-
by Admin
17 December 2025 4:09 PM
Petitioner is directly indulged in all the activities connected with the offence of money laundering… cash deposits of ₹7.21 crore in multiple accounts cannot be explained as lawful income” — Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad
Jharkhand High Court refused to grant bail to Rony Mondal, a Bangladeshi national accused of laundering proceeds of crime arising from cross-border human trafficking and fraudulent acquisition of Indian citizenship. The Court invoked the "twin conditions" under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and observed that “prima facie, the petitioner appears to be indulged in a syndicate operating cross-border illegal infiltration and possession of proceeds of crime.”
Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad emphasized the gravity of offences having transnational implications and held that “the legal presumption under Section 24 of the PMLA stands unless rebutted. The burden lies on the accused.”
The Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR No. RNZO/17/2024) was registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on 18.09.2024, based on FIR No. 188 of 2024 filed at Bariatu Police Station, Ranchi. The FIR arose after a Bangladeshi woman, Nipah Akhtar Khushi, escaped from captivity and revealed a prostitution racket run by trafficked Bangladeshi women illegally residing in India.
The ED unearthed a large network facilitating such illegal immigration using forged documents, leading to the arrest of several individuals including Rony Mondal, who was apprehended in West Bengal on 12.11.2024. A Special PMLA Court in Ranchi had earlier denied him bail on 22.03.2025, which led to the present petition before the High Court.
The main contention of the petitioner was that since he was not named in the predicate FIR, no offence under Section 3 of the PMLA could be made out. The defence argued that “proceeds of crime must be directly linked to a scheduled offence, which in this case, is absent.”
However, the Court categorically rejected this contention, holding: “The offence of money laundering is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime… involvement in any one of such process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime would constitute the offence.”
Justice Prasad relied on the Supreme Court’s authoritative decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India to clarify that “it is not necessary for a person to be named in the predicate offence to be prosecuted under the PMLA.”
He further noted: “The petitioner has amassed disproportionate assets including cash deposits of ₹7.21 crore, jewellery worth over ₹36 lakh, and fixed deposits amounting to ₹70 lakh — far exceeding his declared income.”
The Court considered the following facts significant:
Rony Mondal is a Bangladeshi national who illegally entered India through the Benapole-Petrapole border and obtained Indian documents including a passport, PAN, Aadhaar, and voter ID using forged information.
“He extended this fraudulent activity to his family members, enabling them to open bank accounts and access Indian financial services while still holding Bangladeshi passports.”
During the search conducted on 12.11.2024, authorities recovered:
₹5 lakhs in ₹500 currency notes in consecutive serial numbers,
an unlicensed firearm with 9 live rounds,
gold jewellery worth ₹36,41,927,
multiple Indian and Bangladeshi identity documents, and
mobile phone data showing connections to 42 Bangladeshi phone numbers.
The ED discovered that “₹7,21,19,030/- was deposited across multiple bank accounts controlled by the petitioner, without any plausible explanation.”
In his statement recorded under the PMLA, the petitioner admitted to having obtained fake documents through brokers and acknowledged filing fraudulent Income Tax Returns for himself and his family.
The Court noted: “He has acquired immovable properties in India, such as Jyotsana Villa Hostel, which is leased at ₹80,000 per month, besides running a construction and clothing business — all while being a foreign national posing as an Indian citizen.”
“Presumption Under Section 24 Operates Against the Petitioner Until Rebutted by Proof” — Burden on Accused to Dislodge PMLA Presumption
Justice Prasad remarked that the PMLA shifts the burden to the accused once foundational facts are established. He observed:
“The respondent ED is not required to conclusively establish guilt at the pre-trial stage. The applicant must demonstrate that the proceeds of crime attributed to him are not linked to money laundering.”
The Court highlighted that no such rebuttal had been offered by the petitioner to explain the disproportionate cash deposits or the source of assets seized.
Role in Organized Syndicate and Connection to Scheduled Offences:
The Court noted that Mondal was not acting in isolation. Rather:
“The accused persons are part of a bigger syndicate that operates extensively and in a discreet manner across West Bengal and parts of Jharkhand, including Ranchi… facilitating illegal infiltration of Bangladeshi nationals into India.”
The prosecution established that the forged documents, cross-border trafficking, and shelter provided to Bangladeshi women in Ranchi were directly connected to the scheduled offences under IPC and the Foreigners Act.
The Court held: “The generation, acquisition and use of the proceeds of crime out of these activities are corroborated by the seizure of mobile phones, chats, documents and monetary transactions related to the prostitution racket run by the syndicate.”
Rejection of Bail and Legal Rationale:
The Court reiterated that bail in PMLA offences is governed by the “twin conditions” under Section 45, which requires the Court to be satisfied that:
There are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty, and
He is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
On this, the Court ruled: “The petitioner failed to satisfy either of the twin conditions. Prima facie, the petitioner is directly involved in money laundering activities… his possession of proceeds of crime remains unexplained and is not consistent with his declared income.”
Further, the Court invoked Section 24 and held that: “The presumption that the cash, assets, and documents are proceeds of crime stands unless rebutted. The petitioner has not discharged this burden.”
Thus, regular bail was denied.
In a detailed 46-page judgment, the Jharkhand High Court laid bare the factual and legal matrix justifying the continued custody of Rony Mondal. It concluded that:
“The petitioner is a Bangladeshi national who illegally infiltrated into India, obtained Indian documents through fraudulent means, facilitated human trafficking, and acquired, possessed, and laundered proceeds of crime.”
The bail application was accordingly dismissed.
Date of Decision: 10 September 2025
