'Prima Facie Key Conspirator Of Money Laundering': Gujarat High Court Denies Bail To IAS Officer In Alleged Land Conversion Bribery Case

The Gujarat High Court refused bail to an IAS officer accused of illegal gratification in lieu of approving land conversion applications when he was Surendranagar's Collector, remarking that today government officials and highly placed persons are also indulging in corruption leading to economic unrest adversely affecting the progress of the country. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 185]

The court after considering the case noted that prima facie involvement of the applicant under PMLA was revealed wherein he was alleged to be principal beneficiary and key conspirator in the laundering of proceeds of crime; while it noted that the concealment of proceeds of crime is yet to be investigated. 

Justice Hasmukh D Suthar  in his order said:

"Applicant herein was serving as a Collector and he indulged in corrupt practice and under Section 13 of the PC Act, it amounts to “criminal misconduct” and still investigation qua PC Act is pending. It is needless to say that nowadays government officials also indulge in rampant corruption and indulging in that impunity by highly placed person that has led to the economic unrest in the country which adversely affect the progress of society and prosperity of nation. Today, corruption in our country not only poses grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance but affects the foundation of democracy and rule of law and magnitude of corruption in public life is incompatible...As District administrative head, applicant ought to have performed his duty with integrity, Commitment and with righteous approach in the good faith of public at large though he indulged in corrupt practice and continued to allow the corruption in the office with an open eye".

The court referred to a phrase from the essay on “Freedom and Power” penned by Lord Acton wherein, he has stated “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The court said that the phrase crystallizes timeless concern about the coercive influence of power on human character.

"Involvement of the present applicant is found in offence since 800 photographs of CLU applications and files were recovered from the email account of applicant also. Further, prior to one day of the raid, the applicant has tried to reset his mobile...It is nothing but amounts to tempering with an evidence. Such conduct speaks volume and clearly indicates that such photographs were not kept for supervision or to track timely disposal of applications. Prima facie involvement of the applicant in offence under PMLA is revealed. The concealment of proceeds of crime is yet to be investigated and traced out and recovered," the court added. 

The court observed that the PMLA investigation has "prima facie" established that the applicant was the principal beneficiary and key conspirator in the generation, acquisition, concealment, and laundering of the proceeds of crime.

The co-accused and subordinate staff acted under his instructions in collecting illegal gratification and routing the same through sham investments, transactions undertaken in the names of applicant's wife and other relatives who lacked any independent financial means to support such investments, the court said.

The court further said that the applicant, being an IAS officer with substantial administrative authority, financial acumen, and domain expertise, "deliberately structured and facilitated the diversion and layering of funds" with the intent to conceal their illicit origin and project them as legitimate assets without PAN disclosure.

"The evidence collected during the investigation clearly discloses his active and conscious involvement in the offence of money laundering," the court noted. 

Referring to various judgments the court also held that at the stage of bail, investigation into the predicate offence is an irrelevant factor for grant or refusal of bail as offence under PMLA is an independent offence and proceeds of crime would constitute an offence of money laundering.

It also said that section 5(1) PMLA is not limited to the accused named in the criminal activity and it would also apply to any person if he is involved directly or indirectly in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime.

Such a person besides facing the consequence of provisional attachment order may end up in being named as accused in the complaint to be filed by the authorized officer concerning offence under Section 3 PMLA, the court added.

It also said that the ED has power under Section 66(2) PMLA, in case the scheduled offence is not already registered, wherein it is open to the authorised officer to still proceed under Section 5 PMLA whilst contemporaneously sending information to the jurisdictional police under Section 66(2) PMLA.

"Further, the power of arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA is independent and money laundering is an independent offence. Even, second proviso to Section 5 of PMLA permits the attachment against any person who is in possession of any proceeds of crime and section 66(2) of the PMLA provides that during the investigation, registration of FIR and reporting of such non-cognizable offence to the jurisdictional police also," the court added. 

The court was hearing an IAS Officer of 2015 Batch who was posted as Collector at Surendranagar on 01.02.2025.

ED alleged that the applicant took bribes for approving land conversion applications. For approving the same, the applicant, allegedly received the largest single share i.e. 50% wherein he had purportedly received Rs.3,12,62,230. It was alleged that 800 photographs of applications filed were found from his personal mobile device and he was also monitoring progress of every application from which bribes were being generated. 

It was alleged that during the investigation actual utilization of proceeds of crime has been traced amongst which a commercial shop was registered in the name of his wife and undervalued consideration of only Rs.9 Lakh is shown and remaining amount has been paid by the applicant in cash. 

Case title: SH. RAJENDRAKUMAR MAHENDRABHAI PATEL v/s  DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR.

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR REGULAR BAIL - BEFORE CHARGESHEET) NO. 7098 of 2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 185