Patna High Court – Orders
Bidyanand Singh vs The Union Of India Through The Assistant … on 24 July, 2026
Author: Ashok Kumar Pandey
Bench: Ashok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30623 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2023 Thana- E.C.I.R (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
District- Patna
======================================================
Bidyanand Singh Son of Late Jagdeo Prasad Singh R/o Mohalla -House No.
11, Adarsh Vihar Colony Road No 1, Ram Krishna Nagar, New Jaganpura
,PS- Ram Krishna Nagar District -Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The Union of India Through the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate,
Patna Zonal Office Patna, Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harsh Singh, Advocate
Mr. Abhijeet, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tuhin Shankar, Advocate
Mr. Gopal Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
CAV ORDER
4 24-07-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Special Trial No. (PMLA) 04/2025 arising out of ECIRNo.
PTZO P.S. Case No.08 of 2023 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that earlier his bail application was heard and rejected vide order
dated 29.01.2026 with an observation that if the trial is not
concluded within a period of six months from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30623 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026
2/19
receipt/production of the order, the petitioner will be at liberty to
renew his prayer for bail in the court below itself.
4. The prosecution case is based on a complaint filed
by Shri Santosh Kumar Mandal, Assistant Director, ED, on
25.01.2023 for the alleged offences under Sections 3 and 4 of
the PMLA Act, 2002. 5. The instant ED case has been registered
on the basis of two FIRs registered for scheduled offences,
which are as under:
(1) RC Case No. 02(A)/2020 dated 30.01.2020 registered
for the offences under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC and
Section 7A of the PC Act, 1988 giving rise to special case 4 of
2023; and
(2) RC Case No. 03(A) dated 30.01.2020 registered for the
offences under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC and Section
7A of the PC Act, 1988 giving rise to special case no. 3 of 2022.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that a preliminary enquiry
bearing No. PE03/2018 was registered on the basis of a
complaint lodged by the Railways, alleging large-scale
irregularities in death claim cases filed before the RCT. The
enquiry proceeded and disclosed that during the period 2015-
2017, unknown public servants of the Railway conspired with
the complainant’s advocate and other unknown persons for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30623 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026
3/19
cheating the Railways. In pursuance of the said criminal
conspiracy, in accidental death claim cases, only a part of the
decreed amount was actually paid to the claimants, and the
claimants received the amounts partially, while a portion of the
decreed amounts was transferred to the conspirators. Thus,
partial payment was made to the claimants and a major portion
was siphoned off by the conspirators.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that since the earlier regular bail application of Petitioner has
been rejected on merits and on the touchstone of the twin
condition incapsulated under section 45 of the PMLA, as such,
Petitioner in the instant application would be confining this
prayer of bail on the ground of long incarceration and violation
of petitioner’s fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that as pointed out hereinabove, the prosecution case
of the opposite party rests completely on two FIRs instituted by
the CBI being :-
a. RC Case No. 02(A)/2020 dated 30.01.2020
registered for the offences under Sections 120B and 420 of the
IPC and Section 7A of the PC Act, 1988 giving rise to special
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30623 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026
4/19case 4 of 2023; and
b. RC Case No. 03(A) dated 30.01.2020 registered for
the offences under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC and
Section 7A of the PC Act, 1988 giving rise to special case no. 3
of 2022.
7. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioner that the law is no longer res integra as held in
Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary Versus Union of India that the
offence under Section 3 of the 2002 Act is dependent on illegal
gain of proceeds of crime or property as a result of criminal
activity relating to a scheduled offence. As such if an accused
under PMLA Act is finally discharged/acquitted of the
scheduled offence or the criminal case against him is quashed
by the court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence
of money laundering against him or anyone claiming such
property being the property linked to stated scheduled offence
through him.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in V. Senthil Balaji Vs.
Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (2024 SCC
Online SC 2626) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has
categorically held as under :-
21. Hence, the existence of a scheduled
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30623 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026
5/19offence is sine qua non for alleging the
existence of proceeds of crime. A property
derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by
a person as a result of the criminal activity
relating to a scheduled offence constitutes
proceeds of crime. The existence of proceeds
of crime at the time of the trial of the offence
under Section 3 of PMLA can be proved only
if the scheduled offence is established in the
prosecution of the scheduled offence.
Therefore, even if the trial of the case under
the PMLA proceeds, it cannot be finally
decided unless the trial of scheduled offences
concludes. In the facts of the case, there is no
possibility of the trial of the scheduled
offences commencing in the near future.
Therefore, we see no possibility of both trials
concluding within a few years.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that similar to the position in V. Senthil Balaji
(supra), even in the instant case there is absolutely no likelihood
of the trial of the Scheduled Offences even commencing
anytime soon in the near future, as shall be manifest from the
facts set out hereunder.
10. It has further been submitted that in the instant
case the two FIRs of the CBI constituting scheduled offences
are still at a nascent stage. While RC Case No. 2(A) of 2020 is
at the stage of discharge/framing of charges, in RC Case No. 3
(A) of 2020, the case is still at the stage of supplying police
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30623 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026
6/19
papers to the accused persons.
11. It has further been submitted that infact the
learned Court of Exclusive Magistrate Court of CBI, Patna
where the above said two RC Cases are pending has remained
vacant from time to time and currently there is no presiding
officer in the said court since 1st March 2026.
12. It has further been submitted that as such there is
no likelihood of the trial for the scheduled offences registered in
the aforesaid two FIRs of concluding anytime soon in the near
future.
13. That it would be most relevant to state here that
Petitioner has been granted bail by the Learned Court below
itself in respect of the Scheduled Offences in both the RC Cases
instituted by the CBI as far back as of January 2024 itself.
14. That so far as the conclusion of trial in the present
PMLA Case, in so far as petitioner is concerned, the same has
proceeded illegally in blatant disregard to petitioner’s statutory
right under the BNSS 2023 and as such is vitiated.
15. That in this regard it is stated that unknown to
Petitioner at the relevant time, the instant Complaint Case which
runs into 245 pages and lists 27 witnesses alongwith 4408 pages
of relied upon documents to be exhibited in support thereof, was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30623 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026
7/19
filed on 21.03.2025. That surprisingly, the learned court below
on the same date, that such a voluminous PC was filed took
cognizance of the offences by the impugned order behind the
back of Petitioner and other accused persons.
16. That it was only after the bail application of
Petitioner was rejected on 16.06.2025, that the prosecution
complaint and the relied upon documents were handed over to
Petitioner on 20.08.2025, by which time Petitioner had already
obtained a certified copy of the same for the purposes of
preferring regular bail application before this Hon’ble Court.
17. That the aforesaid Cr. Revision application was
preferred relying upon Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment
dated 09.05.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2749 of 2025
(Kushal Kumar Agarwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement)
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the
proviso to sub-section(1) of Section 223 puts an embargo on the
power of the Court to take cognizance in the absence of
opportunity of hearing being afforded to the accused and has
been pleased to set aside the order taking cognizance by the
Special Court on a complaint filed under Section 44(1)(b) of the
PMLA.
18. That, in fact this Hon’ble Court vide its vide its
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30623 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026
8/19
judgment dated 11.11.2025 passed in Cr. Rev. No. 685 of 2025
(Pushpraj Bajaj Vs. Enforcement Directorate), has specifically
taken note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
of Kushal Kumar Agrawal (supra) stating that proviso to
Section 223 of BNSS mandatorily provides for an opportunity
of hearing to an accused before cognizance could be taken
against him, which means no cognizance of an offence shall be
taken by the Magistrate without giving the accused an
opportunity of being heard. Petitioner craves leave to produce
the copy of judgement dated 11.11.2025 passed in Cr. Rev. No.
685 of 2025 if required at the time of hearing of the instant
application.
