Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate Of Enforcement

The prosecution relies upon the statement of K.K. Shrivastava dated 23.06.2025, wherein it is alleged that he received approximately Rs. 72 Crores in cash from Laxminarayan Bansal under the instructions of the applicant and handed over the same to hawala operators at Raipur. It is further alleged that the drivers employed under him confirmed transportation of cash consignments strictly as per instructions communicated on behalf of the applicant. The prosecution also relied upon the statement of Nikhil Chandrakar dated 02.12.2025, wherein he allegedly stated that he received approximately Rs. 5 Crores in cash from Laxminarayan Bansal under instructions of the applicant. He had collected funds from Dipen Chawda on behalf of the applicant. 9

15. The prosecution further relies upon diary entries allegedly recovered from Suryakant Tiwari, wherein receipts attributed to the applicant from Anwar Dhebar have been recorded. On the basis of these diary entries, the prosecution alleges that the applicant received approximately Rs. 43.50 Crores from proceeds of the liquor scam. The prosecution alleges that the applicant has handled, assisted, acquired and possessed proceeds of crime to the extent of approximately Rs.

115.5 Crores.

16. It is further alleged that the applicant invested such proceeds in acquisition of properties in her own name and in the names of family members. The prosecution alleges that the applicant knowingly assisted in the movement of illicit funds, Cash handling, Hawala transactions and layering of proceeds of crime. According to the prosecution, the applicant directed intermediaries handling cash collections and supervised hawala transactions for layering and integration of proceeds of crime. It is alleged that the applicant ensured delivery of illegal proceeds to political beneficiaries. The prosecution has alleged that the applicant knowingly assisted in generation of proceeds of crime, possessed proceeds of crime,concealed proceeds of crime and projected proceeds of crime as untainted property. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the prosecution asserts that the applicant has knowingly participated in activities connected with proceeds of crime and is therefore liable for offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA.

17. It is alleged that the applicant acquired proceeds of crime, 10 possessed proceeds of crime, concealed proceeds of crime and used proceeds of crime projecting proceeds of crime as untainted. The prosecution contends that the material on record including statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA, Digital evidence, WhatsApp communications, diary entries and financial records establishes a prima facie case of money laundering against the applicant. It is therefore alleged that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is guilty of the offence of money laundering within the meaning of Section 45 of the PMLA. I. INTRODUCTORY SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

18. The present applicant seeks grant of regular bail in connection with ECIR No. ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Applicant was arrested on 16.12.2025, after prolonged investigation extending over nearly two years and after filing of multiple prosecution complaints. The Applicant has cooperated throughout the investigation and has never avoided summons or proceedings. The Applicant satisfies the Triple test for bail and Twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA and is therefore entitled to bail. II. APPLICANT NOT NAMED IN FIR OR ECIR

19. Shri Siddarth Dave, learned Senior Counsel contended that the Applicant is neither named in the predicate FIR No. 04/2024 or the ECIR No. ECIR/RPZO/04/2024. The applicant was implicated only subsequently during investigation without any independent incriminating 11 material. No recovery whatsoever has been made from the Applicant and no proceeds of crime have been traced to the Applicant. The Apex Court in Prem Prakash vs Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 9 SCC 787 held that existence of proceeds of crime and nexus with accused must be shown. In absence of any recovery or traceable proceeds of crime, continued incarceration is unjustified. III. ARREST AFTER YEARS OF INVESTIGATION

20. The Applicant has been arrested after prolonged investigation and after filing of prosecution complaints. The Apex Court in Arvind Kejriwal vs Directorate of Enforcement (2025) 2 SCC 248, has held that arrest must be justified by necessity and not merely formality. It has held that arrest cannot be mechanical or merely because it is lawful to do so. The Applicant was never arrested earlier despite repeated investigations which clearly shows absence of necessity. The present arrest is therefore a residual and formal arrest, liable to be viewed with suspicion. IV. EVERGREENING OF CUSTODY

21. Next contention on behalf of the applicant s that the applicant has been arrested repeatedly in multiple cases. The Applicant has been arrested six times in total despite being granted bail repeatedly. This establishes deliberate attempt to prolong incarceration by successive arrests. The Apex Court in Binay Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand (2026) deprecated multiple arrests to prolong custody and granted bail. Such practice violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. V. BAIL GRANTED IN MULTIPLE CASES 12

22. It is contended that the Applicant has already been granted bail in multiple cases including Coal case (ED), Coal case (EOW), Disproportionate Assets case and DMF case. The interim bails granted by the Apex Court have been confirmed. The Applicant has never violated any bail condition. This establishes that the Applicant is not likely to Abscond, Tamper evidence and Influence witnesses. In Sanjay Chandra vs CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Apex Court held that Bail is the rule and jail is the exception. VI. PARITY WITH CO-ACCUSED

23. Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that out of 81 accused persons, only 9 were arrested. Several alleged key conspirators have already been granted bail including Anwar Dhebar, Arun Pati Tripathi, Anil Tuteja, Kawasi Lakhma, and Chaitanya Baghel and the Applicant stands on better footing. Bail on parity is a recognized principle. In Dataram Singh vs State of UP (2018) 3 SCC 22, the Apex Court has held that Consistency in granting bail is an important facet of Article 14. Similarly in Ravindra Saxena vs State of Rajasthan (2010) 1 SCC 684, parity was recognized as valid ground. VII. SELECTIVE ARRESTS – PICK AND CHOOSE POLICY

24. Several persons alleged to be involved including distillery owners, Cash aggregators, Contractors have not been arrested. The Applicant alone has been singled out. The Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 held that State action mus The Delhi 13 High Court in Vipin Yadav vs ED, 2025 SCC Online Del 6237 held that pick-and-choose arrests justify bail. VIII. ENTIRE CASE BASED ON STATEMENTS OF CO-ACCUSED

25. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the entire case of the prosecution rests upon statements of co-accused and witnesses recorded under Section 50 PMLA. There is no independent documentary evidence. The Apex Court in Haricharan Kurmi vs State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1184 has held that Confession of co-accused has weak evidentiary value. Similarly in Subramanya vs State of Karnataka (2023) 11 SCC 255, the Court has held that Conviction cannot be based solely on confession of co-accused. In Prem Prakash vs ED (2024) 9 SCC 787, it has been held that reliance solely on statements was deprecated. IX. NO PROCEEDS OF CRIME RECOVERED

26. There were no proceeds of crime recovered from the Applicant. No bank account showing laundering has been identified and no property has been attached exclusively belonging to the Applicant from alleged proceeds. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India (2022) 10 SCC 1, the Apex Court held that Proceeds of crime is foundational requirement. Absence of traceable proceeds negates money laundering allegation. X. INVESTIGATION COMPLETE

27. The investigation qua Applicant is complete and the prosecution Complaint dated 26.12.2025 has already been filed. Entire evidence is documentary in nature therefore no custodial interrogation is required. 14 In P. Chidambaram vs ED (2019) 9 SCC 24, the Apex Court has held that when investigation is complete, continued custody is not justified. XI. TRIAL WILL TAKE LONG TIME

28. The prosecution involves 81 accused, 117 witnesses, hundreds of documents, The Predicate offence involves 52 accused, 1193 witnesses and 11000+ documents., the trial is unlikely to conclude in near future. In Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb(2021) 3 SCC 713, the Apex Court has held that Prolonged incarceration violates Article 21. XII. APPLICANT IS A WOMAN – BENEFIT OF PROVISO TO SECTION 45

29. It is contended that the Applicant is a woman and the first proviso to Section 45 PMLA permits bail to women. In Enforcement Directorate vs Preeti Chandra (2023 SCC Online SC 930), the Supreme Court has held that benefit to women is discretionary but relevant consideration. The Applicant deserves liberal approach. XIII. TWIN CONDITIONS SATISFIED

30. There are reasonable grounds to believe that Applicant is not guilty because she has not been named in FIR, No recovery, No independent evidence and statements only evidence, Parity with co- accused. The applicant is not likely to commit offence while on bail because multiple bails have been granted, no violation and is a permanent resident having deep roots. Thus twin conditions are satisfied. XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES 15

31. Bail jurisprudence is rooted in Article 21. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs Public Prosecutor (1978) 1 SCC 240, the Court held: Personal liberty cannot be casually curtailed. In Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union of India (2018) 11 SCC 1, importance of liberty was emphasized. XV. FAILURE OF RESPONDENT TO ESTABLISH "REASONS TO BELIEVE"

32. It is respectfully submitted that the arrest of the Applicant under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is vitiated as the mandatory requirement of recording valid "reasons to believe" based on credible material has not been satisfied. The Respondent has merely reproduced allegations from statements and prosecution complaints without demonstrating the independent application of mind required under Section 19 PMLA. The Supreme Court in Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2025) 2 SCC 248, has held that “The requirement of "reasons to believe" must be real and based on tangible material and cannot be mechanical reproduction of allegations.”

33. The arrest memo and grounds of arrest in the present case merely summarize allegations without showing how the Applicant: acquired proceeds of crime, Possessed proceeds of crime and projected proceeds as untainted property. Therefore the statutory requirement under Section 19 PMLA stands violated. XVI. ABSENCE OF DIRECT NEXUS WITH PROCEEDS OF CRIME

34. It is submitted that the Respondent/ED has failed to establish a direct nexus between the Applicant and proceeds of crime, which is the 16 sine qua non for invoking Section 3 PMLA. The Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) 10 SCC 1, held that Proceeds of crime must be linked with the accused person. In the present case, No proceeds were recovered, there was no money trail, No bank accounts traced and no financial layering shown. The allegation that the Applicant handled Rs.115.5 crores is based solely on statements without documentary support. Such bald allegations cannot satisfy Section 45 PMLA. XVII. ENTIRE CASE BASED ON INFERENCES

35. The prosecution case is based upon assumptions, Inferences, Interpretations of chats and statements of interested witnesses. No independent documentary evidence exists linking the Applicant with laundering activity. The Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24 held that bail can be granted where evidence is primarily documentary and custodial interrogation is unnecessary. The Applicant is not required for further investigation. XVIII. NO POSSIBILITY OF TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE

36. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any real apprehension that the Applicant will tamper with evidence. Entire evidence is Documentary, Digital and already seized. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 held that “Where evidence is documentary, apprehension of tampering is minimal. The Applicant has already remained on bail in multiple cases without any violation. 17 XIX. REPEATED ARRESTS VIOLATE ARTICLE 21

37. The Applicant has been arrested repeatedly in different ECIRs on substantially identical material. Such successive arrests defeat the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. The Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51 emphasized that criminal law cannot be used to perpetuate custody. Repeated arrests amount to indirect denial of bail. XX. BENEFIT OF PROVISO TO SECTION 45 – WOMAN ACCUSED

38. It is contended that the applicant is a woman and therefore entitled to liberal consideration under the first proviso to Section 45 PMLA. The proviso reflects legislative intent to adopt a humane approach. The Courts have consistently granted bail to women even in stringent statutes. The Supreme Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294 has held that Bail conditions must be interpreted in a manner consistent with personal liberty. The Applicant deserves benefit of the proviso. XXI. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE CONTINUES

39. The Respondent seeks to treat allegations as proof. Bail proceedings cannot become a mini trial. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of UP (2018) 3 SCC 22 that Presumption of innocence continues till conviction. The Applicant cannot be detained merely on suspicion. XXII. ECONOMIC OFFENCE NOT ABSOLUTE BAR TO BAIL

40. The Respondent has emphasized seriousness of offence. Gravity alone cannot justify denial of bail. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 has held that Seriousness of 18 offence cannot override right to liberty. Similarly in P. Chidambaram v. ED (2019) 9 SCC 24, bail was granted in a PMLA case. XXIII. BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE FAVOURS BAIL

41. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not a flight risk, has cooperated and roots in society, already on bail in other cases and the investigation is complete. The continued custody serves no purpose.

42. In short, it is contended that the Applicant satisfies Twin Conditions, reasonable grounds of innocence exist, not likely to commit offence. In the Triple Test, there is no flight risk, no tampering and no influence. The continued incarceration of the Applicant is disproportionate and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is therefore respectfully prayed that the Applicant be enlarged on bail.

43. The Applicant has been granted bail by the Supreme Court on three occasions and by the learned Sessions Court on one occasion, and the said bail orders continue to operate without any violation on the part of the Applicant. Despite this, the Applicant has been subjected to repeated arrests and has been arrested as many as six times in total, which clearly demonstrates a pattern of successive and overlapping arrests designed to prolong incarceration. The successive arrests of the Applicant on substantially similar material reveal a deliberate attempt to circumvent the grant of bail by courts of competent jurisdiction and to ensure continued custody through different proceedings. Such repeated arrests defeat the very 19 purpose of bail jurisprudence and amount to indirect denial of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

44. The interim bails granted to the Applicant by the Apex Court in different proceedings have subsequently been confirmed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 28.01.2026, thereby affirming that the Applicant is not required to remain in custody. The following chronology demonstrates the repeated arrests and grant of bail to the Applicant:

02.12.2022 Arrested in Coal Scam by ED (ECIR/RPZO/09/2022) 23,05.2024 Petitioner arrested in Coal Scam by EOW (FIR No. 03/2024

25.09.2024 ED Interim Bail granted in Coal Scam by Apex Court

08.11.2024 Arrested in Disproportionate Assets case (FIR No. 22/2024)

08.01.2025 Default bail granted in disproportionate Assets

03.03.2025 EOW Interim bail granted in Coal scam by Supreme Court

03.03.2025 Arrested in DMF scam (FIR No. 02/2024 immediately

29.05.2025 Interim bail granted in DMF scam by the Apex Court

45. The above sequence unmistakably establishes that the Applicant has been consistently found entitled to bail by constitutional courts, and at no stage has the Applicant misused the liberty granted to her. It is further submitted that the Supreme Court, after hearing the Applicant on the issue of multiple arrests, illegal arrests and evergreen custody, passed order dated 09.02.2026 in W.P. (Criminal) No. 18 of 20 2026, directing that the present bail application be considered by this Court keeping in view the previous bail orders granted to the Applicant as well as to other co-accused persons. The Supreme Court specifically observed as under: “The High Court is requested to take up both matters on a priority basis and make an endeavor to decide the same at the earliest, but not later than two weeks. The High Court will also keep in mind the various orders passed by this Court granting bail to the Petitioner and other co-accused.” The Supreme Court's aforementioned direction unequivocally underscores that prior bail orders favouring the Applicant and similarly situated co-accused represent a material and compelling consideration for the instant application.

46. Having been repeatedly enlarged on bail by the Apex Court— complying scrupulously with all imposed conditions—the Applicant merits parity and consistent treatment herein. In light of these facts and the Supreme Court's express mandate, her continued incarceration offends settled tenets of parity (State of Maharashtra v. Suresh Nivrutti Bhokare, 2024 INSC 157), judicial consistency, and Article 21 safeguards of personal liberty (Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi, 2001 4 SCC 280).

47. It is further submitted that out of 81 accused persons in the present case, only 9 have been arrested and as many as 7 arrested accused have already been enlarged on bail, while the remaining accused persons have been charge-sheeted without arrest. 21 Significantly, even the alleged principal conspirators, namely Anil Tuteja, Anwar Dhebar, Arun Pati Tripathi, Kawasi Lakhma and Chaitanya Baghel, have already been granted bail by the competent courts.

48. The Applicant stands on a far better footing than the said co- accused, inasmuch as there is no recovery of proceeds of crime from the Applicant, no direct financial trail has been attributed to her, and her alleged role is based primarily on statements of co-accused and inferential allegations. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that similarly situated accused are entitled to bail on the ground of parity, particularly when the persons alleged to be the main architects of the offence have already been enlarged on bail. The following chart reflects the bail granted to the co-accused persons in the present case:

7. Trilok Singh Dhilon Cr.A. No. 1535 of 2025

26.03.2025 Anwar Dhebar Cr.A. No. 2669 of 2025

19.05.2025 Arun Pati Tripathi Cr.A. No. 725 of 2025

12.02.2025 Anil Tuteja SLP (Crl.) No. 3148 of 2025

15.04.2025 Arvind Singh Cr.A. No. 2576 of 2025

13.05.2025 Chaitanya Baghel MCRC No. 8716 of 2025

02.01.2026 Kawasi Lakhma SLP (Crl.) No.

03.02.2026

49. The above direction makes it clear that the previous bail orders in favour of the Applicant and similarly placed co-accused persons constitute a decisive and relevant consideration for adjudication of the present bail application. Once the Apex Court has directed consideration of the present bail application on the threshold of bail 22 granted to the Applicant and co-accused, there remains no justification for continued incarceration of the Applicant, particularly when the investigation is complete and the prosecution complaint has already been filed. XXIV. NO PRIMA FACIE CASE UNDER SECTION 3 PMLA

50. It is submitted that no prima facie case under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is made out against the Applicant, even on a bare reading of the Supplementary Prosecution Complaint dated 26.12.2025. The entire case of the Respondent proceeds on assumptions and inferential allegations without establishing any direct nexus between the Applicant and the alleged proceeds of crime. The Supreme Court in Prem Prakash v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 9 SCC 787 has held that the prosecution must demonstrate a clear nexus between the accused and the proceeds of crime. XXV. SCHEDULED OFFENCE NOT ESTABLISHED

51. It is submitted that the prosecution under PMLA is dependent upon the existence of a scheduled offence generating proceeds of crime. Charges in the predicate offence are yet to be framed. Trial in predicate offence has not commenced. Investigation in predicate offence remains open. The Supreme Court in V. Senthil Balaji v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626) has held that Proceeds of crime must arise from a scheduled offence and the same must be established in prosecution. In absence of final determination of scheduled offence, continued incarceration under PMLA is unjustified. 23 XXVI. PROLONGED TRIAL JUSTIFIES BAIL

52. The prosecution involves 81 accused persons, 117 witnesses, 61,000+ pages of documents and multiple prosecution complaints. The trial has not commenced and is unlikely to conclude within reasonable time. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 held that Prolonged incarceration violates Article 21 even in stringent statutes. Similarly in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, it was held that Detention during trial cannot become punishment. Continued incarceration of the Applicant would amount to pre-trial punishment. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE ED

53. Shri Zohaib Hossain, learned counsel for the respondent/ED contended that the present application seeking bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is wholly misconceived, premature and liable to be rejected, as the Applicant has played a central and supervisory role in the generation, handling and layering of proceeds of crime in the Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam involving hundreds of crores of rupees. The material collected during investigation clearly establishes the Applicant’s active participation in the process and activity connected with proceeds of crime, thereby attracting Section 3 punishable under Section 4 PMLA. The Applicant does not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA, and therefore is not entitled to bail. I. APPLICANT PLAYED A KEY AND SUPERVISORY ROLE IN MONEY LAUNDERING 24

54. Investigation has revealed that the Applicant, while functioning as Deputy Secretary to the Chief Minister, acted as a senior political coordinator and supervisory authority in the liquor syndicate. The evidence collected demonstrates (i) Supervisory Role Coordinated with Anil Tuteja, Anwar Dhebar, Chaitanya Baghel and Arun Pati Tripathi. The WhatsApp chats and digital evidence clearly demonstrate Settlement of accounts ("Hisab"), Transfer of funds, Appointment of excise officers and Policy manipulation. This establishes active involvement in laundering process. Under the Section 3 of the PMLA, Knowing assistance or facilitation is sufficient. The Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v Union of India