A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad held that where the materials collected during investigation cumulatively give rise to grave suspicion regarding an accused's involvement, the prosecution must be permitted to proceed to trial. The petitioner challenged the order dated June 10, 2026, passed by the Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi, rejecting his application for discharge from offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA.

The case arose from an Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigation into alleged fraudulent acquisition of land in Ranchi through forged documents, falsification of government records and tampering with revenue registers. According to the prosecution, an organised land-grabbing syndicate had fraudulently acquired several properties, including a parcel measuring 8.86 acres at Shanti Nagar, Baragain, Bariyatu Road, Ranchi, commonly referred to as the “Lalu Khatal” property. The ED alleged that the property had remained under the possession, control and beneficial enjoyment of Accused No. 2 since 2010–11.

The prosecution alleged that Singh, a partner in M/s Grids Consultants and a close associate of Accused No. 2, had prepared and transmitted architectural plans for a proposed banquet hall on the disputed property. According to the ED, the plan was prepared in 2018, underwent revisions until 2022 and was shared with Accused No. 2 through WhatsApp. It further alleged that Singh subsequently denied knowledge of the transaction while recording his statement under Section 50 of the PMLA, thereby knowingly assisting in concealing the property's true possession and use.

During a search of Singh's residence on January 3, 2024, the ED seized his mobile phone, laptop and cash amounting to ₹23.74 lakh. WhatsApp communications and the banquet hall plan were retrieved from the seized phone.

Seeking discharge, Singh contended that preparing and sharing an architectural sketch fell within his professional responsibilities as an architect and consultant. He argued that merely preparing or transmitting a proposed design could not establish complicity in money laundering. The ED opposed the plea, arguing that professional qualifications could not serve as a shield against allegations of criminal conspiracy.

Examining the material, the High Court noted that the site plan specifically referred to “Lalu Khatal, Bariyatu Road, Ranchi”, the same name by which witnesses had identified the disputed property. The Bench held that this correspondence possessed prima facie evidentiary value and that the architectural plan constituted one link in the chain of circumstantial evidence relied upon by the ED. The Court also noted that the plan, dated April 12, 2018, had been transmitted to Accused No. 2 on April 6, 2021, and subsequently sent for parking-layout revisions in September 2022. It observed that a site-specific drawing carrying the architectural firm's branding and undergoing revisions over several years could not readily be dismissed as a mere conceptual sketch.

However, whether it constituted a preliminary sketch or a developed architectural layout remained a question for trial. On the contention that the petitioner had merely performed professional work, the Court observed:

“Further, it is settled position of law that no professional enjoys a status-based immunity under the PMLA. The said protection attaches to the professional who acts transparently within the four corners of a disclosed engagement and does not conceal what he has done. But it does not attach to a professional who acts for an undisclosed client, whose drawing bears no client's name, who produces no engagement letter, fee note or invoice, who transmits his work directly and privately to a person in illegal possession of the site, and who thereafter denies the whole transaction upon oath in a proceeding deemed judicial by Section 50(4) of the PMLA. Therefore, the question whether the Petitioner falls in the former class or the latter is precisely what the trial must determine.”

The Bench noted that Singh had not produced an engagement letter, invoice, fee note or other contemporaneous professional record establishing a disclosed professional engagement. The prosecution had also alleged that he concealed the existence of the plan and gave a false statement under Section 50 of the PMLA.

Distinguishing between ordinary professional conduct and alleged concealment, the Court observed that the crucial question was whether the petitioner had merely performed professional services or knowingly concealed his participation in transactions concerning the disputed property. The Court emphasised that at the discharge stage, the ED was not required to conclusively establish conspiracy, manipulation of records or the accused's guilt. It was sufficient to demonstrate material giving rise to a reasonable prima facie inference warranting trial.

It further clarified that whether the circumstances ultimately establish the petitioner's knowledge beyond reasonable doubt would have to be determined during trial.

Finding no justification to interfere with the Special Judge's order, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, thereby declining to discharge Singh from the PMLA proceedings.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Senior Advocate; Mr. Abhishek Abhi, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Senior Advocate; Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate