KOMAL KHANNA vs DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT SHIMLA
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh
2026:HHC:20650
1
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MP(M) No. : 2898 of 2025
Reserved on : 07.05.2026
Decided on : 30.05.2026
Dr. Komal Khanna .......Applicant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement Office ...Respondent
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the applicant : Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Dinkar
Bhaskar, Advocate
For the respondent : Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI
assisted by Mr. Ajeet Singh
Saklani, Advocate.
Virender Singh, Judge
Dr. Komal Khanna, has filed the present
application, under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘BNSS), before this Court as, she is apprehending her arrest
in case No. ECIR/SHSZO/03/2023, dated 31.03.2023,
registered under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money
Laundering Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PMLA’).
1
Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
2
High Court of H.P.
2. Since, the applicant is apprehending her arrest in
the aforesaid case, as such, she has sought the indulgence of
this Court to direct the I.O./ED to release her on bail in the
event of her arrest, in the aforementioned case.
3. According to the applicant, she is innocent and
has falsely been named as accused in the above titled case.
4. Necessary facts, for the registration of the present
ECIR, as pleaded in the application are that the police of
State Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Solan registered
the case FIR No.4/19, dated 21.08.2019, under Section 11 of
Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
PC Act’), against one Nishant Sareen. After completion of the
investigation, report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC was
submitted by the SV & ACB, Solan on 09.11.2021, before the
Court of learned Special Judge, Solan.
4.1. As per the applicant, learned Special Judge, Solan
has also taken the cognizance against the applicant for
allegedly committing the offence punishable, under Section
12 of the PC Act. It was alleged in the said case that accused
Nishant Sareen took undue advantage to the tune of
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
3
High Court of H.P.
Rs.43,07,641/ by misusing his official position as Drugs
Inspector and Assistant Drugs Controller.
4.2. It is the further case of the applicant that Jagbir
Singh son of late Shri Om Pal, had entered into a partnership
agreement, under the name and style of M/s Zhenia
Pharmaceuticals, vide partnership deed dated 02.05.2016.
Both were 5050 partners, in the said partnership. After the
constitution of the partnership, a sale deed, dated
22.07.2016, was executed. After execution of sale deed, M/s
Zhenia Pharmaceutical purchased land for the purpose of
carrying out the business of partnership for a total sale
consideration of Rs.98,00,000/.
4.3. Out of this sale consideration, a sum of
Rs.37,72,102/ was paid by virtue of four cheques, as shown
in the sale deed and the remaining amount of Rs.59,29,898/
was agreed to be paid at the time of registration of the sale
deed, which was paid through banker’s cheque No.3382 dated
06.07.2016. The applicant had raised the loan amount of
Rs.60,27,464/, and EMI for the said loan was started on
04.08.2016.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
4
High Court of H.P.
4.4. According to the applicant, after the partnership,
Jagbir Singh had not contributed anything towards the
capital, whereas, the applicant had contributed
Rs.52,40,102/. On 06.12.2018, the terms and conditions of
the partnership were modified and the share of the petitioner
in the partnership was increased to 95%, whereas, Jagbir
Singh had agreed to 5% of the stake, in the partnership.
4.5. As per the applicant, after two years from the date
of execution of the amended partnership deed dated
06.12.2018, Jagbir Singh lodged FIR No. 215 of 2022, dated
29.10.2022, with Police Station Sector20, Panchkula,
Haryana, alleging therein, that the applicant had forged and
fabricated a false unregistered agreement, modifying the
partnership deed dated 06.12.2018. He has alleged in the
said FIR that he had never executed any agreement,
modifying the terms of partnership deed dated 06.12.2018,
nor appended his signatures. Contrary to the said stand,
Jagbir Singh has made a statement, under Section 164 CrPC,
in FIR No.4 of 2019, which was registered against Nishant
Sareen, under Section 11 of PC Act and against the applicant,
under Section 12 of PC Act, stating therein that he was
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
5
High Court of H.P.
threatened to sign the deed of M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals,
in which, share was reduced to 5% from 50%. This fact has
been highlighted by the applicant to show that the statement
recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC, in FIR No.4 of 2019, is
totally contrary to the stand taken earlier.
4.6. According to the applicant, Jagbir Singh made an
application to the Manager, HDB Financial Services, the
Company, from which, the loan had been obtained, wherein
he has conveyed that he was partner in Zhenia
Pharmaceutical to the extent of 5% and the applicant to the
extent of 95%. His application has been annexed as
Annexure A9.
4.7. On the basis of FIR No.215, dated 29.10.2022, the
present ECIR was registered, under the provisions of PMLA.
When, the grounds of arrest, under Section 19 of the PMLA,
were supplied to Nishant Sareen, certain allegations were also
raised/leveled against the applicant.
4.8. The relief has also been sought on the ground that
the respondentED has examined certain persons, under
Section 15 of the PMLA, who allegedly had stated that they
have extended certain benefits to Nishant Sareen, directly or
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
6
High Court of H.P.
through the applicant. It was alleged that M/s Zenia
Pharmaceutical is being run by the applicant, as a proxy on
behalf of Mr. Nishant Sareen.
