Himachal Pradesh High Court
Mandeep Rana vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 21 July, 2026
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1 2026:HHC:29941
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CrMPs(M) No. : 2206 & 2208 of 2025
.
Reserved on : 20.07.2026
Decided on : 21.07.2026
Uploaded on : 21.07.2026
of
CrMP (M) No. 2206 of 2025
Mandeep Rana ...Applicant
Versus
rt
Directorate of Enforcement …Respondent
……………………………………………………………………………
CrMP (M) No. 2208 of 2025
Ashoni Kanwar ...Applicant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the applicant(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Shivam
Gupta and Ms. Kanika Verma,
Advocates.
For the respondent(s) : Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Advocate,
(through Video Conferencing),
with Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani,
Advocate.
1
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
2 2026:HHC:29941
Virender Singh, Judge.
.
Both these bail applications are being decided
by this common order, as, both these applications have
been filed, by the applicants, under Section 482 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter
of
referred to as ‘BNSS’), in case, registered vide
ECIR/SHSZO/05/2020, dated 17th September, 2020,
rt
with Sub-Zonal Office, Directorate of Enforcement,
Shimla (hereinafter referred to as ‘ED’), under Sections 3
and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as ‘PMLA’), as, they are
apprehending their arrest, in the above titled case.
2. According to the applicants, they are innocent
persons and have falsely been implicated, in the present
case.
3. Both the applicants are permanent residents of
9/8, Sadarpura, Gali No. 1, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
According to the applicants, both of them belong to
respectable family and having deep roots in the society.
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
3 2026:HHC:29941
4. As per the applicants, three criminal cases, vide
FIRs No. 22 of 2020, 26 of 2020 and 27 of 2020, have been
.
registered with Police Station Dharampur, District Solan,
H.P., regarding fake degree scam of Manav Bharti
University. On the basis of those FIRs, the present ECIR
has been registered. Both the applicants have been named
of
as accused, in the above ECIR, and, as such, they are
apprehending their arrest, in the said case.
rt
5. According to them, they have no role in the
admission of students of Manav Bharti University, as, the
process of admission and other related affairs of the
University are managed by the Vice Chancellor, who
further delegates the same to the Registrar, Deputy
Registrar, etc.
6. As per the further case of the applicants, the
Manav Bharti University has been regularly making written
complaints to the concerned officials at Police Station,
Dharampur, with respect to the act of maligning the name
of University, by vested interests, by issuing forged and
fabricated certificates, in the name of Manav Bharti
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
4 2026:HHC:29941
University, however, no action has been taken by the
concerned authorities.
.
7. It is the case of the applicants that the
University itself has made a complaint to Police Station
Dharampur, with regard to 800 forged degrees issued,
while, misusing the name of Manav Bharti University
of
8. It is the further case of the applicants that
nothing has been collected by the respondent-ED to
rt
connect them with the alleged transaction and nothing has
to be recovered from them or at their instance.
9. Investigation of the case is stated to be complete
and nothing incriminating is stated to have been found
against the applicants. As per the applicants, their
custodial interrogation is not required by the Investigating
Agency.
10. It is also the case of the applicants that no steps
have been taken by the ED for effecting the service upon
the applicants and they are coming to India on emergency
Travel Certificates, as, their passports have been revoked
and it is very difficult for them to enter India.
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
5 2026:HHC:29941
11. These facts have been highlighted by the
applicants to demonstrate their bona fides to come to India
.
and to join the investigation. According to them, when, the
applicants came to know about the emergency Travel
Certificate, which is issued for travelling to India, they
immediately applied for the emergency Travel Certificates.
of
12. According to the applicants, the learned Special
Judge (PMLA), Shimla, had also issued look out circulars,
rt
as well as, the non-bailable warrants, against them, in the
present ECIR, which, vide orders, dated 8th August, 2025
and 11th August, 2025, have been ordered to be kept in
abeyance, in view of the applications, made by the
applicants, enabling them to return to the country.
13. The applicants have also sought the relief of
bail, on the ground of parity, as, according to the
applicants, one of the accused in ECIR No.
SHSZO/05/2020, dated 17th September, 2020 has filed
similar bail application, before this Court, which has been
allowed, by this Court, vide order, dated 25 th November,
2020.
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
6 2026:HHC:29941
14. The applicants are stated to be presently
residing at U 909, 36-46, Cowper Street, Parramatta, 2150,
.
New Sought Wales, Australia.
15. On all these submissions, the learned counsel
appearing for the applicants, has prayed that the bail
applications may kindly be allowed and directions, under
of
Section 482 of the BNSS, may be issued to the respondent-
ED, to release the applicants, on bail, in the even of their
rt
arrest.
16. When put to notice, the prayer made in the bail
applications has been opposed by the respondent-ED, by
filing the replies, taking preliminary objections that the
present applications, under Section 482 of the BNSS, are
not maintainable, as, the offences, in which, the applicants
have been named as accused persons, are grave in nature
and pertain to large scale issuance of fake degrees by
Manav Bharti University and laundering of the illegal
proceeds generated therefrom. The applicants are stated to
be the key conspirators in the alleged crime.
16.1. Apart from this, another preliminary objection
has been taken by the ED that the economic offences
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
7 2026:HHC:29941
constitute a class apart, as such, the relief, as sought, in
the bail applications, cannot be granted to the applicants.
.
16.2. It is the further case of the ED that the rigors of
Section 45 of the PMLA are applicable, to the present case
and before granting the relief to the applicants, assought
by them, it is mandatory, for this Court, to record the
of
findings, which should be more than prima facie, qua
existence of twin conditions, as enumerated in Section 45
rt
of the PMLA. In this regard, reliance has been placed by
the ED, on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary versus Union of India,
reported in (2022) 10 Supreme Court Cases 1.
16.3. According to the ED, the applicants have been
dis-entitled from discretionary relief, under Section 482 of
the BNSS, as, they remained outside India for several
years, avoiding investigation of the case and only after
issuance of look out circulars and non-bailable warrants,
they made efforts to return on emergency Travel
Certificates. The bonafides of the applicants has also been
doubted by the ED.
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
8 2026:HHC:29941
16.4. These facts have been pleaded by the ED to
demonstrate that the applicants are evading the process of
.
law and not cooperating with the investigation. The
investigation is still stated to be in progress and custodial
interrogation of the applicants is stated to be necessary to
trace the proceeds of crime, running into several crores.
of
16.5. The ground of parity, upon which, the relief of
bail has been sought, has also been contested by pleading
rt
that the role attributed to the applicants is altogether
different from the role, which has been alleged against
accused-Raj Kumar Rana.
16.6. According to the ED, the applicants have failed
to surrender in pursuance of the non-bailable warrants, in
the proceedings, initiated to declare the accused persons
as proclaimed offenders and vide order, dated 4 th May,
2024, the learned Special Judge has initiated the
proceedings, under Section 84 of the BNSS. The
applicants are stated to be aware of the order, dated 4 th
May, 2024 and they, according to the ED, have failed to
annex the orders passed by the learned Special Judge,
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
9 2026:HHC:29941
which, according to the ED, amounts to suppression of the
material facts.
.
16.7. As per the stand of the ED, the applicants,
instead of surrendering themselves to the jurisdiction of
the Court, have chosen to abscond from the process of law
and initiation of the proclamation proceedings, according
of
to the ED, is sufficient to dis-entitle the applicants from
the relief, as sought, in the present bail applications.
rt
16.8. An objection has also been taken that the
applicants should have filed the present applications, at
the first instance, before the learned trial Court.
16.9. It is the further case of the ED that the
applicants have deliberately evaded the process of law, as
such, they cannot be permitted to play with the process of
the Court.
16.10. On merits, the bail applications have been
contested, by the ED, by pleading that the Director General
of Police, vide DO letter, dated 11th September, 2020,
informed that three criminal cases, i.e., FIRs No. 22/20,
26/20 and 27/20, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120B
of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC‘)
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
10 2026:HHC:29941
have been registered with Police Station Dharampur,
District Solan, in fake degree scam of Manav Bharti
.
University.
16.11. During the course of investigation, made by the
Special Investigation Team of Himachal Pradesh Police, a
large number of fake degrees have been found to have been
of
issued by the Manav Bharti University to the candidates in
lieu of money. rt It has also been informed that besides
laundering money, huge movable and immovable
properties had been acquired by accused-Raj Kumar Rana,
Chairman of Manav Bharti Charitable Trust in Himachal
Pradesh, Rajasthan and other places with funds generated
through issue of fake degrees. The family of accused-Raj
Kumar Rana is stated to be residing in Australia.
16.12. As per the information received from the
Superintendent of Police, Solan, vide letter, dated 15 th
September, 2020, by that date, a total of 104 fake degrees,
each valuing to ₹ 1,00,000/- had been identified, which
were issued by Manav Bharti University, Solan.
16.13. Thereafter, according to the ED, after
investigation in case FIR No. 22/20, dated 3 rd March, 2020,
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
11 2026:HHC:29941
charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet have been
filed against accused-Raj Kumar Rana, Krishan Kumar
.
Singh, Anupam Thakur and Munish Goyal, before JMFC-I,
Solan and in case FIR No. 27/20, dated 8 th March, 2020,
charge sheet has been filed against accused-Parmod
Kumar, Raj Kumar Rana, Krishan Kumar Singh and Manu
of
Singh before JMFC-I.
16.14. As per the case of the ED, during the course of
rt
investigation, it has been found by the Investigating Agency
that accused-Raj Kumar Rana, taking advantage of
Himachali origin of his wife Ashoni Kanwar, purchased a
piece of land, measuring 35 bigha 4 biswa, in Village Lado,
Sultanpur, Solan, in the name of his wife and under well
planned criminal conspiracy, got registered Manav Bharti
Charitable Trust, in the year 2006, wherein, he himself
acted as Chairman and his wife Ashoni Kanwar and his
father in law Dharamvir Singh as Trustees. Thereafter,
Ashoni Kanwar leased out 30 bigha land, out of aforesaid
35-4 bigha of land, for 30 years, at the rate of ₹ 50,000/-
per month to Manav Bharti Charitable Trust.
Subsequently, accused-Raj Kumar Rana constructed
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
12 2026:HHC:29941
Manav Bharti University, Solan, on this land. This
University worked under the Manav Bharti Charitable
.
Trust and accused-Raj Kumar Rana managed all the affairs
of the Trust and University. He also operated all the bank
accounts in the name of Manav Bharti Charitable Trust
and Manav Bharti University, Solan.
of
16.15. As per the further case of ED, in terms of the
Himachal Pradesh Private University Act, 2009, minimum
rt
50 bigha land is required for establishment of any
University in Himachal Pradesh, but, only 30 bigha land
was available with Manav Bharti University at Laddo
Sultanpur, District Solan. Accused-Raj Kumar Rana has
fraudulently shown additional land in a village, which is
50-60 kms away, in District Sirmaur, as land of Manav
Bharti University, Solan and established Manav Bharti
University, Solan.
16.16. Thereafter, accused-Raj Kumar Rana started
his business of issuance of fake degrees in the name of
Manav Bharti University, Solan, in the year 2009.
Subsequently, one more University, namely Madhav
University, Pindwara, Abu Road, Sirohi, Rajasthan, was
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
13 2026:HHC:29941
established by accused-Raj Kumar Rana, under the aegis
of Manav Bharti Charitable Trust in the year 2013, issued
.
fake degrees in the name of Madhav University, also.
16.17. Accused-Raj Kumar Rana is stated to have
submitted fraudulent documents to the University Grants
Commission at the time of registration and had shown one
of
Sarika and Krishan Kumar Singh as Trustees.
16.18. It has been mentioned in the reply that when,
rt
the searches were conducted by Himachal Pradesh Police
at Admin Block of Manav Bharti University, Solan, on 6 th
March, 2020, 305 signed and unsigned Detail Marks
Cards, for the period 2009-2015, were recovered and
seized.
16.19. According to the ED, accused-Raj Kumar Rana
had been running institute in Karnal and had issued fake
degrees from there, as well. Prior to establishment of
Manav Bharti University, Solan, accused-Raj Kumar Rana
was running an institute in the name of Para Medical
Council of India in Karnal and in the year 2009, after
closure of said Para Medical Council of India, accused-Raj
Kumar Rana started taking classes of Manav Bharti
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
14 2026:HHC:29941
University in Karnal, on the pretext that Manav Bharti
University is under construction. Since the year 2009,
.
accused-Raj Kumar Rana and his team, comprising Sarika,
Kushmeet, Anjali, Ankit Gupta, Pramod, Sheeshpal and
others, were operating from Karnal and running business
of issuance of fake degrees in the name of Manav Bharti
of
University.
16.20. As per the ED, in the year 2013, Sarika
rt and
others, on the instructions of accused-Raj Kumar Rana
shifted to fourth floor of Admin Block in Manav Bharti
University campus at Solan and continued issuance of fake
degrees under instructions of accused-Raj Kumar Rana
from there. Not only this, the fake degrees were also
issued to the employees of Manav Bharti University and
Madhav University, so that, they could be shown as faculty
members, possessing the minimum standards/
requirements of University Grants Commission and
Education Department. The money was, thereafter,
collected, on account of verification of fake degrees and
issuance of migration certificates and the said amount was
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
15 2026:HHC:29941
handed over/deposited, as per the directions of accused-
Raj Kumar Rana.
.
16.21. The further stand of the ED is that after
registration of the FIR, accused-Raj Kumar Rana had sent
his family members, i.e. applicant-Ashoni Kanwar (wife),
Aina Rana (daughter) and applicant-Mandeep Rana (son),
of
outside India in March, 2020 and refused to disclose their
present whereabouts in Australia.
rt
16.22. It is the further case of the ED that applicant-
Mandeep Rana had opened various bank accounts and
proceeds of crime generated from the criminal activity of
sale of fake degrees, were deposited in the bank accounts
of Manav Bharti Charitable Trust, Manav Bharti University
and Madhav University by accused-Raj Kumar Rana.
Mandeep Rana projected these proceeds of crime received
in his bank accounts as salary from Manav Bharti
Charitable Trust in his Income Tax Returns filed before the
Income Tax Authorities. He never worked in any University
or Manav Bharti Charitable Trust. Thereafter, the
proceeds of crime received in his bank accounts were used
for acquisition of properties. Not only this, he has also
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
16 2026:HHC:29941
purchased property at the lower rate than the circle rate
and he has made payment of Rs.93,00,000/-, for
.
purchasing other property from Bank account of Jagmal
Singh. From this fact, it has been pleaded that the
payments had only been arranged by accused Raj Kumar
Rana from the proceeds of crime earned from the criminal
of
activity of sale of fake degrees. Applicant-Mandeep Rana
has knowingly assisted his father Raj Kumar Rana in the
rt
concealment of proceeds of crime and he is actually
involved in the use of projection of proceeds of crime
derived from the criminal activities i.e. sale of fake degrees,
as such, he has committed the offence punishable under
16.23. On merits, the stand, as taken by the applicant,
qua the fact that the ECIR is solely based upon FIR No.
27/2020, has also been denied and according to the ED,
the subsequent investigation, which had independently
been conducted, revealed that the applicants are involved
in money laundering.
16.24. It is the further case of the ED that the
investigation, in the present case, is going on and custodial
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
17 2026:HHC:29941
interrogation of the applicants is essential. Highlighting
the justification for custodial interrogation, according to
.
the ED, the same is required to unearth the full money
trail and recovery of concealed assets.
16.25. As per the stand of the ED, the applicants
remained absconded for years and failed to cooperate with
of
the investigation and when, the lookout circulars and non-
bailable warrants were issued, they had sought to return to
rt
India on an emergency travel certificate, however, their
conduct demonstrates deliberate evasion of law. Further,
it has been admitted that the learned Special Judge has
ordered to put in abeyance the lookout circulars till 12 th
September, 2025, but, they have failed to keep their words
and now, on the basis of the said interim order, the
applicants cannot seek the relief, as claimed in the bail
applications.
16.26. In this regard, the ED has also relied upon the
order dated 8th August, 2025, passed by the learned
Special Judge (PMLA), Shimla, wherein, it has been held
that the order will not affect the power of the ED to arrest
the accused under Section 19 of the PMLA.
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
18 2026:HHC:29941
16.27. The role, which has been attributed to accused-
Raj Kumar Rana, is stated to be different to that of the
.
applicants, as such, according to the ED, the applicants
cannot seek the relief, on the ground of parity.
17. On 21st April, 2026, an additional affidavit has
been filed by the ED. According to the ED, despite
of
issuance of summons, under Section 50 of the PMLA, on
various dates, the applicants had chosen not to put
rt
appearance. Thereafter, summons were also issued by
learned Special Judge (PMLA), Shimla, when prosecution
complaint was filed, however, despite service, they failed to
put appearance. Those summons were stated to be served
upon Pairokar of the accused persons, namely Raj Kumar
Rana and by way of affixation, at their last known
residential address. Said service is stated to be valid
substituted service. When the accused persons failed to
appear before the learned Special Court, non-bailable
warrants are stated to have been issued. Thereafter, the
proceedings to declare the applicants as proclaimed
offenders were initiated. In this regard, the ED has relied
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
19 2026:HHC:29941
upon the proclamation, dated 10th May, 2024, issued by
learned Special Judge (PMLA), Shimla.
.
17.1. It is the further case of the ED that the learned
Special Court (PMLA) has granted multiple opportunities to
the applicants to return to India by keeping the non-
bailable warrants and look out circulars in abeyance, from
of
25th August, 2025 to 12th September, 2025, as one time
measure, to enable them to return to India, but, they failed
rt
to do so. Thereafter, they have been declared Fugitive
Economic Offenders, on 3rd January, 2026. According to
the ED, the recourse to bring the applicants back to India,
can be undertaken only upon availability of a verified and
confirmed foreign address of the person and the same
cannot be invoked as a roving or exploratory exercise. In
the additional affidavit, a plea has also been taken by the
ED that proceeds of crime have been quantified as ₹ 387
crores, as pleaded in the prosecution complaint. Out of
the said amount, ED has attached a property of worth ₹
200/- crores and further investigation for tracing the
remaining proceeds of crime is stated to be going on.
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
20 2026:HHC:29941
17.2. The additional affidavit has been filed to
counter the arguments made by the learned counsel
.
appearing for the applicants, qua the fact, that despite
knowing the address and knowing the fact that the
applicants are residing in Australia, no efforts have been
made by the ED to serve the notices upon them, by taking
of
the recourse of the instructions issued in this regard.
17.3. In the additional affidavit, the arguments of the
rt
learned counsel for the applicants, have been met by
pleading that the ED was not aware about the Australian
address of the applicants. The ED has affixed the
summons at the last known address of the applicants, in
accordance with the procedure, prescribed under the law.
All these facts have been pleaded to demonstrate that the
affixation is valid deemed service, from which, a
presumption can be drawn that the accused
persons/applicants had the due knowledge of the service of
such summons.
17.4. Elaborating their stand, it has been pleaded
that when the summons were issued, ED was having no
knowledge, with regard to the Australian address of the
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
21 2026:HHC:29941
accused persons/applicants. In this regard, they have
relied upon the inquiry made from accused Raj Kumar
.
Rana, on 17th November, 2022, in which, the address of the
applicants was asked from him and he has refused to
disclose their exact address.
17.5. Similarly, according to the ED, notices issued
of
under Section 10(1) of Fugitive Economic Offenders Act,
2018, were likewise served by way of affixation at the last
rt
known Indian address of the applicants, upon which, the
accused persons/applicants had entered appearance,
through their counsel and contested the Fugitive Economic
Offenders proceedings. Elaborating their stand, it has also
been pleaded that the applicants, in the present case, have
revealed their address, for the first time, which is
materially different from the address available with the ED
and the address of the applicants was intentionally
suppressed by accused-Raj Kumar Rana.
17.6. It has also been pleaded that the twin
conditions, as per Section 45 of PMLA, are not existing in
favour of the applicants, as such, the applicants are not
entitled to the relief on the ground of parity, as the role
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
22 2026:HHC:29941
attributed to their co-accused Raj Kumar Rana is
altogether different. Moreover, according to them,
.
accused-Raj Kumar Rana was not absconding from the
investigation and he has joined the investigation.
18. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has
been made to dismiss the application.
of
19. In this case, the applicants, as well as, the
investigating agency have relied upon certain documents,
rt
reference of the same is required to be made, before
discussing the case of the applicants.
20. Applicants have relied upon the order dated 8 th
August, 2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (PMLA),
by virtue of which, learned Special Judge (PMLA), on the
basis of concession given by the ED, has ordered to keep
the lookout circular notices, as well as, non-bailable
warrants in abeyance, whereas, ED has placed on record
the copy of order dated 4th May, 2024, passed by the Court
of learned Special Judge, Shimla, by virtue of which, the
proceedings, under Section 82 of the CrPC, were ordered to
be initiated against the applicants, copy of summons, copy
of notice, under Section 50 of the PMLA, copy of the
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
23 2026:HHC:29941
registered letter, by virtue of which, the summons were
issued to the applicant, copy of summons, copy of order
.
dated 31st October, 2023, passed by the learned Special
Judge, Shimla, by virtue of which, open dated non-
bailable warrants were issued against the applicants, copy
of order dated 4th May, 2024, by virtue of which, steps have
of
been taken to declare the applicants as proclaimed
offenders, copy of order dated 3 rd January, 2026, passed by
rt
the learned Special Judge (PMLA), by virtue of which, the
applicants were declared as Fugitive Economic Offenders,
copy of the notice under Section 10 of the FEO Act, issued
against the applicants.
