9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fact that the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 is still going on and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the High Court enlarging respective respondent No. 1 on bail are unsustainable and the matters are required to be remitted back to the High Court for afresh decision on the bail applications after taking into consideration the observations made hereinabove. Considering the ECIR and other material placed on record, which prima facie shows involvement of the applicant in crime in question and also considering the law laid down by Hon ble the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that the applicant is unable to fulfill the twin conditions for grant of bail as provided under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002. Thus, the Point is answered against the applicant. Conclusion - Applicant is unable to fulfill twin conditions for grant of bail as per Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002. The bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is liable to be and is hereby rejected. Bail application rejected. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said notification was issued under the signatures of one Sameer Vishnoi, IAS who was the Director, Geology & Mining as well as MD of CMDC. It is also case of the prosecution that it is only after the said notification the applicant in conspiracy with certain other persons started obtaining an illegal levy of Rs. 25 per ton of coal for issuance of delivery order for coal transportation. The handwritten diaries maintained by one Rajnikant Tiwari who is brother of the applicant contained entries of incoming and outgoing amounts of unaccounted cash generated, inter alia from illegal levy on coal transport revealed profits of more than Rs. 500 crores in 16 months from different kinds of levies. On 29.09.2022, ECIR/RPZ0/09/2022 was registered by Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur Zonal Office for commission of offence under Sections 120 (B) & 384 of IPC being a part of FIR No. 129/2022. Role of the applicant:- 4. The role of present applicant is that the applicant with connivance of Saumya Chaurasia, Sameer Vishnoi and other senior bureaucrats and politicians hatched a conspiracy of illegal extortion of Rs. 25/- per ton on Coal which was transported from SECL mines & other places and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of life of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Manish Sisodia Vs. CBI [(2022) 10 SCC 51] and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693]. He would further submit that Section 436A of the Cr.P.C. should not be construed as a mandate that an accused should not be granted bail under the PMLA, 2002 till he has suffered incarceration for the specified period of half the maximum period of imprisonment. Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial. He would further submit that the right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with incarceration for a long period should be read into Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 as the constitutional mandate is the higher law and it is the basic right of the person charged of an offence and not convicted, that he be given a speedy trial. When the trial is not proceeding for reasons not attributable to the accused, the court unless there are good reasons, may well be guided to exercise the power to grant bail. He would further submit that the bail application of an accused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the 3 prosecution complaints and about 293 documents have been relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate running into over 19,326 pages. The proceedings are going on at a snail's pace and is still at the stage of further investigation, even after a passage of nearly 2 years since the registration of the said ECIR arguments on charges have not yet commenced, as such, the trial is unlikely to commence any time soon, let alone conclude any time soon. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has committed error in rejecting the above contentions of the applicant on the specious ground that the delay has been occasioned due to non-appearance of other accused persons. In this regard, it is submitted that firstly, the delay has been occasioned not due to any act/omission of the applicant, as such, the delay is not attributable to the applicant, and secondly, non-appearance of the other accused persons cannot be a ground to keep the applicant under indefinite pre-trial incarceration especially since the applicant has already been in custody for over 22 months. He would further submit that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in so many cases has granted benefit of bail to the accus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion of any alleged scheduled offence. In the present case, there is no underlying scheduled offence, thus there cannot be any proceeds of crime derived from the scheduled offences. Any alleged commission of a non-scheduled offence would not render any property, purportedly obtained or derived as a result thereof, as "proceeds of crime or give jurisdiction to the Enforcement Directorate. He would further submit that the other co-accused persons namely Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, Deepesh Taunk & Ms. Ranu Sahu have been granted bail by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and the same is a ground for grant of bail to the applicant also as there cannot be any discrimination between two similarly placed accused persons in terms of granting bail, therefore, the applicant is entitled for grant of regular bail. 11. He would further submit that the crux of the allegation against the applicant is that he was involved in running an alleged extortion racket wherein an amount of Rs 25/- per ton of coal was extorted for its transportation out of the coal mine fields However, the offence of extortion under Section 384 of IPC was not alleged in the Bengaluru FIR initially upon its registration on 12.07.202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is cogent supporting material as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of P. Chidambaram Vs. CBI [2020 13 SCC 337]. 13. He would further submit that the applicant is suffering from various serious medical conditions however, he has not been provided proper medical treatment by the authorities in jail and in absence of providing medical treatment to the applicant, he has undergone severe weight loss and has become extremely weak during the duration of his custody. He would further submit that the applicant is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the directions and conditions which may be imposed by this Court and would pray for releasing he applicant on bail. 14. The applicant has also filed application for taking additional documents on record contending that health condition of the applicant is deteriorating and was admitted in the hospital for treatment and subsequently discharged but still there is no substantial recovery in the health of the applicant. To substantiate his submission, he has annexed the medical report. Considering this submission, this Court has directed the prosecution to submit the medical report which was not clarif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [SLP (Crl.) No. 9817 of 2024, decided on 02.09 2024], Kalvakunta Kavitha Vs. ED [SLP (Crl.) No. 10778 of 2024, decided on 27.08 2024], Krishnan Subramanian Vs. State NCT of Delhi [2022 SCC OnLine Del 1384], Paras Mal Lodha Vs. ED [(2017) SCC OnLine Del 8676], Haricharan Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1184], Sanjay Jain Vs. ED [2024 SCC OnLine SC 656] & Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1244]. 