4.9. In addition to this, statements of 13 individuals
from different Pharma Companies were recorded wherein, it
has been mentioned that certain business transactions have
been carried out with Ms. Nia Pharma, which was proprietary
concern of the applicant with M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals
also. As per the applicant, both these establishments, i.e.,
M/s Nia Pharma and M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals are alleged
to be owned by Mr. Sareen, whereas, the applicant is the only
front face of the Company.
4.10. The star witness of the ED, Jagbir Singh, is stated
to have made a fluctuating stand with respect to the amended
partnership deed, reducing his interest therein, to the extent
of 5%, whereas, according to the applicant, Jagbir Singh had
filed a civil suit against the applicant, wherein, he has sought
a decree of declaration that the agreement modifying the
partnership deed dated 06.12.2018, reducing his share to the
extent of 5% was illegal, null and void and result of fraud and
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
7
High Court of H.P.
forgery committed by the applicant by getting his signatures
on blank papers.
4.11. As per the further stand of the applicant, after
registration of FIR No.4 of 2019, upto the merging of all FIRs
in ECIR, Shri Jagbir, remained an important person, having
also been turned into an approver and substantial part of
accusations against her, is based upon his statements.
4.12. In order to discredit the stand of Jagbir Singh, it
has been pleaded that one Harmanpreet Singh, partner of
Sunvet Pharma owed an amount of rupees ten lacs to M/s
Zhenia Pharmaceuticals for supply of raw material to him.
The said amount has been paid to Shri Jagbir Singh, as such,
the applicant has filed petition, before MSME, upon which,
Shri Harmanpreet Singh produced a ledger showing that the
said amount has been paid to Shri Jagbir Singh, who is
running the Company in the name and style of M/s
Symbiosis Pharmaceutical. Accordingly, FIR No.95 of 2024
was registered against Jagbir Singh.
4.13. Another FIR No.393 of 2020 had also been
registered against Jagbir Singh and others, for cheating,
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
8
High Court of H.P.
pilfering of funds amounting to rupees eight crores and
falsification of accounts etc., by Rajat Kumar Malotia.
4.14. Apart from this, FIR No. 62 of 2025, is also stated
to have been registered against Shri Jagbir Singh, under
Sections 115, 126, 351, 305 of the BNS. He has also been
convicted by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Kurkheda for the offence punishable under Section
27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act read with Section 246 of
Cr.PC.
4.15. According to the applicant, ED has recorded the
statement of interested persons. In order to elaborate her
stand, the applicant has stated that one of the witnesses, in
this case, is Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, proprietor of M/s Vincent
Pharma, who owed some amount to M/s Zhenia
Pharmaceuticals and suit has been filed for recovery of
Rs.54,53,060/, whereas, Paresh and Aditya, partners of M/s
Anand Packaging, have some business dealings with Jagbir
Singh.
4.16. All these facts have been pleaded to show that all
the witnesses against her are interested witnesses. Alleging
against the star witness of the ED Jagbir Singh, it has been
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
9
High Court of H.P.
pleaded that he has caused great loss to the firm M/s Zhenia
Pharmaceuticals, as such, the applicant decided to work
independently, and with the intervention of some common
friends, the matter was settled between the applicant and
Jagbir Singh and Jagbir Singh was to surrender his
remaining 5% shareholding in the firm, M/s Zhenia
Pharmaceuticals in favour of the applicant and memorandum
of understanding was to be signed between them. Jagbir
Singh also agreed to settle all pending liabilities of M/s
Zhenia Pharmaceuticals and in lieu of that, the applicant
issued a post dated cheque dated 11.11.2020, in the sum of
Rs.25,00,000/, in favour of a Company of Shri Jagbir Singh.
4.17. The cheque was given to one Vinay Aggarwal, who
has to hand over the cheque to Jagbir Singh, after the needful
will be done, as per the settlement by Shri Jagbir Singh,
however, he, in a clandestine manner, had stolen the cheque
handed over to Vinay Aggarwal. Thereafter, he has tampered
with the date of cheque and changed the date from
11.11.2020 to 11.02.2022.
4.18. The applicant came to know about the said act of
Jagbir Singh, when the cheque was presented by him, with
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
10
High Court of H.P.
his banker for encashment. Thereafter, the applicant lodged
FIR No.42 dated 23.02.2022, under Sections 323, 379, 380,
406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506 of the IPC.
4.19. Lastly, it has been pleaded that the applicant had
invested a sum of Rs.52,40,102/ in the firm as on
31.03.2007 and from the period 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018,
an amount of Rs.62,81,169/, was added into the account of
the firm by the applicant. The said amount has duly been
depicted in the balance sheet.
4.20. All these facts, have been pleaded to show that the
story of the investigating agency is false. Relevant documents
of the present case are stated to be in the possession of the
investigating agency.
4.21. The applicant has earlier approached this Court
by way of Cr.MP(M) No.2554 of 2025, which was withdrawn.
Thereafter, the applicant had approached the learned Special
Judge, Shimla, however, her application has been dismissed
by learned Special Judge, Shimla, on 24.11.2025. She has
also filed Cr.MMO No. 486 of 2025, which is still pending
adjudication before this Court.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
11
High Court of H.P.
4.22. Lastly, the applicant has pleaded that she has
been cooperating with the investigating agency and has joined
the investigation on 12 occasions, out of 15, for which, she
has been called. On three dates, she could not attend the
investigation, as she was suffering from acute migraine and
was on continuous medication.
4.23. According to the applicant, she is single mother of
two children, aged 15 and 17 years and no one is there to
look after them.
5. On the basis of the above facts, the applicant has
given certain undertakings, to which, she is ready to abide by
in case, any direction under Section 482 of the BNSS is
issued to the I.O./ED.
CASE OF THE ED
6. When put to notice, ED has filed the reply, in
which, the prayer, as made in the application, has been
contested, on the ground, that the material collected during
the investigation clearly established the active and conscious
role in the commission of the offence under the PMLA with
Nishant Sareen, a public servant. According to the
respondentED, she is not entitled to the extraordinary relief.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
12
High Court of H.P.
6.1. The relief has also been opposed, on the ground,
that the mandatory twin conditions, as envisaged under
Section 45 of the PMLA, are not existing, in favour of the
applicant, at this stage, as there is nothing on the file to
demonstrate that she is not guilty of offence under the PMLA,
nor, likely to commit any offence, while on bail. According to
the respondentED, the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA
are also applicable to the anticipatory bail, filed under Section
482 of the BNSS.
6.2. On merits, the prayer has been opposed on the
ground that after registration of the FIR No.4 of 2019, dated
21.08.2019, by the State Vigilance and Anti Corruption
Bureau, under Section 11 of the PC Act, against Nishant
Sareen, on 09.11.2021, charge sheet has been filed before the
learned Special Judge, Solan, for the commission of offence
under Section 11 of the PC Act and Section 201 of the IPC
and against the applicant under Section 12 of the PC Act.
6.3. It is their further case that as per the investigation
by the SV & ACB, it has been found that Nishant Sareen
remain posted as Drugs Inspector, Nahan, during 10.03.2014
to 25.02.2016 and as Assistant Drugs Controller, Nahan from
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
13
High Court of H.P.
18.03.2018 to 07.06.2019 and he had taken undue
advantages from the owners/partners/directors of different
pharmaceutical firms/units for himself and for his friends in
the form of hotel bookings in JW Marriott/Taj etc.,
purchasing of air tickets, household material and had
received cash from the owners/directors of pharmaceutical
firms/ units. He had also used the debit cards of Mr. Jagbir
Singh for shopping, worth Rs.3,45,000/, and cash
withdrawals, amounting to Rs.7,20,000/, during the years
201819. Office premises of Nishant Sareen were searched in
the month of August 2019 and a large number of documents
pertaining to the various properties were seized. In addition
to this, cash amounting to Rs.7,50,000/ was also recovered
and seized from House No.1514, Sector 38B Chandigarh,
which was registered in the name of his wife.
6.4. On the detailed analysis of the FIR and the
chargesheet, the present ECIR was registered. During
investigation of the said ECIR, summons under Section 50 of
PMLA were issued to various persons including Nishant
Sareen, and applicant Komal Khanna, as well as, owners/
managers of pharmaceutical firms/entities, who, as per the
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
14
High Court of H.P.
charge sheet filed by SV & ACB, had given favours to Mr.
Nishant Sareen, including Mr. Jagbir Singh. These persons,
in their statements, recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, have
admitted that they had given favour to Mr. Nishant Sareen, in
the shape of cash, hotel bookings, liquor etc. and through
applicant Komal Khanna.
6.5. Investigating agency has also asserted that FIR
No.215 dated 29.10.2022, was found to have been registered
against the applicant, by complainant Jagbir Singh, wherein
Nishant Sareen, Vinay Aggarwal and others, were also named
as accused, for the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 177, 195, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 506
of the IPC. As per the allegations, Vinay Aggarwal threatened
Jagbir Singh and forced him to transfer Rs.1,49,00,000/ in
the former’s bank account.
6.6. According to the allegations, as contained, in the
said ECIR, Nishant Sareeen pressurized and threatened
Jagbir Singh to start a partnership firm with the applicant.
Hence, Jagbir Singh started a partnership firm namely Zhenia
Pharmaceutical Panchkula, along with applicant Komal
Khanna, however, later the applicant allegedly forged the
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
15
High Court of H.P.
partnership agreement falsely reducing the share of Jagbir
Singh from 50% to 5%, without his consent. Jagbir Singh
was also threatened by Nishant Sareen and the applicant to
withdraw all the complaints.
6.7. Investigating agency further relied upon the
statement of Jagbir Singh recorded on 3.12.2024, under
Section 50 of the PMLA, in which, he has stated that the
applicant used to handle the operations and daily affairs of
M/s Zhenia Pharmaceutical on the directions of Mr. Nishant
Sareen, whereas, the role of Jagbir Singh was limited to
making an investment of Rs.45 crores in the partnership
firm. Jagbir Singh also used to provide furnished
pharmaceutical products to M/s Zhenia Pharmaceutical,
Panchkula from his pharmaceutical companies namely, M/s
symbiosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. And M/s Saitech
Medicare Pvt. Ltd., on the directions and pressure/threat of
Mr. Nishant Sareen. Zhenia Pharmaceuticals, Panchkula
being run as a partnership firm, is indirectly managed and
handled by Mr. Nishant Sareen.
6.8. It is their further stand that while serving as
Drugs Inspector and Assistant Drugs Controller, Nishant
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
16
High Court of H.P.
Sareen pressurized Jagbir Singh to invest in M/s Zhenia
Pharmaceuticals and to become a partner in the said firm
along with Ms. Komal Khanna. All the business operations
and financial transactions of M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals
were managed and controlled by the applicant, under the
directions of Mr. Nishant Sareen.
6.9. FIR No.215 of 2022, was registered in Police
Station Sector 20, Panchkula, against Nishant Sareen and
Komal Khanna (applicant), for committing forgery of
partnership deed. Since, M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals was in
the business of purchase and resale of pharmaceutical
products, as such, the profits were diverted by Nishant
Sareen and applicant Komal Khanna to their personal and
related family bank accounts, including the accounts of
another proprietary concern of Komal Khanna, namely M/s
Nia Pharma Panchkula. During investigation, the police has
sought information from the bank and it was found that in
the bank account of M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals, maintained
with Axis Bank, several transactions, by way of cash deposits,
were made and as per the KYC, Komal Khanna (applicant)
was the authorized signatory. Similarly, in the bank account
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
17
High Court of H.P.
of Saroj Sareen, number of transactions of cash deposits,
were found, including cash deposits of Rs.36,00,000/.
6.10. As per the reply filed by the ED, applicant Komal
Khanna, played a pivotal role as the nominal owner and
public face of Zhenia Pharmaceuticals, a partnership firm,
whereas, during investigation, it was found that the effective
control of the same was with Mr. Nishant Sareen. She
proclaimed her to be a partner of the firm, just to conceal the
name of Mr. Nishant Sareen and to facilitate the laundering of
illicit proceeds generated through corrupt activities. Her
further role has been alleged that she, through Zhenia
Pharmaceuticals, was involved in coercive business practices,
including compelling other pharmaceutical companies to sell
goods at below market prices.
6.11. By holding formal ownership and managerial
roles, the applicant helped to obscure the money trail and
provided a legal veneer to transactions that were, in reality,
part of Nishant Sareen’s corrupt practices. M/s Zhenia
Pharmaceuticals was nothing but instrumental in moving and
disguising the flow of corrupt money, including bribes and
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
18
High Court of H.P.
kickbacks, extracted through Nishant Sareen’s official
powers.
6.12. On merits, the contents of the bail applications
have been contested on the ground that from the perusal of
the statement of Jagbir Singh, recorded under Section 50 of
the PMLA, as well as, statements of independent
pharmaceutical manufacturers, it transpired that the
partnership was structured under pressure exerted by
Nishant Sareen, as, legally, he could not run a business. The
applicant is stated to be integral part of the conceal system
created by Nishant Sareen.
6.13. Highlighting the fact that the learned Special
Judge has already recorded a prima facie satisfaction that
M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals was operated by the applicant,
as the nominal owner, whereas, the real controal, beneficial
interest and ultimate decision making power was with
Nishant Sareen, the ED has also given the details of the
summons issued against the applicant, which are
reproduced, as under:
Sl. No. Date of
summons
Date of required
appearance
Status Remarks
1. 05.04.2024 23.04.2024 Appeared
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
19
High Court of H.P.
(23.04.2024)
2. 12.06.2024 17.06.2024 Appeared
(18.06.2024)
The petitioner
appeared one day
after the scheduled
date
3. 13.08.2022 18.08.2025 Appeared
(18.08.2025
4. 29.09.2025 10.10.2025 Not appeared The petitioner
sought an
adjournment on
10.10.2025 citing
medical grounds.
Her request was
accommodated and
the appearance was
rescheduled to
16.10.2025. On
16.10.2025, she
again sought an
adjournment and
the appearance was
deferred to
27.10.2025. She
appeared on
27.10.2025 and her
statement was
partially recorded.
During the
recording, she
requested that the
session be
concluded for the
day and undertook
to appear on
29.10.2025. She
did not appear
thereafter and
instead submitted a
medical
prescription
claiming bed rest
restricted travel.
Upon verification,
the concerned
doctors confirmed
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
20
High Court of H.P.
that although the
petitioner suffered
from certain
medical issues, she
was fit to travel up
to 30 kilometers
and capable of her
recording her
statement before
the Directorate. To
facilitate her
participation, the
Directorate offered
her the option of
appearing at the
Chandigarh Zonal
Office. In
response, she sent
an email seeking a
fresh date after mid
December.
6.14. All these facts have been relied upon to
demonstrate that she has not joined the investigation, as on
her request, she was accommodated to make statement by
appearing before Chandigarh Zonal Office, however, she did
not avail this facilitation.
6.15. Asserting the fact that custodial interrogation of
the applicant is essential to retrieve the information withheld
by her, a prayer has been made to dismiss the application.
7. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Balram
Sharma, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
21
High Court of H.P.
by Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Advocate has prayed that the
application may kindly be dismissed.
8. As stated above, the applicant has tried her luck
by moving similar application before the Court of learned
Special Judge, however, her application has been dismissed
on 24.11.2025.
