2023 Supreme(SC) 1224

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aniruddha Bose, Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.
Saumya Chaurasia - Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3840 of 2023 @Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8847/2023
Decided On : 14-12-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bail – Underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 of PML Act must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold objectives of PML Act.
(2) Every party approaching court seeking justice is expected to make full and correct disclosure of material facts.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Article 136 read with Order XXI Rule 3 of Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Special Leave Petition – Certificate to be issued by Advocate-on-Record and Affidavit to be filed by or on behalf of petitioner/appellant at end of SLP as per provisions contained in Supreme Court Rules, do carry sanctity in eyes of law – Every party approaching court seeking justice is expected to make full and correct disclosure of material facts – Every Advocate being an officer of court, though appearing for a particular party, is expected to assist court fairly in carrying out its function to administer justice – A very high standard of professionalism and legal acumen is expected from Advocates particularly designated Senior Advocates appearing in highest court of country so that their professionalism may be followed and emulated by Advocates practicing in High Courts and District Courts. (Paras 13 and 14)

(B) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 45 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail – Case registered under Sections 186, 204, 353, 384 and 120-B of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 of Act must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold objectives of Act which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating menace of money laundering – Court while considering application seeking bail is not required to weigh evidence collected by investigating agency meticulously, nonetheless Court should keep in mind nature of accusation, nature of evidence collected in support thereof, severity of punishment prescribed for alleged offences, character of accused, circumstances which are peculiar to accused, reasonable possibility of securing presence of accused at the time of trial, reasonable apprehension of witness being tempered with, large interest of public/ state etc. – Benefit of first proviso to Section 45 to category of persons mentioned therein may be extended at discretion of Court considering facts and circumstances of each case, and could not be construed as a mandatory or obligatory on part of Court to release them – Extent of involvement of persons falling in such category in alleged offences, nature of evidence collected by investigating agency etc., would be material considerations – There is sufficient evidence collected by respondent Enforcement Directorate to prima facie come to conclusion that appellant was actively involved in offence of Money Laundering – There was attempt made by and on behalf of Appellant to misrepresent facts by making incorrect statements in appeal for assailing impugned order passed by High Court – Appeal dismissed with cost of Rs.1 Lakh. (Paras 18, 19, 24, 25, 30 and 31)

Facts of the case:

Order dated 23.06.2023 passed by High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Miscellaneous Criminal Case is assailed by way of present Appeal, whereby High Court has dismissed bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Appellant was arrested on 02.12.2022 in connection with crime case registered at Police Station/Investigating Agency - Directorate of Enforcement, Zonal Office Raipur, Chhattisgarh, for offences punishable under Sections 186, 204, 353, 384, 120-B of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Findings of Court:

Since Court has found that there was an attempt made by and on behalf of Appellant to misrepresent facts by making incorrect statements in appeal for assailing impugned order passed by High Court, appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.1 Lakh, which shall be deposited by Appellant before Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks from today.

Result : Appeal dismissed.