The Gujarat High Court has dismissed the customary bail application of suspended IAS officer Rajendrakumar Patil, holding that there is prima facie material to show his involvement in a money laundering case linked to an alleged bribery racket for land transfer at Surendranagar Collector’s office.
Justice Hasmukh D Suthar, in an order dated June 29, said Patel had failed to meet bail conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), observing that there were “no reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty” of the crime.
The court said that economic crimes such as money laundering negatively affect the economic and social fabric of the country and therefore require a different approach when considering bail. HT has reviewed a copy of the 48-page order.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has alleged that Patil, a 2015 batch IAS officer who served as Surendranagar Collector from February 2025, headed an organized bribery network to process Change of Land Use (CLU) applications.
According to the agency, the amount of Patel’s alleged share has been determined $3.12 lakh crore of 501 CLU applications were processed during his tenure.
The court also noted the ED’s claim that 800 photographs of CLU applications and related files were recovered from Patel’s email account, forming part of the digital evidence relied upon by the agency.
According to the ED, the bribery rates have been set at $10 per square meter for applications under Sections 65 and 65B of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code and $5 per square meter for applications under Sections 54 and 55 of the Saurashtra Garkid Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Settlement Act, 1949.
The court recorded the ED’s contention that the proceeds were distributed with 50% going to the collector, 25% to the resident additional collector, 10% each to the chetni and naib mamlatdar and 5% to the scribe.
The court said the agency relied on alleged “account papers”, digital evidence and data recorded under Section 50 of the Anti-Corruption Act.
The case stems from a search conducted by the ED on December 23, 2025, at the residence of MP Mamlatdar Chandrasinh Morey, during which $67.5 lakh cash and alleged “account papers” recording bribe collections were recovered. Based on the information shared by the ED under Section 66(2) of the Anti-Corruption Act, the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) registered a corruption case against Patel and other officials.
While rejecting the bail plea, the court also referred to the ED’s claim that Google activity logs showed that Patil searched “how to reset Samsung S24 Ultra” a day before the ED raid and observed that this prima facie amounts to an attempt to tamper with evidence.
The ED also alleged that a commercial shop was purchased in the name of Patil’s wife through the declaration only $9 lakh in the registered document while the remaining amount was paid in cash. She also claimed the jewelry was worth it $2 lakh was purchased for his wife, rental income and other funds were channeled through his wife and mother’s accounts, and multiple cash deposits worth $49,000 each were made below the threshold requiring detection of PAN.
The order also recorded the ED submission which advocate Chetan Kanzaria said he had pushed $65 lakh to Mori on behalf of people seeking CLU approvals at prevailing rates, alleging that officials delayed applications and raised objections until bribes were paid.
Patel, through his counsel, argued that no chargesheet had been filed in the original corruption case, that he had not been arrested in the ACB case and that the ACA proceedings could not proceed without a valid scheduled offence. He also confirmed that no incriminating material had been found from his home, that the allegations were largely based on the statements of the other defendants, and that the other officials allegedly involved had not been arrested. He also requested bail for medical reasons, citing a knee injury that required surgery.
The court rejected these submissions, holding that money laundering is an independent offense and that the absence of an indictment for the predicate offense does not in itself entitle the accused to bail under the Anti-Money Laundering Act.
The ED said that Patil, as district collector, was the only authority empowered to grant final digital approval to CLU applications on the IORA portal and therefore could not claim parity with other officials who were not arrested as they did not have similar decision-making powers.
The court noted that Patel’s knee condition was not sufficient to justify regular bail and that he could seek appropriate rest separately if surgery became necessary. It also noted that although the investigation into Patel had concluded, the ED had indicated that further investigations into the concealment of proceeds of crime were continuing and that a supplementary complaint could be filed.
“As the district administrative head, the applicant should have discharged his duty with integrity, commitment and righteous approach in good faith of the public at large despite indulging in corrupt practices and continuing to allow corruption in the office with an open eye,” the court observed in its order while rejecting the bail application.
