Nafr High Court
Case Details
Page 1 of 15 2025:CGHC:22058 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 2011 of 2025 Reserved on : 08.05.2025 Delivered on : 14.05.2025 Manoj Kumar Dwivedi S/o Sh. R.L. Dwivedi Aged About 52 Years R/o D - 2, Rohinipuram, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Versus --- Applicant The Enforcement Directorate Through Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Raipur Zonal Office, Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aman Saxena, Advocate. For Respondent : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Special Public Prosecutor. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV ORDER 1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested on 05.12.2024 in connection with Crime No. ECIR/RPZO/02/2023 dated 20.03.2023 registered at Police Station- Directorate of Enforcement, Zonal Office, Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “the PMLA, 2002”). ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.05.14 13:25:55 +0530 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the case relates to Page 2 of 15 corruption and financial irregularities while releasing District Mineral Fund (DMF). It is also case of the Enforcement Directorate that said irregularities came into the knowledge of the Enforcement Directorate
Facts
through open source information and FIR registered in this case. It is also case of the prosecution that during the preliminary investigation, intelligence input was received wherein it has come to the notice that the Government officials are involved in demanding for commission to release the payment for DMF work done by the contractors. The Enforcement Directorate has also collected and analyzed the bank details of the suspected persons/contractors and on enquiry, it was observed that there is clear sign of siphoning off DMF funds. As per the prosecution case, the applicant was involved in the commission of
Legal Reasoning
involved in the money laundering which prima facie suggests the involvement of the applicant in the crime in question. Thus, prima facie the investigation has collected the evidence which clearly establishes that the applicant is directly involved and knowingly party in the process connected with the proceeds of crime i.e. acquisition, Page 4 of 15 possession, concealment, use and projection of such proceeds of crime as untainted and thus, committed the offence of money launder as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 and liable to be prosecuted under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002. 5. The record of the case would show that the applicant filed an application for grant of regular bail before the learned Special Judge (PMLA)/Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) seeking enlargement on regular bail in connection with the ECIR. Learned Special Judge vide order dated 14.01.2025, dismissed the bail application filed by the applicant. This order is being assailed by the applicant and has prayed for releasing him on bail. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He would further submit that the allegations levelled against the applicant in the ECIR and prosecution complaint dated 09.12.2024 are completely false, bogus with malafide intention to arm twist the applicant and also to harass and browbeat the applicant and other accused. The ECIR has been lodged on 20.03.2023 i.e. after delay of about 4 years from the first FIR in 2019, which ended in a closure report, which clearly shows that the said ECIR has been filed just to harass and humiliate the applicant and to put pressure on the accused. He would further submit that the prosecution has failed to demonstrate how the applicant projected proceeds of crime as untainted, a sine qua non under PMLA, 2002, hence there is an absence of even a prima facie case. He would further submit that closure of Crime No. 24/2019 and the applicant's exclusion from Crime No. 08/2023 render the PMLA case through the ECIR nonest. 7. He would further submit the ECIR (20.03.2023) predates FIR No. Page 5 of 15 02/2024, a fatal flaw undermining the investigation's validity and PMLA proceedings sans a valid predicate offence are a legal travesty and this is a jurisdictional lapse and illegality in the registration of ECIR itself as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Pavana Dibbur Vs. ED [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1452). He would further submit that the applicant complies with the triple test for bail. He would further submit that the applicant has strong local ties, familial responsibilities for his wife, children, wife who suffers from asthama and migraine, and lack of criminal negate flight risk. He would further submit that all evidence is documentary (bank records, property deeds) and already seized, rendering tampering impossible as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil [(2022)10 SCC 51]. He would further submit that the applicant is in jail since 05.12.2024 which affect discharge of his responsibilities as bread winner for the family. He has several responsibility towards his family including his children and due to false implication in present case, he is unable to perform his duties towards his family and profession. He would further submit that the entire case of the prosecution rests on illegal ECIRs, hearsay and statements obtained by coercion, torture and duress, therefore, the same is illegal and the applicant satisfies the condition of bail under section 45 PMLA. He would further submit that the applicant is permanent resident of the above mentioned address, therefore, there is no chance of him absconding and there is no allegation that the applicant will tamper with evidence or attempt to influence witnesses. He would further submit that the applicant is ready to furnish the adequate surety and ready to abide by all the terms and conditions as Page 6 of 15 directed by Hon'ble High Court including submission of passport and will cooperate with the Enforcement Directorate as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court and would pray for granting bail to the applicant. