Ramji Singh vs Directorate Of Enforcement Allahabad Sub Zonal Office

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 1404

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI J.
Ramji Singh – Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement Allahabad Sub Zonal Office – Respondents
Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 1518 of 2023, CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. -1523 of 2023, CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. -1602 of 2023, CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. -1611 of 2023, CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. -1617 of 2023, CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. -1636 of 2023, CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. -1638 of 2023
Decided on : 12-09-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Purnendu Chakravarty, Anuuj Taandon, Rishabh Chauhan, Himanshu Hemant Gupta
For the Respondent: Rohit Tripathi

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 - Several anticipatory bail applications filed by accused persons in cases of alleged irregular coal sales and money laundering - The allegations involve selling coal received under a contract without processing, violating the agreement terms - The court emphasized that the allegations constitute a business dispute rather than criminal activity, highlighting the absence of direct proceeds of crime against the accused individuals. (Paras 1-66)

(B) Anticipatory bail - Granting anticipatory bail is an essential discretion of the court, and the gravity of economic offences requires a different approach - Courts must balance between the severity of the allegations and the rights of the accused, especially considering their health, age, and cooperation with investigations. (Paras 24-72)

Facts of the case:
Applicants sought bail related to various FIRs filed for selling coal in the open market instead of manufacturing special smokeless fuel. Applicants claim to only have purchased coal and denied direct involvement in any criminal conspiracy.

Findings of Court:
The court found no strong allegations against the applicants for direct involvement in criminal activity, thereby granting anticipatory bail.

Issues: Whether the allegations amounted to economic crime or commercial disparity? Is the economic nature of the offences sufficient to deny anticipatory bail based on the applicants’ profiles?

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the delay in investigations and lack of concrete evidence for money laundering or proceeds of crime necessitated granting bail, while restating the distinction between economic crimes and general offences and the legal framework guiding bail jurisprudence.

Result: Applications for anticipatory bail granted.

Table of Content
1. allegations of coal diversion and illegal sales (Para 2 , 3)
2. case particulars outlined for applicants (Para 4 , 5)
3. government policy changes regarding coal distribution (Para 6 , 8)
4. allegations of misuse of official position (Para 9 , 10)
5. consideration of applicant's health in bail application (Para 11 , 12)
6. counterarguments regarding applicants' involvement (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
7. timing of the complaints and impact on bail application (Para 18 , 22)
8. legal precedents cited and their significance (Para 23 , 24 , 25)
9. discussion on bail powers in economic offenses (Para 30 , 31)
10. misplacement of provisions affecting bail jurisdiction (Para 32 , 33)
11. comparison with other acts regarding bail (Para 38 , 39 , 40)
12. conclusion on bail conditions relative to pmla (Para 52 , 53)
13. consideration of adequacy of evidence and delays (Para 64 , 66)
14. confirmation of anticipatory bail for applicants (Para 73 , 74)

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ajit Kumar Sinha Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Himanshu Hemant Gupta, Sri Aishwarya Sinha and Sri Raghav Tiberwal Advocates appearing on behalf of the applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 1611 of 2023, 1617 of 2023, 1636 of 2023, 1638 of 2023 and 1639 of 2023, Sri. Purnendu Chakravarty Advocate for the applicants in Anticipatory Bail Application Nos. 1518 of 2023, 1523 of 2023 and 1602 of 2023, and Sri Rohit Tripathi Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent -Directorate of Enforcement and perused the records.

2. All the aforesaid applications seek anticipatory bail for different accused persons in different cases, but on similar set of allegations arising out of a joint surprise check carried out on 25.03.2011 by some officers of Railways and Northern Coalfields Ltd. (NCL) at the factory premises of (1) M/s Swastik Cement Products Ltd., (2) M/s Fertico Marketing and Investments Pvt. Ltd., (3) M/s Jai Durga Industries, (4) M/s Sri Ram Fuels Pvt. Ltd. and (5) M/s Drolia Coke Industries Pvt. Ltd. It was found that the aforesaid companies used to receive coal from Northern Coal Fields Ltd. (NCL) for manufacture of Special Smokeless Fuel (SSF) and instead of processing the coal, the companies sold it in black market at a high premium causing wrongful loss to the government and wrongful gain to the accused persons.

3. On 13.04.2011, the C.B.I/ACB Lucknow filed 5 F.I.Rs. under Sections 120-B, 420 of I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for causing wrongful gain to the companies by diverting the coal received from NCL to open market without processing to SSF. RC 4(A) 2011 was filed against M/s Swastik Products Ltd., RC 5 (A) 2011 against M/s Fertico Marketing & Investment Pvt. Ltd., RC 6(A) 2011 against M/s Jai Durga Industries, RC 7 (A) 2011 against M/s Sri Ram Fuels and RC 8 (A) against Ms Drolia Code Industries Pvt. Ltd. Unknown officials of District Industries Centre (DIC) and unknown officials of NCL have also been made accused in all the F.I.Rs. The C.B.I. filed five different charge-sheets dated 31.05.2012 in respect of the aforesaid 5 F.I.Rs.

4. The particulars of the cases in respect of which the aforesaid 8 applications have been filed, are being mentioned below: -

Sl.no.	ABAIL No.	FIR No.	ECIR No.	Complaint No.	Date of Complaint	Session Case No.
1	1518	05	02	02/2019	03.06.2019	512/2023
2	1523	06 & 08	01 & 03 Merged in 01	08/2022	24.06.2023	124/2023
3	1602	04	04	06/2018	12.07.2018	492/2023
4	1611	07	05	02/2016	April 2016	513/2023
5	1617	06 & 08	01 & 03 Merged in 01	08/2022	24.06.2023	124/2023
6	1636	04	04	06/2018	12.07.2018	492/2023
7	1638	05	02	02/2019	03.06.2019	512/2023
8	1639	05	02	02/2019	03.06.2019	512/2023

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(All) 1404

Cases Referred (15)

Related Judgments

Ramji Singh VS Directorate Of Enforcement Allahabad Sub Zonal Office - 2023 Supreme(All) 1404

Anil Tuteja v. Director Directorate of Enforcement - 2021 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 2688

Anirudh Kamal Shukla VS Union of India, Thru. Assistant Dir. Directorate of Enforcement Lko - 2022 Supreme(All) 321

Anirudh Kamal Shukla vs Enforcement Directorate - 2022 Supreme(Online)(All) 113

Rajnikant Tiwari, S/o Lt. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari VS Directorate of Enforcement, GOI, Through its Assistant Director, Mr. Nirmal Jharwal - 2023 Supreme(Chh) 542

Jagadish Nangineni VS Directorate Of Enforcement - 2021 Supreme(P&H) 988

Represented by its Assistant Director Hyderabad Zonal Unit VS Kamma Srinivasa Rao - 2022 Supreme(Telangana) 2

Directorate of Enforcement Represented by its Assistant Director Hyderabad Zonal Unit VS Kamma Srinivasa Rao - 2022 Supreme(Telangana) 135

Pankaj Grover VS Directorate Of Enforcement, Govt. of India - 2021 Supreme(All) 473

SAJEEVAN S/o. THYAGARAJAN VS UNION OF INDIA - 2025 Supreme(KER) 992