Chattisgarh High Court
Ranu Sahu vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 27 January, 2025
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Page 1 of 17
2025:CGHC:4697
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8237 of 2024
Reserved on : 20.12.2024
Delivered on : 27.01.2025
Ranu Sahu, W/o Jai Prakash Mourya, Aged About 39 Years,
R/o D-2/29, Officers Colony, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
--- Applicant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Represented through Assistant Director, Raipur
Zonal Office (C.G.)
--- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Manu Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Mahendra Dubey, Advocate.
For Respondent : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV ORDER
1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested on 17.10.2024 in connection with Crime No. ECIR/RPZO/02/2023 dated 20.03.2023 registered at Police Station- Directorate of Enforcement, Zonal Office, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short "the PMLA, 2002"). ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.01.28 11:52:07 +0530 Page 2 of 17
2. The applicant herein was arrested on 17.10.2024 by the respondent for the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of PMLA. On 17.10.2024, the applicant was remanded to ED's custody for a period of 5 days, i.e. up to 22.10.2024. Thereafter, on 22.10.2024, the applicant was remanded to judicial custody for 14 days, which has been continued vide subsequent orders from time to time passed by the learned Special Judge, Raipur.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the case relates to corruption and financial irregularities while releasing District Mineral Fund (DMF). It is also case of the Enforcement Directorate that said irregularities came into the knowledge of the Enforcement Directorate through open source information and FIR registered in this case. It is also case of the prosecution that during the preliminary investigation, intelligence input was received wherein it has come to the notice that the Government officials are involved in demanding for commission to release the payment for DMF work done by the contractors. The Enforcement Directorate has also collected and analyzed the bank details of the suspected persons/contractors and on equiry, it was observed that there is clear sign of siphoning off DMF funds. As per the prosecution case, the applicant was involved in the commission of offence. It is further case of the prosecution that the applicant who is an IAS Officer and posted as District Collector, Balod in 2019 and from June 2021 to June 2022 in Korba has demanded bribe from the contractors. The Enforcement Directorate has recorded the statements under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 of various vendors working under DMF and the Chief Executive Officers of Janpad Panchayat in Balod and Korba wherein some of the vendors have stated that they have Page 3 of 17 paid illegal commission to the applicant. One of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat posted in the District where the applicant was posted, has also stated that commission against DMF work has been paid to the applicant. It is also case of the Enforcement Directorate that during investigation, various corroborative evidences have also been gathered which confirms the receipt of bribe by the applicant. During investigation, the prosecution has recorded the statement of accused person, their associates, entry provider and seller of property to the accused persons and their family members. Against the present applicant, the Enforcement Directorate recorded statement on 16.08.2023, 17.08.2023, 18.10.2024, 19.10.2024, 20.10.2024, 21.10.2024 & 22.10.2024. The prosecution has collected the evidence to prove that the accused and properties are involved in the money laundering which prima facie suggests the involvement of the applicant in the crime in question. The Enforcement Directorate has recorded statement of Rakesh Kumar Shukla one of the vendors who has got DMF contracts during the Collectorship of the applicant who has stated that commission amounting to Rs. 10,42,44,960/- @ 40% received was given to the applicant through B.S. Rai. Similarly another vendor Sanjay Shende whose statement was recorded on 22.07.2023 has stated that the applicant told him that tender will not be given to his firm without commission amount. He agreed to give 20% commission to the applicant in lieu of tenders under DMF accordingly, he has paid Rs. 19,26,96,861/- which approximately @ 20% of the payment received from DMF work in Korba District. He has also stated that money has been collected from Manoj Kumar Dwivedi and applicant's brother Piyush Sahu and his man on instructions of Maya Variyar. The Page 4 of 17 Enforcement Directorate has also collected the material regarding receipt of bribe by Manoj Kumar Dwivedi who was controlling and managing NGO namely Udgam Sewa Samiti and his NGO was awarded training related DMF work in Korba and Balod District with the help of the applicant for which commission was paid by Manoj Kumar Dwivedi. The details have also been annexed with the ECIR. Similarly the Enforcement Directorate has also detailed receipt of bribe from vendors namely Ashok Kumar Agrawal, Mukesh Kumar Agrawal & other contractors as mentioned above that Rs. 55,37,45,515/- have been received as commission from these vendors. Thus, prima facie the investigation has collected the evidence which clearly establishes that the applicant is directly involved and knowingly party in the process connected with the proceeds of crime i.e. acquisition, possession, concealment, use and projection of such proceeds of crime as untainted and thus, committed the offence of money launder as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 and liable to be prosecuted under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002.
4. The record of the case would show that the applicant filed an application for grant of regular bail before the learned Special Judge (PMLA) Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) seeking enlargement on regular bail in connection with the ECIR. Learned Special Judge vide order dated 07.11.2024, dismissed the bail application filed by the applicant. This order is being assailed by the applicant and has prayed for releasing her on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He would further submit that the learned Special Judge has erred in Page 5 of 17 dismissing the bail application as the order dated 07.11.2024 is completely silent on the issued of arrest having been effected in violation of Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002 malicious manner and necessity of such an arrest and also the necessity of keeping the applicant in judicial custody, therefore, the benefit of proviso to Section 45 (1) of the PMLA, 2002 should be given to the applicant. He would further submit that the learned Special Judge without applying its mind to the facts and circumstances of the arrest of the applicant has mechanically passed the order dismissing the bail application filed by the applicant.
6. He would further submit that the applicant being woman is exempted from rigours of twin condition as provided Section 45 (1) of the PMLA, 2002. He would further submit that the grounds of arrest dated 17.10.2024 makes a reference to the handwritten diaries seized from Suryakant Tiwari's premises which allegedly demonstrate the cash received by the applicant, but there is no question of discovering any alleged proceeds of crime acquired/ dealt with by the applicant as all the properties belongings to not only her but also her family members are attached by the same investigation agency. He would further submit that the applicant has already appeared before the Enforcement Directorate for interrogation on 18.10.2024, 19.10.2024, 20.10.2024, 21.10.2024 & 22.10.2024 and the Enforcement Directorate did not seek further custody of the applicant, therefore, the continued judicial custody of the applicant is not required as the same will not serve any fruitful purpose. He would further submit that the applicant has 8 years old son who is living with her since his birth and now visiting her in jail/ incarceration is having a grave impact on the mental and emotional Page 6 of 17 health of her son. He would further submit that from perusal of the grounds of arrest, reasons to believe and reply of Enforcement Directorate to bail application before the learned Special Judge will demonstrate that the applicant is being prosecuted selectively and the case against the applicant is improbable. He would further submit that the applicant was ex-officio chairperson of District Mineral Fund Trust (DMFT) being District Collector posted at Korba and Balod and gave only administrative approval to implementing agencies in respect of various works under DMF, she can only approve work after due approval is by the governing council, therefore, there is no direct link between the District Collector and the vendors. He would further submit that the data received from District Office Korba with respect to DMF from 2016 to 2023 is suspicious and shows clear signs of siphoning off funds as the applicant posted as Collector at Korba from 08.06.2021 to 30.06.2022 but none of her successors or predecessors has been investigated, arrested or arraigned as an accused in the crime in question and only the applicant has been referred to as main accused/key person. He would further submit that no independent FIR has been registered against the applicant with respect to non- compliance of DMFT Rules, 2016 despite other FIR pending in relation to the same. FIR No. 02/2024 has been registered against the applicant in relation to DMF at the instance of Enforcement Directorate however, the ACB has not questioned the applicant which shows that the sole purpose of lodging the said FIR was to somehow overcome the legal defect of absence of scheduled offence.
7. He would further submit that the Enforcement Directorate has adopted the same modus operandi for implicating the applicant in Page 7 of 17 schedule/predicate offence even in the coal levy scam ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 where she was not an accused in the predicate FIR or the charge-sheet. The conduct of the respondent demonstrates that the applicant has been targeted in both the matters irrespective of the alleged scam being committed in other districts and also Korba before and after her tenure. He would further submit that there is complete absence of any cogent material against the applicant apart from statements of other co-accused persons recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 which can at best be tested at the time of trial and is not credible evidence to deny bail to the applicant. He would further submit that the applicant is suffering incarceration for more than 16 months at the instance of investigating agencies, who have made arrest in the manner which ensures her continued and prolonged custody. He would further submit that there was no additional/fresh cogent material so as to ascertain the guilt of the applicant, therefore, belated arrest of the applicant is nothing but an attempt to ensure her prolonged incarceration. He would further submit that the respondent/ Enforcement Directorate has failed to show any facts and circumstances which necessitated the applicant's arrest/ incarceration who is already in judicial custody in another matter and also failed to show the purpose of investigation, therefore, the applicant's arrest is bad-in-law as the same was not necessary and justified, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on this ground alone.
8. He would further submit that the grounds of arrest and reasons to believe are in contravention with the safeguards envisaged under Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002, therefore, the arrest of the applicant vitiated and she is entitled to be released on bail. He would further Page 8 of 17 submit that from perusal of the grounds of arrest along with reasons to believe dated 17.10.2024, application seeking permission to arrest the applicant and the remand application dated 17.10.2024, it is clear that they are solely for the purpose of investigation to confront her with persons involved and with evidence gathered, to trace out proceeds of crime and to identify other persons involved and the same are premature and antithetical to the purpose of safeguards under Section 19 of the PMLA, 2002. He would further submit that there is no cogent evidence apart from purported statement of co-accused persons, 7 vendors and one of Chief Executive Officer of Janpad Panchayat recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, therefore, the reasons to believe and arrest of the applicant is vague in nature. He would further submit that the applicant is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the directions and conditions which may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court and would pray for releasing the applicant on bail.
