Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 19109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arvind Kumar Verma, J
Arun Pati Tripathi – Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement – Respondent
MCRC No. 6598 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Yatin Ozha, Shishir Prakash, Anurag R. Rathor, Aditya Tiwari
For the Respondents: Sourabh Kumar Pandey
While the principle that 'bail is the rule, and jail is the exception' is fundamental to justice, it does not override the mandatory twin conditions for bail in statutory provisions concerning serious economic offenses where prima facie evidence of systematic money laundering and conspiracy exists.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 45 - Economic offences - Grant of bail - Twin conditions for bail under special statute - Principles of liberty and procedural requirements.
(B) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Economic offences are considered a separate class of crimes due to their impact on the national economy - Courts must balance the right to personal liberty with the statutory requirements for granting bail in cases involving financial fraud and systemic corruption. (Paras 28, 30, 34)
Facts of the case:
An application for regular bail was filed by an accused who was previously an government official, concerning allegations of a widespread financial scam involving the manipulation of state-run liquor supply policies, extortion, and laundering of proceeds through foreign entities. The applicant contended that previous proceedings against him regarding similar allegations had been quashed and argued that the current investigation lacked new material, highlighting the right to a speedy trial and prolonged pre-trial incarceration. The prosecution opposed the bail, asserting the existence of a systematic conspiracy, the identification of significant proceeds of crime, and the risk of the applicant tampering with evidence or being a flight risk due to his foreign financial interests.
Findings of Court:
The court analyzed the material on record and noted that the state-run organization was allegedly used to enforce a parallel excise system for illegal commission. The court found that the evidence suggested the applicant played a key role in the conspiracy, including the illicit supply of materials and the transfer of funds abroad. Consequently, the court ruled that the stringent statutory conditions for bail were not satisfied, given the gravity and magnitude of the economic offense.
Issues: The main issues were whether in light of Article 21 and the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, the accused could be granted bail despite the stringent provisions of the governing money laundering legislation, and whether there was sufficient prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in the alleged laundering activities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while liberty is a cherished right, the statutory threshold imposed by the governing legislation for economic offenses remains paramount. In the presence of strong prima facie evidence indicating a well-planned systematic conspiracy, the involvement of the accused, and the ongoing investigation into the movement of proceeds of crime to foreign jurisdictions, the mandate for stringent conditions for the release of an accused must be strictly observed, thereby precluding bail.
Result: Bail application rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case initiation and factual history of multiple ecirs and firs linked to the predicate offence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. applicant’s plea for bail citing lack of new material, policy decision roles, and procedural lapses in arrest. (Para 6 , 10 , 11 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. applicability of 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' versus the stringent threshold of section 45 pmla. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. respondent's contention on prima facie economic offence severity and validity of investigations independent of quashed cases. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 5. court’s evaluation of evidence regarding systemic involvement and prima facie commission of money laundering. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. denial of bail based on gravity of offence, custodial evidence, and satisfaction of strict pmla bail conditions. (Para 34 , 35) |
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.
2. 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 ED had registered the above stated ECIR pursuant to the predicate offence which was registered by EOW, Raipur dated 17.01.2024 as FIR No. 04 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B , 420,467,468,471 of IPC and Section 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case of the applicant falls under Schedule One, Part -A (offence under the IPC) and para -8 (Offence under PC Act) as per Section 3 & 4 of the PMLA.
3. It is submitted that the apart from the present case, the applicant has following criminal antecedents against him.
I) FIR No. 196/2023 registered by PS Kasna, Greater Noida, Commissionerate Guatam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 468,471,473,484 and 120-B of IPC. The charge sheet has been filed against co-accused in the said matter however no cognizance of the same has been taken. Further the proceedings in the FIR has been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and accordingly, he was released from custody in the said case.
ii) FIR No. 04/2024 has been registered by the ACB, Raipur u/s. 420,467,468,471,120-B IPC read with Section 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The applicant was arrested and charge sheet has been filed inter alia against the applicant therein. The matter is pending trial before the learned Court of Special Judge (PC Act) Raipur. This FIR is the predicate offence for the ECIR 04.
iii) ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA (complain filed by the income Tax Department under provisions of the Income Tax Act read with Section 120-B IPC).Charge sheet has been filed by the ED in this ECIR on 04.07.2023 however, vide Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated 08.04.2024 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 153/2023 quashed the complaint with a finding that there was no scheduled offence and no proceeds of crime in relation to the said case.
4. As per the case of prosecution, the investigation is concluded and as per the prosecution complaint quoted “ there is sufficient evidence on record to establish the charge of commission of offence of money laundering against the applicant. Out of the total proceeds of crime, ED has already identified and attached assets worth Rs. 205 crores approximately. Investigation into the role of the accused persons is complete and hence the present complaint is being filed.”
5. The investigation in relation to ECIR 11 of 2022 is concluded and the prosecution complaint was filed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has quashed the complaint however based on the investigation carried out in pursuance of ECIR 11 of 2022 the said ECIR (4 of 2024) is registered. There is nothing new that has come on record. On reading of the complaint it is clear that the m