19. That the above Criminal Revision application was
heard by this Hon’ble Court on 09.02.2026, wherein after taking
note of order dated 29.01.2026 passed in Criminal
Miscellaneous No. 54140 of 2025 directing to the learned Trial
court to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as
possible. This Hon’ble Court in view of the merits of the
Criminal Revision application was pleased to stay further
proceedings in connection with Special Trial No. (PMLA) 04 of
2025, arising out of ECIR No. PTZO/08/2023 dated 25.01.2023,
in so far as against Petitioner and the matter was directed to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30623 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026
9/19
listed on 24.02.2026.
20. That on account of the above stay on further
proceedings till the next date, there is a further an embargo on
the Ld. Trial Court to proceed with the trial of this petitioner.
Furthermore, in the likelihood of the aforesaid Criminal
Revision application being allowed, the clock would be set back
to pre-cognizance stage where in the Ld. Trial Court would have
to afford an opportunity of hearing to each of the accused
persons before passing an order on the point of cognizance.
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case
of Prem Prakash v. Union of India reported in (2024) 9 SCC
787 that Section 45 of the PMLA by imposing twin conditions
does not re-write these principles to mean that deprivation is the
norm and liberty is the exception. Paragraphs- 11 and 12 of the
said judgment are being quoted hereunder:
“11. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of
India [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of
India, (2023) 12 SCC 1], this Court
categorically held that while Section 45
PMLA restricts the right of the accused to
grant of bail, it could not be said that the
conditions provided under Section 45 impose
absolute restraint on the grant of bail. Para
302 is extracted hereinbelow: (SCC p. 259)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30623 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026
10/19“302. It is important to note that the twin
conditions provided under Section 45 of the
2002 Act, though restrict the right of the
accused 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.”
These observations are significant and if read
in the context of the recent pronouncement of
this Court dated 9-8-2024 in Manish Sisodia
V. Enforcement Directorate [Manish Sisodia
v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC
660: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920], it will be
amply clear that even under PMLA the
governing principle is that “Bail is the Rule
and Jail is the Exception”. In para 52 of
Manish Sisodia [Manish Sisodia v.
Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC
660: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920], this Court
observed as under:
“52. From our experience, we can say that it
appears that the trial courts and the High
Courts attempt to play safe in matters of
grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule
and refusal is an exception is, at times,
followed in breach. On account of non-grant
of bail even in straightforward open-and-shut
cases, this Court is flooded with huge
number of bail petitions thereby adding to the
huge pendency. It is high time that the trial
courts and the High Courts should recognise
the principle that “bail is rule and jail is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30623 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026
11/19exception.”
12. All that Section 45 PMLA mentions is
that certain conditions are to be satisfied.
The principle that, “bail is the rule and jail is
the exception” is only a paraphrasing of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which
states that no person shall be deprived of his
life or personal liberty except according to
the procedure established by law. Liberty of
the individual is always a Rule and
deprivation is the exception. Deprivation can
only be by the procedure established by law,
which has to be a valid and reasonable
procedure. Section 45 PMLA by imposing
twin conditions does not re-write principle to
mean that deprivation is the norm and liberty
is the exception. As set out earlier, all that is
required is that in cases where bail is subject
to the satisfaction of twin conditions, those
conditions must be satisfied.”
22. In the present context, the case of V. Senthil
Balaji Vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement,
(2024) SCC OnLine 2626, is extremely significant as it has
expressly held that the Constitutional Courts cannot allow
provisions like Section 45(i) (ii) to become instruments in the
hands of the ED to continue prolonged incarceration with no
possibility of trial concluding within a reasonable time and
paragraphs-27 to 29 thereof, are being quoted as hereunder:
“27. Under the Statutes like PMLA, the minimum
sentence is three years, and the maximum is seven
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30623 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026
12/19years. The minimum sentence is higher when the
scheduled offence is under the NDPS Act. When the
trial of the complaint under PMLA is likely to
prolong beyond reasonable limits, the Constitutional
Courts will have to consider exercising their powers
to grant bail. The reason is that Section 45(1)(ii) does
not confer power on the State to detain an accused
for an unreasonably long time, especially when there
is no possibility of trial concluding within a
reasonable time. What a reasonable time is will
depend on the provisions under which the accused is
being tried and other factors. One of the most
relevant factor is the duration of the minimum and
maximum sentence for the offence. Another important
consideration is the higher threshold or stringent
conditions which a statute provides for the grant of
bail. Even an outer limit provided by the relevant law
for the completion of the trial, if any, is also a factor
to be considered. The extraordinary powers, as held
in the case of K.A. Najeeb, can only be exercised by
the Constitutional Courts. The Judges of the
Constitutional Courts have vast experience. Based on
the facts on record, if the Judges conclude that there
is no possibility of a trial concluding in a reasonable
time, the power of granting bail can always be
exercised by the Constitutional Courts on the grounds
of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India
notwithstanding the statutory provisions. The
Constitutional Courts can always exercise its
jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 226, as the
case may be. The Constitutional Courts have to bear
in mind while dealing with the cases under the PMLA
that, except in a few exceptional cases, the maximum
sentence can be of seven years. The Constitutional
Courts cannot allow provisions like Section 45(1)(ii)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30623 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026
13/19to become instruments in the hands of the ED to
continue incarceration for a long time when there is
no possibility of a trial of the scheduled offence and
the PMLA offence concluding within a reasonable
time. If the Constitutional Courts do not exercise
their jurisdiction in such cases, the rights of the
undertrials under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India will be defeated. In a given case, if an undue
delay in the disposal of the trial of scheduled offences
or disposal of trial under the PMLA can be
substantially attributed to the accused, the
Constitutional Courts can always decline to exercise
jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs. An exception
will also be in a case where, considering the
antecedents of the accused, there is every possibility
of the accused becoming a real threat to society if
enlarged on bail. The jurisdiction to issue prerogative
writs is always discretionary.
28. Some day, the courts, especially the
Constitutional Courts, will have to take a call on a
peculiar situation that arises in our justice delivery
system. There are cases where clean acquittal is
granted by the criminal courts to the accused after
very long incarceration as an undertrial. When we
say clean acquittal, we are excluding the cases where
the witnesses have turned hostile or there is a bona
fide defective investigation. In such cases of clean
acquittal, crucial years in the life of the accused are
lost. In a given case, it may amount to violation of
rights of the accused under Article 21 of the
Constitution which may give rise to a claim for
compensation.
29. As stated earlier, the appellant has been
incarcerated for 15 months or more for the offence
punishable under the PMLA. In the facts of the case,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30623 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026
14/19the trial of the scheduled offences and, consequently,
the PMLA offence is not likely to be completed in
three to four years or even more. If the appellant’s
detention is continued, it will amount to an
infringement of his fundamental right under Article
21 of the Constitution of India of speedy trial.”
23. That very recently, in the case of Arvind Dham v.
Directorate of Enforcement reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC
30, considering the fact that there was no likelihood of trial
commencing in near future, coupled with continued
incarceration, in the circumstance of documentary nature of
evidence and further considering the law laid down by the
earlier judicial pronouncements rendered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, bail was granted to the custody accused in view
of Article-21 of the Constitution of India. Paragraph 15 to 18 of
the said judgment are being quoted hereunder:
“15. We have given our thoughtful
consideration to the rival submissions and
have carefully perused the record. The court
while dealing with the prayer for grant of
bail has to consider gravity of offence, which
has to be ascertained in the facts and
circumstances of each case. One of the
circumstances to consider the gravity of
offences is also the term of sentence i.e.,
prescribed for the offence, the accused is
alleged to have committed.
The court has also to take into account the
object of the special Act, the gravity of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30623 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026
15/19offence and the attending circumstances
along with period of sentence. All economic
offences cannot be classified into one group
as it may involve various activities and may
differ from one case to another. Therefore, it
is not advisable on the part of the Court to
categorize all the offences into one group and
deny bail on that basis. It is well settled that
if the State or any prosecuting agency
including, the court, concerned has no
wherewithal to provide or protect the
fundamental right of an accused, to have a
speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of
the Constitution, then the State or any other
prosecuting agency should not oppose the
plea for bail on the ground that the crime
committed is serious. Article 21 of the
Constitution applies irrespective of the
nature of the crime. The aforesaid
proposition was quoted with approval by
another two-Judge Bench of this Court and it
was held that long period of incarceration for
around 17 months and the trial not even
having commenced, the appellant in that case
has been deprived of his right to speedy trial.
16. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in V.
Senthil Balaji‘s case has held that under the
statutes such as PMLA, where maximum
sentence is seven years, prolonged
incarceration pending trial may warrant
grant of bail by Constitutional Courts, if
there is no likelihood of the trial concluding
within a reasonable time. Statutory
restrictions cannot be permitted to result in
indefinite pretrial detention in violation of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30623 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026
16/19
17. A three Judge Bench of this Court in
Padam Chand Jain (supra), reiterated that
prolonged incarceration cannot be allowed
to convert pretrial detention into punishment
and that documentary evidence already
seized by the prosecution eliminates the
possibility of tampering with the same.
18. The right to speedy trial, enshrined
underArticle 21 of the Constitution, is not
eclipsed by the nature of the offence.
Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial,
without commencement or reasonable
progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as
it has the effect of converting pretrial
detention into form of punishment. Economic
offences, by their very nature, may differ in
degree and fact, and therefore cannot be
treated as homogeneous class warranting a
blanket denial of bail.”
24. Considering the above facts and circumstances,
the petitioner has prayed for bail.
25. Countering this, learned counsel for the E.D. has
vehemently opposed the bail and has submitted that the order
dated 29.01.2026 passed by this Court itself is clear and
according to that order the petitioner was to move the trial court
if the trial was not concluded within a period of six months and
that before the completion of six months the petitioner has come
before this Court.
26. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30623 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026
17/19
that the trial of this ECIR is not likely to be concluded in near
future in view of the stay which has been granted by the learned
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as the learned trial court has
taken cognizance without compliance of Section 223 of the
BNSS for providing the voluminous documents. It is well
settled that present case is a complaint case and before
cognizance, the accused must be given a right of hearing in view
of Section 223 of the BNSS. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the case has been filed in chain
circumstances, i.e. the stay of the proceeding of learned trial
court by the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and
according to that stay this trial is not likely to be concluded in
near future.
27. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case and the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of V. Senthil Balaji (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held in Paragraph ’21’ as under :-
21. Hence, the existence of a scheduled
offence is sine qua non for alleging the
existence of proceeds of crime. A property
derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by
a person as a result of the criminal activity
relating to a scheduled offence constitutes
proceeds of crime. The existence of proceeds
of crime at the time of the trial of the offence
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30623 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026
18/19under Section 3 of PMLA can be proved only
if the scheduled offence is established in the
prosecution of the scheduled offence.
Therefore, even if the trial of the case under
the PMLA proceeds, it cannot be finally
decided unless the trial of scheduled offences
concludes. In the facts of the case, there is no
possibility of the trial of the scheduled
offences commencing in the near future.
Therefore, we see no possibility of both trials
concluding within a few years.
28. The fact that two FIRs of the CBI are still at an
initial stage. RC Case No.02(A) of 2020 is at the stage of
discharge/framing of charges. In RC Case No.03(A) of 2020, the
case is still at the stage of supplying police papers to the accused
persons. As such, there is no likelihod of the schedule offence
registered in the aforesaid two FIRs be concluded in near
future.
29. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with the condition that
the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall remain
physically present in the learned trial court, whenever
required.
30. The above named petitioner is directed to be
enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30623 of 2026(4) dt.24-07-2026
19/19
thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the court of learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge
(PMLA), Patna in connection with Special Trial No. (PMLA)
04/2025 arising out of ECIRNo. PTZO P.S. Case No.08 of 2023.
31. Accordingly, the present bail application stands
allowed with the conditions as mentioned above.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 09.07.2026 Uploading Date 24.07.2026 Transmission Date 24.07.2026
