'Influenced Witnesses While In Custody, Many Antecedents': Gujarat High Court Denies Bail To Mahesh Langa In Money Laundering Case

The Gujarat High Court dismissed the regular bail plea of journalist Mahesh Langa in a money laundering case lodged in connection with two FIRs which included the offence of cheating, observing that he had a number of antecedents and that while being in custody he had influenced witnesses. 

For context, a sessions court had in November last year granted anticipatory bail to Langa in a cheating FIR registered against him on a complaint filed by an individual running an advertising agency. The court had granted the bail after noting that as per the contents of the FIR, the dispute between the parties was for non payment of money which is "primarily in civil nature". It had then also noted that the alleged cheating had happened between March 2023 and October this year and the complainant had not explained the delay in filing the complaint.

Langa was granted anticipatory bail by the trial court in the second FIR in February this year, stating that he had allegedly extorted Rs 40 Lakh from the complainant therein.

Justice MR Mengdey in his order said:

"Having regard to the facts and material available on record, it would be difficult for this court to record a finding to the effect that the applicant is not guilty of the present offence. Moreover, as stated herein above, the applicant is having number of antecedents and therefore, it is also difficult for this Court to come to the conclusion that the applicant will not commit any offence while on bail. There are all chances that if the applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail, he may cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution". 

The court noted that the record indicated that several cash transactions made from the accounts of Langa his wife and his father but  source of the same had not been explained by Langa.

The court rejected Langa's argument that no predicate offence has been registered against him concerning Rs 50 Lakh and so this amount cannot be considered as proceeds of crime and hence PMLA is not applicable.

Langa had argued that as per PMLA  twin conditions would apply only in those cases where amount involved is more than Rs. 1 Crore, whereas, in the present case, the total amount involved in the predicate offences is Rs. 68.68 (Rs. 28.68 Lakhs mentioned in FIR No.1 + Rs.40 Lakhs mentioned in FIR No.2) which is less than Rs.1 Crore and therefore, the rigors of twin condition under Section 45  would not come into play. 

Rejecting this argument the court said that the fact of threshold of Rs.1 Crore having not been crossed, by itself would not entitle the applicant to be enlarged on bail as a matter of right.

"It would still be the discretion of the Court whether to grant bail to the applicant or not and the other factors usually required to be taken into consideration while deciding the bail application like seriousness of offence, antecedents etc. and other material available on record would be required to be taken into account while taking decision as regards the release of the applicant on bail," the court said. 

It further noted that there were various cases lodged against Langa. On his conduct the high court noted that with respect to Rs. 20 Lakhs which were seized from Langa's house, there were contradictory statements given by the him, his wife and sister-in-law.

The court said said that Langa, while being in custody made his sister-in-law retract from her statement dated 18.06.2025, taking note of an affidavit subsequently filed by her.

"In the said affidavit, she has stated that the amount of Rs.20 Lakhs was handed over by her to the present applicant as she had received the amount of Rs.20 Lakhs from her father. She has further stated that the environment in which her statement was recorded on 18.06.2025, was not conducive to free and voluntary deposition. She was placed under duress and instructed regarding what she should state. She has further stated that the contents recorded by the Enforcement Directorate were not accurately translated or explained to her".

The court noted that the sister-in-law did not utter a word about her statement dated 18.06.2025 not being recorded in conducive atmosphere or that she was under duress or that she was not explained the contents of statement accurately. It was only in the form of an affidavit dated 2nd July, 2025 that she has come out with these facts, it said.

The court noted that sister-in-law's father despite being repeated summons issued by the authority, has not remained present before the authority for giving his statement.

The court noted that it was Langa's case that the amount of Rs.20 Lakhs was given to his sister-in-law by her father towards her share from the amount, which was received towards consideration from selling of parcel of land.

The court also noted that Langa's father has also not appeared before the authority for recording his statement despite being summoned repeatedly. It also noted that another witness had appeared before the authority once and thereafter, he has avoided to appear before the authority under the one or the other pretext.

"These instances indicate that the witnesses in question have been influenced by the present applicant while he being in custody," the court observed. 

The court thus dismissed the plea.

Case title: MAHESHDAN PRABHUDAN LANGA v/s  STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.

Click Here To Read/Download Order 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 120