Jharkhand High Court
Shashi Prakash vs The Directorate Of Enforcement on 8 April, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2026:JHHC:9935
INTHE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 454 of 2026
---------
Shashi Prakash, aged about 70 years, son of Late Brij Nandan
Prasad, resident of N2/8, Vatika Green City, Diamond Block, Mango,
P.O. & P.S.- Mango, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum.
… Petitioner
Versus
The Directorate of Enforcement, Ranchi … Opp. Party
———
CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
———-
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opp. Party : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
: Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate
———-
04/Dated: 8 April, 2026
th
1. The instant application has been filed under Sections 483 & 484of
BNSS, 2023 for grant of bail in connection with
ECIR/03/2018registered under Section 3, punishable under
Section 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act,
2002presently pending in the court of learned Special Judge, PML
Act, Ranchi.
2. It is a case where the petitioner has already remained in judicial
custody for more than 3 years, the submission therefore has been
made that the petitioner had remained in custody for minimum
sentence as has been provided under Section 4 of the PML Act
2002.
3. Further, submission has been made that the other co-accused
persons, namely Ram Binod Prasad Sinha and Suman Kumar @
Suman Kumar Singh (the Chartered Accountant) have already
Page 1 of 8
2026:JHHC:9935
been granted bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order
dated15.03.2024 and 04.04.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal
arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4603 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal
arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 6970 of 2023, respectively.
4. Further, the other co-accused person, namely Pooja Singhal has
been released on bond under Section 479 (1) BNSS 2023vide
order dated 07.12.2024 by the learned Special Judge, PML Act,
Ranchi in Misc. Criminal Application No. 3059 of 2024.
5. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is 70-year-old
and is suffering from so many ailments.
6. Further submission has been made that on the last occasion the
status report has been called for by this Court and the same has
been received and is available on record. It is evident therefrom
that altogether 47 witnesses are to be examined and out of which
17 witnesses have been examined, and as such, more time is
required for the conclusion of the evidence of prosecution
witnesses as well as trial.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring the aforesaid fact
has submitted that there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the
trial, as such, on the ground of custody and parity, the present
petitioner may also be enlarged on bail.
8. Learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate although has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner by
Page 2 of 8
2026:JHHC:9935
referring the culpability of the present petitioner in the alleged
commission of crime, but he is fair enough to admit the fact that
the aforesaid co-accused persons namely Ram Binod Prasad Sinha
and Suman Kumar @ Suman Kumar Singh have already been
directed to be released on bail by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10. This Court has considered the imputation made against the
present petitioner as available in the ECIR in order to compare the
issue on parity, since the ground has been taken that the aforesaid
co-accused persons have been directed to be released on bail.
11. In the aforesaid context, it requires to refer herein that this Court
is conscious with the settled position of law that the issue of
parity, is to be taken into consideration but the same is to be taken
into consideration by applying the factual aspect along with the
surrounding facts, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director Directorate of
Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486 wherein it has held as
under:
18. The submission of learned Counsel Mr. Luthra to grant bail
to the appellant on the ground that the other co accused who
were similarly situated as the appellant, have been granted
bail, also cannot be accepted. It may be noted that parity is
not the law. While applying the principle of parity, the Court is
required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose
application is under consideration.”
Page 3 of 8
2026:JHHC:9935
12. It is further settled connotation of law that Court cannot exercise
its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider the totality
of circumstances before granting bail and by simply saying that
another accused has been granted bail is not sufficient to
determine whether a case for grant of bail on the basis of parity has
been established. Reference in this regard may be made to the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Ramesh Bhavan
Rathod vs. VishanbhaiHirabhai Makwana“, (2021) 6 SCC 230
wherein it has been held as under:
“25. We are constrained to observe that the orders passed by
the High Court granting bail fail to pass muster under the law.
They are oblivious to, and innocent of, the nature and gravity of
the alleged offences and to the severity of the punishment in the
event of conviction. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [Neeru
Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri)
527], this Court has held that while applying the principle of
parity, the High Court cannot exercise its powers in a
capricious manner and has to consider the totality of
circumstances before granting bail. This Court observed: (SCC
p. 515, para 17):
“17. Coming to the case at hand, it is found that when a
stand was taken that the second respondent was a history
sheeter, it was imperative on the part of the High Court to
scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the
second respondent is entitled to be admitted to bail on the
ground of parity. It can be stated with absolute certitude that
it was not a case of parity and, therefore, the impugned order
[Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All
16031] clearly exposes the nonapplication of mind. That
apart, as a matter of fact it has been brought on record that
the second respondent has been charge-sheeted in respect of
number of other heinous offences. The High Court has failed
to take note of the same. Therefore, the order has to pave the
path of extinction, for its approval by this Court wouldPage 4 of 8
2026:JHHC:9935tantamount to travesty of justice, and accordingly we set it
aside.”