9. To substantiate his submission, learned counsel for the applicant would refer to the judgment rendered in case of Kalvakuntla Kavitha Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 SCC OneLine SC 2269], Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Preeti Chandra [2023 SCC OnLine SC 930], Preeti Chandra Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [2023 SCC OnLine Del 3622], Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1703], Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India [(2024) 7 SCC 576], Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary & others Vs. Union of India & others [2022 SCC OnLine SC 929], V. Senthil Balaji Vs. State & others [(2024) 3 SCC 51], Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State of NCT of Delhi [(2024) 8 SCC 254], Prem Prakash Vs. Union of India Page 9 of 17 [(2024) 9 SCC 787] & Mr. Asif Hanif Thara Vs. Enforcement Directorate [Misc. Cr. Case No. 44309/2024 order dated 19.11.2024 of High Court of Madhya Pradesh].
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate referring to the ECIR would submit that the material collected by the Enforcement Directorate prima facie suggests involvement of the applicant in commission of offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002, as such, she has been rightly prosecuted under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002. He would further submit that the applicant has been arrested on 17.10.2024, therefore, the applicant cannot be said that her arresting in other offence can be counted for her long incarceration to claim benefit for releasing on bail on the count that there is long incarceration and delay may cause in conducting the trial. He would further submit that the applicant though a woman still she is not entitled to get benefit of provision of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 as she does not satisfy the test provided in the PMLA, 2002. He would further submit that looking to the gravity of the offence and corruption being social evil, she is not entitled to get bail. He would further submit that the applicant is highly influenced person and being IAS officer having strong access to bureaucratic machinery therefore, there is likelihood of influencing the investigation, as such she is not entitled to get bail and would pray for dismissal of the bail application.
11. To substantiate his submission, he would also refer to the judgment in case of Preeti Chandra Vs. Enforcement Directorate (Bail Application No. 3494/2022) (decided on 14.06.2023), Shivani Rajiv Saxena Vs. Enforcement Directorate (Bail Application No. 1518/2017) (decided on 15.09.2017), Pankaj Grover Vs. ED, Page 10 of 17 Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. No. 7661/2021 (decided on 26.08.2021), Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Amit Kumar, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466, State of Bihar Vs. Amit Kumar reported in (2017) 13 SCC 751, Gautam Kundu Vs. Manoj Kumar reported in (2015) 16 SCC 1, Mohd. Arif Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India, BLAPL No. 8882/2021 (decided on 31.05.2022), Mrs. Kailash Tiwari Vs. Enforcement Directorate (MCRCA No. 390/2023) (decided on 07.07.2023), Aruna Chadha Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in 2012 SCC Online Del 5969: (2013) 1 DLT (CRI) 609, Directorate of Enforcement Vs. M. Gopal Reddy & another (Criminal Appeal No. 534/2023) (decided on 24.02.2022), The Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate Vs. Dr. V.C. Mohan [SLP (Crl.) No. 8441/2021 (decided on 03.01.2022) & Pooja Singahl Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (B.A. No. 8937/2022) (decided on 03.11.2022).
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record including case diary with utmost satisfaction.
13. From bare perusal of ECIR with regard to the allegations leveled against the present applicant, it is quite vivid that the applicant being Collector is the head of the DMF and the manner in which commission has been paid by the vendors which according to the ECIR comes to Rs. 55,37,45,515/- though it's correctness is required to be ascertained by the trial Court prima facie some material has been collected by the Enforcement Directorate which suggests involvement of the applicant in the crime in question. Hon'ble the Supreme Court while considering the gravity of economic offence in case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Page 11 of 17 Directorate of Enforcement, [(2019) 9 SCC 24] has held at paragraph 78 to 81 as under:-
"78. Observing that economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to the community, in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and others (1987) 2 SCC 364, it was held as under:-
"5. ....The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even- handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest....."
79. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations." [underlining added]
80. Referring to Dukhishyam Benupani, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria (1998) 1 SCC 52, in Enforcement Officer, Ted, Bombay v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora and others (1999) 5 SCC 720, while hearing an appeal by the Enforcement Directorate against the order of the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent thereon, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Single Judge granting anticipatory bail.
81. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may Page 12 of 17 frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail."
14. Again Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) & another [(2021) 6 SCC 230] has held in paragraph 23 as under :-
24. The principles governing the grant of bail were reiterated by a two judge Bench in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496:
"9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. "10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal..."