21. In this case, the prayer for bail has been
opposed, on the ground, that the applicants have been
declared as Proclaimed Offenders, as such, they are not
entitled for the relief, as sought in the applications.
22. In this regard, it would be apt to make reference
to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Criminal
Appeal No. 4564 of 2024, titled as Asha Dubey versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh. Relevant paras-8 and 9 of
the said judgment, are reproduced, as under:
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
24 2026:HHC:29941
“8. Coming to the consideration of anticipatory
bail, in the event of the declaration under
Section 82 of the Cr.P.C., it is not as if in all
cases that there will be a total embargo on.
considering the application for the grant of
anticipatory bail.
9. When the liberty of the appellant is pitted
against, this Court will have to see the
circumstances of the case, nature of the
offence and the background based on which
such a proclamation was issued. Suffice it is
of
to state that it is a fit case for grant of
anticipatory bail, on the condition that the
appellant shall cooperate with the further
investigation. However, liberty is also given to
rt
the respondents to seek cancellation of bail
that has been granted, in the event of a
violation of the conditions which are to be
imposed by the Trial Court or if there are any
perceived threats against the witnesses.”
23. It would also be profitable, for this Court, to rely
upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Siddharth versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.,
reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676. Relevant para-10 to 12, of
the said judgment, are reproduced, as under:
“10. We may note that personal liberty is an
important aspect of our constitutional
mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused
during investigation arises when custodial
investigation becomes necessary or it is a
heinous crime or where there is a possibility
of influencing the witnesses or accused may
abscond. Merely because an arrest can be
made because it is lawful does not mandate
that arrest must be made. A distinction must
be made between the existence of the power
to arrest and the justification for exercise of it.
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
25 2026:HHC:29941
If arrest is made routine, it can cause
incalculable harm to the reputation and self-
esteem of a person. If the investigating officer
has no reason to believe that the accused will.
abscond or disobey summons and has, in
fact, throughout cooperated with the
investigation we fail to appreciate why there
should be a compulsion on the officer to arrestthe accused.
11. We are, in fact, faced with a situation
where contrary to the observations inof
Joginder Kumar versus State of U.P., (1994) 4
SCC 260, how a police officer has to deal with
a scenario of arrest, the trial courts are stated
to be insisting on the arrest of an accused as
rt
a prerequisite formality to take the charge-
sheet on record in view of the provisions of
Section 170 CrPC. We consider such a coursemisplaced and contrary to the very intent of
Section 170 CrPC.
12. In the present case when the appellant
has joined the investigation, investigation hascompleted and he has been roped in after
seven years of registration of the FIR we can
think of no reason why at this stage he mustbe arrested before the charge-sheet is taken
on record. We may note that the learned
counsel for the appellant has already statedbefore us that on summons being issued the
appellant will put the appearance before the
trial Court.”
24. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in
Suresh Babu versus State of U.P. and another, reported
in 2022 Supreme (All) 653, has also taken the similar
view. Relevant paras-6 to 9, of the said judgment, are
reproduced, as under:
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
26 2026:HHC:29941
“6. As per section 438 Cr.P.C. the anticipatory
bail application may be filed either before
sessions court or before High Court inasmuch
as both the aforesaid courts are having a.
concurrent jurisdiction. Section 438 (1) Cr.P.C.
clearly mandates that if any anticipatory bail
application is filed, either it may be rejected
forthwith or any interim order may be passed.
In other words if the court wants to know
some information from the other side, the case
may be posted for another date and if the
applicant has got prima facie case and his
of
apprehension of arrest appears to be bonafide
in a case where the allegations prima facie do
not corroborate with material available on
record may grant interim anticipatory bail.
rt
However, in the present case the proclamation
u/s 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued during the
pendency of the application. Apex Court in re:
Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC
730, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep
Sharma reported in (2014) 2 SCC 171 and
Prem Shanker Prasad vs. State of Bihar
(Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2021) hasimposed bar to entertain such application if
filed by the proclaimed offender. In the present
case at the time of filing anticipatory bailapplication the applicant was not proclaimed
offender.
7. Learned AGA has also informed that on
13.5.2022 the further proclamation of section
83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the presentapplicant.
8. Be that as it may, at the time of filing
anticipatory bail application on 16.3.2022 the
present applicant was not proclaimed
offender, therefore, the bar so imposed by the
Apex Court would be considered in the light of
intent and purport of said judgments wherein
the proclaimed offender has been restrained to
get any relief in the application of anticipatory
bail. In the present case the applicant was not
declared as a proclaimed offender on
16.3.2021, the date of filing anticipatory bail,::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
27 2026:HHC:29941therefore, to me such bar could not restrain the
present applicant to file his anticipatory bail
application before this Court under same
section i.e. section 438 Cr.P.C. and, therefore,.
his anticipatory bail application may be heard
and disposed of finally on merits.
9. Notably, sub-section 6 of section 438 Cr.P.C.
provides as under :
438(6)Cr.P.C.: Provisions of this section
shall not be applicable.-
of
(a) to the offences arising out of .-
(i) the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
rt Act,1967;
(ii) the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985;
(iii) the Official Secret Act, 1923;
(iv) the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention)
Act,1986.
(b) in the offences, in which death
sentence can be awarded.
Besides, section 82 Cr.P.C. neither creates any
rider nor imposes any restrictions in filing
anticipatory bail application by the proclaimed
offender inasmuch as the Hon’ble Apex Court
has used the word ‘Normally’ in re: Lavesh
(supra), meaning thereby normally the
anticipatory bail application of the proclaimed
offender should not be entertained. Therefore,
only in the aforesaid case/cases the
provisions of anticipatory bail application
would not be applicable. It has nowhere been
indicated u/s 438 Cr.P.C. that the proclaimed
offender would be barred to file such
application. As to whether such proclaimed
offender would be granted anticipatory bail or
not would depend upon the facts and
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
28 2026:HHC:29941
circumstances of the particular issue and also
on the basis of bar, so imposed by the Apex
Court in re: Lavesh (supra), Pradeep Sharma
(supra) and Prem Shankar Prasad (supra).
.
Therefore, in view of the facts and
circumstances of the issue in question, I do not
accept the objection, so raised by the learned
counsel for the opposite parties regarding
maintainability of the present application for
the reason that the proclamation u/s 82/83
Cr.P.C. has been issued against the
applicant.”
of
25. The applicants have sought the relief of
anticipatory bail, on the ground, that they have not been
rt
served with the notices, as alleged, by the ED, as, even,
prior to registration of the FIR, they were not in the
country. However, this fact has been disputed by the ED,
on the basis of the fact that accused-Raj Kumar Rana,
father of applicant-Mandeep Rana and husband of
applicant-Ashoni Kanwar, has been arrested and in his
statement, recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, he has
not even disclosed about the whereabouts/address of the
applicants.
26. The order, dated 31st October, 2023, passed by
the learned Special Judge (PMLA) has been relied upon by
the applicants, in which, the learned Special Judge (PMLA)
has specifically recorded that the summons issued against
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
29 2026:HHC:29941
the respondents received back unserved, as, they are
reportedly residing in Australia. Even, in the application
.
for issuance of non-bailable warrants, against the
applicants, it has been mentioned by the ED itself that the
accused persons are residing in Australia. This averment
has been made by the ED on the basis of the statement
of
made, under Section 50 (2) and 50 (3) of the PMLA, by
accused-Raj Kumar Rana. These facts have been pleaded
rt
by the ED, in para 5 of the application, filed under Section
70 of the CrPC.
27. In this case, it has rightly been pointed out by
the learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants
that despite knowing the fact that both the applicants are
residing in Australia, no steps have been taken by the
Investigating Agency to get the applicants deported, as, the
Investigating Agency was aware about the particulars of
their passports. However, according to the learned senior
counsel for the applicants, the ED, knowingly, has issued
the notices, under Section 50 of the PMLA, against the
applicants, on the address, as mentioned in the summons.
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
30 2026:HHC:29941
28. In para 5 of the applications, for issuance of
open ended non-bailable warrants, under Section 70 of the
.
CrPC, it is the case of the ED that accused-Raj Kumar
Rana, father of applicant-Mandeep Rana, and husband of
applicant-Ashoni Kanwar, has disclosed the fact that they
are in Australia. This statement, according to the ED, was
of
recorded on 18th February, 2021. Meaning thereby, on 18 th
February, 2021, the Investigating Agency was aware about
rt
the fact that the applicants are not in India and despite
this fact, instead of taking the steps to get them deported
from Australia, the Investigating Agency had obtained the
open ended non-bailable warrants against the applicants,
by mentioning their address of India.
29. It has rightly been argued by the learned senior
counsel for the applicants that the Investigating Agency is
not interested to bring the applicants back to India, but, is
interested to get them declared proclaimed offenders and
thereafter, to take steps under the Fugitive Economic
Offenders Act.
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
31 2026:HHC:29941
30. Even, after coming to know about the address of
the applicants, no notice, under Section 50 of the PMLA
.
were served upon the applicants.
31. Alongwith the additional affidavit, the ED has
annexed the true copies of the summons issued against
the accused persons on 16th March, 2021; 24th February,
of
2022; 29th October, 2022; 18th November, 2022; 4th
January, 2023 and 6th March, 2023. All these notices were
rt
issued against the accused persons, at their address of
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
32. In such situation, this Court has no hesitation
to hold that the Investigating Agency, despite knowing the
fact that the applicants are not in India, moved the
applications, under Section 70 of the CrPC, in the month of
July, 2023, by mentioning the wrong facts about their
residence.
33. This futile attempt is liable to be seen with
suspicion, in view of the statement of accused-Raj Kumar
Rana, which was recorded by the Investigating Agency on
18th February, 2021, in which, he has allegedly disclosed
that applicants-Mandeep Rana and Ashoni Kanwar were
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
32 2026:HHC:29941
residing in Australia. When, this fact was in the knowledge
of the Investigating Agency since 18 th February, 2021,
.
then, what was the occasion for them to issue notices,
against the applicants, on the address, as mentioned in the
summons, subsequent to that statement.
34. Not only this, the Investigating Agency has
of
made a futile attempt to serve the applicants, under
Section 50 of the PMLA, by issuing summons for 24 th
rt
February, 2022; 29th October, 2022; 18th November, 2022;
4th January, 2023 and 6th March, 2023. It seems that
issuance of these summons, is nothing, but, an attempt to
get the applicants declared as proclaimed offenders.
35. The stand, as taken in the additional affidavit,
with regard to the alleged compliance of statutory process,
appears to be an eye wash. When, the Investigating
Agency came to know, on 18th February, 2021, about the
material fact that both the applicants are not in India and
are residing in Australia, on the alleged statement of
accused-Raj Kumar Rana (father and husband of the
applicants) then, issuance of the notices, by the
Investigating Agency, on the address, as mentioned in the
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
33 2026:HHC:29941
summons, cannot be said to be substantial compliance of
the statutory process and no presumption of due/deemed
.
service of the accused persons/applicants can be drawn, in
such circumstances.
36. At the cost of repetition, a number of summons
were issued, at the address of the applicants, as mentioned
of
in the summons, of Udaipur, Rajasthan, even after 18th
February, 2021, when, the Investigating Agency came to
rt
know about the material fact of the applicants being
residing in Australia.
37. In the complaint, filed by the ED, the applicants
have been impleaded as accused Nos. 13 and 14. In the
said complaint, the role of applicant-Mandeep Rana and
applicant-Ashoni Kanwar has been mentioned in paras
12.13 and 12.14, which are reproduced, as under:
“12.13. Role of Mandeep Rana S/o Sh. Raj
Kumar rana (Accused No. 13)12.13.1. that bank accounts were opened by
Mandeep Rana with several banks:
12.13.2. that proceeds of crime generated
from the criminal activity of sale of fake degree
were deposited in the bank accounts of MBCT,
MBU and Madhav University by Raj Kumar
Rana;
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
34 2026:HHC:29941
12.13.3. that the funds so introduced in the
bank accounts were transferred by Raj Kumar
Rana in the bank accounts of Mandeep Rana;
.
12.13.4. that Mandeep Rana projected these
proceeds of crime received in his bank
accounts as salary from MBCT in his Income
Tax Returns filed before the Income TaxAuthorities. However in reality he never
worked in any University or MBCT;
12.13.5. that proceeds of crime received in his
of
bank accounts were used by of acquisition of
properties detailed in TABLE I;
12.13.6. that also one of the property was
rt
purchased at rate much lower than the circle
rate and the payment of Rs. 93,00,000/- for
other property was made from the bankaccount Jagmal Singh. Meaning thereby that
the payments had only been arranged by Raj
Kumar Rana from the proceeds of crime
earned from the criminal activity of sale of fakedegrees;
12.13.7. Therefore, Mandeep Rana has
knowingly assisted his father Raj Kumar Ranain the concealment of proceeds of crime and he
is actually involved in the use and projection ofproceeds of crime derived from the criminal
activity of sale of fake degree. Thereby
committing the offence of money laundering as
defined u/s 3 and punishable u/s 4 of PMLA,2002.
12.14. Role of Ashoni Kanwar w/o Sh. Raj
Kumar Rana(Accused No. 14)12.14.1. that Ashoni Kanwar was the Trustee
in the trust MBCT along with her husband Raj
Kumar Rana;
12.14.2. That bank accounts opened in the
name of MBCT were used by Raj Kumar Rana
for introducing the proceeds of crime derived::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
35 2026:HHC:29941from criminal activity of selling of fake degree
into the financial system;
12.14.3. that Ashoni Kanwar also received
.
amount totaling to Rs. 3,00,000/- in her bank
account no. 8477101002640 held with Canara
Bank from M/s Gurukul Education of Pankaj
Aggarwal which were the proceeds of sale of
fake degrees;
12.14.4. that admittedly she did no work in
any University and was shown as staff of the
of
University just to withdrew money in her name
from the bank account of MBCT, MBU, Solan
and Madhav University, Pindwara;
rt
12.14.5. that proceeds of crime received by
Ashoni Kanwar from MBCT, MBU and Madhav
University was reflected as income from salary
and rent in her Income Tax Returns filed by
her before the Income Tax Authorities:
12.14.6. that proceeds of crime received by
Ashoni Kanwar were further used to acquire
immovable property detailed in TABLE O;
12.14.7. that the payment of Rs. 93,00,000/-
for other property at Sr. No. 3 in TABLE O was
made from the bank account Jagmal Singh.
Meaning thereby that the payments had only
been arranged by Raj Kumar Rana from the
proceeds of crime earned from the criminal
activity of sale of fake degrees.
12.14.8. Therefore, Ashoni Kanwar has
knowingly assisted her husband Raj Kumar
Rana in the concealment of proceeds of crime
and she is actually involved in the use and
projection of proceeds of crime derived from the
criminal activity of sale of fake degree.
Thereby committing the offence of money
laundering as defined u/s 3 and punishable
u/s 4 of PMLA. 2002.”
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
36 2026:HHC:29941
38. Although, in para 15 of the complaint, it has
been pleaded that the investigation is still going on, but,
.
mere mention of this fact is too short to decline the relief to
the applicants.
39. Even, considering the vague averments, as
made in the complaint, in para 15 thereof, the learned
of
counsel for the ED could not satisfy the judicial conscience
of this Court as to how the directions issued by the Hon’ble
rt
Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal versus Directorate of
Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office, reported in (2024)
7 Supreme Court Cases 61, are not applicable, in the
present case. Relevant para-33, of the said judgment, is
reproduced, as under:
“23. Now, we summarise our conclusions as
under:
33.1. Once a complaint under Section 44 (1)(b)
of the PMLA is filed, it will be governed bySections 200 to 205 of the CrPC as none of
the said provisions are inconsistent with any
of the provisions of the PMLA;
33.2. If the accused was not arrested by the
ED till filing of the complaint, while taking
cognizance on a complaint under Section 44(1)
(b), as a normal rule, the Court should issue a
summons to the accused and not a warrant.
Even in a case where the accused is on bail, a
summons must be issued;
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
37 2026:HHC:29941
33.3. After a summons is issued under Section
204 of the CrPC on taking cognizance of the
offence punishable under Section 4 of the
PMLA on a complaint, if the accused appears
.
before the Special Court pursuant to the
summons, he shall not be treated as if he is in
custody. Therefore, it is not necessary for him
to apply for bail. However, the Special
Court can direct the accused to furnish bond
in terms of Section 88 of the CrPC;
33.4. In a case where the accused appears
of
pursuant to a summons before the Special
Court, on a sufficient cause being shown, the
Special Court can grant exemption from
personal appearance to the accused by
rt
exercising power under Section 205 of the
CrPC;
33.5. If the accused does not appear after a
summons is served or does not appear on a
subsequent date, the Special Court will be well
within its powers to issue a warrant in terms
of Section 70 of the CrPC. Initially, the Special
Court should issue a bailable warrant. If it is
not possible to effect service of the bailable
warrant, then the recourse can be taken to
issue a non-bailable warrant;
33.6. A bond furnished according to Section 88
is only an undertaking by an accused who is
not in custody to appear before the Court on
the date fixed. Thus, an order accepting
bonds under Section 88 from the accused
does not amount to a grant of bail;
33.7. In a case where the accused has
furnished bonds under Section 88 of the CrPC,
if he fails to appear on subsequent dates, the
Special Court has the powers under Section 89
read with Sections 70 of the CrPC to issue a
warrant directing that the accused shall be
arrested and produced before the Special
Court; If such a warrant is issued, it will
always be open for the accused to apply for
cancellation of the warrant by giving an
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
38 2026:HHC:29941
undertaking to the Special Court to appear
before the said Court on all the dates fixed by
it. While cancelling the warrant, the Court can
always take an undertaking from the
.
accused to appear before the Court on every
date unless appearance is specifically
exempted. When the ED has not taken the
custody of the accused during the
investigation, usually, the Special Court will
exercise the power of cancellation of the
warrant without insisting on taking the
accused in custody provided an undertaking is
of
furnished by the accused to appear regularly
before the Court. When the Special Court
deals with an application for cancellation of a
warrant, the Special Court is not dealing with
rt
an application for bail. Hence, Section 45(1)
will have no application to such an application;
33.8. When an accused appears pursuant to a
summons, the Special Court is empowered to
take bonds under Section 88 of the CrPC in a
given case. However, it is not mandatory in
every case to direct furnishing of bonds.
However, if a warrant of arrest has been
issued on account of non-appearance or
proceedings under Section 82 and/or Section
83 of the CrPC have been issued against an
accused, he cannot be let off by taking a bond
under Section 88 of the CrPC, and the accused
will have to apply for cancellation of the
warrant;
33.9. After cognizance is taken of the offence
punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA based
on a complaint under Section 44 (1)(b), the ED
and its officers are powerless to exercise
power under Section 19 to arrest a person
shown as an accused in the complaint; and
33.10. If the ED wants custody of the accused
who appears after service of summons for
conducting further investigation in the same
offence, the ED will have to seek custody of
the accused by applying to the Special Court.
After hearing the accused, the Special Court
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
39 2026:HHC:29941
must pass an order on the application by
recording brief reasons. While hearing such
an application, the Court may permit custody
only if it is satisfied that custodial
.
interrogation at that stage is required, even
though the accused was never arrested under
Section 19. However, when the ED wants to
conduct a further investigation concerning the
same offence, it may arrest a person not
shown as an accused in the complaint already
filed under Section 44(1)(b) provided the
requirements of Section 19 are fulfilled.”
of
40. The Investigating Agency, in the present case,
despite knowing the fact that the applicants are not in
rt
India, has made no efforts, to comply with Rule 19 of
Chapter III, contained in Volume 3 of the Rules and Orders
of High Court of Himachal Pradesh, which reads as under:
19. Service of summons/judicial processes
etc. Outside India in Criminal matters.
Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law
and Justice, Govt. of India is the nodal agency
for effecting service of summons/judicial
processes etc. Outside India. The department
has issued the following guidelines for
issuance of summons:
1. Summons/Notices in duplicate shall be
issued and three months’ time in advance
shall be provided to Department for
effecting the service in foreign countries.
2. Full address of the party and translation
of the documents in the official language of
requesting country wherever necessary
shall be provided.
3. The Central Authority, USA has
authorized to receive the agency,::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
40 2026:HHC:29941summons/notices under Hague Convention
of 1965 to an Process Forward
International. The Notice/summons for the
USA may, therefore, be sent directly by the.
Courts to Process Forwarding International,
633 Yesler Way, Seattle, WA 98104, the
USA along with the required fee etc. (details
available at www.hcch.net).
4. Ministry of Home Affairs is the nodal
ministry and Central Authority for seeking
and providing the mutual legal assistance
of
in criminal law matters Ministry of Home
Affairs receives all kind of such requests,
examines and takes appropriate action.
rt
5. The Central Authorities in Canada are
charging a cost of Rs. $50.00 Canadian for
the process of service under the Hague
convention of Service Abroad of Judicial
and Extra-Judicial Matters, 1965. The
payment accompanying the documents to
be served must be in the form of a
traveller’s cheque or a cheque, in the
amount of Can $50 per request. The
travellers cheque or cheque must be drawn
on a Canadian Bank. The details are
available at www.hcch.net
6. Consulate General of India in Sydney
has informed that the Sheriff’s Office of
NSW levies a fee of AUD 54 for serving
summons through their office. The fee could
be remitted in favour of the Consulate
General of India, Sydney and the details of
the Head of Account’ under which such
payment has to be debited be provided for
making a necessary action.”
41. So far as the legal proposition, qua the fact that
before granting the relief, as sought in the applications, it
is incumbent upon the Court to record the findings, under
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
41 2026:HHC:29941
Section 45 of the PMLA, is concerned, if the facts and
circumstance of the present case, as discussed above, are
.
seen in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary‘s case (supra), then,
there is no legal hesitation for this Court to grant the relief,
as claimed in the applications. Relevant paras-400 and
of
401 of the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary‘s case
(supra) are reproduced, as under:
rt
“400. It is important to note that the twin
conditions provided under Section 45 of the2002 Act, though restrict the right of the
accused to grant of bail, but it cannot be said
that the conditions provided under Section 45
impose absolute restraint on the grant of bail.
The discretion vests in the Court which is not
arbitrary or irrational but judicial, guided by
the principles of law as provided under Section
45 of the 2002 Act. While dealing with a
similar provision prescribing twin conditions in
MCOCA, this Court in Ranjitsing
Brahmajeetsing Sharma, held as under:
“44. The wording of Section 21(4), in
our opinion, does not lead to the
conclusion that the court must arrive
at a positive finding that the
applicant for bail has not committed
an offence under the Act. If such a
construction is placed, the court intending
to grant bail must arrive at a finding that
the applicant has not committed such an
offence. In such an event, it will be
impossible for the prosecution to obtain a
judgment of conviction of the applicant.
Such cannot be the intention of the
legislature. Section 21(4) of MCOCA,::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
42 2026:HHC:29941therefore, must be construed
reasonably. It must be so construed
that the court is able to maintain a
delicate balance between a judgment.
of acquittal and conviction and an
order granting bail much before
commencement of trial. Similarly, the
Court will be required to record a findingas to the possibility of his committing a
crime after grant of ball. However, such
an offence in futuro must be an offence
under the Act and not any other offence.
of
Since it is difficult to predict the future
conduct of an accused, the court must
necessarily consider this aspect of the
matter having regard to the antecedents
rt
of the accused, his propensities and the
nature and manner in which he is alleged
to have committed the offence.
45. It is, furthermore, trite that for
the purpose of considering an
application for grant of bail,although detailed reasons are not
necessary to be assigned, the order
granting bail must demonstrate
application of mind at least inserious cases as to why the applicant
has been granted or denied theprivilege of bail.
46. The duty of the court at this stage
is not to weigh the evidencemeticulously but to arrive at a
finding on the basis of broad
probabilities. However, while dealing
with a special statute like MCOCA
having regard to the provisions
contained in sub-section (4) of Section
21 of the Act, the court may have to
probe into the matter deeper so as to
enable it to arrive at a finding that
the materials collected against the
accused during the investigation may
not justify a judgment of conviction.
The findings recorded by the court::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
43 2026:HHC:29941while granting or refusing bail
undoubtedly would be tentative in
nature, which may not have any
bearing on the merit of the case and.
the trial court would, thus, be free to
decide the case on the basis of
evidence adduced at the trial,
without in any manner beingprejudiced thereby”
(emphasis supplied)
401. We are in agreement with the observation
of
made by the Court in Ranjitsing
Brahmajeetsing Sharma635 The Court while
dealing with the application for grant of bail
need not delve deep into the merits of the case
rt
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
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, 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.”
(self emphasis supplied)
42. Considering the allegations, which have been
levelled against the applicants, as reproduced above, this
Court is of the view that there are reasonable grounds for
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
44 2026:HHC:29941
believing that the twin conditions, as per Section 45 of the
PMLA, are existing in favour of the applicant.
.
43. In the present case, as per the proceedings,
which are conducted before the learned Special Judge
(PMLA), Shimla, on 25th June, 2025, a request was made
on behalf of applicant-Ashoni Kanwar that she will apply
of
for the benefit of one time emergency travel document
(emergency Travel
rt Certificate) and will return back.
Similar request was made on behalf of applicant-Mandeep
Rana on 5th July, 2025. Consequently, in view of the
relaxation given by the ED, the learned Special Judge, on
8th August, 2025, has passed the following order:
“It is stated by the ld defence counsel that his
clients will come to India if look out circular
notices and NBWs issued against accused-
Ashoni Kanwar and Mandeep Rana are kept
in abeyance in ECIR No. SHSZO/05/2200
dated 17.09.2020, in case FIR No. 22/2020,
dated 03.03.2020, FIR No. 26/2020, dated07.03.2020 and FIR No. 27/2020 dated
08.03.2020 registered at PS Dharmpur, Solan,
HP from 25.08.2025 to 12.09.2025 and his
clients will come to India through Emergency
Travel Document. On the other hand the ld.
Spcial Counsel of ED has stated that this
relaxation be granted to the accused only for
one time and if the order is passed, he will
convey the order to Bureau of Immigration.
The ld. Special counsel further submitted that
this order will not in any way effect the power
of the ED to arrest the accused under Section
19 of the PMLA Act. This offer made by the ld::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
45 2026:HHC:29941defence counsel is acceptable to the ED and
accordingly, the look out circular notices as
well as NBWs issued against accused Ashoni
Kanwar and Mandeep Rana are ordered to be.
kept in abeyance. This order is not passed on
the merits of the application moved on behalf
of the accused. The order of keeping the look
out circular notices and NBWs issued againstthe accused Ashoni Kanwar and Mandeep
Rana, in abeyance be conveyed to Bureau of
immigration through the ld. Special counsel of
ED. Put up for further order on 30.08.2025 asof
already fixed.”
44. Admittedly, it is not the case of the ED that the
rt
said relaxation was given on some misrepresentation made
by the applicants. It has rightly been pointed out by the
learned senior counsel for the applicants that in view of the
above submissions, which were made before the learned
Special Judge, the alleged apprehension of the ED, that the
applicants are evading the process of law, becomes
unfounded. The learned counsel for the ED could not
satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court as to what is
the legal hesitation for the ED to permit the applicants to
return back on the basis of one time emergency travel
document, as their passports have already been revoked.
45. Moreover, the process, which has been initiated
by the ED to declare the applicants as Proclaimed
Offenders, is a step to compel them to face the trial. The
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
46 2026:HHC:29941
ultimate goal for issuing the summons, notices, bailable
warrants and non-bailable warrants and the process
.
initiated to get them declared as proclaimed offenders, are
the steps to compel the accused persons/applicants to put
appearance before the Court/Investigating Agency and to
face the trial. Moreover, no penal action can be taken
of
against the accused persons/applicants, unless or until,
they have not been found guilty by the Competent Court of
rt
Law. Once, the relaxation has been given by the ED, as
per the order, dated 8th August, 2025, then, to the
considered opinion of this Court, there is sufficient
compliance of Section 45 of the PMLA.
46. The object of the bail has elaborately been
discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sanjay
Chandra versus Central Bureau of Investigation,
reported in (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases 49. Relevant
para of the judgment, is reproduced, as under:
“The object of bail is to secure the appearance
of the accused person at his trial by
reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail
is neither punitive nor preventative.
