THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR versus KANHAIYA PRASAD

Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 544 · Decided: 12-02-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BELA M. TRIVEDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 544 : 2025 INSC 210
The Union of India through the Assistant Director  
v. 
Kanhaiya Prasad
(Criminal Appeal No. 728 of 2025 )
13 February 2025
[Bela M. Trivedi* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the 
High Court granting bail to the respondent without considering the 
rigours of s.45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
Headnotes†
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – ss.45, 50 – 
Commission of offence under PMLA – Grant of bail – Twin 
conditions for bail u/s.45 – Respondent allegedly layered 
and laundered the proceeds of crime generated by his 
father-syndicate member involved in illegal sale of sand 
using hawala network and concealed the proceeds of 
crime and used the said proceeds – Complaint filed by the 
appellant-UOI against the respondent for offences u/ss.3/4 
of the PMLA – PMLA court took cognizance of the alleged 
offences – Bail application by the respondent – Allowed by 
the High Court – Correctness: 
Held: High Court in a very casual and cavalier manner, without 
considering the rigours of s. 45 granted bail to the respondent 
on absolutely extraneous and irrelevant considerations – No 
finding that there were reasonable grounds for believing that 
the respondent was not guilty of the alleged offence under the 
Act and was not likely to commit any offence while on bail – 
Non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of s.45 made 
the impugned order unsustainable and untenable in the eye of 
law – Art. 20(3) of the Constitution would not come into play 
in respect of the process of recording statement pursuant to 
summon issued u/s.50(2) – Furthermore, it cannot be said that the 
respondent has not been shown as an accused in the predicate 
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 
545
The Union of India through the Assistant Director  
v. Kanhaiya Prasad
offence – Merely because the prosecution complaint had been 
filed and cognizance was taken by the court that itself would not 
be the ground or consideration to release the respondent on bail, 
when the mandatory requirements of s.45 not complied with – 
Offence of money laundering is an aggravated form of crime 
world over and the offenders involved in the activity connected 
with the Proceeds of Crime are treated as a separate class 
from ordinary criminals – Any casual or cursory approach by 
the Courts while considering the bail application of the offender 
involved in the offence of money laundering and granting him bail 
by passing cryptic orders without considering the seriousness 
of the crime and without considering the rigours of s.45, cannot 
be vindicated – Impugned order being in defiance of s.45, is 
unsustainable and untenable, and as such set aside – Matter 
remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration – ss.3, 4 
[Paras 12, 13, 17-22]
Case Law Cited
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.  
[2022] 6 SCR 382 : 2022 SCC OnLine 929 – relied on.
Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement [2015] 15 SCR 499 : 
(2015) 16 SCC 1; Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement 
[2017] 13 SCR 156 : (2018) 11 SCC 46; Tarun Kumar v. Assistant 
Director Directorate of Enforcement [2023] 14 SCR 813 : (2023) 
SCC OnLine 1486 – referred to. 
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Penal Code, 1860; Bihar Mineral, (Concession, 
Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation & Storage) Rules, 2019; 
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 
List of Keywords
Money Laundering; Bail; Twin conditions of bail; Bail application; 
Scheduled offence; Proceeds of crime; Concealing proceeds 
of crime; Enforcement Directorate; Aggravated form of crime; 
Syndicate member; Syndicate member involved in illegal sale of 
sand using hawala network; Mandatory requirement of s.45 PMLA; 
Predicate offence; Remand.
546
[2025] 2 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
728 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.05.2024 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Patna in CRLM No. 17738 of 2024
Appearances for Parties
Suryaprakash V. Raju, A.S.G., Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, 
Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Adv., Mohit Agrawal, M/s. Saa Chambers,  
Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Bela M. Trivedi, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The appellant-Union of India through the Enforcement Directorate 
has challenged the legality of the imp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.