Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Punjab & Haryana High Court: While considering a petition filed under Section 483, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), wherein the petitioner sought bail in a case under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) registered by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate (ED), a Single Judge Bench of Manisha Batra, J., held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail at the present stage as the twin conditions under Section 45(1) PMLA were not satisfied.
The Court observed that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was not guilty of the alleged offence or that he was unlikely to commit any offence while on bail, while also considering the nature and gravity of the alleged economic offence, the material collected during investigation and the triple test for grant of bail.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the bail petition.
Background
The petitioner, a real-estate developer of real estate projects in and around Mohali, operated principally through his company as its Chairman and Managing Director (MD). Since 2017, several FIRs have been registered against him and his associates at various police stations on the complaints of homebuyers/allottees of plots, flats and commercial units floated by petitioner’s company under various projects. The allegations substantially pertained to non-execution or delayed execution of sale deeds, non-delivery of possession, unilateral substitution of plot numbers and sale of the same unit to more than one purchaser.
During investigation, a search was conducted at the residential and business premises of the petitioner, his company, and its associates. Several bank accounts of the petitioner, his family members, and related entities/firms were identified and frozen, having a cumulative balance of approximately ₹3.31 crore. Cash of approximately ₹42 lakh was also recovered and several vehicles, including Range Rover, BMW XS, Land Cruiser, Isuzu D-Max, Porsche and Ford Endeavour, registered in the name of BDL, having a cumulative valuation of approximately ₹1.07 crore was identified. Sale deeds, registration deeds, and other documents concerning diversion and layering of funds were also stated to have been recovered.
Thereafter, statements of an employee handling the petitioner’s company’s day-to-day operations and others were recorded. On the basis of these statements and the company’s last annual financial statement for 2019—2020, the ED quantified the proceeds of crime at approximately ₹662.49 crore, advances collected from homebuyers/allottees on the alleged false assurance of clear title and timely possession.
The complaint also referred to a memorandum of understanding under which approximately ₹3.5 crore was routed in connection with the exit of an employee from a real estate firm, as well as diversion of customer advances towards purchase of land parcels, unsecured loans to related entities and family concerns, payment of income tax and other statutory dues and personal acquisitions including the aforesaid vehicles.
At the time when the ED registered the case against the petitioner, he was already in judicial custody in connection with a case registered by the Punjab Police. On 28 October 2025, the ED moved an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (PMLA) seeking production of the petitioner for recording his statement. The application was allowed and, on the same evening, the petitioner was arrested under Section 19 PMLA. His application for regular bail was dismissed by the Special Judge (PMLA).
Thus, aggrieved by the same, he approached the High Court.
Arguments
The petitioner contended that the dispute was essentially a commercial dispute, as the scheduled offences, principally involving cheating, arose from alleged non-execution of sale deeds and related grievances which could ordinarily be addressed through civil remedies and proceedings before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority. He further contended that invoking the provisions of the PMLA against a real estate developer facing such consumer grievances amounted to an unwarranted criminalisation of what was essentially a contractual dispute.
Per contra, ED argued that Section 45(1) PMLA imposed twin conditions for grant of bail and that the said threshold, being a special non obstante provision, overrides ordinary bail jurisprudence under Section 483 BNSS.
Analysis
The Court stated that the point for determination in the present case was as to whether the petitioner made out a case for regular bail considering the rigours of Section 45 PMLA when read with Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court stressed that the petitioner allegedly collected huge amounts of money from innocent persons by offering them plots, flats and commercial spaces etc., with assurances of timely possession and clear titles in the capacity of his company’s MD, however, such promises were not fulfilled which resulted in 41 FIRs being registered against him.
It was alleged that instead of utilising these funds for construction or development of the real estate projects for which they had been collected, the same were diverted towards purchase of lands parcels, advancing unsecured loans, purchase of luxury cars, repayment of unsecured loans of family firms and other irrelevant purposes.
Considering the petitioner’s claim that some of the FIRs registered against him were subsequently quashed and the offences mentioned had been compounded, the Court stated that it was apparent from the record that several FIRs involving scheduled offences were still pending against him and had formed the basis of the case being registered by the ED. Thus, the subsequent quashing or compounding of some of the FIRs, at the given stage, could not advance case for grant of bail.
The Court referred to Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 and stated that “the offence of money laundering is a stand-alone and aggravated offence”. Further, the Court opined that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, and they, prima facie, provide reasonable grounds for believing that he has committed the predicate of offences under the provisions of the PMLA.
The Court further observed that, while considering a prayer for bail, it is required to take into consideration the nature and gravity of the accusations, the severity of the punishment which the conviction may entail, the role attributed to the accused, the nature and quality of the material collected during investigation, the antecedents of the accused, the likelihood of his absconding or evading the process of law, the possibility of his influencing or intimidating the witnesses, and the other attendant circumstances. The period of incarceration is also a relevant consideration, however, it cannot, by itself, be treated as the sole determining factor.
The Court took into account that the petitioner, alleged to have committed economic offences of considerable magnitude, was arrested on 28 October 2025 and the witnesses cited by the prosecution, including the material witnesses, were yet to be examined.
Referring to Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 and Rohit Tandon v. Enforcement Directorate, (2018) 11 SCC 46, the Court held that at the current stage, there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged against him. Further, the Court stated that the period of incarceration, by itself, cannot be considered sufficient to extend the benefit of bail, particularly in view of the nature and gravity of the allegations. The Court opined that the petitioner “is stated to be a man of means and the possibility of his tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses cannot be ruled out”. Thus, the Court held that the triple test in P. Chidambaram v. Enforcement Directorate, (2020) 13 SCC 791 i.e flight risk, evidence tampering and influencing of witnesses, did not stand satisfied.
Further, the Court highlighted that the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) concerned prima facie, showed that the petitioner was involved in the process and activities connected with the proceeds of crime, was a beneficiary thereof and had been projecting such proceeds as untainted property. The Court stated that the conditions prescribed under Section 45 PMLA are mandatory and it is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence alleged and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Court held that at the given stage, “no such reasonable grounds are discernible from the material placed on record”.
The Court further stated that in a case where a person is charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3 PMLA, it is “entitled to presume, unless the contrary is proved, that such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering”. The Court observed that Section 24 PMLA incorporates a statutory presumption in relation to the proceeds of crime, and nothing has been brought on record at this stage to rebut the said statutory presumption.
Decision
Thus, the Court held that the petitioner did not deserve to be released on bail at that stage and dismissed the petition.
The Court, however, clarified that the observations made in the order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
[Jarnail Singh Bajwa v. Enforcement Directorate, 2026 SCC OnLine P&H 29631, decided on 25-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate, Nikhil Ghai and Akhil Godara, Advocates
For the Respondent: Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India and Karanvir Singh Kathuria, Central Government Counsel
