Chattisgarh High Court
Saumya Chaurasia vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 December, 2024
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
1 / 14
2024:CGHC:49543
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 7158 of 2024
Reserved on : 12.11.2024
Delivered on : 16.12.2024
1 - Saumya Chaurasia D/o Lt. O. N. Chaurasia Aged About 44 Years R/o 103
And 104, Surya Residency, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 490020
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Economic Offences Wing And Anti-
Corruption Bureau, Headquarter, Gaurav Path, Telibandha, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh. 492001
... Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Advocate. For State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Dy. Adv. General.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV ORDER
1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nayay Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 23.05.2024 in connection with Crime No. 03/2024 registered at Police Station- Anti Corruption Bureau/ Economic Offence Wing Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of IPC and Section 7, 7-A, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11.01.2024, one Mr. Sandeep Ahuja, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur through Mr. Farhan Qureshi, Deputy Superintendent of Police lodged a complaint before the Director General of Police Anti Corruption Bureau & Economic Offences Wing, Chhattisgarh pertaining to predicate Digitally signed by ARUN ARUN KUMAR KUMAR DEWANGAN DEWANGAN Date:
2024.12.16 16:37:12 +0530 2 / 14 offence discovered during the money laundering in investigation File No. ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 was done under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short "the PMLA").
Thereafter, an offence bearing FIR No. 03/2024 has been registered on 17.01.2024 at Police Station ACB/EOW Raipur (C.G.) against 35 accused persons namely Smt. Saumya Chaurasiya, Sameer Bisnoi, Smt. Ranu Sahu, Sandeep Kumar Nayak, Shivshankar Nag, Suryakant Tiwari, Manish Upadhyay, Roshan Kumar Singh, Nikhil Chandrakar, Rahul Singh, Parekh Kurre, Moinuddin Qureshi, Virendra Jaiswal, Rajnikant Tiwari, Hemant Jaiswal, Joginder Singh, Nawneet Tiwari, Deepesh Taunk, Devendra Dadsena, Rahul Mishra, Ramgopal Agrawal, Devendra Singh Yadav, Shishupal Sori, Rampratap Singh, Vinod Tiwari, Amarjeet Bhagat, Chandradeo Prasad Rai, Brashpat Singh, Idrish Gandhi, Gulab Kamro, Shri U.D. Minj, Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Jai (friend of Suryakant), Chandraparakash Jaiswal, Laxmikant Tiwari & others.
3. Further case of the prosecution is that a syndicate comprised of private individuals and other State Government functionaries like Smt. Saumya Chaurasia, Shri Sameer Vishnoi IAS, State Mining Officers and with the backing of some political executives, they managed to make deliberate policy changes. As part of the well-planned conspiracy, Suryakant Tiwari, with the active support of the politicians & some of the senior State Government functionaries, managed to influence Shri Sameer Vishnoi IAS, the then Director of Geology & Mining, and got issued a Government Order dated 15.07.2020 which became the fountain head of this extortion system by converting the online system of issuance of Transport Permits into a manual system. 3 / 14 They started a network of extortion to collect Rs. 25 per on every tonne of coal transported in the State of Chhattisgarh. The investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate revealed that other senior bureaucrats viz., Smt. Saumya Chaurasia (present applicant) and Smt. Ranu Sahu, IAS were also involved in this conspiracy and were providing assistance to Suryakant Tiwari in running the extortion racket. The present applicant while working as Deputy Secretary in Chief Minister Office, had assisted Suryakant Tiwari and his associates in collecting the extortion money by posting pliable officers of mining department in the coal mining areas. Smt.. Ranu Sahu IAS, who worked as District Collector in coal rich Districts viz., Korba & Raigarh, had close association with Suryakant Tiwari and helped his associates in collecting extortion money from the coal transporters and other businessmen.
4. It is also case of the prosecution that by this system of extortion, a huge amount of cash started accumulating with the syndicate and with this money, Suryakant Tiwari has purchased benami assets and a huge amount of money was transferred to the applicant, spent on political funding and transferred as per the instructions of higher powers. The Enforcement Directorate investigation further established that Smt. Ranu Sahu had aided and abetted Suryakant Tiwari in collection of illegal levy amounts from the coal transporters. Smt. Ranu Sahu was in touch through WhatsApp with Roshan Singh, associate of Suryakant Tiwari. The WhatsApp chats happened between Smt. Ranu Sahu and Roshan Singh, close associate of Suryakant Tiwari, revealed that Roshan Singh was in regular touch with Ranu Sahu and she agreed to do work as asked by Roshan Singh. The investigation carried out by 4 / 14 the Enforcement Directorate further revealed that the government servants like Smt. Saumya Chaurasia (present applicant), Shri Sameer Vishnoi lAS and Smt. Ranu Sahu, State Mining Officers etc had received kickbacks from Suryakant Tiwari and acquired benami properties disproportionate to their source of income. The details of property so attached are given in the table format as under:-
Sr. Name of the No. of properties Value of attached No. Public Servant attached under properties PMLA
1. Sameer Vishnoi Five Immovable Rs. 10,42,83,000/-
property and cash & jewellery
2. Saumya Chaurasia 29 Immovable Rs. 22,12,89,600/-
properties
3. Ranu Sahu 36 Immovable Rs. 5,52,43,961/-
properties
5. Therefore, the Enforcement Directorate requested the Anti Corruption Bureau by filing complaint to identify all the assets acquired by the various government servants who are accused of participation in this extortion syndicate in various Districts. It is also case of the Enforcement Directorate that various mining officers are involved in this extortion. As such, it was requested by the Enforcement Directorate to register an FIR and investigate the matter. In pursuance of the complaint, the FIR was registered. It is also case of the ACB/EOW that because of the instigation, Rs. 36 crores illegal extorted money has been collected which has been utilized for purchase of property in the name of the applicant through Deepesh Taunk for purchase of property in the name of her mother Smt. Shanti Devi Chaurasia and Anurag Chaurasia. Thus, on the basis of the complaint, FIR has been registered against the applicant for commission of offence under Sections 7, 7A & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as 5 / 14 amended in 2018 (for short "the PC Act") read with Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC.
6. From the case diary and the material so collected by the ACB/EOW, the role of present applicant is that when the applicant was posted as Deputy Secretary in the office of the then Chief Minister's Secretariat since year 2018, Suryakant Tiwari maintained a high profile among the state bureaucrats due to his relationship with present applicant. Suryakant Tiwari was working at the behest of the applicant and his instructions were considered as the instructions of present applicant. During the investigation, the applicant had created a layer between herself and the state bureaucrats to protect herself, and all her illegal instructions were delivered through Suryakant Tiwari, due to which Suryakant Tiwari was able to extort money on a large scale from coal businessmen and coal transporters by threatening to stop their work. He used to keep a part of this illegal recovery of Rs. 25/- per ton coal levy for himself and share a large amount with the applicant and distributed the rest as per the instructions of the authorities. Such an extortion racket was not possible without the involvement of many government officials/ employees.
7. During the investigation of the case, statement of the witnesses has been taken and interrogation of the accused persons have also been done, diary seized by income tax department from the house of Rajnikant Tiwari on which so many entries has been written in the name of Manish upadhyay and Jai. Manish Upadhyay is neighbour of Saumya Chourasia and Jai is assistant of applicant. All the money given to the applicant is written in the name of Manish and Jai. Rajnikant Tiwari, Roshan and Nikhil have cleared this fact in their 6 / 14 statements. Manish has also accepted that he takes money from Suryakant for the applicant and entries of Rs. 37 crores has been found in diary for the applicant. The applicant has purchased land from this money in the name of his mother, brother and husband. In the purchase of land huge cash has been paid to sellers. She has also taken fake unsecured loan in the name of his family members by giving cash to unsecured loan giver and take this amount through banking channels. Statements of unsecured loan provider has been taken and they have accepted this on their statement. She has purchased properties in the name of her sister's relative. Relevant entry in relation with purchase of this property has been found in the diary. She has routed this extortion money through his sister also who lives in foreign and through his sister, she transferred money to his mother's account as a gift. During investigation, it has also been revealed that the applicant is having close relation/good terms with Suryakant Tiwari which can be fortified from the Whatsapp chat of the applicant with Suryakant Tiwari and it has also been established that Suryakant works for the applicant.
8. Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, counsel for the applicant would submit that FIR registered at the behest of the Enforcement Directorate is nothing but an attempt to keep afloat otherwise patently illegal investigation being carried out in absence of any live predicate offence. He would further submit that the investigation of Enforcement Directorate into the alleged coal levy scam is bereft of any live predicate offence is also a categorical finding recorded in the order dated 17.05.2014 passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 5890/2024 [Sunil Kumar Agrawal Vs. Directorate of 7 / 14 Enforcement]. He would further submit that Section 384 of IPC was added in the FIR in its later stage itself demonstrate that there is malafide on the part of investigating agency acting in concert with an ulterior motive to prolong the pre-trial incarceration of the applicant. He would further submit that the arrest of the applicant is an abuse of process of law as it is evident from the fact that on 20.05.2015 when the applicant filed third bail application i.e. MCRC No. 3767/2024 before this Hon'ble Court for grant of bail in connection with ECIR No. RPZO/08/2022, she was immediately arrested in connection with FIR No. 03/2024 which was registered way back in the month of January, 2024.
9. He would further submit that the role attributed to the present applicant in Crime No. 03/2024 is identical to the role attributed to her in the Prosecution Complaint (1st Supplementary) dated 30.01.2023 filed by the Enforcement Directorate before Fourth Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (PMLA), Raipur in relation to ECIR No. RPZO/09/2022. He would further submit that the charge-sheet issued to the applicant does not contain any imputations of demand or offer to the applicant of any undue advantage as it is well settled that in absence of any such demand or offer, no offence under Sections 7 & 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act can be made out. He would further submit that the genesis of offence of extortion lies in the Government order dated 15.07.2020 by which in addition to the online verification for permits, a manual verification was also required which gave rise to the interaction of mining officials with the transporters and businessmen of coal and iron pallets thus enabling the syndicate to export the illegal legal, as such, the respondent is failed to place any 8 / 14 material to show that the alleged Government order dated 15.07.2020 has been passed on direction issued by the applicant.
10. He would further submit that the entries in the diary seized by the prosecution does not hold any water because the name of the applicant is not reflected in the seized diary and no cash of corresponding amount as alleged to have been received by the applicant has neither been seized by the prosecution or the Enforcement Directorate. He would further submit that the said entries are not recorded in the books of accounts maintained in the regular course of business and will not alone be sufficient to charge any person with any liability. It is well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that there cannot be any presumption in favour of the prosecution, therefore, the seized diary entries cannot alone incriminate the applicant. He would further submit that the immovable property alleged to have been purchased by the applicant in the name of her family members from alleged kickbacks received from syndicates are concerned, the same have already been attached by the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA and the applicant has been obtained prima facie status quo by the Appellate Tribunal (under PMLA) at New Delhi on the ground that as on date, no live schedule offence exists. He would further submit that the veracity of the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. are yet to be tested during the course of trial which is yet to be commenced, moreover, the said statements do not establish any prima facie case against the present applicant.
11. He would further submit that the applicant has already been granted interim bail by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in connection with ECIR No. 9 / 14 RPZO/09/2022 on the same set of fact applying the certain conditions and there is no material cited by the respondent in the charge-sheet or otherwise to establish that she has not cooperated in the investigation or she is potential flight risk and is likely to abscond. There is no instance of influencing any witness because even after registration of FIR, the applicant was not arrested for almost four months. He would further submit that it is well settled principle of law that apprehension of influence of witness and tampering of evidence is required to be based on tangible evidence and mere allegation cannot be taken at face value on asking of investigating agency. He would further submit that in the present case, there is no prospect of the trial commencing soon and even if the trial commences, the same may take time to conclude.
12. He would further submit that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in catena of decision considering the period spent in custody and there being no likelihood of conclusion of trial within short span has been pleased to enlarge the accused on bail, as such, the custody of the applicant ought not to be extended independently and extension of custody of the applicant in such circumstances would militate against the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that that the purpose of bail or denial of the same is not punitive nor preventative and even denial of bail ought not be used as a punitive device. It is also well settled principle of law that even in the economic offence, bail ought not to be denied merely on the ground of seriousness or gravity of offence. He would further submit that the applicant is a woman and satisfies the general principles to be considered while granting bail, therefore, she is entitled to be considered in terms of proviso as 10 / 14 envisaged under law in Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. or corresponding Section 480 of the BNNS, 2023. He would further submit that the applicant has two children and extension period of pre-trial incarceration resulted in severe psychological and physiological harm to the applicant as well as her family members. The applicant is permanent resident of Bhilai, District- Durg and undertakes to abide by any condition or directions imposed by this Court and would pray for grant of regular bail to the applicant.
13. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla & others reported in (1998) 3 SCC 410, Preeti Chandra Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del. 3622, P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 791, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra & another, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, Ramkripal Meena Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2276, Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, Senthil Balaji Vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement [Criminal Appeal No. 4011/2024], Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, Manoranjan Sinh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2017) 5 SCC 218, Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine 1703, State of Maharashtra Vs. Nainmal Punjaji Shah & another, reported in (1969) 3 SCC 904 & R. Vasudevan Vs. CBI, reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Del. 130.
11 / 14
14. Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General for the ACB/EOW opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and referring to the FIR and the case diary would submit that the applicant is involved in the economical offence which not only heinous offence but also against the economic of the nation. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is required as the applicant has not disclosed the source of income from where these properties which have been detailed in the final report and if the accused remained the custody, the sources of purchased of property can be trace out. It has been further contended that from the list of property purchased by the applicant, prima facie it is disproportionate to the source of income of the applicant, as such would pray for rejection of the bail application of the applicant.
15. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and the respondents as well as considered the case diary.
16. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicants have nowhere stated in the bail petitions regarding source of income by which the properties mentioned in the final report have been acquired which clearly shows that the ACB/EOW has collected certain material against the applicant. The prosecution has collected the material that she has shown active participation in the syndicate and the main accused Suryakant Tiwari was working as per direction issued by the applicant and by extorted money has been utilized for purchase of properties. Thus, from perusal of FIR and the material available in the case diary, involvement of the applicants in commission of offence under Section 7, 7A & 12 of the PC Act, which is economic offence, is prima facie reflected. Hon'ble the Supreme Court while considering the gravity of economic offence in 12 / 14 case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (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 13 / 14 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."
17. Again Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) & another reported in (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 14 / 14 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.
18. Considering the FIR and other material placed on record, which prima facie shows involvement of the applicant in crime in question. As such, I am of the view that it is not a fit case where the applicant should be granted regular bail.
19. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is liable to be and are hereby rejected.
20. 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