Patna High Court – Orders
Ram Babu Shandilya vs Union Of India Through The Deputy … on 17 March, 2026
Author: Ashok Kumar Pandey
Bench: Ashok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82199 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2024 Thana- E.C.I.R (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
District- Patna
======================================================
Ram Babu Shandilya S/o Late Gangadhar Shastri Resident of - 52/A, Lanka,
P.S - Kotwali, District - Ghazipur, State - Uttar Pradesh, Pin - 233001
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
Union of India through The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement,
Patna Zonal Office, Bank Road, Chandpura Palace, P.S - Kotwali, District -
Patna, Pin - 800001
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Ram Anand, Advocate
For the E.D. : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
CAV ORDER
7 17-03-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with
Special (Trial) PMLA Case No. 02 of 2025 arising out of ECIR
No. PTZO/05/2024 registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 44 & 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act
defined under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 and
confiscation of properties under Section 8(5) of PMLA.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
petitioner was accused in one FIR No. 439 of 2023 dated
30.08.2023 registered in P.S. Kotwali, Ghazipur in connection
with Poorvanchal Cooperative Bank, Ghazipur regarding fraud of
Rs.30 crores. The petitioner has been made accused in ECIR No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82199 of 2025(7) dt.17-03-2026
2/9
PTZO/05/2024 dated 18.03.2024 relying upon three FIRs,
namely, 1. FIR bearing no. 933 of 2023 dated 18.11.2023 of
Nagar P.S. Vaishali, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 &
120B of the Indian Penal Court (in short ‘IPC‘), 2. FIR bearing
no. 629 of 2023 dated 13.03.2023 of Nagar P.S. Vaishali, under
Sections 379 & 420 of the IPC and 3. FIR bearing no. 785 of
2023 dated 30.09.2023 of Nagar P.S. Vaishali, under Sections
409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the IPC embezzlement of public
money to the tune of Rs.83.50 crores from Vaishali Shahari
Vikash Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as VSV)
through 383 fraud loan accounts by using fake/forged
warehouse/LIC receipts and by revising of existing lending
policy of the bank where various lending terms diluted including
KYC compliance, CIBIL score, lending rates, loans against
deposits review process, exposure limit, CC limits etc. It is
further case of the prosecution that the main allegation against
the petitioner is that he has been guilty of 1. Connivance with his
son-in-law Vipin Tiwary in layering, laundering and concealment
of Procees of Crime (in short ‘POC’) of Rs.1.62 crores generated
by committing fraud in VSV Bank and 2. His denial of intimacy
with Sanjeev Kumar and Nitin Mehra, which led the ground for
recording ECIR/PTZO/05/2024 and reason to believe which
turned into his arrest by Assistant Director, Directorate of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82199 of 2025(7) dt.17-03-2026
3/9
Enforcement, Govt. of India, Patna Zonal office u/s 19 of
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, before lodging complaint
under the said act.
4. It has been stated that the petitioner is innocent and
has been falsely implicated in this case with ulterior motive and
the investigation carried out by the Enforcement Directorate is
misconceived. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is
an old man aged about 70 years (D.O.B. is 01.04.1955) and for
last several years the petitioner is suffering from critical illness
which requires intensive care, medical treatment and follow-up.
It has further been submitted that the petitioner is practicing
lawyer of Ghazipur Civil court, U.P. and has been the public
prosecutor from advocate panel of the said court for a long time.
He is also a businessman and has been filing his ITR for several
years and categorically disclosed his sources of income.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Amar
Sadhuram Mulchandani vs. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. In
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No (s).11376/2024 wherein in
paragraphs ‘8’ to ’10’ of the judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court has
held as follows:-
“8. The proviso to Section 45(1) of
PMLA specifically contemplates that a
person who “is sick or inform” may be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82199 of 2025(7) dt.17-03-2026
4/9released on bail if the Special Court so
directs.
9. The petitioner is 67 years old and
has spent nearly a year and three
months in custody. Based on the
medical evaluation which has been
provided by the Medical Team at Sir J
J Group of Hospitals, Mumbai, it is
evident that the petitioner fulfills the
threshold required for being enlarged
on bail.
10. In the above circumstances, we
direct that the petitioner be released on
interim bail subject to such terms and
conditions as may be imposed by the
Special Court in connection with
ECIR/MBZO-II/10/2021.”
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied
on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court wherein the
learned Co-ordinate Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has
granted bail to the petitioners who were suffering from disease.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed the proviso
appended to Section 45 (ii) of the Prevention of Money-
Laundering Act, 2002 which is as follows:-
“…. Provided that a person, who is
under the age of sixteen years or is a
woman or is sick of infirm, 3[or is
accused either on his own or along
with other co-accused of money-
laundering a sum of less than one
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82199 of 2025(7) dt.17-03-2026
5/9crore rupees] may be released on bail,
if the Special Court so directs.”
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied
on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cr. Appeal No.
2178 of 2011 reported in AIR (2012) SC 830 wherein in
paragraphs ’20’ & ’21’, the Hon’ble Apex Court has relied in its
earlier decision as under :-
20) In Moti Ram v. State of M.P.,
(1978) 4 SCC 47, this Court, while
discussing pre-trial detention, held:
“14. The consequences of pre-
trial detention are grave. Defendants
presumed innocent arc subjected to the
psychological and physical
deprivations of jail life, usually under
more onerous conditions than are
imposed on convicted defendants. The
jailed defendant loses his job if he has
one and is prevented from contributing
to the preparation of his defence.
Equally important, the burden of his
detention frequently falls heavily on
the innocent members of his family.”
21) The concept and philosophy of
bail was discussed by this Court in
Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of
Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281, thus:
6. “Bail” remains an undefined
term in CrPC. Nowhere else has the
term been statutorily defined.
Conceptually, it continues to be
understood as a right for assertion of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82199 of 2025(7) dt.17-03-2026
6/9
freedom against the State imposing
restraints. Since the UN Declaration of
Human Rights of 1948, to which India
is a signatory, the concept of bail has
found a place within the scope of
human rights. The dictionary meaning
of the expression “bail” denotes a
security for appearance of a prisoner
for his release.
Etymologically, the word
is derived from an old French verb
“bailer” which means to “give” or “to
deliver”, although another view is that
its derivation is from the Latin term
“baiulare”, meaning “to bear a
burden”. Bail is a conditional liverty.
Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary (4th Edn.,
1971) spells out certain other details.
It states:
“… when a man is taken
or arrested for felony, suspicion of
felony, indicted of felony, or any such
case, so that he is restrained of his
liberty. And, being by law bailable,
offereth surety to those which have
authority to bail him, which sureties
are bound for him to the King’s use in
a certain sums of money, or body for
body, that he shall appear before the
justices of goal delivery at the next
sessions, etc. Then upon the bonds of
these sureties, as is aforesaid, he is
bailed– that is to say, set at liberty
until the day appointed fro his
appearance.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82199 of 2025(7) dt.17-03-2026
7/9
Bail may thus be regarded
as a mechanism whereby the State
devolutes upon the community the
function of securing the presence of
the prisoners, and at the same time
involves participation of the
community in administration of
justice.
8. As against this, the learned counsel for E.D. has
vehemently opposed the bail and has submitted that the
allegations against the petitioner are grave and that the petitioner
has been involved in Co-operative Society Activities since 1998
and knew Tulsidas Mehta from NAFCUB and attended the
Annual General Meeting of VSV Co-operative Bank Limited in
2017, after which Alok Mehta and Sanjeev Kumar visited his
residence cum Head office of Purvanchal Cooperative Bank and
he is knowingly a party and is actually involved with the
Proceeds of Crime (POC) including its concealment, possession,
acquisition.
9. As far as ground of the petitioner regarding illness is
concerned, it has been reported in the judgment of the Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in the case of Amit Katyal vs. Directorate of
Enforcement, Government of India in Crl.M.A. No. 18285 of
2024 wherein in paragraph ’15’ of the judgment, it has been
recorded that in the case of Pawan @ Tamater v. Ram Prakash
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82199 of 2025(7) dt.17-03-2026
8/9
Pandey, (2002) 9SCC 166 that “the Supreme Court had an
occasion to hold that the discretion vested in the courts to grant
bail on medical grounds should be exercised in a sparing and
cautious manner. It was observed that every nature of sickness
would not entitle the accused to be released on bail unless it is
demonstrated that the sickness is of such nature that if the
accused is not released, he cannot get proper treatment.”
10. There are allegations against the petitioner that he
in connivance with his son-in-law Vipin Tiwary was involved in
layering, laundering and concealment of POC of Rs.1.62 crores.
A report from the jail was called on the application of the
petitioner and from perusal of the report which has been sent by
the jail it is clear that the petitioner is suffering from heart
disease and his treatment was done at PMCH and IGIMS. It has
further been submitted that on 22.08.2025, the petitioner was
shifted to O.T. The Doctor further clarified that Mitral volve
Excised-Immediate removal of calcium malicum as for as
possible LAXLV washed ENS malicious. He is also on insulin.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that if the petitioner is not given proper treatment, he may die in
jail and the papers of the treatment which has been submitted by
the jail substantiates the submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82199 of 2025(7) dt.17-03-2026
9/9
submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since
11.01.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that from perusal of the order of the learned trial court
it is clear that even charges are not framed.
12. 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. The above named
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. twenty five thousand only) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Sessions Judge/Special Judge (A.S.J.-XVI), Patna in connection
with Special (Trial) PMLA Case No. 02 of 2025 arising out of
ECIR No. PTZO/05/2024.
13. Accordingly, the present bail application stands
allowed.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 25.02.2026 Uploading Date 17.03.2026 Transmission Date 17.03.2026
