Madras High Court
Aashish Jain vs Directorate Of Enforcement, … on 7 July, 2026
Crl.O.P.No.13403 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.07.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
Crl.O.P.No.13403 of 2026
Shri.Aashish Jain ... Petitioner
Vs.
Directorate of Enforcement,
Represented by the Assistant Director,
Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai Zonal Office-I,
BSNL Administrative Building, Kush Kumar Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail, in
connection with ECIR/CEZO-I/61/2021 dated 06.01.2022, on the file of the
respondent/Enforcement Directorate, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Xavier Felix
For Respondent : Mr.P.Sidharthan,
Special Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested on 24.11.2025 and remanded to judicial
custody on 25.11.2025 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 3 &
4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 r/w. Sections 120-B, 465, 468,
471, 477A, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with
ECIR/CEZO-I/61/2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.13403 of 2026
2. The case of the prosecution is that, based on a complaint lodged by
the Tahsildar, Sriperumbudur Taluk, an FIR came to be registered alleging that
the petitioner, in collusion with the then Tahsildar and the Assistant Settlement
Officer, fraudulently obtained Patta in respect of Government land measuring
7.67 acres situated in Survey No.310/1, Bheemanthangal Village. It is alleged
that, on the strength of such forged documents, the petitioner received
compensation of Rs.30.09 Crores from the National Highways Authority of
India towards acquisition of the said land, thereby causing wrongful loss to the
Government. Since the alleged acts constitute scheduled offences under the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Directorate of Enforcement
registered ECIR No.CEZO-1/61/2021 dated 06.01.2022 for the offence of
money laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
petitioner was initially remanded to judicial custody on 23.06.2021 in
connection with the scheduled offence of cheating and, after undergoing
incarceration for a period of 47 days, he was enlarged on bail on 09.08.2021.
Thereafter, the petitioner was again remanded to judicial custody on
25.11.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.13403 of 2026
PMLA”), read with the scheduled offence. The learned counsel would further
submit that, even according to the prosecution, the scheduled offence relates
only to the alleged act of cheating and not to the receipt of compensation from
the National Highways Authority of India. Therefore, it is contended that the
continued incarceration of the petitioner since 25.11.2025 amounts to an
infringement of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
3.1. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel would
submit that the subject property originally belonged to one Venugopal Reddyar,
who entered into a sale agreement dated 06.03.2000 with the petitioner.
Subsequently, a registered sale deed came to be executed in the year 2004 in
respect of an extent of 7.67 acres, and patta was also transferred in the
petitioner’s name during the same year. It is his submission that the acquisition
proceedings were initiated only in the year 2016. Therefore, according to the
learned counsel, there could not have been any act of cheating against the
National Highways Authority of India.
3.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi Vs. National
3/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.13403 of 2026
Investigation Agency, reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 881, and would
contend that the three-Judge Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, has
categorically held that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that the said
principle is founded upon the constitutional primacy of personal liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. According to the
learned counsel, such a constitutional guarantee cannot be completely
displaced by statutory restrictions on the grant of bail. Hence, he prayed that
the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned
Special Public Prosecutor and would contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others Vs. Union of India, reported in
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 633, has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 45(1)
(ii) of the PMLA. Therefore, the ordinary principles governing grant of bail are
not applicable to offences under the PMLA. He would further submit that the
judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Syed Iftikhar
Andrabi’s case (cited supra) is factually distinguishable, inasmuch as the
accused therein had undergone incarceration for a substantially longer period,
4/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.13403 of 2026
whereas the petitioner in the present case was remanded to judicial custody
only on 25.11.2025.
5.1. It is the further contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor
that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not
guilty of the offence, as the very transfer of patta in his favour was allegedly
secured on the strength of a fabricated order of the Assistant Settlement
Officer. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the patta was transferred in the
year 2004, much prior to the acquisition proceedings, the fact remains that the
petitioner is alleged to have obtained the patta on the basis of a fabricated
document, thereby constituting the scheduled offence of cheating.
Consequently, the rigour of Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA squarely applies and
the petitioner has failed to satisfy the twin conditions prescribed therein.
Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the bail petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi’s case (cited supra), while
considering the pari materia provisions under the Unlawful Activities
5/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.13403 of 2026
(Prevention) Act, 1967, which also prescribe twin conditions similar to Section
45 of the PMLA, has, after an elaborate survey of earlier precedents, reiterated
that bail is the rule and jail is the exception and that the constitutional
guarantee of personal liberty cannot be rendered illusory merely because of
statutory restrictions. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Special
Public Prosecutor, the constitutional validity of Section 45 of the PMLA has
been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary’s
case (cited supra). Nevertheless, the judgment in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi’s case
(cited supra) makes it abundantly clear that the rigour under Section 45 is
required to be examined on the touchstone of whether the accused has placed
sufficient materials before the Court to enable it to form a prima facie opinion
that he is not guilty of the offence alleged.
8. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment
relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also subject to the
satisfaction of the twin conditions prescribed under Section 45 of the PMLA. It
is, therefore, incumbent upon the petitioner to place before this Court
reasonable grounds to prima facie demonstrate that he is not guilty of the
offence alleged and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
6/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.13403 of 2026
Unless the petitioner satisfies the said statutory threshold, he cannot seek the
relief of bail.
9. Coming to the factual matrix of the present case, though the petitioner
may not have obtained the patta with the object of claiming compensation in
the acquisition proceedings, the scheduled offence alleged against him is one
of cheating. The offence of cheating is not confined to any particular individual
or authority. If the materials placed by the prosecution are examined, it is seen
that the petitioner obtained patta in his name on the strength of an order
purportedly issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer. However, the
prosecution would contend that the said order does not pertain to the subject
property but relates to lands situated at Thiruninravur Village, Poonamallee
Taluk altogether a different property.
10. The reliance placed upon the said document has already been
examined in the proceedings cancelling the patta standing in the name of the
petitioner. The Principal Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration, by
proceedings in Nos. K1/9802/2020-1 and K1/9802/2020-2, dated 17.03.2021,
has categorically recorded the aforesaid findings, and the said findings have
7/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.13403 of 2026
attained finality. Therefore, the allegation of cheating in obtaining the patta
stands prima faciely established.
11. On a perusal of the entire materials available on record, this Court is
unable to find any material contradicting the findings recorded by the Principal
Secretary/Commissioner of Land Administration. In other words, the petitioner
has failed to place any material before this Court to overcome the rigour of
Section 45 of the PMLA. Though reliance has been placed upon the order
passed in W.P.No.33933 of 2019 etc., batch, dated 28.07.2023, the same, in the
considered view of this Court, does not advance the case of the petitioner. In
such circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to enlarge the
petitioner on bail.
12. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
07.07.2026
kv
8/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.13403 of 2026
To
1. The Assistant Director,
Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai Zonal Office-I,
BSNL Administrative Building, Kush Kumar Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
9/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.13403 of 2026
C.KUMARAPPAN.J.
kv
Crl.O.P.No.13403 of 2026
07.07.2026
10/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
