In a significant judicial development, the Patna High Court has granted bail to senior Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer Sanjeev Hans in a high-profile money laundering case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court emphasized procedural fairness, weak prosecutorial links, and delays in trial proceedings as primary grounds for its decision, while also imposing strict bail conditions to ensure continued cooperation in the investigation.
Court’s Observations and Grounds for Granting Bail
Justice Chandra Prakash Singh, who delivered the order, noted several key points influencing the court’s decision:
Although the charge sheet has already been submitted, the trial has not yet begun, as formal framing of charges remains pending.
The court observed that the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) case appeared to contain jurisdictional inconsistencies and insufficiently substantiated evidence.
It further acknowledged that, aside from a previously quashed Rupaspur case, Sanjeev Hans has no history of criminal conduct.
The bench found no credible indication that Hans could interfere with the evidence, given that most materials in the case are documentary and traceable in nature.
Defense’s Standpoint
During the hearing, the defense team firmly refuted the ED’s allegations, terming the prosecution malicious, exaggerated, and politically influenced.
Counsel for Hans argued that:
There exists no direct financial linkage between Hans and the alleged illicit assets.
The prosecution’s claims rely largely on assumptions and circumstantial conjecture, without concrete evidence of money flow or ownership.
In the absence of verifiable transaction records or banking trails, the invocation of PMLA provisions is legally unsustainable.
Please Read Also: Kerala Undergoes Police Reshuffle – Nishanthini, Jaidev G & Jayasankar R Assigned New Roles
Prosecution’s Allegations
Conversely, the Enforcement Directorate alleged that:
Between 2018 and 2023, Sanjeev Hans misused his official position to amass illegal assets valued at nearly ₹90 crore.
The agency claims Hans engaged in layering and laundering operations, routing funds through proxies, associates, and family members to conceal ownership.
Properties and valuables allegedly acquired through these means include real estate holdings in Nagpur, Delhi, and Jaipur, along with gold, luxury watches, and multiple bank deposits.
In December 2024, the ED had attached assets worth ₹23.72 crore linked to Hans’s associates, alongside seizures of ornaments, flats, shares, and over 70 frozen bank accounts.
Case Background
The proceedings against Hans trace back to a controversial FIR filed in Rupaspur, which initially contained serious personal allegations such as blackmail and coercion. That FIR was subsequently quashed by the High Court, but later led to a fresh complaint alleging disproportionate assets, prompting the current ED investigation under PMLA.
Hans was arrested on October 18, 2024, and has remained in judicial custody since.
Bail Terms and Restrictions
While granting bail, the High Court imposed stringent conditions to ensure compliance:
Hans must submit a personal bond of ₹20,000, accompanied by two sureties of equal amount.
He is required to attend all trial court hearings in person; failure to appear for two consecutive dates without sufficient reason will result in revocation of bail.
The officer must surrender his passport and is barred from leaving the country until further orders.
Legal and Institutional Implications
The court clarified that the bail order does not imply exoneration, but reflects judicial caution in ensuring due process and protecting individual rights amid prolonged investigations.
The trial court will now proceed to evaluate all evidence before formally framing charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which prescribes stringent penalties for proven financial crimes.
Given the high-profile nature of the case and its political sensitivities, each document, affidavit, and audit trail presented during the proceedings is expected to face intense legal and public scrutiny. The outcome of this matter may well influence future judicial standards on bail and evidence evaluation in complex economic offence cases.
