Gujarat HC Denies Bail to Journalist of The Hindu in PMLA Case, says He may Cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution [Read More]

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the bail application of a senior journalist associated with The Hindu, who is accused of serious offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ( PMLA ).

Justice M.R. Mengdey, while refusing bail, observed that the applicant’s conduct raised grave concerns regarding tampering of evidence and influencing witnesses, thereby causing potential prejudice to the ongoing investigation.

“There are all chances that if the applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail, he may cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution” said the court while providing order in the bail application submitted by Maheshdan Prabhudan Langa.

Maheshdan Prabhudan Langa, a prominent journalist and a correspondent of The Hindu, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on February 20, 2025, in connection with ECIR/AMZO/20/2024. The ED invoked Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA based on two predicate FIRs lodged with the Ahmedabad DCB Police Station and Satellite Police Station.

The predicate FIRs allege that Langa induced individuals including businessman Pranay Shah and land broker Janak Thakore by projecting political and media influence to extort significant amounts of money.

The first FIR alleged that Langa induced one Pranay Shah to pay ₹23 lakhs under the pretense of helping acquire office space and leveraging his media influence. The payment was routed through a third party company, Vyomeen Media Pvt. Ltd., and another ₹5.68 lakhs was allegedly used for his wife’s birthday celebration at Jade Banquet Hall again without repayment.

The second FIR, registered by Janakbhai Thakore, alleged that Langa posed as a land broker and extorted ₹40 lakhs by promising favorable media coverage and resolution of land disputes. Thakore claimed to have paid the amount in two tranches and was threatened with defamatory publications when he resisted further demands.

According to the ED, the total alleged amount involved in these predicate offences is Rs. 68.68 lakhs. The Directorate further submitted that additional unexplained transactions of Rs. 20 lakhs and Rs. 30 lakhs one relating to a seized cash amount and another linked to a failed land deal must also be included as proceeds of crime, taking the total to over Rs. 1.18 crore and thereby invoking the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA.

The Court examined the series of financial transactions, including Rs. 23 lakhs routed through M/s Vyomeen Media Pvt. Ltd., the Rs. 5.68 lakhs banquet payment, Rs. 40 lakhs extorted in cash from Mr. Thakore, and the Rs. 20 lakhs seized from the applicant’s residence.

The statements from witnesses revealed stark contradictions. While the applicant-journalist claimed the Rs. 20 lakhs belonged to his sister-in-law for safekeeping, his wife said it was gifted to her, and the sister-in-law flatly denied any such transaction.

Similarly, contradictory versions emerged regarding the consideration amount and mode of payment for an office property purchased in his wife's name. The applicant’s version stated the price was Rs. 29-30 lakhs, while his wife admitted it was around Rs. 75-80 lakhs.

The ED contended that the cash component for the deal came from extorted funds. The Court found that these contradictions and lack of credible explanations raised serious doubts about the source of funds.

Further, the ED cited instances where Langa appeared to influence or manipulate witnesses from custody. A key witness, Ms. Naina Langa, whose statement was recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA on June 18, 2025, later retracted it via an affidavit dated July 7, 2025, allegedly filed under pressure and at the behest of the applicant.

The Court viewed this act as indicative of the applicant’s continued control and potential to influence the investigation process. The ED also presented statements indicating Langa had coordinated suspicious financial activities involving his father, wife, and associates, with funds being routed through multiple bank accounts, including to a firm where his wife was a partner.

The defense argued that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA should not apply, claiming the total proceeds of crime were below the Rs. 1 crore threshold. However, the Court found merit in the prosecution’s submission that the threshold had been crossed when the additional Rs. 20 and Rs. 30 lakh transactions were included.

The ED also asserted that ongoing investigation was likely to uncover further financial irregularities and predicate offences linked to these funds. It was also submitted that despite multiple summons, the applicant’s father and other family members failed to cooperate with the investigation.

While the applicant claimed all transactions had plausible explanations and denied any intent to launder money, the Court held that merely stating the funds were unaccounted or subject to tax proceedings does not absolve the applicant under the PMLA.

The bench noted that Section 24 shifts the burden of proof on the accused, and in this case, the applicant failed to rebut the statutory presumption.

The court, considering the contradictions in statements, unexplained wealth, use of media influence for alleged extortion, and potential to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses, found that the statutory conditions for bail were not satisfied.

Consequently, it rejected the bail application, observing that the applicant’s release at this stage could seriously impair the ongoing investigation and prejudice the prosecution.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates