The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the regular bail plea of real estate developer Jarnail Singh Bajwa. Dismissing his petition against the Enforcement Directorate, Justice Manisha Batra asserted the Court was of the considered opinion that he did not deserve to be released on bail at the current stage.“In the present case, the allegations, prima facie, provide reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner has committed the predicate offences under the provisions of the PMLA. There are specific allegations against him,” Justice Batra asserted. Bajwa is facing the allegations that he – in the capacity of Bajwa Developers Limited’s Managing Director –systematically collected “huge amounts of money from innocent persons by offering them plots, flats and commercial spaces etc., with assurances of timely possession and clear titles”.Justice Batra’s Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that such promises were not fulfilled and several FIRs were registered against him by customers/consumers alleging “multiple sales of plots, manipulation of plot numbers and allotments without the requisite statutory approvals”.The Bench was also told that as many as 41 FIRs had been registered against the petitioner by the customers/consumers, who alleged that they had been cheated and deprived of their hard-earned money. It was added that the petitioner had in his statements recorded on various occasions admitted collecting amounts from customers/consumers for real estate projects under BDL.“However, it is alleged that instead of utilising these funds for construction or development of the real estate projects for which they had been collected, the same were diverted towards purchase of lands parcels, advancing unsecured loans, purchase of luxury cars, repayment of unsecured loans of family firms and other irrelevant purposes,” Justice Batra noted.The Bench also took note of the contentions that an ‘enforcement case information report (ECIR) was recorded on the basis of the FIRs on March 31, 2022, “to trace the proceeds of crime and identify the persons involved in their generation, projection and layering”.Appearing before Justice Batra’s Bench, Additional Solicitor-General of India Satya Pal Jain submitted that the material collected during investigation, including the statements of the petitioner and some others, the bank freezes, the recovery of luxury vehicles, and the discrepant figures furnished by the petitioner’s own employee, prima facie showed that the petitioner – as BDL’s controlling mind – collected advances of approximately Rs. 662.49 crore from homebuyers under false assurances. A substantial part of it was diverted and layered through related entities, unsecured loans and personal acquisitions rather than applied to the projects for which the money was collected. The falsification and withholding of authentic ledger data by the petitioner’s own associate itself showed a conscious attempt to obstruct investigation and conceal the money trail.Justice Batra asserted the Court was required to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accused was not guilty of the offence alleged and he was not likely to commit any offence while on bail.“At this stage, no such reasonable grounds are discernible from the material placed on record. Further, Section 24 of the PMLA incorporates a statutory presumption in relation to the proceeds of crime. In a case where a person is charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA, the Court is entitled to presume, unless the contrary is proved, that such proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering,” Justice Batra asserted.Referring to the case in hand, Justice Batra asserted nothing had been brought on record at this stage to rebut the statutory presumption. “The petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case” the Bench concluded.