IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arvind Kumar Verma, J.
Anil Tuteja S/o Late H.L.Tuteja - Applicant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement Through Assistant Director E.D. Raipur Zonal Office Raipur District -
MCRC No. 8961 of 2024
Decided On :
(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3 and 4 - Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Application for bail - Applicant, a retired IAS officer, arrested for alleged involvement in a liquor scam causing loss of over Rs. 2000 crores - Previous ECIR quashed by Supreme Court - Allegations of systemic corruption and money laundering established - No recovery of unaccounted money from applicant - Applicant's role as a key conspirator in the syndicate highlighted - Court emphasized the seriousness of economic offences and the need for stringent bail conditions. (Paras 1-62)
(B) Right to Bail - Conditions under Section 45 of PMLA - Court must be satisfied that accused is not guilty and not likely to commit further offences while on bail - Applicant failed to meet these conditions due to the gravity of allegations and potential influence over witnesses. (Paras 56-62)
(C) Right to Speedy Trial - While the applicant has suffered prolonged incarceration, the court noted that the nature of the allegations necessitated careful consideration before granting bail. (Paras 57-62)
(D)
Result: Bail application rejected.
Order :
(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)
By way of present application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with Section 45 of the PMLA on behalf of the applicant herein, is seeking grant of regular bail in ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 dated 11.04.2024 for the alleged offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. The applicant was arrested in pursuance of ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 of 2024 registered with Raipur Zone dated 11.04.2024 by the Directorate of Enforcement. The applicant has been involved in the same which involves laundering of proceeds of crime of more than 2000 crores approximately. As such the accused in involved in a grave and heinous financial crime.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. Facts of the case relevant for adjudication of the instant bail application are as follows:
The applicant is a retired officer of the Indian Administrative Services with a distinguished and unblemished service record. He retired as Joint Secretary in the Department of Commerce and Industry, Chhattisgarh in May 2023. The ECIR is a second ECIR and the first being ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 which was quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 08.04.2021 with a categorical finding that no scheduled offence is made out and there were no proceeds of crime in relation to ECIR 11 and the Prosecution Complaint filed therein. The said ECIR was registered merely 3 days after the quashing of the first ECIR on the same alleged liquor scam making the same allegations arising out of the same transactions.
3. Chhattisgarh State police registered FIR bearing No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 at EOW/ACB, Raipur under Sections for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420,467,468,471 of IPC and Section 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Mr. Anil Tuteja (retired IAS) then Joint Secretary in CG State, Anwar Dhebar, Mr. Arunpati Tripathi (ITS) then Special Secretary, Government of Commerce and industry Department and MD CG State Marketing Corporation Ltd. Mr. Vikas Agarwal @ Subbu, Mr. Sanjay Diwan and Others for collecting commissions and supplying unaccounted liquor to government liquor shops resulting in an approximate loss of Rs. 2161 crores to the government.
4. The manufacturers of country liquor in Chhattisgarh namely CG Distilleries Ltd., M/s. Bhatia Wine Merchant Private ltd. And Welcome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Are licensed to supply country liquor in the State. It is alleged that Co-accused Anwar Dhebar took advantage of his political influence and family relations with Anil Tuteja and in association with Arunpathi Tripathi, the Managing Director of CSMCL lead to increase in the rate of liquor production and supply and in return gained illegal commissions amounting to lakhs of rupees from the distillery owners which is called Part -A.
5. Similarly, a new system which ran parallel to the existing system of selling country liquor through government shops was created without any records from distillery operators, which involved constructing duplicate holograms and selling them separately through government liquor shops. The illegal sale of these duplicate holograms resulted in earning worth crores of rupees in which several individuals were implicated including distillery owners, bottle supplier agencies, duplicate hologram supplying agencies, agencies involved in the collection of money. These illicit sale took place during the years 2019-20,2020-21 and 2021-22 and is called Part-B.
6. Additionally, the collection of bribes from foreign liquor manufacturers FL-10A license was implemented, which was granted to three favoured firms of Anwar Dhebar. The license FL-10A was granted to Mr. Sanjay Mishra and Manish Mishra of M/s. Nexgen power Engitech Pvt. Ltd. , Mr. Atul Kumar Singh and Mr. Mukesh Manchanda of M/s. Om Sai Beverage Pvt. Ltd. And Mr. Ashish Saurabh Kedia of M/s. Dishita Ventures Pvt. Ltd. These license holders were granted tender for the supply of foreign liquor through a conspiracy. All the three licence holding firms procured l
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Gudikanti Narasimhulu Vs. Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Haricharan Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar
P. Chidambaram Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation
Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Gangadhar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
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.
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.
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.
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 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....
The court emphasized that bail is not a right in cases involving serious economic offences, particularly where substantial evidence of corruption exists.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.