# Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 37
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6762 of 2024
- **Bench:** Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shashi-bala-shashi-bala-singh-v-directorate-of-enforcement-52593
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 2(u), 2(y)
3⁄4,
45
-
As
per
Enforcement
Case
Information Report, applicant was close
confidant of Director and master-mind of
Shine City Group of Companies - Closely
associated
with
illegal
activities
of
offending company and its management -
The said companies were involved in
alluring investors to invest in projects of
companies which promised handsome
returns - Company issued post-dated
cheques to instill confidence in investors,
when
said
cheques
matured
for
redemption, they were dishonoured -
Complaint was filed against companies
including applicant for commission of
offence of money laundering - During
investigation,
various
premises
were
searched
including
present
applicant,
bank account St.ment and digital devices
recovered - Considerable quantum of
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceeds of crime were received in bank
accounts of applicant which was received
from
said
Companies,
withdrawn
by
applicant for her personal expenses -
Apprehended on 25.11.2023. (Para 3, 9,
11, 12, 13)

Applicant appointed as Assistant Teacher
in 2009 and promoted later and during her
service
she
received
a
sum
of
Rs.
46,81,538/- as salary for period 2009 to
2020 - She claimed said amount as her
hard earned money, derived from sale and
purchase of agricultural and commercial
land, cow milk and other dairy products,
apart from monetary help extended to her
by her husband and children, but she
failed to prove. (Para 45, 46, 55)

In absence of explanation to justify
documents, data and amount found with
her such as third party sale deeds, plot
buyer agreements, e-payment receipts,
shows she was guilty - She has been in
touch
with
main
director
who
was
absconding and also in touch with other
co-accused, does not bring her in category
of vulnerable woman - She was knowing
their
whereabouts
but
never
came
forward to assist prosecution and casts a
doubt that she too was a genuine investor.
(Para 56, 58, 59)

Bail application rejected. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,960 of 86,101. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39960 for what follows._

9 All. Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
37
inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case
so
as
to
dissuade
themselves
from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police office.

(ii) The applicants shall not leave
India without the previous permission of
the Court concerned.

(iii) In the event, applicants
change residential address, the applicants
shall
inform
the
court
concerned/Investigating Officer about new
residential address in writing.

(iv)
The
applicants
shall
cooperate with the investigation and make
themselves
available
for
interrogation
whenever required.

(v) The applicants shall not
obstruct or hamper the police investigation
and not to play mischief with the evidence
collected or yet to be collected by the
police.

(vi) The applicants shall maintain
law and order.

(vii) The applicants shall at the
time of execution of the bond, furnish their
address and mobile number to investigating
officer, and the court concerned.

(viii)
The
applicants
shall
regularly remain present during the trial,
and cooperate with the Court to complete
the trial for the above offences.

(ix)
Non
presence
of
the
applicants or their counsel before the
court concerned shall be construed as
violation of the present order and the
court concerned would be at liberty to
take coercive measures in accordance
with law.

28. In case of default of any of the
conditions, the Investigating Officer shall
be at liberty to file appropriate application
for cancellation of protection granted to the
applicants.

29. With the directions made above,
the anticipatory bail application stands
allowed.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 37
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6762 of 2024

Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh
 ...Applicant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement
 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Pradeep Kumar Rai, Prakarsh Pandey,
Praveen Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Rohit Tripathi

Criminal Law - Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 2(u), 2(y)
3⁄4,
45
-
As
per
Enforcement
Case
Information Report, applicant was close
confidant of Director and master-mind of
Shine City Group of Companies - Closely
associated
with
illegal
activities
of
offending company and its management -
The said companies were involved in
alluring investors to invest in projects of
companies which promised handsome
returns - Company issued post-dated
cheques to instill confidence in investors,
when
said
cheques
matured
for
redemption, they were dishonoured -
Complaint was filed against companies
including applicant for commission of
offence of money laundering - During
investigation,
various
premises
were
searched
including
present
applicant,
bank account St.ment and digital devices
recovered - Considerable quantum of
38 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceeds of crime were received in bank
accounts of applicant which was received
from
said
Companies,
withdrawn
by
applicant for her personal expenses -
Apprehended on 25.11.2023. (Para 3, 9,
11, 12, 13)

Applicant appointed as Assistant Teacher
in 2009 and promoted later and during her
service
she
received
a
sum
of
Rs.
46,81,538/- as salary for period 2009 to
2020 - She claimed said amount as her
hard earned money, derived from sale and
purchase of agricultural and commercial
land, cow milk and other dairy products,
apart from monetary help extended to her
by her husband and children, but she
failed to prove. (Para 45, 46, 55)

In absence of explanation to justify
documents, data and amount found with
her such as third party sale deeds, plot
buyer agreements, e-payment receipts,
shows she was guilty - She has been in
touch
with
main
director
who
was
absconding and also in touch with other
co-accused, does not bring her in category
of vulnerable woman - She was knowing
their
whereabouts
but
never
came
forward to assist prosecution and casts a
doubt that she too was a genuine investor.
(Para 56, 58, 59)

Bail application rejected. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:
1. Sri Ram Ram Vs St. of U.P. & ors., (Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 1834 of 2021)

2. Arvind Kejriwal Vs Directorate Enforcement,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1703

3.
Kalvakuntla
Kavitha
Vs
Enforcement
Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2269, (Para 26
to 28)

4. Prem Prakash Vs U.O.I. through Directorate
of Enforcement; 2024 SCC Online SC 2270,
(Para 13, 14)

5. Manish Sisodia Vs Enforcement Directorate,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, (Para 49 to 57)

6. Rohit Tandon Vs Directorate of Enforcement,
(2018) 11 SCC 46, (Para 19 to 22, 31)

7. Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs U.O.I., (2018) 11
SCC 1, (Para 11)

8. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs U.O.I., 2022
SCC OnLine SC 929

9. Tarun Kumar Vs Enforcement Directorate,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486

10. Pavana Dibbur Vs Enforcement Directorate,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. This is a pre-trial bail application
moved by the applicant who is arraigned in
connection with ECIR No. LKZO/05/2021,
under Section 3/4 of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter
referred to as The PML Act of 2002).

2. The background is, that large
number of FIRs were lodged against Shine
City Group of Companies and its Directors,
Promoters,
share
holders,
authorized
representatives and beneficial owners, all
across the country. In the same vein,
several FIRs were lodged by the Uttar
Pradesh Police under various sections of
the I.P.C. at P.S. Gomti Nagar at Lucknow
and P.S. Civil Lines at Prayagraj. The FIRs
lodged at Lucknow and Prayagraj were all
later transferred to the Economic Offence
Wing at Lucknow.

3. The contents of the Enforcement
Case
Information
Report
(hereinafter
referred to as "ECIR"), in a gist, reflects
that many real estate projects were floated
by various companies under the umbrella
of Shine City Group of Companies in Uttar
Pradesh, Bihar and West Bengal. The said
companies is said to have allured the
investors to invest in the projects of the
9 All. Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
39
companies which promised handsome
returns. The company is said to have issued
post-dated cheques to instill confidence in
the investors, however, as alleged, as and
when the said cheques matured for
redemption, they were dishonored.

4. It is further alleged that in order to
dupe the investors forged documents were
shown to the investors in order to instill
confidence that the company had a very
healthy land bank, however, neither the
investors got the plot as promised nor the
amount invested was returned.

5. The company is also alleged to
have a scheme for investing in its alleged
virtual currency titled as 'Shine Victory
Coin' which was floated through Shine City
Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd though the
Company had no authority or approval
from its Board of Directors nor from any
Government Authority.