9. By moving Cr.MP No. 578 of 2026, the applicant
has placed on record the copy of order dated 12.02.2026,
passed Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh, in CrMM544112022 (O&M), titled as Komal
Khanna versus State of Haryana, as well as, copy of
cancellation report in FIR No.215 of 2022, dated 29.10.2022,
registered under Sections 120B, 177, 195, 406 420, 467,
468, 471 and 506 of the IPC, which was got registered by
Jagbir Singh son of late Shri Om Pal.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE
APPLICANT
10. Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, learned Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Dinkar Bhaskar, Advocate, appearing for the
applicant has submitted that very base of the ECIR, in which,
the applicant is seeking bail under Section 482 Cr.PC, is FIR
No.215 of 2022, dated 29.10.2022 and the police has filed the
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
22
High Court of H.P.
cancellation report in the said case, before the competent
Court of law. It has fairly been conceded by learned Senior
counsel that the cancellation report, although has not been
accepted, but, from the factum of submission of cancellation
report by the Police, it can be deduced, at this stage, that the
very base of the present ECIR is no more available to the
investigating agency.
10.1. In addition to this, a prayer has also been made
that the star witness of the prosecutionJagbir Singh, has
changed the version in different proceedings with regard to
the alleged partnership with applicant in M/s Zhenia
Pharmaceuticals. Heavily relying upon the provisions, added
with Section 45 of the PMLA, a prayer has been made to allow
the application.
10.2. Lastly, it has been argued that the applicant,
being a female, is entitled to the relief, as sought in the
application, on account of proviso to Section 45 of PMLA.
10.3. In addition to this, learned counsel for the
application has also given certain undertakings, on behalf of
the applicant, to which, the applicant is ready to abide by, in
case, the bail application is allowed.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
23
High Court of H.P.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF ED
11. Per contra, Mr. Balram Sharma, learned Deputy
Solicitor General of India, has opposed the prayer, so made,
in the application, on the ground, that the ECIR is not solely
based upon FIR No.215 of 2022, dated 29.10.2022, but, the
same is based upon FIR No.4 of 2019, dated 21.08.2019,
registered by the SV & ACB, Solan, under Section 11 of the
PC Act, initially, against Nishant Sareen. After completion of
the investigation, now charge sheet has been filed before the
Special Court, Solan, against Nishant Sareen for the
commission of the offences punishable under Section 11 of
the PC Act, read with Section 201 IPC and against the
applicant under Section 12 of the PC Act.
11.1. Highlighting the fact that as per the chargesheet
filed in FIR No.4 of 2019, accused Nishant Sareen took undue
advantage to the tune of Rs.43,07,641/ while posted as
Drugs Inspector and Assistant Drugs Controller, it has also
been argued by learned Deputy Solicitor General of India that
the manner in which, Nishant Sareen, through applicant,
coerced Jagbir Singh to enter into partnership deed by
constituting partnership firm M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
24
High Court of H.P.
and initially their share was 50% each and later on, he was
compelled to reduce down his share to 5%.
11.2. It has also been argued that the offence under the
PMLA are class apart and the applicant is not able to make
out a case in her favour. As such, a prayer has been made to
dismiss the application.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
12. The applicant has been named as accused under
Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. The provisions of Sections 3
and 4 of the PMLA, are reproduced, as under:
3. Offence of moneylaundering . Whosoever
directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or
knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is
actually involved in any process or activity
connected with the proceeds of crime and
projecting it as untainted property shall be guilty
of offence of money laundering.
4. Punishment for moneylaundering .
Whoever commits the offence of money
laundering shall be punishable with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
than three years but which may extend to seven
years and shall also be liable to fine which may
extend to five lakh rupees: Provided that where
the proceeds of crime involved in money
laundering relates to any offence specified under
paragraph 2 of Part A of the Schedule, the
provisions of this section shall have effect as if
for the words "which may extend to seven years",
the words "which may extend to ten years" had
been substituted.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
25
High Court of H.P.
12.1. The present ECIR is stated to be based upon the
FIR No.215 of 2022, dated 29.10.2022, registered under
Sections 177, 195, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 506
IPC, with Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula, as well as, FIR
No.4 of 2019, dated 21.08.2019, registered with SV & ACB,
Solan under Sections 11 and 12 of the PC Act, read with
Section 201 of the IPC.
12.2. It is not in dispute that the police has submitted
the cancellation report in FIR No,215 of 2022, in the
competent Court of Law, whereas, in FIR No.4 of 2019, dated
21.08.2019, registered with SV&ACB, Solan, after completion
of investigation, the police has filed the charge sheet agianst
accused Nishant Sareen, under Section 11 of the PC Act and
Section 201 of the IPC against accused Nishant Sareen and
under Section 12 of the PC Act against applicant Komal
Khanna.
12.3. It is no longer res integra that while deciding the
question of bail, either under Section 482 or 483 of BNSS, it
is incumbent upon the Court to record findings in favour of
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
26
High Court of H.P.
the applicant, as per Section 45 of PMLA. The provisions of
Section 45 of PMLA, are reproduced, as under:
45. Offences to be cognizable and non
. (1) Notwithstanding anything
bailable
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence
punishable for a term of imprisonment of more
than three years under Part A of the Schedule
shall be released on bail or on his own bond
unless
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for such
release; and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail:
Provided that a person, who, is under the age of
sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm,
may be released on bail, if the Special Court so
directs:
Provided further that the Special Court shall not
take cognizance of any offence punishable under
section 4 except upon a complaint in writing
made by—
(i) the Director; or
(ii) any officer of the Central Government or a
State Government authorised in writing in this
behalf by the Central Government by a general or
special order made in this behalf by that
Government.
