cannot be extended to him for releasing them on
bail at this stage, as the facts and circumstances of the present case and the
allegation against the applicants is different than the facts and circumstances
of the cases cited by learned counsel for the applicants.
39. As has been discussed hereinabove, it cannot be said that there is
no involvement of the applicants in the offence in question. Considering the
role of the applicants in the ensuing money laundering case of proceeds of
crime, it is found that there is sufficient evidence collected by the
respondent/ED to prima facie show the involvement of the applicants in the
offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:24818
40 MCRC-42129-2025
It is an organized crime having various facets of its complexion, therefore,
further considering the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 this
Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
applicant is involved in the offence and he is likely to commit any other
offence while on bail, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicants.
40. Consequently, the present bail application filed by the applicants is
rejected.
41. It is made clear that any observations made herein are only for the
purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not be construed as an
expression on the merits of the case. Learned Trial Court shall proceed with
the matter uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court and shall
decide the case strictly in accordance with law.
(PRAMOD KUMAR AGRAWAL)
JUDGE
Sateesh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SATEESH
KUMAR SEN
Signing time: 28-03-2026
13:50:14