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate referring to the ECIR would submit that the applicant who is owner of NGO named Udgam Seva Samiti was awarded tender under DMF to the tune of Rs. 25.29 crores during financial year 2021-22 & 2022-23 and the applicant with intent of personal gain in connivance with other co-accused persons has siphoned off public money in form of DMF and utilized services of accommodation entry providers to generate cash on the strength of bogus/inflated purchase bills and part of such generated cash was paid to the government officials as bribe for awarding him tender illegally and remaining part o the cash remained with him. The applicant has also collected bribe money from other vendors on instructions of Maya Varrier for benefit of Ms. Ranu Sahu, Thus, the applicant has actively and knowingly involved in acquisition, possession, concealment, use of proceed of crime and projected the same as untainted. The applicant has also knowingly assisted other persons in acquisition of proceed of crime. Thus, the applicant has knowingly and willingly assisted the extortion syndicate in committing the predicate crime of extortion and also in generation of proceeds of crime. 9. He would further submit that the learned Special Judge (PMLA), Raipur vide order dated 14.01.2025 while dismissing the bail application filed by the applicant has observed that there is involvement of the applicant in the crime in question which has not been rebutted by the applicant while making this submission before this Court and would pray for Page 7 of 15 rejection of bail petition. He would further submit that the applicant is unable to fulfill the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 as from the above factual matrix, it is quite vivid that the possibility of the accused being not guilty of the offence of money laundering is highly impossible. To substantiate the submission, he would refer to paragraph 135 of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary & others Vs. Union of India & others [2022 SCC OnLine SC 929]. He would further submit that the applicant with proceed of crime and having deep roots in the society, is in a position to influence witnesses. He has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in case of Pankaj Grover v. ED [Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 7661 of 2021] wherein Hon’ble the High Court has held that the accused in economic offences/ PMLA cases is in possession of huge proceeds of crime and may use those to influence witnesses. Further the Court also held that since such offences are committed mostly by influential persons, there is a high likelihood of their using influence to tamper with evidence and influence witnesses. He would further submit that economic offence constitutes a separate class of offence and in the present case, the amount involved in the offence of money laundering is Rs. 540 crores approximately and in view of well settled position of law that economic offence constitutes a separate class of offence and bail should not normally be granted in such cases and would pray for rejection of bail petition. 10. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. CBI, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 466, State of Bihar Vs. Page 8 of 15 Amit Kumar reported in (2017) 13 SCC 751, Gautam Kundu Vs. Manoj Kumar reported in (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, Y.S. Jaganmohan Reddy Vs. CBI [Criminal Appeal No. 730/2013 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3404/2013], State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & others [(1987) 2 SCC 364] & Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & another [AIR (SC) (CRI) 2015 (0) 412]. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record including ECIR with utmost satisfaction. 12. 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”? 13. From bare perusal of the second prosecution complaint dated 30.01.2023, it is quite vivid that prima facie the Enforcement Directorate has collected evidence of offence of money laundering against the present applicant though its correctness is required to be adjudicated during trial. 14. This Court during course of hearing on 24.04.2025 has directed counsel for the applicant to produce the relevant document to demonstrate that the applicant is running the NGO and his capacity to undertake such work and experience of work in the field where he has performed to be eligible for obtaining tender. The applicant has only submitted statement of bank account and certificate of registration of NGO but no document has been submitted to demonstrate his capacity Page 9 of 15 to work for which a huge payment to the tune of more than Rs. 24 crores have been paid which prima facie suggests that there was forged and fabricated NGO. It has been established with an object to obtain tender only. Even the applicant has not taken any stand in the bail petition that he has undertaken the work allotted to him for claiming himself to be duly constituted NGO. In absence of any such material, prima facie involvement reflects in the commission of offence for which the FIR has been lodged. 15. Considering the prima facie involvement of the applicant as also the role played by the applicant, the present bail application deserves to be rejected. Even otherwise, the law has been well settled by Hon’ble the Supreme Court that while considering the bail application, the Court is not required to weigh the evidence collected by the investigating agency meticulously, nonetheless, the Court should keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence collected in support thereof, the severity of the punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial, reasonable apprehension of the witness being tampered with, the large interest of the public/state etc. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Saumya Chourasiya Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [Criminal Appeal No. 3840 of 2023, decided on 14.12.2023] has held at paragraphs 18 & 19 as under:- “18. The object of the PMLA hardly needs to be delineated. The said Act has been enacted to prevent money laundering and to provide for confiscation of property derived from, or involved in, money laundering and for the matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. As per Section 2(1)(p), “Money Laundering” has the meaning assigned to it in Section 3. The offence of Page 10 of 15 Money Laundering has been defined in Section 3, which is punishable under Section 4 of the said Act. Section 45 makes the offences under the PMLA to be cognizable and non bailable. As regards the twin conditions for the grant of bail contained in Section 45(1), it has been held by the Three-Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal (supra) that the underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 of the Act must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of money laundering. 19. Though it is true that the Court while considering an application seeking bail is not required to weigh the evidence collected by the investigating agency meticulously, nonetheless the Court should keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence collected in support thereof, the severity of the punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial, reasonable apprehension of the witness being tempered with, the large interest of the public/ state etc. Though the findings recorded by the Court while granting or refusing to grant bail would be tentative in nature, nonetheless the Court is expected to express prima facie opinion while granting or refusing to grant bail which would demonstrate an application of mind, particularly dealing with the serious economic offences.” 16. Thus, the applicant has failed to fulfill the twin conditions required for grant of bail under the PMLA, 2002 as evident from perusal of the Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 which reads as under:- “Section 45 of PMLA, 2002- Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.— (1) [Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence [under this Act] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—] (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail: Page 11 of 15 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 in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.” 17. From bare perusal of ECIR with regard to the allegations leveled against the present applicant, it is quite vivid that the present applicant has played a specific role in commission of offence. Investigation revealed that the applicant had helped Ms. Ranu Sahu in the offence. The ECIR would further reflect that the present applicant has knowingly and willingly assisted the extortion syndicate in committing the predicate crime of extortion and also in generation of proceeds of crime. It has also recorded in the ECIR that it was not possible to run the extortion racket without the collusion of other co-accused persons and thus the applicant was knowingly assisted in the offence of money laundering as defined in Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. Thus, the applicant is unable to fulfill the twin conditions of Section 45 of the Page 12 of 15 PMLA, 2002. 18. Considering the above stated factual legal matrix, it is quite vivid that the applicant is unable to fulfill twin conditions for grant of bail as per Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 and also considering the submission that the applicant has not prima facie reversed the burden of proof and dislodged the prosecution case which is mandatory requirement to get bail. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Aditya Tripathi (Criminal Appeal No. 1401/2023) decided on 12.05.2023 has held at paragraphs 6 & 7 as under:- “6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that respective respondent No. 1 – accused are facing the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences and for the offences of money laundering under Section 3 of the PML Act punishable under Section 4 of the said Act. An enquiry/investigation is still going on by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences in connection with FIR No. 12/2019. Once, the enquiry/investigation against respective respondent No. 1 is going on for the offences under the PML Act, 2002, the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 is required to be considered. Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 reads as under:- “45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.— (1) [Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence [under this Act] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless—] (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds 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: Page 13 of 15 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 authorized 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 in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.” By the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) and while granting bail, the High Court has not considered the rigour of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002. 