Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail to Senior Officer in Alleged Rice Mill Extortion Scam, Cites PMLA's Stringent Conditions

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – The High Court of Chhattisgarh has denied bail to Manoj Kumar Soni, a senior Indian Telecom Service (ITS) officer, in a high-profile money laundering case linked to an alleged extortion racket in the state's custom rice milling industry. Upholding the trial court's order, Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma ruled that prima facie evidence established Soni's involvement and he failed to satisfy the stringent twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

The court emphasized that in cases of serious economic offences that threaten the nation's financial health, the stringent bail provisions of special statutes like the PMLA must be strictly applied.

---

Background of the Case

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) arrested Manoj Kumar Soni, who was serving as the Managing Director of the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation (MARKFED), on April 30, 2024. The ED alleged that Soni was a key conspirator in a systematic extortion scheme.

According to the prosecution, Soni, in connivance with co-accused Roshan Chandrakar (an office-bearer of the State Rice Millers Association), ran a racket to extort ₹40 per quintal from rice millers for clearing their custom milling and incentive bills. The total proceeds of crime (POC) were estimated to be around ₹147 crores. The ED's case (ECIR) was based on predicate offences registered by the Income Tax Department and the state's Anti-Corruption Bureau/Economic Offences Wing (ACB/EOW).

Soni approached the High Court seeking regular bail after a special PMLA court in Raipur rejected his application on September 3, 2024.

---

Arguments from Both Sides

Applicant's Contentions

Shri Akshat Gupta, counsel for Manoj Kumar Soni, mounted a multi-pronged challenge to the ED's case, arguing for bail on several grounds:

* Invalid Predicate Offence: The initial Income Tax complaint, which formed the basis of the PMLA case, was filed by an incompetent authority.

* Abuse of Process: The ED itself instigated the ACB/EOW to file an FIR to create a valid predicate offence after the defence raised objections, which is impermissible.

* Lack of Sanction: Cognizance was taken without the mandatory sanction required to prosecute a public servant under Section 197 of the CrPC.

* Weak Evidence: The ED's case relies heavily on statements of co-accused recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, which he argued are weak evidence and cannot be the sole basis for denying bail, citing precedents like Haricharan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar .

* Violation of Speedy Trial: Soni's fundamental right to a speedy trial was being violated by prolonged incarceration, a ground for bail even in PMLA cases as established in Manish Sisodia Vs. CBI and ED .

ED's Counter-Arguments

Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, representing the ED, strongly opposed the bail plea, arguing:

* Serious Economic Offence: The case involves a deep-rooted conspiracy that has harmed the state's economy, and such offences must be treated with severity.

* Soni's Key Role: Investigation revealed that Soni misused his official position as MD of MARKFED to intentionally withhold bills of rice millers who refused to pay the extortion amount, thereby facilitating the crime.

* Twin Conditions Not Met: The applicant failed to satisfy the mandatory twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA, which require the court to have reasonable grounds to believe the accused is "not guilty" and is "not likely to commit any offence while on bail."

* Sufficient Evidence: The ED has collected substantial evidence, including statements under Section 50 of PMLA, which have evidentiary value and prima facie establish Soni's guilt.

* Risk of Tampering: The ED argued that Soni had previously absconded, evaded summons, and influenced witnesses, indicating a high risk of tampering with evidence if released on bail.

---

Court's Analysis and Decision

After a thorough examination of the arguments and records, Justice Arvind Kumar Verma concluded that the applicant was not entitled to bail. The court made several key observations:

"The Community or the State is not a person-non-grata whose cause may be treated with disdain. The entire Community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to books."

The judgment highlighted that while "bail is the rule and jail is the exception," this principle is subject to the stringent conditions imposed by special legislations like the PMLA. The court affirmed the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India , which upheld the constitutional validity of Section 45's twin conditions.

The court held that there was substantial material indicating a strong nexus between Soni and the other accused. It observed:

"The investigation have revealed that the applicant was involved in the extortion of money from the rice millers which was allegedly used for constituting proceeds of crime... Considering the role of the applicant in obtaining the money through illegal source, which is the proceeds of crime and that there is sufficient evidence collected by the ED to prima facie show the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offences."

Rejecting the argument for bail on medical grounds, the court noted that Soni's ailments were manageable and he was receiving adequate care in custody.

Ultimately, the court found that the money trail was prima facie established by the prosecution. Given the gravity of the allegations and the stringent provisions of the PMLA, the court was not inclined to grant bail.

The application was dismissed, and Manoj Kumar Soni will remain in judicial custody.