A special PMLA court in Ranchi has rejected the bail plea of Congress leader and former minister Alamgir Alam in a money laundering case.
The court cited Alam’s status as an “influential person,” which could enable him to cover up evidence and influence witnesses.
Judge Prabhat Kumar Sharma noted that money laundering poses an “economic threat” to national interest, committed by offenders with deliberate intent for personal gain, regardless of the societal and economic consequences. He highlighted that various judicial pronouncements have established that for “money launderers, jail is the rule and bail is an exception.”
The Congress leader was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on May 15 following questioning at its Ranchi office. The 74-year-old Congress politician, who has served as a rural development minister, had sought regular bail, claiming innocence and alleging that he had been falsely implicated based on suspicion rather than legal evidence.
Alam’s counsel argued that the case was “politically motivated” and part of a “vindictive” agenda, lacking factual basis and aimed at tarnishing his reputation. The defense also noted Alam’s medical issues, including sleep apnea and hypertension, as grounds for bail.
The ED opposed the bail, asserting that Alam’s status as a former cabinet minister in Jharkhand made him “influential.” The ED’s evidence suggested that co-accused Veerandra Kumar Ram, former chief engineer of the state rural works department, collected a 1.5 percent commission for government work, which was shared with his seniors and politicians. This commission was also allegedly collected by Alam’s arrested personal secretary, Sanjeev Kumar Lal, through intermediaries.
The court observed that a “prima-facie reading” of the prosecution’s materials, in conjunction with Section 45(1) of the PML Act and the gravity of the alleged offense, did not support the claim of Alam’s innocence or the assurance that he would not commit further offenses while on bail. The court found the ED’s evidence against Alam “convincing” and expressed concern that Alam might attempt to cover up evidence or influence witnesses. Consequently, the court rejected Alam’s bail petition.