6.1 Even otherwise, the High Court has not at all considered the nature of allegations and seriousness of the offences alleged of money laundering and the offences under the PML Act, 2002. Looking to the nature of allegations, it can be said that the same can be said to be very serious allegations of money laundering which are required to be investigated thoroughly. 6.2 Now so far as the submissions on behalf of the respective respondent No. 1 that respective respondent No. 1 were not named in the FIR with respect to the scheduled offence(s) and/or that all the other accused are discharged/acquitted in so far as the predicated offences are concerned, merely because other accused are acquitted/discharged, it cannot be a ground not to continue the investigation in respect of respective respondent No. 1. An enquiry/investigation is going on against respective respondent No. 1 with respect to the scheduled offences. Therefore, the enquiry/investigation for the scheduled offences itself is sufficient at this stage. 6.3 From the impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court, it appears that what is weighed with the High Court is that chargesheet has been filed against respective respondent No. 1 – accused and therefore, the investigation is completed. However, the High Court has failed to notice and appreciate that the investigation with respect to the scheduled Page 14 of 15 offences under the PML Act, 2002 by the Enforcement Directorate is still going on. Merely because, for the predicated offences the chargesheet might have been filed it cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail in connection with the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002. Investigation for the predicated offences and the investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under the PML Act are different and distinct. Therefore, the High Court has taken into consideration the irrelevant consideration. The investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002 is till going on. 7. As observed herein-above, the High Court 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.” 19. 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 judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Saumya Chourasiya (supra), 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, Point involved in this bail application is answered against the applicant. 20. Considering the above stated factual and legal matrix, the role played by the applicant, prima facie and also considering the gravity of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. 21. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nayay Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is also liable to be and is hereby rejected. Page 15 of 15 22. The observation made by this Court is not bearing any effect on the trial of the case. Learned trial Court will decide the criminal trial in accordance with evidence, material placed on record, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while deciding the present bail application. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun
Arguments
offence. It is further case of the prosecution that Ms. Ranu Sahu, who is an IAS Officer and posted as District Collector, Balod in 2019 and from June 2021 to June 2022 in Korba has demanded bribe from the contractors. The Enforcement Directorate has recorded the statements under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 of various vendors working under DMF and the Chief Executive Officers of Janpad Panchayat in Balod and Korba wherein some of the vendors have stated that they have paid illegal commission to Ms. Ranu Sahu. One of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat posted in the District has also stated that commission against DMF work has been paid to Ms. Ranu Sahu. It is also case of the Enforcement Directorate that during investigation, various corroborative evidences have also been gathered which confirms the receipt of bribe by Ms. Ranu Sahu. 3. The role of present applicant is that the applicant who is owner of NGO Page 3 of 15 named Udgam Seva Samiti and was awarded tender under DMF to the tune of Rs. 25.29 crores during financial year 2021-22 & 2022-23. The applicant with intent of personal gain in connivance with Ms. Ranu Sahu, Maya Varrier, Bhuvneshwar Singh Raj, Virendra Kumar Rathore, Radheshyam Mirija & Bharosa Ram Thakur siphoned off public money in form of DMF and utilized services of accommodation entry providers to generate cash on the strength of bogus/inflated purchase bills and part of such generated cash was paid to the government officials as bribe for awarding him tender illegally and remaining part of the cash remained with him. The applicant has also collected bribe money from other vendors on instructions of Maya Varrier for benefit of Ms. Ranu Sahu, Thus, the applicant has actively and knowingly involved in acquisition, possession, concealment, use of proceed of crime and projected the same as untainted. The applicant has also knowingly assisted other persons in acquisition of proceed of crime. 4. During investigation, the prosecution has recorded the statement of accused person, their associates, entry provider and seller of property to the accused persons and their family members. The prosecution has collected the evidence to prove that the applicant in association with the other co-accused persons has actively played a vital role in proceeds of crime as well as in the crime related to the DMF and also