6. All the companies, under the
umbrella of Shine Group of Companies,
were managed by its main director and
supremo namely Sri Rasheed Naseem. He
was responsible for luring investors by
persuading them to invest in a scheme
namely 'Bid and Hot Deal'. In the instant
'bid and hot deal', the company promised
to provide vehicles (two wheeler and four
wheelers) to its investors at discounted
price, however, despite deposit of money in
the said scheme, neither the vehicles were
delivered nor the money was returned to
the innocent investors and moreover few
cheques which were issued towards refund
were also dishonored.

7. In the aforesaid fashion, several other
schemes were floated inter-alia known as
"Project Investment Plan" which was the brain
child of one Sri Abhishek Thakur who is
alleged to be the President of Garud Team of
Shine City Group of Companies. In the
aforesaid scheme, the amount invested was to
be returned in 12/15 months by giving a plot
and needless to say these promises were also
not honored. Another scheme known as
'Principal Cash Back' wherein the persons
investing the amount was assured of fantastic
returns. It is in this light that a huge corpus was
collected and siphoned by the Shine City
Group of Companies while large number of
investors were duped and cheated.

8. The record would reflect that the
investigation in the aforesaid scam relating to
investments
in
Shine
City
Group
of
Companies is being monitored by a Division
Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ
Petition No. 1834 of 2021 (Sri Ram Ram Vs.
State of U.P. and Others) along with several
other connected writ petitions.

9. It is in this context that the
Enforcement Directorate, Government of India
filed a complaint under Section 44 and 45 of
the The PML Act of 2002 for commission of
offence of money laundering as defined under
Section 3 read with Section 17 of The PML
Act of 2002 which is punishable under Section
4 of The PML Act of 2002.

10. The ECIR is on record as Annexure
No. 2 with the bail application and it reveals
that upon investigation made under The PML
Act of 2002 by the prosecuting agency,
various premises were searched inter-alia
including that of the present applicant. The
present applicant was apprehended on
25.11.2023 and has been in Jail since then.

11. As per the ECIR, the role of the
present applicant reveals that the applicant
is said to be the main confidant of Sri
Rasheed Naseem who is said to be the
Director and master-mind of the companies
40 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under the umbrella of Shine City Group of
Companies. The role of the applicant is
summarized as under:-

(i) It is alleged that the applicant
had created a social media group under the
name and style of 'Customer ka Haq'; It is
also alleged that she had been acting on
behalf of Sri Rasheed Naseem and Shine
City Group of Companies trying to give
possession, illegally, of the land to their
own
persons
which
was
already
provisionally attached by the Enforcement
Directorate. This led to frustrating the final
confiscation of the attached property which
had been confirmed by the Adjudicating
Authority;

(ii)
Several
incriminating
information and data in digital form was
available on the applicant's mobile phone
which established her role in assisting Sri
Rasheed Naseem and Shine City Group of
Companies to conceal the proceeds of
crime and also siphoning the said proceeds;

(iii) The applicant is said to be
the single point of contact between
Rasheed Naseem and Shine City Group of
Companies;

(iv) The account statement of the
applicant indicated that the applicant had
deposited cash in bank accounts maintained
with the Aryavart Bank and during her
interrogation she was confronted with the
said statements, however, she could not
explain the source of cash amounts;

(v)
The
applicant
is
a
Government School Teacher by profession
and apart from her salary, she does not
have any other known source of income
and thus the deposits apparently links her to
the Shine City Group of Companies;

(vi) That the mobile records of
the applicant reflects her being in touch
with another co-accused namely Abhishek
Thakur who is also one of the alleged
confidant of the Shine City Group of
Companies
and
was
responsible
for
handling the affairs of the Shine City
Group of Companies in Uttar Pradesh and
Kolkata in the State of West Bengal;

(vii) The said data indicates sending
of photos of the properties belonging to
the Shine City Group of Companies situate in
West Bengal by Sri Abhishek Thakur to the
present applicant. The Google locations of the
said properties was also shared by Sri
Abhishek Thakur with the present applicant to
facilitate the illegal handing over of possession
of the said properties to the persons who were
closely
associated
with
the
offending
Companies and its management.

