The Gujarat High Court has refused to grant regular bail to suspended IAS officer Rajendrakumar Mahendrabhai Patel, who is facing prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Court held that, at this stage of the proceedings, the applicant had failed to satisfy the stringent twin conditions prescribed under Section 45 of the PMLA and found that the material collected during the investigation disclosed a prima facie case for the purpose of deciding the bail application.
Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar delivered the order on June 29, 2026 while deciding Patel's application for regular bail before the filing of the charge sheet in the scheduled offence.
Background of the Case
The case stems from a search conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on December 23, 2025, at the residence of Deputy Mamlatdar Chandrasinh Bhupatsinh Mori, during which the agency claimed to have recovered ₹67.50 lakh in cash along with alleged "hisaab sheets" recording payments connected with Change of Land Use (CLU) applications processed in the Surendranagar Collectorate. Following the search, the ED shared information with the Anti-Corruption Bureau under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, leading to registration of an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act against several persons, including Patel.
According to the ED, statements recorded during the investigation and digital material collected indicated an alleged arrangement in which fixed rates were charged for processing CLU applications. The agency alleged that the District Collector was entitled to a 50% share of the alleged illegal gratification, while other officials received shares according to their roles. Based on 501 CLU applications allegedly processed during Patel's tenure as Collector, the ED attributed alleged proceeds of crime of ₹3,12,62,230 to him.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Patel denied the allegations and argued that the prosecution relied primarily on statements of co-accused without independent corroboration. He also contended that no incriminating material had been recovered from his residence and that he had not been arrested in the scheduled offence registered by the ACB. He further submitted that the PMLA proceedings could not continue independently in the absence of a completed predicate offence investigation.
Court Examines Predicate Offence Argument
One of the principal questions before the Court was whether the alleged absence of a completed investigation or charge sheet in the scheduled offence weakened the PMLA case.
Rejecting the contention, the High Court relied extensively on the Supreme Court's ruling in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and other precedents to hold that investigation in the scheduled offence is not decisive while considering a bail application under the PMLA.
The Bench observed:
"At the stage of bail application investigation in the predicate offence is an irrelevant consideration for grant or refusal of bail as offence under PMLA is an independent offence."
The Court further noted that proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act were still pending and that the applicant had neither been discharged nor acquitted. Therefore, the Court found no legal basis to accept the argument that the money laundering proceedings were not maintainable at this stage.
Prima Facie Material Considered by the Court
While clarifying that it was not conducting a mini-trial, the High Court examined the material relied upon by the ED for the limited purpose of deciding bail.
The Court noted that the investigation referred to statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, alleged "hisaab sheets," digital evidence and records relating to CLU applications. According to the prosecution case, Patel, as District Collector, was the final authority for approving CLU applications and was allegedly assigned the largest share of the alleged illegal gratification. The Court observed that these materials constituted prima facie evidence for considering the bail request.
The Bench also rejected the argument that parity should be extended because some co-accused had not been arrested, observing that each accused's role must be assessed independently.
Medical Grounds Did Not Justify Bail
Patel also sought bail on medical grounds, stating that he had suffered a knee injury requiring surgery.
After examining the medical record, the Court held that the condition was not shown to be life-threatening and observed that appropriate medical treatment could be provided while he remained in custody. The Court also noted that, if surgery became immediately necessary, the applicant would be at liberty to seek temporary bail or other appropriate relief before the competent court.
Court's Decision
Refusing the application, the High Court concluded that the statutory requirements under Section 45 of the PMLA had not been satisfied.
The Court held:
"Applicant herein, failed to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA as there exists no reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty or unlikely to commit the offence again."
Accordingly, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the bail application while clarifying that the observations made in the order were confined to deciding the bail plea and would not influence the trial or any subsequent proceedings.
Case Details:
Case Title: SH. Rajendrakumar Mahendrabhai Patel v. Director of Enforcement & Anr.
Case Number: R/Criminal Misc. Application (For Regular Bail – Before Chargesheet) No. 7098 of 2026
Judge: Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar
Decision Date: 29 June 2026
