No Supervening Circumstances Pleaded By ED: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Upholds Bail Granted To Two Accused In Police Recruitment Paper Leak Case

The applicant- Directorate of Enforcement had approached the High Court seeking the setting aside of the order of the Court of the Special Judge Anticorruption (CBI cases), granting bail to the accused respondents in a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

The Single Bench of Justice M A Chowdhary held, “As already pointed out, no supervening circumstances of contravention of any bail condition or tampering with the evidence has been pleaded or urged, therefore, bail granted in favour of the respondents by the Special Court requires no interference by this Court.”

Deputy Solicitor General Of India Vishal Sharma represented the Applicant, while Advocate Asheesh Singh Kotwal represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A case was recorded based on an FIR registered by the CBI, Jammu, under Sections 120-B, 420 IPC, 1860, falling under Part A, Paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the PMLA, 2002, being the scheduled offences as defined under section 2(1)(y). The CBI later filed a charge-sheet against Anil Kumar, Yatin Yadav and other accused persons. The case related to the paper leak of the examination conducted by J&K Services Selection Board (JKSSB) for the recruitment of 1200 Sub-Inspectors of J&K Police, against monetary benefits received by the accused persons, including the respondents. It was alleged that the accused persons were also involved in leaking other recruitment exams conducted by JKSSB in the month of March 2022. As per the charge-sheet, the respondents, along with other accused, charged Rs 10 lakh per candidate from Jammu-based accused touts and others for providing the leaked SI exam paper.

In respect of the payments collected against the leaked SI exam paper, the touts collected the total amount charged by them from the candidates immediately after the exam, mostly in cash, and the same was handed over to the respondents. As per the ED, the proceeds of crime were primarily dealt in cash and were not trackable. These had been siphoned off by respondents. However, certain interconnected transactions, routing the proceeds of crime, were traced to them. A prosecution complaint was filed, the Trial Court took cognisance of the offence of money laundering, and the accused respondents were arrested. Both the non-applicants were admitted to bail by the Designated PMLA Court. Aggrieved by the impugned order, granting bail to respondents, the petitioner approached the court seeking cancellation of the bail granted to them.

Arguments

It was the case of the applicant that the Special Court had not considered the rigour of bail under Section 45 of PMLA, which provides that bail can be granted only on a satisfaction by the Court that the accused is not guilty of an offence punishable under the PMLA of 2002.

Reasoning

The Bench was of the view that the Special Court had rightly concluded that the foundational facts which require to be considered in apropos to Section 45 of the PMLA of 2002 require to be satisfied by the prosecution and it has to produce the material by which the Court can draw satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is guilty of such offence, and that he is likely to commit such offences while on bail.

The Bench noted that the Special Court based on the fact that nothing had been recovered from the respondents-accused during their custody, held the accused entitled to bail as the prosecution had not been able to satisfy the rigours followed under Section 45 of the PMLA.

“On a consideration of the matter, the Special Court appears to have dealt with the matter with regard to the rigor of Section 45 PMLA on the basis of the evidence that had been collected by the applicant against the respondents and on a prima facie view, the court had come to the conclusion that the prosecution had not been able to satisfy the rigors provided under Section 45 of the PMLA. The Special Court has, thus, pass the order following the precedents of the judgments passed by the Apex Court on the subject and cannot be stated to have not followed the law by passing the impugned order granting bail in favour of the respondents”, it added.

The Bench thus held that the bail granted in favour of the respondents by the Special Court required no interference by the Court.

Cause Title: Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement v. Yatin Yadav (Neutral Citation: 2026:JKLHC-JMU:985)

Appearance

Petitioner: Deputy Solicitor General Of India Vishal Sharma, Central Govt Standing Counsel Eishan Dadhichi

Respondent: Advocate Asheesh Singh Kotwal

Click here to read/download Order