In Rishu Shree vs. Union of India through its Secretary, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice & Ors. (2026), Justice Arun Kumar Jha of Patna High Court delivered a 75-page long judgement dated May 18, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition is completely devoid of any merit and none of the relief(s) sought by the petitioner could be granted. At the same time, due to distinguishable facts, the authorities cited by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would not come to the help of the petitioner as the authorities are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 54. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed." The judgment reserved on February 26, 2026. The criminal writ was filed on October 31, 2025 and was registered on November 11, 2025. The other four respondents were: 2. Directorate of Enforcement, through its Assistant Director, Patna Zonal Office, 3. Aman Saxena (Deputy Director), Directorate of Enforcement, Patna Zonal Office, 4. Bhoopesh (Assistant Director), Directorate of Enforcement, Patna Zonal Office and 5. State of Bihar through the Superintendent of Police, Special Vigilance Unit, Patna.
The writ petition was filed seeking issuance of writ/order/direction including writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the entire criminal prosecution arising out of ECIR/PTZO/13/2025 being violative of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. It sought issuance of Writ/order/direction including writ in the nature of mandamus refraining the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement, by itself or through its officers or agents, from undertaking any further coercive action, including issuance of any fresh summons, any fresh search, seizure or investigation against the petitioner or its officers/employees based on or arising out of ECIR/PTZO/13/2025 and ECIR/PTZO/4/2024. It prayed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction. thereby quashing all the statements of Petitioner dated 16.07.2024, 18.07.2024, 18.09.2024, 20.09.2024, 21.09.2024 and 01.10.2024 recorded by the Respondent/ED as being violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, thereby quashing the summons dated 09.09.2025, 15.09.2025 issued to the Petitioner by Respondent no. 2/ ED in ECIR/PTZO/13/2025 being violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India.
The High Court's order dated November 21, 2025 stated that the record was taken up by Justice Jha on November 21, 2025 after assignment from the Acting Chief Justice, Patna High Court on receipt of orders of the Supreme Court dated November 7, 2025 passed in Miscellaneous Application Diary No(s). 63575/2025 arising out of W.P. (Crl.) No. 411 of 2025.
Prior to this an order dated October 17, 2025 was passed by Supreme Court’s Division Bench Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi. It reads: "Since the lead case, in which vires of Sections 50 and 63 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are under challenge, is likely to be taken up for final adjudication in the near future, we are not inclined to entertain a fresh writ petition on the same issue as it will unnecessarily delay the adjudication of the lead case. 2. We, therefore, decline to entertain the instant writ petition, and relegate the petitioner to raise all his contentions before the appropriate forum(s). 3. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed till 10.11.2025, with a view of enabling him to approach the appropriate forum. 4. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case."
The same bench passed an order dated November 7, 2025. It reads: "1. On the oral mentioning, the application for modification of paragraph 3 of the order dated 17.10.2025 is taken on board. 2. Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner informs that the Patna High Court was closed on account of Diwali/Chhath Puja holidays from 20.10.2025 to 29.10.2025. The petitioner has already filed Writ Petition bearing Cr.WJC No.85697/2025, which has not been taken up for hearing so far, though the mentioning has been made twice. 3. Having regard thereto, paragraph 3 of the order dated 17.10.2025 is modified to the extent that the arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed till 30.11.2025. 4. Meanwhile, we request the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Patna to list the above-stated matter before an appropriate Bench as per the roster." The Acting Chief Justice of the Patna High Court on November 7, 2025, was Justice Sudhir Singh, currently the second senior most judge of the High Court.
Subsequently, Justice Jha had passed a 20-page long order dated December 11, 2025 upon hearing an I.A. in this case.
The case is that on January 9, 2023, an FIR bearing Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 18 of 2023 was registered at P.S. Rupaspur, Patna against three persons, namely Gulab Yadav, Sanjeev Hans and Lalit, by the complainant/informant, Gayatri Kumari, with allegation of multiple instances of rape and gang rape by the accused Gulab Yadav and Sanjeev Hans. The informant lodged a complaint petition before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur, Patna under Sections 323, 346, 376, 376D, 420, 313, 120B, 504 and 506,34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act,
2000, which was sent to the SHO, Rupaspur for registration of the FIR and consequently, the FIR came to be registered. It appeared that on the basis of the aforementioned FIR, treating Sections 420 and 120B of IPC therein as the scheduled offences under the PMLA, respondent-ED registered Enforcement Case Information Report in the Patna Zonal Office of Directorate of Enforcement bearing No. ECIR/PTZO/20/4/2024 Dated 14.03.2024, copy of which has not been supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner claims that he has not been named as an accused or suspect in the said report so far as his knowledge goes.
On 16.07.2024, respondent-ED conducted search and seizure operations under Section 17 of the PMLA at various premises, including the office premises of M/S Reliable Infra Services Private Limited (a company in which the petitioner is said to be a Director) wherefrom certain digital devices and documents were seized. The respondent-ED also conducted search and seizure operations at the residential premises of the petitioner herein, wherefrom two mobile phones and multiple sale deeds were seized. The statement of the petitioner was also recorded under Section 17 of the PMLA by respondent-ED and the petitioner claims he was forced to affix his signatures on these statements, even though same contained factually incorrect assertions. It transpires from the writ petition that pursuant to receipt of summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA to the petitioner by the respondent-ED in ECIR-4, the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the respondent-ED on 16.07.2024, 18.07.2024, 18.09.2024, 20.09.2024, 21.09.2024 and 01.10.2024, respectively. Thereafter, on the basis of these statements, respondent-ED has alleged involvement of the petitioner in other cognizable offences relating to manipulation of Government Tenders in the State of Bihar.
Meanwhile, on 20.08.2024, a letter was sent by the respondent-ED under Section 66(2) of the PMLA to Special Vigilance Unit, Bihar resulting in registration of FIR No. 05 of 2024 dated 14.09.2024 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Second FIR’) under Sections 61, 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyayik Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) r/w Section 7, 12, 13(1)(a) r/w Section 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This FIR was relating to alleged transaction of Rs. 20 lakh transferred by M/S Reliable Infra Services Private Limited to one Sunil Kumar Sinha. Thereafter, on 14.02.2025, the respondent-ED addressed another letter to Additional Director General of Police, Economic Offences Unit, Government of Bihar, thereby sharing information under Section 66(2) of the PMLA about the alleged commission of cognizable offences. The allegations, inter alia, related to payment of Rs. 90 lakhs by Sanjeev Hans to Gayatri Kumari. It appears Rs. 20 lakh was transferred by M/S Reliable Infra Services Private Limited to one Sunil Kumar Sinha who further transferred the money to Gayatri Kumari. The case made out by respondent-ED is that the petitioner through his entities has been executing government contract in the Water Resources Department of Government of Bihar wherein, during the relevant period, Sanjeev Hans had been working as its Secretary and, therefore, it was alleged that transfer of Rs. 20 lakh was nothing but bribe money meant for Sanjeev Hans. It is further alleged by respondent-ED that petitioner was involved in connivance with senior Bihar Government Officials in manipulating and rigging government tenders across multiple departments. Respondent-ED has further alleged that the petitioner had stated in his statement under Section 50 of the PMLA that he had paid commissions ranging from 2-3.5 percent of the bill amounts to the officials of the departments where his associated entities had been executing contracts as contractors or sub-contractors. It has further been alleged that petitioner, using his connections with senior officers and employees of such departments, gets information crucial for various tenders in advance and based on it he secures tenders for himself and for the entities of his network and the petitioner also manipulates the tenders by getting incorporated various specifications which are favourable to his entities.
By this modus operandi, when the tenders are floated by the departments, the company which approaches the petitioner, presents itself as qualified and manages to secure tenders. For doing these favours, the petitioner used to receive 8-10 percent of the contract value as commission and substantial part of it was used to be shared with senior officer/officials of the concerned department. It was alleged that to make the whole process appear fair and transparent, the petitioner engages his associates as sub- contractors for tender awarded entities and raises periodic inflated bills on them, so that commission and bribe money get mixed with routine business transactions. The petitioner submitted in writ petition that the fundamental basis of premise of respondent-ED for its allegations are the statements of the petitioner recorded under Section 17 of the PMLA in connection ECIR-4 with specific reference to his statement dated 21.09.2024 termed as admission by respondent-ED. Thereafter, on 30.04.2025, pursuant to the aforementioned letter under Section 66(2) of the PMLA and on the basis thereof, the respondent no. 3 registered the FIR bearing No. 05 of 2025 of PS Special Vigilance Unit (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Third FIR’) against the petitioner, Sanjeev Hans, Santosh Kumar, Pawan Kumar, other unknown Government Officials of Bihar Government and other unknown persons for the alleged offences under Section 7A r/w Sections 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the PC Act, Sections 3(2) r/w Section 6(2) r/w 3 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and Section 61 r/w Section 318(4) r/w Section 338 r/w Section 340(2) of BNS.
The petitioner claimed that the contents of the Second FIR show that the entire case of the respondent-Agency starts from the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA in ECIR-4 and specifically the statement dated 21.09.2024 and the petitioner further claims that petitioner was forced to record these statements by respondent-ED and the petitioner was coerced to put his signature on the statements even though the same contained factually incorrect averments. It further transpired from the record that on 22.05.2025, respondent-ED registered ECIR/PTZO/13/2025 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ECIR-13’) on the strength of scheduled offences alleged in the Second FIR. On 09.09.2025 and 16.09.2025, the respondent-ED issued summons under Section 50 of the PMLA to the petitioner in ECIR-13 for appearing on 16.09.2025 and 22.09.2025, respectively. However, the petitioner requested for extension of time to appear before respondent-ED due to his ill health. Thereafter, respondent-ED issued another summon under Section 50 of the PMLA on 23.09.2025 to the petitioner for his appearance on 07.07.2025. Harbouring apprehension that respondent-ED would take coercive measures against the petitioner to force him to give self-incriminating statement, the petitioner filed a criminal writ before the Supreme Court bearing Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 411 of 2025, however, the Supreme Court had declined to entertain the writ petition, though it relegated the petitioner to raise all his contentions before appropriate forum and, accordingly, disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 17.10.2025. Aggrieved by the institution of ECIR-13 and proceeding arising therefrom and also proceeding arising from ECIR-4, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Rishishree's name first surfaced in a case filed against Sanjeev Hans, an IAS officer and Gulab Yadav , a former MLA by advocate Gayatri Kumari, a victim who used to practice at Patna High Court and Allahabad High Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment