Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arvind Kumar Verma, J.
Arvind Singh S/o Lt. Shri Gopal Singh - Applicant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement
MCRC No. 7524 of 2024
Decided On :
(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3 and 4 - Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Bail application rejected - Applicant involved in alleged liquor syndicate causing significant financial loss to the State - Prosecution established prima facie case of money laundering against the applicant - Applicant failed to satisfy the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of PMLA. (Paras 76-86)
(B) Right to Bail - The court emphasized that the power to arrest under PMLA must be based on objective and fair consideration of material against the accused, and not on mere suspicion. (Paras 78-84)
(C) Economic Offences - The court reiterated that economic offences require a different approach in bail considerations due to their serious nature and potential impact on the economy. (Paras 68-70)
Facts of the case:
The applicant, an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant, was arrested for alleged involvement in a liquor syndicate linked to a significant financial scam. The ED's investigation revealed the applicant's role in money laundering activities, including the collection of illegal commissions and the use of proceeds of crime for personal gain.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant's involvement in the alleged offences was established prima facie, and the prosecution had gathered sufficient evidence to warrant denial of bail.
Issues: The main issues included whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA and the nature of the evidence against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant did not meet the criteria for bail under the PMLA, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the need for a thorough investigation.
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 (ED), for the offences under Sections 03 and 04 of the PMLA, 2002.
FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE
2. The applicant was working as an employee of the Bhilai Steel Plant since the year 1995. He has been on Sabbatical leave from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2023. The Income Tax Department carried out a search and seizure operation on several premises in the State of Chhattisgarh. Subsequent to the aforesaid raids, the IT Department recorded statement of various persons alleged to be part of the liquor syndicate including the applicant.
3. The applicant was arrested on 01.07.2024 by the ED for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA, 2002 in relation to the ECIR 04. This ECIR 04 is identical to the investigation carried out by it previously in relation to another ECIR bearing ECIR No. ECIR/RPZO/11/2022. The applicant was arrested in relation to ECIR 11 and has undergone 10 months of custody. The proceedings in relation to ECIR 11 were ultimately quashed by the Apex Court with a finding that there were no proceeds of Crime therein. Immediately thereafter the ED registered ECIR04 to investigate the case which was quashed by the Apex Court. Despite having in custody for 14 days, the applicant was remanded by the learned Special Judge to a further custody of 8 days and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. The applicant preferred application before the Special Judge (PMLA) ASJ-04, Raipur seeking regular bail which was dismissed vide order dated 8.10.2024.
4. Apart from the instant case, following cases are pending against the applicant.
1. FIR No. 04/2024 registered by the ACB, Raipur under Sections 420, 467,468,471 and 120-B IPC read with Section 7 & 12 of the PC Act. The applicant was arrested and charge sheeted and the matter is pending trial before the court of Special Judge (PC Act), Raipur.
2. ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 for the alleged ofence under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA. Prosecution complaint has been filed by the ED in this ECIR on 04.07.2023 however, the Apex Court vide order dated 08.04.2024 in WP (Crl.) 153/2023 has quashed the prosecution complaint with a finding that there was no scheduled offence and no proceeds of crime in relation to the said case.
5. The Chhattisgarh State Police registered an FIR bearing No. 04./2024 on 17.01.2024 at EOW/ACB, Raipur under Sections 420,467,471 and 120-B IPC and 7 & 12 of the PC aCt, 1988 against Mr. Anil Tuteja (Retired IAS), the then Joint Secretary in the State of CG Mr . Anwar Dhebar, Mr. Arun Tripath (ITS) then Special Secretary, Government of Commerce and Industry Department and MD, CG State Marketing Corporation Ltd. Mr Vikas Agrawal @ Subbu, Mr. Sanjay Diwan and others for collecting commissions and supplying unaccounted liquor to government liquor shops resulting in approximate loss of Rs. 2161 crores to the Government.
6. The FIR for the predicate offence registered by ACB/EOW, Raipur CG under Sections 120-B, 420,467 and 471 IPC and 7 & 12 of the PC Act which are scheduled offences included in para 1 & 8 of Part-A of the Schedule to PMLA 2002 as defined under Section 2(1)(y) of the Act. Accordingly, enquiries were initiated under the PMLA against the persons who are suspected after recording the facts of scheduled offence and initiating money laundering investigation in file No. ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 on 11.04.2024 by the officials of Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur.
7. The ED has filed three prosecution complaints dated 19.06.2024, 30.08.2024 and 5.10.2024 in this case. One PAO 02/2024 dated 02.05.2024 was issued whereby properties to the tune of Rs. 205 crores approximately have been attached and subsequently the same has been confirmed by the learned adjudicating authority vide order d
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.
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 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 held that the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as there were no reasonable grounds for believing that she had committed an off....
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
