2024 (12) TMI 359 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of Regular Bail - Money Laundering - economic offences - liquor scam - fundamental right to liberty - offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471,120-B IPC read with Sections 7 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT - In the present case, charges have been brought against the applicant for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC and Sections 7 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is the case of the prosecution that from the charge sheet, it is alleged that the present applicant along with co-accused Anwar Dhebar was the head of the criminal syndicate comprising of high level State government officials, private persons and political executives in extorting illegal commission in the sale of liquor and was also involved in unauthorized sale of unaccounted liquor through government liquor shops in the State of Chhattisgarh. In the matter of Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2013 (5) TMI 920 - SUPREME COURT their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that economic offence is a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and observed ' Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.' It is the case of the prosecution that the EOW had received a communication from the Enforcement Directorate and after due verification and on being satisfied, case was registered as FIR No. 04/2024 under Sections 7 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC. It has been revealed that a criminal syndicate has been operating in the State of Chhattisgarh which was extorting illegal commission in the sale of liquor and was also involved in unauthorized sale of unaccounted liquor through government liquor shops - The investigation revealed that the applicant played a pivotal role in facilitating the payment of bribes to the syndicates in collusion with other co-accused. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, noticed hereinabove and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offences, the role of the applicants herein, the manner in which the present applicant is alleged to have involved in the commission of the offence and that the investigation is going on and further taking note of the fact that the applicant along with the co-accused persons has caused huge financial loss to the State exchequer and the estimated proceeds of crime is around Rs. 1660,41,00,056/-. It is prima facie clear that on the one hand, the prosecution agency is claiming that the matter is of a huge economic loss to the State Exchequer and the offence is of highly serious nature and on the other hand, the distillers who are allegedly supplying illegal liquor causing huge financial loss to the State exchequer and the estimated proceeds of crime is around Rs. 1660,41,00,056/-, have not been made accused despite the fact that their name has been mentioned in the complaint made by the ED as member of the syndicate - In the present case, he was involved in the criminal acts of the syndicate and is in possession of the proceeds of crime and that he received commission from the liquor suppliers. However, no recovery of unaccounted money has been made in this regard. The details of the whatsap chats annexed with the charge sheet prima facie shows the involvement of the applicant in the present case. Taking into account the severity of the punishment prescribed for the aforesaid offences and keeping in mind, the binding observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in aforesaid cases 2017 (4) TMI 1410 - SUPREME COURT that corruption is a enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and further taking in view that corruption is really a human rights violation specially right to life, liberty, equality and non-discrimination and it is an economic obstacles to the realization of all human rights and further taking into consideration that charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant and considering the nature of accusation and gravity of offence, the applicant has been charged, which are extremely serious and such offences are alleged to have been committed in the State of Chhattisgarh, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is not proper to order release of present applicant on regular bail. The prayer for grant of bail to the applicant is liable to be rejected and it is hereby rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the applicant should be granted bail in connection with the economic offences alleged against him.
2. Consideration of the applicant's fundamental rights, including the right to liberty and the right to be informed of grounds for arrest.
3. Evaluation of the severity and nature of the economic offences and their impact on the decision to grant bail.
4. Examination of the applicant's medical condition as a ground for bail.
5. Analysis of the alleged procedural irregularities in the arrest and investigation process.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of Bail:
The applicant sought bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, and Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The applicant argued that despite the gravity of the alleged economic offence, bail should not be automatically denied and should be considered on a case-to-case basis. The court emphasized that economic offences, especially those with deep-rooted conspiracies causing huge public fund losses, require a different approach in bail matters. The court cited precedents highlighting that economic offences are grave and affect the economy of the country, thus posing a serious threat to its financial health.

2. Fundamental Rights and Grounds for Arrest:
The applicant contended that his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution was violated due to prolonged incarceration without trial. The court reiterated the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception," but noted that this must be balanced against the severity of the alleged offences. Additionally, the applicant argued that he was not informed of the grounds of arrest, violating Article 22 of the Constitution. The court discussed the necessity of providing written grounds of arrest to ensure the accused can effectively seek legal counsel and oppose custody remand.

3. Nature and Severity of Offences:
The court examined the allegations against the applicant, which involved leading a criminal syndicate responsible for massive corruption in the State Excise Department, causing significant financial loss to the state exchequer. The court considered the seriousness of economic offences and their impact on society, emphasizing that such offences require serious consideration in bail decisions. The court referenced multiple judgments underscoring the need to view economic offences with gravity due to their repercussions on the country's development.

4. Medical Condition:
The applicant claimed that his medical conditions, including osteoarthritis and liver disorder, warranted bail. However, the court found no serious medical issues that would justify bail on these grounds. The court noted that the applicant's health conditions did not present a compelling reason for granting bail, especially given the nature of the offences.

5. Procedural Irregularities:
The applicant alleged procedural irregularities, including being targeted by multiple investigating agencies and the registration of multiple FIRs for the same offence. The court noted the applicant's argument that the second FIR was untenable in law and that the investigation was unfair and selective. However, the court did not find these contentions sufficient to grant bail, particularly in light of the ongoing investigation and the seriousness of the charges.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the applicant's involvement in the alleged economic offences, the gravity of the charges, and the potential impact on the ongoing investigation justified the denial of bail. The court emphasized the need to balance the applicant's rights with the interests of justice and the seriousness of the offences. Consequently, the court rejected the bail application, underscoring the importance of addressing corruption and economic offences with due seriousness.