(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or
any other provision of this Act, no police officer
shall investigate into an offence under this Act
unless specifically authorised, by the Central
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
27
High Court of H.P.
Government by a general or special order, and,
subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.
(2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in
subsection (1) is in addition to the limitations
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974) or any other law for the time being in force
on granting of bail.”
12.4. As per the stand taken by the ED in the reply, the
SV & ACB has filed the charge sheet against Nishant Sareen
and applicant Komal Khanna, by stating therein that undue
advantage, which has been taken by Nishant Sareen, was to
the tune of Rs.43,07,641/. Admittedly, the said amount is
lessor than the amount as mentioned, in proviso to Section
45(1) of the PMLA.
12.5. Now, the question, which arises for determination
before this Court, is as to whether the applicant being woman
is entitled to the relief, as claimed in the application.
12.6. This question has arisen before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Saumya Chaurasia versus Directorate
Neutral citation No.
of Enforcement, 2023 INSC 1073.
Relevant paragraphs 22 to 24 of the judgment, are
reproduced, as under:
22. The next question that falls for consideration
before the Court is whether the appellant being a
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
28
High Court of H.P.
woman should be granted the benefit of the first
proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA, which reads as
under:
“45. Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable.
(1) …………………………..
Provided that a person who is under the age of
sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm [or
is accused either on his own or along with other co
accused of moneylaundering a sum of less than
one crore rupees], may be released on bail, if the
special court so directs:
(2) ……………………………”
23. Recently, a ThreeJudge Bench of this Court in
Enforcement Directorate vs. Preeti Chandra
observed in the order dated 04.08.2023 in SLP
(Crl.) No. 7409 of 2023 as under:
“The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002 confers a discretion
on the Court to grant bail where the accused is a
woman. Similar provisions of Section 437 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 have been
interpreted by this Court to mean that the statutory
provision does not mean that person specified in
the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 437
should necessarily be released on bail. (See
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi and Another
(2001) 4 SCC 280).”
24. The use of the expression “may be” in the first
proviso to Section 45 clearly indicates that the
benefit of the said proviso to the category of
persons mentioned therein may be extended at the
discretion of the Court considering the facts and
circumstances of each case, and could not be
construed as a mandatory or obligatory on the part
of the Court to release them. Similar benevolent
provision for granting bail to the category of
persons below the age of sixteen years, women,
sick or infirm has been made in Section 437
Cr.P.C. and many other special enactments also,
however by no stretch of imagination could such
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
29
High Court of H.P.
provision be construed as obligatory or mandatory
in nature, otherwise all serious offences under
such special Acts would be committed involving
women and persons of tender age below 16 years.
No doubt the courts need to be more sensitive and
sympathetic towards the category of persons
included in the first proviso to Section 45 and
similar provisions in the other Acts, as the persons
of tender age and women who are likely to be more
vulnerable, may sometimes be misused by the
unscrupulous elements and made scapegoats for
committing such Crimes, nonetheless, the courts
also should not be oblivious to the fact that
nowadays the educated and well placed women in
the society engage themselves in the commercial
ventures and enterprises, and advertently or
inadvertently engage themselves in the illegal
activities. In essence, the courts should exercise
the discretion judiciously using their prudence,
while granting the benefit of the first proviso to
Section 45 PMLA to the category of persons
mentioned therein. The extent of involvement of the
persons falling in such category in the alleged
offences, the nature of evidence collected by the
investigating agency etc., would be material
considerations.
12.7. In view of the above decision, the decision to grant
relief, on the basis of the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA, is
left to the discretion of the Court, considering the facts and
circumstances of each case.
12.8. The role, as alleged, against the applicant has
already been highlighted, by this Court, in the preceding
paragraphs. The role, which has been assigned to him is that
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
30
High Court of H.P.
the applicant, on behalf of Nishant Sareen has entered into a
partnership deed with Jagbir Singh and both of them had
initially constituted a partnership firm by determining their
share as 50% each. Later on, Jagbir Singh was forced to sign
the partnership deed, by virtue of which, his share has been
reduced to 5%.
12.9. The applicant has annexed the copy of FIR No.215
of 2022, dated 29.10.2022, registered with Police Station
Sector 20 Panchkula, lodged by complainant Jagbir Singh,
who is also stated to be the star witness of the ED, in the
present case, alleging threat and pressure created by the
accused persons. In the said FIR, it has been mentioned that
the complainant started a partnership firm namely M/s
Zhenia Pharmaceuticals with Dr. Komal Khanna. Thereafter,
the said accused persons forced the complainant to deal with
the firm namely Zhenia Pharmaceuticals situated at
Industrial Shed No.456 HSIIDC, Industrial Estate Phase I,
Panchkula, Haryana.
12.10. Later on, business dispute arose between
these firms and M/s Zhenia stopped the due payment of M/s
Symbiosis and M/s Saitech Medicare. During the course of
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
31
High Court of H.P.
partnership business, applicant has forged and fabricated a
false unregistered agreement, modifying the partnership deed,
dated 06.12.2018, alleged to have been executed between the
complainant and Dr. Komal Khanna (applicant) and attested
by Notary Public, Panchkula, in which, the share of the
applicant has been declared to the extent of 5% and share of
Komal Khanna has been mentioned as 95 %. It has also been
alleged, in the said FIR, that neither the complainant has
executed any unregistered agreement, modifying the
partnership deed, dated 06.12.2018, nor, appended his
signature, nor appeared before the Notary Public.