12. Thus, in view thereof, it was
deduced that the present applicant being a
close confidant and closely associated with
the illegal activities of the offending
company
and
its
management,
was
instrumental in assisting the main mastermind and Director Sri Rasheed Naseem and
the Shine City Group of Companies, to
conceal and siphon the proceeds of crime.

13. As per the ECIR, the evidence
collected during investigation linking the
present applicant to the alleged offence of
money laundering has been indicated as
under:-

(i) As per the search conducted at
the residential premises of the present
applicant, bank account statement and
digital devices recovered indicated that
considerable quantum of proceeds of crime
were received in the bank accounts of the
present applicant which was received from
the various Shine City Group of Companies
which was later withdrawn in cash and
utilized by the present applicant for her
personal expenses and other investment
best known to her;
9 All. Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
41

(ii) The applicant being a School
Teacher and apart from her monthly
salary, she had received a total sum of Rs.
16,82,331/- in her bank account in cash
which is alleged to be the proceeds of
crime generated by the criminal activities
of the Shine City Group of Companies and
being a close confidant of Sri Rasheed
Naseem, she was controlling the affairs and
was the face of the company vis.a.vis its
investors.

(iii) Mobile device recovered
from her residence pointed towards the
conversation between the applicant and Sri
Rasheed Naseem which also indicated that
she was in constant touch and was acting
at his behest including her involvement in
giving
possession
of
the
properties
provisionally attached by the Enforcement
Directorate to persons being loyal to the
offending group of companies.

14. The specific role of the applicant
as indicated in para 6.1 of the ECIR, is
being reproduced hereinafter for ease of
reference:-

" ROLE OF SHASHI BALA
(ACCUSED 1)

6.1 She is a teacher in a
government school and confidant of Rashid
Naseem, head of operations of Shine City
Group. She created a social media group
and channel namely 'Customer ka Haq' and
acting on the directions of Rashid Naseem.
Further evidence from the WhatsApp group
chat clearly shows that she is in possession
of important information regarding the
assets/properties of shine city which
establishes her role in the concealment and
laundering of the proceeds of crime. She is
involved in dissipation of proceeds of crime
by giving possession of the land/plots
belong to Shine City companies which were
earlier attached by this office. She has been
assisting Rashid Naseem in acquisition,
possession, concealment and use of the
Proceeds of Crime and has indulged in
offence of continuous money laundering by
continuing
to
cheat
innocent
public
investors even till date, despite knowing
about various FIRs registered against
Rashid Naseem & Shine City. She had
received funds majorly in the form of cash
directly from the customers however she
also received funds to the tune of Rs. 16.82
lakh against Cash Credit which was
nothing
but
the
proceeds
of
crime
generated out of the criminal activities
being done by Shine City Group of
Companies and its operators. Thus, she
knowingly assisted and involved in the
process
and
activity
connected
with
generation of Proceeds of Crime and
actually in possession and use of proceeds
of crime."

15. Sri Pradeep Rai, the learned counsel
for the applicant submits that the applicant
has no concern with Sri Rasheed Naseem or
the management of Shine City Group of
Companies. It is stated that the applicant
herself was duped by the company as she
herself had invested money and the same was
not returned as per the promise made by the
company and its management.

16. It is further urged that in the
ECIR, it is alleged that a sum of Rs.
16,82,331/- is the estimated quantum of
proceeds of crime found in the account of
the applicant, however, the same has been
explained to state that the amount shown in
her account dated 23rd August, 2013
relating to an entry of Rs. 2,02,000/- was
the maturity amount which she received as
part of her matured deposit.

17. Similarly, a sum of Rs. 5,05,331/-
which was received in her account on 29th
42 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
June, 2019 is also the maturity amount
relating to her deposits made over a period
of 9 years. It has also been urged that the
applicant had taken loan from the HDFC
Bank and Aryavat Bank between the year
2010-2020 for a total sum of Rs.
28,60,000/- (loan taken in parts have been
explained in paragraph 14 of the affidavit
in support of the bail application).

18. The applicant has also stated that
she has been in Government Service since
2005 and has been receiving salary and as
such over a period of one decade i.e. for the
period 2009-10 till 2019-20, she had
received salary of Rs. 46 lakhs and odd as
per her salary account statement.

19. It has further been urged that the
applicant being a School Teacher had her
own independent source of income and she
also
earned
additional
income
from
agriculture and sale and purchase of land
and sale of milk and dairy products.

20. It is submitted that the applicant
was not named in the ECIR but came to be
arrested on 25.11.2023. Significantly, the
applicant has not been named in any FIRs
which was lodged against Rasheed Naseem
and his group of companies and associates.
The applicant is neither a Director nor
Officer or employee or associated with
Rasheed Naseem or any companies of the
Shine City Group of Companies.

21. It is also urged by the learned
counsel for the applicant that the applicant
has been falsely implicated for the reason that
a Division Bench of this Court at Allahabad
is seized of a bunch of writ petitions, leading
petition being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No. 1834 of 2021 (Sri Ram Ram Vs. State of
U.P. and Others) wherein on 31st January,
2023 during the course of hearing, it was
informed to the Court that the present
applicant
had
filed
her
impleadment
application in the said bunch of writ petitions
and was present in the Court and it was
further alleged that she was in regular touch
with Rasheed Naseem who is allegedly in
Dubai.

22. The said Court had made strong
negative
observations
against
the
Enforcement Directorate and in view thereof
the ED falsely implicated the applicant and
apprehended her on 25.11.2023. A copy of
the said order passed by the Division Bench
of this Court at Allahabad has been brought
on record as Annexure-7 with the affidavit in
support of the bail application.

23. It is urged that no offence of money
laundering is made out against the applicant
nor the applicant is involved in either of the
predicate offence, accordingly, the applicant
is a school teacher and has been in judicial
custody since 25.11.2023.

24. The learned counsel for the
applicant
has
also
relied
upon
his
supplementary affidavit dated 27.08.2024 to
impress that on the basis of the present ECIR,
3 separate complaints have been filed by the
ED. In the present complaint, there are four
accused namely, the applicant, Abhishek
Kumar Singh, Udhav Singh and Durga
Prasad. A list of 67 prosecution witnesses and
272 documents will be relied by the
Prosecution in the present complaint alone. In
all there are about 226 FIRs lodged in the
predicate offences and needless to say that
the trial of the predicate would go along
simultaneously
with
the
trial
of
the
complaints made under the PML Act, 2002.

25. It is also urged that the complaint
was filed on 23rd January, 2024 of which
cognizance was taken by the Court
9 All. Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
43
concerned on 17.05.2024 and till date of
filing of the supplementary affidavit, the
charges have yet not been framed.

26. In the aforesaid circumstances,
there is no likelihood of the trial being
concluded in the near future. Hence, the
bail application be allowed.

27. The learned counsel for the
applicant in support of his submissions has
relied upon the following decisions of the
Apex Court:- (i) Arvind Kejriwal v.
Directorate
Enforcement,
2024
SCC
OnLine SC 1703. However, the said
decision may not help the applicants since
in the case before the Apex Court, the issue
therein was in respect of legality of arrest.
Moreover, the Apex Court thereafter
referred the matter to a Larger Bench for
resolving the issue referred and then
interim bail was granted considering that
Sri Kejriwal, the accused was an elected
leader and the Chief Minister of Delhi and
further leaving it open for the Larger Bench
to either extend or recall the interim bail.
Thus, the case in hand is quite different
where there is no challenge to the legality
of arrest.

