Jharkhand HC Upholds Orders Rejecting Discharge, Allows Trial to Proceed in Illegal Mining Money-Laundering Case

The Jharkhand High Court has upheld two orders of a Special PMLA Court refusing to discharge an accused and framing charges against him in a money-laundering case linked to a large-scale illegal stone mining network in Sahebganj district. The bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, delivering a common judgment in two connected criminal revisions, held that the material collected by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was sufficient to proceed with the trial. The case traces back to ECIR registered by the ED on 8 March 2022. The agency initially acted on an FIR relating to alleged criminal intimidation connected to a toll tender at Barharwa. During the investigation, the ED merged several additional FIRs involving illegal mining, transportation of minerals, criminal conspiracy, and environmental violations, many of which had been highlighted in reports filed before the National Green Tribunal. The prosecution alleges the existence of an organised illegal mining syndicate operating under the patronage of a politically influential person. The accused in the present case is alleged to be one of the close associates who assisted in extraction, transportation, and laundering of proceeds from illegally mined stone. According to the ED, multiple searches between July and August 2022 revealed evidence showing financial transactions, excess mining beyond the lease area, and large cash deposits. The ED asserted that joint inspection teams found excess mining over approximately 7.8 acres in Mauja Borna, far beyond the permissible limit of 13.13 acres. The accused was also found with ₹28.5 lakh in cash during a search, which ED claims he failed to satisfactorily explain. Financial analysis showed cash deposits amounting to ₹2.70 crore in his bank accounts, which the agency alleges were derived from illegal mining activities. He was further accused of helping channel ₹4.87 crore into a bank account allegedly operated by the prime accused. In his defence, the accused argued that no material existed to show he had handled “proceeds of crime” and that the case was based on assumptions. He contended that violations under the mining law alone cannot constitute a scheduled offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary to argue that ED action could not proceed without clear proof of a predicate offence. The ED, however, maintained that the matter did not relate merely to violations of the MMDR Act. It submitted that several FIRs involving IPC offences such as criminal conspiracy, extortion, and even Section 307 IPC were subsequently registered. These, according to the ED, clearly constituted scheduled offences, creating the required base for prosecution under PMLA. The agency also invoked the reverse-onus provision under Section 24 of PMLA, arguing that the accused was required to explain the source of large cash deposits and his financial links to the alleged illegal mining network. After examining the records, the High Court held that the Special Court had correctly refused to discharge the accused. It reiterated the settled legal position that at the stage of framing charges, courts are not permitted to conduct a mini-trial or weigh the evidence in detail. Even a strong suspicion based on material collected is enough to allow the case to proceed. The Court noted that the ED had produced prima facie material showing excess mining, unexplained cash seizures, and significant financial transactions connected to the alleged syndicate. The Court observed that the prosecution’s case, taken at face value, disclosed essential ingredients of the offence of money laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA. It further emphasised that defences on merits could only be examined during the full trial, not at the stage of discharge or framing of charges. The High Court dismissed both criminal revision petitions—one challenging the rejection of the discharge application and the other challenging the order framing charges. It held that no error could be found in the Special Court’s approach and that the case must proceed to trial in accordance with law. Case Details Case Title: Bhagwan Bhagat Versus UOI Case No.: Cr. Revision No. 495 of 2025 Date: 10/12/2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Counsel For Respondent: Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Click Here To Read Order Read More: Dividend, Bank Interest & SDF Service Charges Not Eligible for Section 36(1)(viii) Deduction: SC

Jharkhand HC Upholds Orders Rejecting Discharge, Allows Trial to Proceed in Illegal Mining Money-Laundering Case

Membership Required

Latest articles

Delayed FIR Weakens Prosecution at Bail Stage, Bombay Court Grants Bail in Rs. 1.25 Crore Jewellery Dispute

Services Used for Setting Up Factory Continue to Qualify as ‘Input Services’: CESTAT

Customs Can’t Enhance Import Value Solely on NIDB Data Without Proof of Comparable Imports: CESTAT

Bona Fide Mistakes Shouldn’t Defeat Substantive Tax Rights: Karnataka High Court Allows Correction of GST DRC-03 Filing Error

More like this

Delayed FIR Weakens Prosecution at Bail Stage, Bombay Court Grants Bail in Rs. 1.25 Crore Jewellery Dispute

Services Used for Setting Up Factory Continue to Qualify as ‘Input Services’: CESTAT

Customs Can’t Enhance Import Value Solely on NIDB Data Without Proof of Comparable Imports: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories