Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J.
Trilok Singh Dhillon S/o Lt. Mr. Surta Singh Dhillon - Applicant
Vs.
Directorate Of Enforcement GOI - Respondent
MCRC No. 7284 of 2024
Decided On : 06-01-2025
(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3 and 4 - Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bail application rejected for offences of money laundering involving proceeds of crime amounting to Rs. 28,13,66,989/- - Allegations of involvement in a syndicate for illegal liquor sales causing significant financial loss to the State Government - The applicant's role included safekeeping and concealment of proceeds of crime through companies - No recovery of unaccounted money made, but prima facie evidence of involvement established. (Paras 44, 46, 50)
(B) Bail - Conditions under Section 45 of PMLA - The court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit further offences while on bail - The gravity of the charges and the potential for witness tampering were significant factors in denying bail. (Paras 48, 50)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was arrested in connection with a money laundering investigation linked to a large-scale liquor syndicate, with allegations of inflating invoices and receiving illegal commissions. The applicant's companies were implicated in the financial transactions related to the proceeds of crime.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant's involvement in the syndicate was established through financial records, and the serious nature of the allegations warranted denial of bail.
Issues: The main issues included the applicant's role in the alleged money laundering activities and whether the conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA were satisfied.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's involvement in the money laundering activities was sufficiently established, and the serious nature of the charges justified the denial of bail.
Result: Bail application rejected.
Order :
(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)
The applicant is seeking release on regular bail under section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Surksha Sanhita, 2023 read with Section 45 of the PMLA 2002 in connection with ECIR No. RPZO/04/2024 dated 11.04.2024 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur, Zonal Office (ED), for the offences under Sections 03 and 04 of the PMLA, 2002.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. Chhattisgarh State Police had registered FIR bearing No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 at EOW/ACB, Raipur under Section 420,467,471 and 120-B IPC and Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 against the accused persons for illegally collecting commissions and supplying unaccounted liquor to the government liquor shops causing loss of Rs. 2161 crores to the State Government.
3. The FIR for the predicate offence as mentioned above is registered by the ACB/EOW, Raipur, Chhattisgarh under Sections 120- B, 420, 467 and 47 IPC and Sections 7 & 12 of the PC Act, which are schedule offences in para 1 & 8 of the Part A of Schedule to PMLA,2002 as defined under Section 2(1)(y) of the Act. The inquiries were initiated under PMLA against the suspected persons after recording the brief facts of scheduled offence and initiating money laundering investigation in ECIR/RPZO/04/2023 on 11.04.2024 by the officials of the Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur Zonal Office.
4. The Directorate has filed total 3 prosecution complaints dated 19.06.2024, 30.08.2024 and 5.10.2024 in the present case. The investigation has revealed that the applicant has knowingly participated in the criminal acts of the syndicate and is in possession of Proceeds of Crime. He was involved with the syndicate for safekeeping and concealment of the illegal commission collected for which he received large amount of Part A commission from the liquor suppliers in his FDR bank account. He is in possession of proceeds of crime through his company M/s. Petrosun Bio Refineries Pvt. Ltd. which was utilized by the syndicate for resolving the problems of the distillers for arranging cash for payment of Part A commission. The distillers would take their raw material from their regular suppliers but through M/s. Petrosun Bio Refineries Pvt. Ltd. for which the regular suppliers used to pay the actual rate but the M/s. Petrosun Bio Refineries inflated the invoices by 20-40% and charge the distillers. These excess amount of 20-40% was kept with the company and remit the remaining routine rate to the actual routine suppliers.
5. In his statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, the applicant has admitted that he was engaged in grain trading for the distillers and the FDR bank accounts and invoices generated in the name of this entity have been analyzed by the ED which shows a huge earnings. The mechanism has been set up for showing excess profit in his company and it is nothing but illegal commission/bribe which was being paid in this manner. The applicant had assisted the co-accused Anwar Dhebar in receiving part-A bribe payments via FDR bank accounts.
6. Another company of the applicant ie. Ms. Dhillon City Mall Pvt.Ltd. was utilized by the syndicate to park the illegal funds received from the FL- 10(A) licensees. These FL-10(A) licenses had to pay 60% share of the profits earned to the syndicate member Vikas Agrawal @ Subbu. As part of payment of this profit share, the amount was remitted to the company of the applicant ie. M/s. Dhillon City Mall Pvt. Ltd. It has thus been revealed that the Company of the applicant had received unsecured loan of Rs.12.52 crores from various firms/companies. Thus, the proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs. 28,13,66,989/- related to the applicant have been attached vide PAO dated 02.05.2024.
7. In nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that a large scale syndicate was operating in the State of Chhattisgarh by extorting illegal commission from the unaccounted sale of liquor and acting as a conduit in the systematic extortion resulting in generation of huge proceed
The court emphasized that bail under the PMLA requires satisfaction of twin conditions regarding the accused's guilt and likelihood of committing further offences, which were not met in this case.
The court emphasized that in economic offences, especially under the PMLA, bail should not be granted unless the accused demonstrates they are not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
In economic offences, bail is not a right; the burden rests on the applicant to show no risk of interference with justice or likelihood of guilt, reinforced by the position of the accused.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially in serious economic offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, where the gravity of charges necessitates stringent scrutiny.
The court held that the applicant failed to satisfy the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, due to the serious nature of the allegations and the evidence presented.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; economic offences necessitate careful consideration due to their serious implications on public interest and the economy.
(1) Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting economy of country as a whole and ....
The court held that the seriousness of economic offences under the PMLA necessitates stringent bail conditions, emphasizing that prolonged incarceration does not automatically warrant bail if substan....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