17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate would refer to the ECIR and would submit that a notification dated 15.07.2020 was issued by Shri Sameer Vishnoi, IAS at the instance of extortion cartel led by the applicant, modified the pre-existing transparent online process of getting e-permits for transporting coal from mines to users, into a system which made it prone to massive corruption. He would further submit that FIR No. 129/2022 dated 12.07.2022 was registered by Kadugodi Police Station, Whitefield, Bengaluru under Sections 186, 204, 353 & 120 (B) of IPC against the applicant and others on the basis of complaint filed by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, Foreign Assets Investigation Unit-1, Bengaluru, stating that as part of a con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this syndicate and statements of various persons have been recorded by the authorities which will reveal that illegal collection of levy on transport of coal was being done on the direction of the applicant. 18. He would further submit that the present applicant has played specific role in commission of alleged offence. Investigation revealed that the applicant acquired coal washeries from M/s Indus Udyog & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Satya Power and Ispat Ltd. These coal washeries were acquired for an amount of Rs. 96 Crore, out of which Rs. 34 Crore was the registered value and was paid through banking channel and rest of the amount was to be paid in cash. Thus, large amount of illegally acquired cash was layered in these transactions. He would further submit that after the Income Tax raids, the other co-accused person has made sham paper transactions to show that he was the owner of these two washeries. These transactions were nothing but a futile attempt to alienate the ill-gotten proceeds of crime and take them far away from the arms of Income Tax & Enforcement Department and to prevent their attachment and to claim them as untainted assets. The said accused knowingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. CBI, [(2013) 7 SCC 466], State of Bihar Vs. Amit Kumar [(2017) 13 SCC 751], Gautam Kundu Vs. Manoj Kumar [(2015) 16 SCC 1], Mohd. Arif Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India, BLAPL No. 8882/2021 (decided on 31.05.2022), Soumya Chaurasia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8847/2023, Radha Mohan Lakhotia Vs. The Deputy Director, PMLA, Department of Revenue [MANU/MH/1011/2010], Anirudh Kamal Shukla Vs. Union of India [Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. No. 307/2022, decided on 21.03.2022], Naib Singh Vs. State of Haryana [CRM-M-29466-2022, decided on 15.11.2022]. 22. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record including ECIR with utmost satisfaction. 23. From the above discussion, the point to be emerged for determination by this Court is :- "Whether the applicant fulfills twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 for grant of bail?" 24. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is expedient for this Court to extract Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, which reads as under:- "Section 45 of PMLA, 2002-Offences to be cognizable and non ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rajnikant Tiwari at Raipur, Navneet Tiwari at Korba, Moinuddin Qureshi & Parekh Kurrey at Korba and Rahul Singh & Virendra Jaiswal, Montu Jaiswal at Surajpur for collecting illegal levy on coal transportation as well as other sections. This coal syndicate had extorted illegal levy of of Rs. 540 crores approximately from Coal businessmen/ transporters and other sectors from July, 2020 to June, 2022. This system of collection of illegal cash was facilitated/coordinated by the applicant and the system ran with impunity and without any interruption because the applicant had backing of the highest powers in the State and due to his close association with Smt. Saumya Chaurasia and in turn with other senior IAS/IPS officers as well as politicians. The proceeds of crime generated by this syndicate has been utilized for political funding, making bribes to Government Officials, purchasing of properties including coal washeries by the applicant, Smt. Saumya Chaurasia in the name of their benamidars and members of syndicate & their family members. The ECIR further prima facie reveals that the present applicant has played specific role and he is kingpin of the offence. The investigation reveal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. As such, the submission made by learned Senior counsel for the applicant that due to delay in conclusion of trial, the applicant is entitled to get bail, deserves to be rejected. Even otherwise, it is well settled position of law that the delay is always no ground for grant of bail as while granting bail on account of delay, the Court has to consider the gravity of the offence, role played by the accused and whether the delay is attributed to the prosecution or not. In the present case, none of the ingredients is available on record to grant bail to the accused on the count of delay. It is pertinent to mention here that the prosecution has submitted order-sheet of the trial Court which clearly demonstrates that various applications have been filed by the other co-accused persons before learned trial Court, which have been decided by the trial Court causing delay in conclusion of trial. As such, this ground deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. 27. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant would submit that Hon'ble the Supreme Court has granted bail to the other co-accused person on the count of delay, therefore, the applicant should also be considered for re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail: Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm [or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees], may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs: Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under Section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by-- (i) the Director; or (ii) any officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or special order made in this behalf by that Government. [(1-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other provision of this Act, no police officer shall investigate into an offence under this Act unless specifically authorised, by the Central Government by a general or special order, and, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.] (2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in [* * *] sub-section (1) is i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has neither considered the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 nor has considered the seriousness of the offences alleged against accused for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 and the High Court has not at all considered the fact that the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 is still going on and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the High Court enlarging respective respondent No. 1 on bail are unsustainable and the matters are required to be remitted back to the High Court for afresh decision on the bail applications after taking into consideration the observations made hereinabove." 30. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant would submit that since the applicant remained in jail for more than two years and maximum sentence which can be awarded is seven years, therefore, he should be released on bail. This submission also deserves to be rejected looking to gravity and seriousness of the offence and the role played by the applicant as there is chance of influencing or tampering with the witness and evidence. As such, he is not entitled to be released on bail on the count that he remained in custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
