Six Months Custody or Trial Delay not Sufficient Ground for Bail in Economic Offences under PMLA: Jharkhand HC [Read Order]

Pramod Kumar Singh, the petitioner, filed an application for regular bail under Sections 483 and 484 of the BNSS, 2023, in connection with ECIR Case No. 01 of 2025 arising out of allegations of misappropriation of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) funds while serving as Block Account Manager at PHC Jharia cum Jodapokhar, Dhanbad.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that Singh had only acted as a joint signatory under the instructions of the Medical Officer In-Charge and that all payments were duly recorded, verified, and audited.

Master the Latest Amendments in Income Tax Act Click here

They further argued that no audit report ever found him guilty of misappropriation and that his assets were proportionate to his legal income. The counsel also argued that Singh had been in custody since 19 February 2025 and thus deserved the privilege of bail.

Enforcement Directorate’s counsel argued that Singh, in connivance with the then Medical Officer In-Charge, had misused his position to embezzle and launder over Rs. 9.39 crore of public funds. They argued that funds were transferred to his bank accounts, those of his family and associates, and used to acquire immovable properties and vehicles.

The ED also pointed out that searches had led to the seizure of incriminating documents and cash, and that statements of associates recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA confirmed Singh’s role.

Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here

The single-judge bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad observed that money laundering is a serious economic offence with grave consequences for society and the economy, and explained that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA must be satisfied before granting bail.

The court explained that mere incarceration for six months or delay in trial cannot outweigh the gravity of the allegations or the statutory requirements under the Act. It further pointed out that economic offences constitute a class apart, involving deliberate schemes and causing huge loss to the public exchequer.

The court held that the petitioner had failed to discharge the statutory burden under Section 24 of the PMLA and had not met the conditions required under Section 45. The court ruled that there was sufficient prima facie material to show his involvement in the offence of money laundering and that the application for bail was devoid of merit.

The bail application was dismissed with the court clarifying that its observations were limited to the question of bail and would not affect the trial on merits.

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