(ii) The learned counsel further
relied upon the decision of the Apex Court
in Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Enforcement
Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2269
wherein the Apex Court has held as under:-

"26. This Court in the case of
Saumya Chaurasia (supra) 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1674, while paraphrasing
proviso to Section 45(1) of the PML stated
in paragraph 23 as follows:

"23. ..... No doubt the courts
need to be more sensitive and sympathetic
towards the category of persons included in
the first proviso to Section 45 and similar
provisions in the other Acts, as the persons
of tender age and women who are likely to
be more vulnerable, may sometimes be
misused by the unscrupulous elements
......."

27. This Court, in the carefully
couched paragraph extracted above used
the phrase "persons of tender age and
woman who are likely to be more
vulnerable, may sometimes be misused by
the unscrupulous elements". This is vastly
different from saying that the proviso to
Section 45(1) of the PML applies only to
"vulnerable woman". Further, this Court
in the case of Saumya Chaurasia (supra)
does not say that merely because a woman
is highly educated or sophisticated or a
Member of Parliament or a Member of
Legislative Assembly, she is not entitled to
the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1)
of the PML.

28. We, therefore, find that the
learned Single Judge of the High Court has
totally misdirected herself while denying
the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1)
of the PML.

In the aforesaid case, the question
whether the word 'vulnerable women'
applies only to women who are vulnerable
or the word vulnerable will be taken in
context to all women being vulnerable perse being a woman. Hence, the facts of this
case is quite different to the case at hand,
accordingly, it may have a limited impact
in the case as the applicant claims benefit
merely on the basis of gender without
pleading or bringing on record any material
to connect her vulnerability.

(iii) The learned counsel for the
applicant has relied upon another decision
of the Apex Court in Prem Prakash Vs.
Union of India through Directorate of
Enforcement; 2024 SCC Online SC 2270
44 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and the relevant portion thereof read as
under:-

"Scope
of
Inquiry
under
Section 45 of PML

13. Coming back to the scope of
inquiry under Section 45, Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary (Supra), while reiterating and
agreeing with the holding in Ranjitsing
Brahmajeetsing
Sharma
v.
State
of
Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294, held that
the
Court
while
dealing
with
the
application for grant of bail in PML need
not delve deep into the merits of the case
and only a view of the Court based on the
available material available on record is
required. It held that the Court is only
required to place its view based on
probability on the basis of reasonable
material collected during investigation. The
words used in Section 45 are "reasonable
grounds for believing" which means that
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. We deem
it fit to extract the relevant portion (Para
131) from Vijay Madanlal Choudhary
(supra):

"131. It is important to note that
the twin conditions provided under section
45 of the 2002 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 (supra), 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 the MCOCA, therefore, 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 finding as to the
possibility of his committing a crime after
grant of bail. However, such an offence in
futuro must be an offence under the Act and
not any other offence. 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 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 in
serious cases as to why the applicant has
been granted or denied the privilege of
bail.

46. The duty of the court at this
stage is not to weigh the evidence
meticulously 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
9 All. Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
45
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 while 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 being prejudiced thereby".

We are in agreement with the
observation made by the court in Ranjitsing
Brahmajeetsing Sharma (supra). The court
while dealing with the application for grant
of bail need not delve deep into the merits
of the case 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 (supra), 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."
(emphasis supplied)

Importance of the foundational
facts-under Section 24 PML

14. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary
(supra) dealing with Section 24 of the
PML, the three-Judge Bench held as
under:-

"97. Be that as it may, we may
now proceed to decipher the purport of
section 24 of the 2002 Act. In the first
place, it must be noticed that the legal
presumption in either case is about the
involvement of proceeds of crime in moneylaundering. This fact becomes relevant,
only if, the prosecution or the authorities
have succeeded in establishing at least
three basic or foundational facts. First, that
the criminal activity relating to a scheduled
offence has been committed. Second, that
the property in question has been derived
or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any
person as a result of that criminal activity.
Third, the person concerned is, directly or
indirectly, involved in any process or
activity connected with the said property
being proceeds of crime. On establishing
the fact that there existed proceeds of crime
and the person concerned was involved in
any
process
or
activity
connected
therewith, itself, constitutes offence of
money-laundering. The nature of process
or activity has now been elaborated in the
form of Explanation inserted vide Finance
(No. 2) Act, 2019. On establishing these
foundational facts in terms of section 24 of
the 2002 Act, a legal presumption would
arise that such proceeds of crime are
involved in money-laundering. The fact that
the person concerned had no causal
connection with such proceeds of crime
and he is able to disprove the fact about his
involvement in any process or activity
connected
therewith,
by
producing
evidence
in
that
regard,
the
legal
presumption would stand rebutted.

99. Be it noted that the legal
presumption under section 24(a) of the
2002 Act, would apply when the person is
charged with the offence of moneylaundering and his direct or indirect
involvement in any process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime, is
46 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
established. The existence of proceeds of
crime is, therefore, a foundational fact, to
be
established
by
the
prosecution,
including the involvement of the person in
any
process
or
activity
connected
therewith. Once these foundational facts
are established by the prosecution, the onus
must then shift on the person facing charge
of offence of money-laundering-to rebut the
legal presumption that the proceeds of
crime
are
not
involved
in
moneylaundering, by producing evidence which is
within his personal knowledge. In other
words, the expression "presume" is not
conclusive. It also does not follow that the
legal presumption that the proceeds of
crime are involved in money-laundering is
to be invoked by the Authority or the court,
without providing an opportunity to the
person to rebut the same by leading
evidence within his personal knowledge.

100. Such onus also flows from
the purport of section 106 of the Evidence
Act. Whereby, he must rebut the legal
presumption in the manner he chooses to
do and as is permissible in law, including
by replying under section 313 of the 1973
Code
or
even
by
cross-examining
prosecution witnesses. The person would
get enough opportunity in the proceeding
before the Authority or the court, as the
case may be. He may be able to discharge
his burden by showing that he is not
involved in any process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime. In
any case, in terms of section 114 of the
Evidence Act, it is open to the court to
presume the existence of any fact which it
thinks likely to have happened, regard
being had to the common course of natural
events, human conduct, and public and
private business, in their relation to the
facts of the particular case. Considering
the
above,
the
provision
under
consideration
[section
24(a)]
by
no
standards can be said to be unreasonable
much
less
manifestly
arbitrary
and
unconstitutional."
(Emphasis supplied)"

The proposition in the aforesaid
case cannot be disputed and this Court
while considering the case of the applicant
shall also notice the applicability of the said
decision.

(iv) Learned counsel for the
applicant next relied upon the decision of
the Apex Court in Manish Sisodia v.
Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 1920, wherein the Apex Court
has held as under:-

"49. We find that, on account of a
long period of incarceration running for
around 17 months and the trial even not
having been commenced, the appellant has
been deprived of his right to speedy trial.

50. As observed by this Court, the
right to speedy trial and the right to liberty
are sacrosanct rights. On denial of these
rights, the trial court as well as the High
Court ought to have given due weightage to
this factor.

51. Recently, this Court had an
occasion to consider an application for bail
in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v.
State of Maharashtra 2024 SCC OnLine SC
1693 wherein the accused was prosecuted
under the provisions of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This
Court surveyed the entire law right from
the judgment of this Court in the cases of
Gudikanti
Narasimhulu
v.
Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
(1978) 1 SCC 240 , Shri Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC
565, Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home
Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81,
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3
SCC 713 and Satender Kumar Antil v.
Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 10
SCC 51. The Court observed thus:
9 All. Shashi Bala @ Shashi Bala Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
47

"19.
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."

52. The Court also reproduced
the
observations
made
in
Gudikanti
Narasimhulu (supra), which read thus:

"10. In the aforesaid context, we
may remind the trial courts and the High
Courts of what came to be observed by this
Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public
Prosecutor, High Court reported in (1978)
1 SCC 240. We quote:

"What is often forgotten, and
therefore warrants reminder, is the object
to keep a person in judicial custody
pending trial or disposal of an appeal.
Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898)
18 Cox]:

"I observe that in this case bail
was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be
too strongly impressed on the, magistracy
of the country that bail is not to be withheld
as a punishment, but that the requirements
as to bail are merely to secure the
attendance of the prisoner at trial.""

53. The Court further observed
that, over a period of time, the trial courts
and the High Courts have forgotten a very
well-settled principle of law that bail is not
to be withheld as a punishment. 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 straight forward 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
recognize the principle that "bail is rule
and jail is exception".

54. In the present case, in the ED
matter as well as the CBI matter, 493
witnesses have been named. The case
involves thousands of pages of documents
and over a lakh pages of digitized
documents. It is thus clear that there is not
even the remotest possibility of the trial
being concluded in the near future. In our
view, keeping the appellant behind the bars
for an unlimited period of time in the hope
of speedy completion of trial would deprive
his fundamental right to liberty under
Article 21 of the Constitution. As observed
time
and
again,
the
prolonged
incarceration before being pronounced
guilty of an offence should not be permitted
to become punishment without trial.

55. As observed by this Court in
the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra),
the objective to keep a person in judicial
custody pending trial or disposal of an
appeal is to secure the attendance of the
prisoner at trial.

56. In the present case, the
appellant is having deep roots in the
society. There is no possibility of him
fleeing away from the country and not
being available for facing the trial. In any
case, conditions can be imposed to address
the concern of the State.

57. Insofar as the apprehension
given by the learned ASG regarding the
possibility of tampering the evidence is
concerned, it is to be noted that the case
largely depends on documentary evidence
which is already seized by the prosecution.
As such, there is no possibility of tampering
with the evidence. Insofar as the concern
with regard to influencing the witnesses is
48 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
concerned, the said concern can be
addressed by imposing stringent conditions
upon the appellant."

The proposition in the aforesaid case
cannot be disputed and this Court while
considering the case of the applicant shall
also notice the applicability of the said
decision.

28. Sri Rohit Tripathi, learned counsel
for the Prosecuting Agency has submitted
that
during investigation and seizure of the
records found from the residence of the
applicant as has been disclosed in the
ECIR, categorically links the applicant with
the operations of the Shine City Group of
Companies.

29. It is further urged that even
though the applicant has stated in her
affidavit regarding her source of income
derived from the salary, being a School
Teacher, however, it has not been indicated
what was her quantum of investments in
the Shine City Group of Companies.

30. As per the admission of the
applicant, she is alleged to have invested a
sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- between the year
2013 to 2019 and she has further indicated
that Shine City Group of Companies had
registered 11 properties in her name but she
was not able to indicate that under what
circumstances, the said 11 properties were
parked in her name.

31. It is further urged that her own
admission which was even recorded before
a Division Bench of this Court while
hearing was in progress of a bunch of writ
petitions at Prayagraj clearly indicates that
she was in constant touch with Rasheed
Naseem and the applicant's daughter and
her son-in-law had even met Rasheed
Naseem in Dubai. This clearly linked the
applicant to the Director as well as the
master-mind of the Shine City Group of
Companies.

32. The conversation and exchange of
photos between the applicant and another
close confidant of Rasheed Naseem namely
Abhishek Thakur also fortifies the strong
links between the applicant and the Shine
City
Group
of
Companies
and
her
assistance in siphoning of the proceeds of
crime.

33. In view of the aforesaid, it is
urged that there is ample material available
on record which clearly incriminates the
applicant and for the aforesaid reasons the
bail application of the applicant deserves to
be rejected.

34. Before dealing with the respective
submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, it will be appropriate to take a
glance at the certain relevant provisions
relating to The PML Act of 2002:-

Proceeds of crime has been
defined in Section 2(u) which reads as
under:-