Deprivation of liberty must be considered a
punishment, unless it can be required to
ensure that an accused person will stand his
trial when called upon. The Courts owe more
than verbal respect to the principle that::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
47 2026:HHC:29941
punishment begins after conviction, and that
every man is deemed to be innocent until duly
tried and duly found guilty. Detention in
custody pending completion of trial could be a
.
cause of great hardship. From time to time,
necessity demands that some unconvicted
persons should be held in custody pending
trial to secure their attendance at the trial but
in such cases, “necessity” is the operative test.
In India, it would be quite contrary to the
concept of personal liberty enshrined in the
Constitution that any person should be
of
punished in respect of any matter, upon
which, he has not been convicted or that in
any circumstances, he should be deprived of
his liberty upon only the belief that he will
rt
tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty,
save in the most extraordinary circumstances.
Apart from the question of prevention being the
object of refusal of bail, one must not lose sight
of the fact that any imprisonment before
conviction has a substantial punitive content
and it would be improper for any court to
refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former
conduct whether the accused has been
convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an
unconvicted person for the purpose of giving
him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson.”
47. So far as the further investigation of the case,
as highlighted by the learned counsel appearing for the
ED, is concerned, on this ground, the relief, for which the
applicants are otherwise entitled to, cannot be denied to
them, in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia &
Others versus State of Punjab, reported in (1980) 2
Supreme Court Cases 565, wherein, it has been held that
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
48 2026:HHC:29941
a person, having the protection under Section 438 CrPC
(482 of the BNSS) is deemed to have surrendered himself,
.
if, a discovery is to be made; merely, the protection, not to
take any coercive action, does not preclude the
investigating agency to get the recovery effected from the
applicant. Relevant para-43 of the judgment, is
of
reproduced, as under:
“43. During the last couple of years this Court,
rt
while dealing with appeals against orders
passed by various High Courts, has granted
anticipatory bail to many a person by imposingconditions set out in Section 438(2)(i), (ii) and
(iii). The Court has, in addition, directed in most
of those cases that (a) the applicant should
surrender himself to the police for a brief periodif a discovery is to be made under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act or that he should be deemed
to have surrendered himself if such a discovery
is to be made. In certain exceptional cases,the Court has, in view of the material placed
before it, directed that the order of anticipatorybail will remain in operation only for a week or
so until after the filing of the F.I.R. in respect of
matters covered by the order. These orders, on
the whole, have worked satisfactorily, causingthe least inconvenience to the individuals
concerned and least interference with the
investigational rights of the police. The Court
has attempted through those orders to strike a
balance between the individual’s right to
personal freedom and the investigational
rights of the police. The appellants who were
refused anticipatory bail by various courts have
long since been released by this Court under
Section 438(1) of the Code.”
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
49 2026:HHC:29941
48. Similar view has again been reiterated by
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others
.
versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another, reported in
(2020) 5 Supreme Court Cases 1. Relevant para-92.8, of
the judgment, is reproduced as under:
“92.8. The observations in Sibbia regarding
of
“limited custody” or “deemed custody” to
facilitate the requirements of the investigative
authority, would be sufficient for the purpose
of fulfilling the provisions of Section 27, in
rt
the event of recovery of an article, or discovery
of a fact, which is relatable to a statement
made during such event (i.e. deemed custody).
In such event, there is no question (or
necessity) of asking the accused to separately
surrender and seek regular bail. Sibbia
(supra) had observed that“19…if and when the occasion arises, it
may be possible for the prosecution to
claim the benefit of Section 27 of theEvidence Act in regard to a discovery of
facts made in pursuance of information
supplied by a person released on bail byinvoking the principle stated by this
Court in State of H.P. v. Deoman
Upadhyaya.”
49. Even otherwise, the relaxation, which has been
given to the applicants, vide order, dated 8 th August, 2025,
was given by the learned Special Judge (PMLA), on the
basis of the concession given by the ED. In this
background, the learned counsel appearing for the ED
could not satisfy the judicial conscience of this Court as to
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
50 2026:HHC:29941
how, the ED can now oppose the prayer, as made in the
bail applications.
.
50. Moreover, the relief, as sought by the
applicants, in the present case, should not be subject to
the sweet will of the Investigating Agency, as, at one point
of time, they have given concession to the applicants to
of
come back and now, on the basis of the proceedings, which
were initiated by them, during the pendency of the
rt
applications, i.e. getting them declared as Proclaimed
Offenders, the ED is legally estopped from opposing such
prayer, in the bail applications.
51. In such situation, it can be said that the
applicants are not guilty of such offence and while on bail,
they will not commit any offence. Even, for the second
condition, i.e., they will not commit any offence, reasonable
conditions can be imposed, upon the applicants, in case,
any direction is issued under Section 482 of the BNSS.
52. Even otherwise, it is no longer res integra that
at the time of deciding the applications for bail, detailed
discussion about the merits/de-merits of the case of the
prosecution should be avoided, as, the same would cause
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
51 2026:HHC:29941
prejudice to the case of the prosecution (ED), as well as, to
the case of the accused persons. Moreover, when the
.
solemn undertaking, by virtue of the present applications,
has been given by the applicants, to return back, then,
their prayer is liable to be accepted, as, the Investigating
Agency can arrest the applicants, after seeking permission
of
of the learned Special Judge (PMLA), if need so arises, for
the purpose of investigation.
rt
53. Considering the totality of the circumstances,
this Court is of the view that the applicants are able to
make out a case, for issuing direction to the investigating
agency, under Section 482 of the BNSS.
54. In view of the above discussion, the present bail
applications are liable to be allowed and are, accordingly,
allowed.
55. Consequently, it is ordered that the applicants
be released on bail, in the event of their arrest, in case,
registered vide registered vide ECIR/SHSZO/05/2020,
dated 17th September, 2020, with Sub-Zonal Office,
Directorate of Enforcement, Shimla (hereinafter referred
to as ‘ED’), under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, on their
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
52 2026:HHC:29941
furnishing personal bonds, in the sum of ₹ 2,00,000/-,
with two sureties each of the like amount, to the
.
satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Investigating Officer.
This order, however, shall be subject to the following
conditions :
a) That the applicants shall join the investigation
of
of the case, as and when, called for, by the
Investigating Officer/Court, in accordance
with law;
b) That the applicants shall not leave India,
rt
without prior permission of the Court;
c) That the applicants shall not, directly or
indirectly, make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person, acquainted with the
facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her
from disclosing such facts to the InvestigatingOfficer or the Court; and
d) That the applicants shall regularly attend the
trial Court on each and every date of hearing
and if prevented by any reason to do so, seekexemption from appearance by filing
appropriate application.
e) That the applicants shall furnish an affidavit
by tenth day of every month, before the
learned trial Court, disclosing therein that
they have not been named, as accused, in
any other case, during that period.
56. Any of the observations, made hereinabove,
shall not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the
merits of the case, as these observations, are confined,
only, to the disposal of the present bail applications.
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
53 2026:HHC:29941
57. It is made clear that the respondent-ED is at
liberty to move an appropriate application(s), in case, any
.
of the bail conditions, is found violated by the applicants.
58. Record be returned to the quarter concerned.
( Virender Singh )
of
Judge
July 21, 2026
( rajni )
rt
::: Downloaded on – 21/07/2026 20:35:36 :::CIS