12.11. From the above stand, initial agreement of
partnership is not disputed, by virtue of which, the
partnership firm, namely M/s Zhenia Pharmaceuticals, has
been created.
12.12. Statement of said Jagbir Singh has been
recorded, in the present case, under Section 164 Cr.PC, in
FIR No.4 of 2019, on 18.12.2020. In his statement, he has
got recorded the following facts:
“…...I was threatened either I should sign another
deed of Zhenia Pharmaceuticals in which my share
was reduced to 5% from 50% or my license of
Saitech Pvt. Ltd or Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
32
High Court of H.P.
Ltd. Would be suspended permanently. I had to
sign the deed in such circumstances…. ”
12.13. Interestingly, said Jagbir has also filed suit for
declaration before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Panchkula, titled as Jagbir Singh versus Komal Khanna, by
virtue of which, he has sought the following relief :
“ It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the
suit of the plaintiff may kindly be decreed and a
decree for Dissolution of registered Partnership
firm between the plaintiff and defendant running
under the name and style of M/s. Zhenia
Pharmaceuticals, situated at Indl. Plot No.456,
HSIIDC, Phase I Indl. Estate, Panchkula for doing
the business of Pharmaceuticals vide Partnership
Deed dated 20052016; may kindly be passed in
favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant
alongwith costs of the suit.
It is further prayed that a decree for Rendition of
Accounts and for distribution of assets and profits
of the firm as per share of the plaintiff and
defendant to the extent of 50:50 as per registered
partnership deed dated 20052016 including the
Indl.Shed No.456, HSIIDC, Phase I, Indl.Area
Panchkula and for rendering the accounts on
account of selling the pharmaceuticals goods to
different persons without the permission and
consent of the plaintiff and for recovery of the
amount which would be ascertained as due
against the defendant to the plaintiff as well as for
rendering the account statement qua the rent
received by the defendant from the tenants of Indl.
Plot No.456, situated at HSIIDC, Phase I, Indl.Area
Panchkula, may kindly be passed in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant alongwith
costs of the suit.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
33
High Court of H.P.
It is further prayed that a decree for Declaration to
the effect that the alleged unregistered Agreement
Modifying the Partnership Deed dated 06122018
alleged to be executed between the plaintiff and
defendant and allegedly attested by Notary
Public, Panchkula by declaring the share of the
plaintiff to the extent of only 5% is totally wrong,
illegal, null and void abinitio and is a result of
fraud and forgery committed by the defendant by
forging the alleged Modifying the Partnership Deed
dated 06122018 on the blank signed papers of
the plaintiff lying in the office of the plaintiff as the
plaintiff neither appended any signature on the
alleged Modifying the Partnership Deed dated 06
122018 nor appeared before the Notary Public
Panchkula for attestation of the same at any point
of the time as such, the same is liable to be set
aside/cancelled; may kindly be passed in favour
of the plaintiff and against the defendant
alongwith costs of the suit.
It is further prayed that a decree for Permanent
Injunction, restraining the defendant herself or
through her agents, servants or assignees from
alienating the assets/goods of partnership firm
without the consent and permission of the plaintiff
and further restraining the defendant fror
alienating the Indl. Plot No.456, HSIIDC, Phase I,
Indl. Estate, Panchkula by way of sale, transfer
and mortgage in any manner whatsoever and
further restraining the defendant obstructing the
plaintiff from entering into Indl. Plot No.456,
HSIIDC, Phase I, Indl. Estate, Panchkula and
further restraining the defendant from letting any
further portion of the Indl. Plo No.456, HSIIDC,
Phase I, Indl. Estate, Panchkula to any other
person, may kindly be passed in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant alongwith
costs of the suit.
It is further prayed that a decree for Separate
Possession by way of partition of Indl. Shed
No.456, HSIIDC, Phase I, Indl. Estate, Panchkula,
may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
34
High Court of H.P.
and against the defendant alongwith costs of the
suit.”
12.14. In the said suit, Jagbir Singh, the star
witness of the ED, has taken a defence that unregistered
agreement, modifying the partnership deed, dated
06.12.2018, alleged to have been executed between the
complainant and the applicant and allegedly attested by
Notary Public, Panchkula, by declaring the share of the
complainant to the extent of 5% only, is totally wrong, illegal,
null and void ab initio and is a result of fraud and forgery
committed by the applicant. Whereas, the allegations of
exerting the pressure by the applicant and other persons, who
were named as accused in FIR No.215 of 2022, due to which,
the applicant had entered into the partnership deed with him,
have not been mentioned in the suit. In the FIR, he has also
taken the defence that he has not signed the deed dated
6.12.2018, whereas, in the statement under Section 164
Cr.PC, he has taken the defence that he was forced to sign
the deed, by virtue of which, his share has been reduced to
5%, whereas, these facts have not been mentioned in the civil
suit filed by the said star witness.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
35
High Court of H.P.
12.15. If the above facts are seen in the light of the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ’s
Saumya Chaurasia
case supraapplicant is able to make out a case for exercising
the discretion in her favour, as per proviso to Section 45 of
PMLA.
12.16. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Saumya Chaurasia ’s case supra has also been taken into
consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Kalvakuntla
Kavitha versus Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2269, and held that in view of the proviso to
Section 45(1) of PMLA, woman is entitled to special treatment,
while considering the question of granting the relief of bail.
Relevant paragraphs 13 to 17 and 24 to 28 of the judgment,
are reproduced, as under :
13. We had also reiterated the wellestablished
principle that “bail is the rule and refusal is an
exception”. We had further observed that the
fundamental right of liberty provided under Article
21 of the Constitution is superior to the statutory
restrictions.
14. We are further of the view that the proviso to
Section 45(1) of the PMLA would entitle a woman
for special treatment while her prayer for bail is
being considered.
15. The said proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA
reads thus:
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
36
High Court of H.P.
“Provided that a person, who, is under the age of
sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm, or
is accused either on his own or along with other co
accused of moneylaundering a sum of less than
one crore rupees, may be released on bail, if the
special court so directs:”
16. A perusal of the above proviso would thus
reveal that the proviso permits certain category of
accused including woman to be released on bail,
without the twin requirement under Section 45 of
the PMLA to be satisfied. No doubt that, as argued
by the learned ASG, in a given case the accused
even if a woman may not be automatically entitled
to benefit of the said proviso and it would all
depend upon the facts and circumstances of each
case.
17. However, when a statute specifically provides
a special treatment for a certain category of
accused, while denying such a benefit, the Court
will be required to give specific reasons as to why
such a benefit is to be denied.
24. A perusal of the judgment of this Court in the
case of Saumya Chaurasia (supra) would show
that this Court has observed that the Courts need
to be more sensitive and sympathetic towards the
category of persons included in the first proviso to
Section 45 of the PMLA and similar provisions in
the other Acts. The Court observes that the persons
of tender age and women who are likely to be more
vulnerable may sometimes be misused by
unscrupulous elements and made scapegoats for
committing such crime.
25. No doubt that this Court observes that
nowadays the educated and wellplaced women in
the society engage themselves in commercial
ventures and enterprises and advertently or
inadvertently engage themselves in the illegal
(2024) 6 SCC 401 : 2023 INSC 1073 activities. The
Court therefore puts a caution that the Courts,
while deciding such matters, should exercise the
discretion judiciously using their prudence.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
37
High Court of H.P.
26. This Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia
(supra), while paraphrasing proviso to Section
45(1) of the PMLA stated in paragraph 23 as
follows:
“23. ….. No doubt the courts need to be more
sensitive and sympathetic towards the category of
persons included in the first proviso to Section 45
and similar provisions in the other Acts, as the
persons of tender age and women who are likely to
be more vulnerable, may sometimes be misused by
the unscrupulous elements …….”
27. This Court, in the carefully couched paragraph
extracted above used the phrase “persons of
tender age and woman who are likely to be more
vulnerable, may sometimes be misused by the
unscrupulous elements”. This is vastly different
from saying that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the
PMLA applies only to “vulnerable woman”. Further,
this Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia
(supra) does not say that merely because a woman
is highly educated or sophisticated or a Member of
Parliament or a Member of Legislative Assembly,
she is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to
Section 45(1) of the PMLA.
28. We, therefore, find that the learned Single
Judge of the High Court has totally misdirected
herself while denying the benefit of the proviso to
Section 45(1) of the PMLA.”
13. If the facts, as discussed above, i.e., stand of the
star witness Jagbir Singh, is seen in the light of the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred above, then,
applicant is entitled to the relief, as sought in the present
application.
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
38
High Court of H.P.
14. In view of the discussion made above and
considering the fact that the applicant is permanent resident
of Panchkula, Haryana, it cannot be apprehended that in
case, she is released on bail, she may not be available for the
trial.
15. Considering all these facts, the interim order dated
11.12.2025, passed by this Court, is hereby made absolute.
Therefore, it is ordered that the applicant be released on bail,
in the event of her arrest, in case ECIR/SHSZO/03/2023,
dated 31.03.2023, registered, under Sections 3 and 4 of
the PMLA with Directorate of Enforcement, Shimla,
District Shimla, H.P. , on his furnishing personal bond, in
₹
the sum of 5 0,000/, with one surety of the like amount, to
the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. This order,
however, shall be subject to the following conditions :
a) That the applicant shall join the investigation of the
case, as and when, called for, by the Investigating
Officer, in accordance with law;
b) That the applicant shall not leave India, without prior
permission of the Court;
c) That the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly,
make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person, acquainted with the facts of the case, so as
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS
2026:HHC:20650
39
High Court of H.P.
to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the
Investigating Officer or the Court; and
d) That the applicant shall regularly attend the trial
Court on each and every date of hearing and if
prevented by any reason to do so seek exemption
from appearance by filing appropriate application.
16. Any of the observations, made hereinabove, shall
not be taken as an expression of opinion, on the merits of the
case, as these observations, are confined, only, to the
disposal of the present application.
17. It is made clear that the respondentED is at
liberty to move an appropriate application, in case, any of the
bail conditions, is found violated by the applicant.
( Virender Singh )
Judge
( ps )
May 30, 2026
::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2026 14:31:30 :::CIS