26. Another aspect of the case which needs emphasis is the
manner in which the High Court has applied the principle of
parity. By its two orders both dated 21-12- 2020
[PravinbhaiHirabhai Koli v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC
OnLine Guj 2986] , [Khetabhai Parbatbhai Makwana v. State of
Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2988] , the High Court granted
bail to Pravin Koli (A-10) and Kheta Parbat Koli (A-15). Parity
was sought with Sidhdhrajsinh Bhagubha Vaghela (A-13) to
whom bail was granted on 22- 10-2020 [Siddhrajsinh Bhagubha
Vaghela v. State of Gujarat, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2985] on the
ground (as the High Court recorded) that he was “assigned
similar role of armed with stick (sic)”. Again, bail was granted
to Vanraj Koli (A16) on the ground that he was armed with a
wooden stick and on the ground that Pravin (A-10), Kheta (A-
15) and Sidhdhrajsinh (A-13) who were armed with sticks had
been granted bail. The High Court has evidently misunderstood
the central aspect of what is meant by parity. Parity while
granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely
observing that another accused who was granted bail was
armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine
whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has
been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role
attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident
and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has
proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as
noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law.”
13. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law this Court
has gone through the imputation made against the present
petitioner available in the certified copy of supplementary
complaint/charge-sheet dated 05.07.2022 in PC No.
ECIR/03/2018. The said supplementary complaint/charge-sheet is
available on record and the same has been appended as Annexure-
1 to the present bail application.
Page 5 of 8
2026:JHHC:9935
14. The role of the present petitioner has been mentioned in paragraph
11 of the said supplementary complaint/charge-sheet, for ready
reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
Shashi Prakash (Accused No. 5): -He was Executive Engineer
in District Board, Khunti, wherein R. K. Jain (Accused no. 6)
was Assistant Engineer and Ram Binod Prasad Sinha
(Accused no. 1) was Junior Engineer. Shashi Prakash
(Accused no. 5) bypassed the proper channel and directly gave
project related advance fund to Ram Binod Prasad Sinha in
lieu of commission offered by Ram Binod Prasad Sinha as
confessed by him in his statement dated 05.07.2020 and
20.09.2021. Shashi Prakash (Accused no. 5) has also stated in
his statement dated 26.06.2022 that he was aware and
allowed 5% Commission to be paid to Pooja Singhal (Accused
no. 2) DC out of the fund disbursed by him to JE Ram Binod
Prasad Sinha. It is also found that he bypassed the proper
channel for transfer of funds and directly gave project related
advance fund to Ram Binod Prasad Sinha (Accused no. 1) and
not through AE R.K. Jain (Accused no. 6). He further stated
that he did that. because of pressure from Pooja Singhal
(Accused no. 2) the then DC, Khunti. He was also aware and
allowing payment of 3% of the disbursed amount as
commission to R. K. Jain (Accused no. 6). Ram Binod Prasad
Sinha (Accusedno. 1) has also confessed that he was paying
2% of the said disbursed amount to Shashi Prakash (Accused
no. 5) as commission. Thus, Shashi Prakash has directly
indulged and knowingly assisted in the offence of money
laundering, and committeed an offence of money laundering
as described in Section 3 of PMLA and punishable under
Section 4 of the said Act.
15. It is evident from the aforementioned paragraph that the present
applicant/petitioner Shashi Prakash (Accused no. 5) bypassed the
proper channel and directly gave project related advance fund to
Ram Binod Prasad Sinha in lieu of commission offered by Ram
Page 6 of 8
2026:JHHC:9935Binod Prasad Sinha as confessed by him in his statement dated
05.07.2020 and 20.09.2021.
16. This Court has further gone through the other various paragraphs
of the supplementary complaint/charge-sheet and has found that
the nature of imputation made against the present petitioner is
similar to the co-accused person particularly Ram Binod Prasad
Sinha who has been directed to be released on bail by the Hon’ble
apex Court.
17. This Court considering the applicability of principle of parity
enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tarun Kumar
vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement (supra) has
found that the case of the present petitioner is identically placed to
the other co-accused person particularly Ram Binod Prasad Sinha.
18. Further, in addition, thereof, the petitioner has already remained in
custody for more than 3 years, which is the minimum punishment
stipulated under section 4in the Act 2002 for the offence alleged to
be committed under Section 3 of Act 2002.
19. In the instant case the trial is yet to be concluded since out of 47
witnesses only 17 witnesses have been examined till date.
20. This Court, considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, is of the
view that the present application deserves to be allowed.
21. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed.
Page 7 of 8
2026:JHHC:9935
22. In consequence thereof, the petitioner named above, is directed to
be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi in
connection with ECIR/03/2018 with the condition that the
petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent himself
on the date fixed without any cogent cause. In failure, the
respondent is at liberty to file application before the learned trial
court for cancellation of bail, which is to be considered by the trial
court in accordance with law so that the trial be not hindered.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
8th April, 2026
Samarth
Page 8 of 8