47. The considerations which must weigh with the Court in granting bail have been formulated in the decisions of this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh13 and Prasanta Page 13 of 17 Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee14(noted earlier). These decisions as well as the decision in Sanjay Chandra (supra) were adverted to in a recent decision of a two judge Bench of this Court dated 19 March 2021 in The State of Kerala v. Mahesh where the Court observed:
"22...All the relevant factors have to be weighed by the Court considering an application for bail, including the gravity of the offence, the evidence and material which prima facie show the involvement of applicant for bail in the offence alleged, the extent of involvement of the applicant for bail, in the offence alleged, possibility of the applicant accused absconding or otherwise defeating or delaying the course of justice, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being threatened or influenced or of evidence being tempered with, and danger to the safety of the victim (if alive), the complainant, their relatives, friends or other witnesses...." Similarly, the Court held that the grant of bail by the High Court can be set aside, consistent with the precedents we have discussed above, when such grant is based on non-application of mind or is innocent of the relevant factors for such grant."
15. Further submission of the applicant that the applicant being a woman is exempted from rigours twin tests under Section 45 of the PMLA and to substantiate the same, he has referred to the judgment in case of Preeti Chandra Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3622, Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Preeti Chandra [2023 SCC OnLine SC 930], which deserves to be rejected as Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Saumya Chourasia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [(2024) 6 SCC 401] has considered the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA with respect to woman and has held at paragraphs 23 & 24 as under:-
"23. 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 Page 14 of 17 enactments also, however by no stretch of imagination could such 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.
24. In the instant case as discussed hereinabove, there is sufficient evidence collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate to prima facie come to the conclusion that the appellant who was Deputy Secretary and OSD in the Office of the Chief Minister, was actively involved in the offence of Money Laundering as defined in Section 3 of the PMLA. As against that there is nothing on record to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the appellant is not guilty of the said offence and the special benefit as contemplated in the proviso to Section 45 should be granted to the appellant who is a lady."
16. Even from the material so collected by the Enforcement Directorate, it is quite vivid that the applicant is unable to fulfill twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Aditya Tripathi [(Criminal Appeal No. 1401/2023) decided on 12.05.2023] has held at paragraph 6 & 7 as under:-
"6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that respective respondent No. 1 - accused are facing the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences and for the offences of money laundering under Section 3 of the PML Act Page 15 of 17 punishable under Section 4 of the said Act. An enquiry/investigation is still going on by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences in connection with FIR No. 12/2019. Once, the enquiry/investigation against respective respondent No. 1 is going on for the offences under the PML Act, 2002, the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 is required to be considered. Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 reads as under:-
"45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.-- (1) [Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence [under this Act] 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 [or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money- laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees], 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.
[(1-A) 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 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 [* * *] sub-section (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."
Page 16 of 17By the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) and while granting bail, the High Court has not considered the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002.
6.1 Even otherwise, the High Court has not at all considered the nature of allegations and seriousness of the offences alleged of money laundering and the offences under the PML Act, 2002. Looking to the nature of allegations, it can be said that the same can be said to be very serious allegations of money laundering which are required to be investigated thoroughly. 6.2 Now so far as the submissions on behalf of the respective respondent No. 1 that respective respondent No. 1 were not named in the FIR with respect to the scheduled offence(s) and/or that all the other accused are discharged/acquitted in so far as the predicated offences are concerned, merely because other accused are acquitted/discharged, it cannot be a ground not to continue the investigation in respect of respective respondent No.
1. An enquiry/investigation is going on against respective respondent No. 1 with respect to the scheduled offences. Therefore, the enquiry/investigation for the scheduled offences itself is sufficient at this stage.
6.3 From the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court, it appears that what is weighed with the High Court is that chargesheet has been filed against respective respondent No. 1 - accused and therefore, the investigation is completed. However, the High Court has failed to notice and appreciate that the investigation with respect to the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 by the Enforcement Directorate is still going on. Merely because, for the predicated offences the chargesheet might have been filed it cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail in connection with the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002. Investigation for the predicated offences and the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under the PML Act are different and distinct. Therefore, the High Court has taken into consideration the irrelevant consideration. The investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 is till going on.
7. As observed hereinabove, the High Court has neither considered the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 nor has considered the seriousness of the offences alleged against accused for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 and the High Court has not at all considered the fact that the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 is still going on and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the High Court enlarging Page 17 of 17 respective respondent No. 1 on bail are unsustainable and the matters are required to be remitted back to the High Court for afresh decision on the bail applications after taking into consideration the observations made hereinabove."
17. Considering the ECIR and other material placed on record, which prima facie shows involvement of the applicant in crime in question and also considering the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Saumya Chourasia (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is unable to satisfy twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, as such, it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.
18. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is liable to be and is hereby rejected.
19. The observation made by this Court is not bearing any effect on the trial of the case. The learned trial court will decide the criminal trial in accordance with evidence, material placed on record, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while deciding present bail application.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun