Nafr High Court
Case Details
Page 1 of 20 2025:CGHC:43834 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 5224 of 2025 Reserved on : 18-08-2025 Delivered on : 29-08.2025 Maya Varier, W/o. Shri Surendra Singh, aged about 48 years, r/o. B-29, Ward No.1, Chauhan Town, Junwani, Bhilai, Durg (CG). 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 05.10.2024 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 Page 2 of 20 Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “the PMLA, 2002”). 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:- (a) The case relates to 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 through open source information and FIR registered in this case. ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) bearing No. ECIR/RPZO/02/2023 dated 20.03.2023 was recorded on the basis of an FIR bearing No. 24/2019 dated 16.10.2019 registered against Shrikant Dubey and others by EOW/ACB, Raipur, Chhattisgarh u/s 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("PC Act") r/w Sections 409 and 120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"). Further, FIR bearing No. 08/2023 dated 17.07.2023 registered by Chhattisgarh Police, P.S. Tadoki, Distt. Kanker u/s 120(B), 420, 267 & 471 IPC in respect of embezzlement of DMF funds by the public servants in connivance with the private vendors was also incorporated in the ECIR by way of issuing
Facts
addendum dated 29.08.2023. In the first FIR bearing No. 24/2019 dated 16.10.2019, closure report has been filed by EOW/ACB Raipur, which has been accepted by the Court. However, first addendum to ECIR was issued on the basis of an FIR filed by Chhattisgarh Police in Kanker District before the above closure report. (b). Further, another F.I.R. No. 02 dated 16.01.2024 was registered by EOW, Raipur against Mrs. Ranu Sahu, Sanjay Shende, Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Mukesh Kumar Agarwal, Hrishabh Soni, Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Ravi Sharma, Piyush Soni, Piyush Sahu, Abdul and Shekhar Page 3 of 20 on the basis of disclosure made by Directorate of Enforcement under section 66(2) of PMLA, 2002. The said F.I.R. No. 02 dated 16.01.2024 was registered for criminal conspiracy in the allotment of various types of tenders under DMF for receiving illegal benefit and thereby causing illegal loss to the Government by committing financial irregularities in the use of District Mineral funds, which are punishable under Section 120-B, 420 of IPC and Sections 7 & 12 of the PC Act. These offences are also scheduled offences included in Paragraph-1 & 8 of part -A of the Schedule to PMLA, 2002 defined under section 2 (1) (y) of the Act and therefore this FIR was also incorporated in the ECIR by way of issuing addendum dated 23.02.2024. (c) On the basis of confidential verification and investigation of ED, it came to light that DMFT is a trust funded by miners that has been set up in all districts of Chhattisgarh with an aim to work for the benefits of those affected by mining related projects and activities. During the preliminary investigation, it has come to the notice that there is huge corruption and financial irregularities by public servants in connivance with contractors and others in the use of funds released by District Mineral Funds Trust. On scrutiny of the bank statements of the suspected persons/contractors, the data received from District Office, Korba in respect of use of DMF Funds and other financial details along with field enquiry/discreet enquiry in respect of suspected contractors, it is observed that there are clear signs of siphoning off of DMF funds. (d) For the purpose of identification/unearthing of the Proceeds of Crime and gathering evidence/record related to money laundering, searches were conducted on various suppliers/vendors and public servants and statement of these suppliers/vendors and public servants Page 4 of 20 were recorded. Original applications filed for retention of the seized record and property have been confirmed by Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) in respect of above search and seizure. Further investigation revealed that vendors were agreed to pay commission to the public servants in lieu of work allotted under DMF. In pursuance, major part of the funds credited in the bank account of the vendors was withdrawn in cash directly by the vendors or transferred to entities of accommodation entry providers against which cash was received. These transactions with the firm of entry providers were shown as purchase of goods without actual purchase of goods. This cash was used for the purpose of paying illegal commission to the officials responsible for allotting the DMF work and/or clearing bills in this regard and part amount of this cash was used by the vendors. (e) The funds for DMF work are sanctioned to various executive agencies by the District Collector who is also Ex-officio Chairman of District Mineral Fund Trust. There are various executive agencies in the district for getting the work done by using DMF funds. Janpad Panchayat is one of the executive agencies for executing the work under DMF and CEO is head of Janpad Panchayat and entire DMF work under Janpad Panchayat is supervised by CEO, Janpad Panchayat. Moreover, CEO, Janpad Panchayat is responsible for releasing the bill amount to the concerned vendors/contractors. During the investigation, it is found that major part of DMF funds received by the vendors was withdrawn in cash by way of fake purchase, which shows that funds were misappropriated or siphoned off. Further, statements of various vendors were recorded, wherein they stated that before getting the tender under DMF, they agreed to pay the Page 5 of 20 commission against the allotment of tender to the CEOs and then District Collector, Mrs. Ranu Sahu. This percentage was upto 40-42% of total funds received by the vendors. Further, vendors also paid some commission to the accommodation entry providers for withdrawing these funds in cash. Thus, it is evident that proceeds of crime as defined u/s 2(1)(u) of PMLA, 2002 were generated in this case by way of siphoning of DMF funds. 3.
Legal Reasoning
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, 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. 7. 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 Page 9 of 20 Special Judge vide order dated 20-6-2025, dismissed the bail application filed by the applicant. This order is being assailed by the applicant and has prayed for releasing her on bail. 8. 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 leveled 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 tainted, 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 non-est. 9. He would further submit the ECIR (20.03.2023) predates FIR No. 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 her Page 10 of 20 husband and three children 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 15-10.2024 which affects discharge of her responsibilities as bread winner for the family. She has several responsibilities towards her family including her children and due to false implication in present case, she is unable to perform her duties towards her 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 her 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 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. 10. He would further submit that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not applicable in this case and the co- accused namely Ranu Sahu, Suryakant Tiwarii, Sameer Vishnoi and Saumya Chaurasiya have already been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29-5-2025 passed in SLP (Cri) No. Page 11 of 20 15941 of 2024, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. He would further submit that the applicant is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the conditions which may be imposed by this Court. He would further submit that now the challan of the case has been presented before the trial Court and no investigation is pending, the accused is in custody since 15-10-2024 and trial of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the present applicant. 11. Per contra, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Enforcement Directorate referring to the ECIR would submit that the applicant was working as Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Department, Balod from 2019 to 2021 and later she was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Department, Korba from August 2021 to March 2023 and she 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 them tender illegally and remaining part of the cash remained with her. The applicant has also collected bribe money from other vendors 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. 12. He would further submit that the learned Special Judge (PMLA), Raipur Page 12 of 20 vide order dated 20-6-2025 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 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 his 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, a huge amount involved in the offence of money Page 13 of 20 laundering, 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. 13. 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. 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]. 14. He would further submit that in a recent judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's plea for bail on the grounds of parity with other co-accused who had been granted bail in a money laundering case. The Court emphatically stated that the principle of parity is not an absolute law but depends on individual circumstances and roles in the alleged offence. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that parity alone is not a ground for granting bail. The court must examine the individual role of each accused before granting bail. 15. He would further submit that in view of the grave nature of allegations, the significant of quantum misappropriated, public funds and the well- documented evidence including bank records and witness statements, it is clear that the accused was key conspirator in an organized and Page 14 of 20 deliberate network of corruption. Granting bail at this stage would pose a serious risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation and obstruction of justice. Therefore, it is most respectfully submitted that the applicant/accused is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail, and her bail application may kindly be rejected in the larger interest of justice, fairness, and public accountability. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record including ECIR with utmost satisfaction. 17. 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”? 18. From bare perusal of the 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. 19. Thus, prima facie involvement of the applicant is reflected from the record. 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 Page 15 of 20 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 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.” 20. 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 Page 16 of 20 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: 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.” 21. 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 Mrs. 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 Page 17 of 20 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 PMLA, 2002. 22. 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 Page 18 of 20 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: 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 Page 19 of 20 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 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 herein-above.” 23. 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. 24. Considering the above stated factual and legal matrix, prima facie the Page 20 of 20 role played by the applicant, the gravity of offence and also considering that the applicant is not entitled to claim parity with other accused as they were remained in jail for more than two years and considering the long incarceration, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has enlarged them on bail whereas the applicant is arrested on 15.10.2024, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nayay Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 25. 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. RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.08.29 17:11:15 +0530 Raju Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge
Arguments
The role of the present applicant Smt. Maya Varier is that she was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Department, Balod from 2019 to 2021 and later she was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Department, Korba from August, 2021 to March, 2023. Maya Varier had worked with Mrs. Ranu Sahu in Balod in 2019 when Mrs. Ranu Sahu was District Collector, Balod. Maya Varier got herself transferred to Korba as she was having good relations with Mrs. Ranu Sahu, the then District Collector of Korba. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Department is head of the tribal department in District and is responsible for payments made to the vendors/contractors after verification of the work/items completed/supplied. The Applicant is close confidante of Ranu Sahu and has been working for personal benefit of the two rather than being faithful to her official duties. In addition, to coordinating the bribe collection for Ranu Sahu, she has also received bribe for her personal benefit as well. 4. From the statement of Maya Varier and Asha Varrier recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, it is reveled that during the crime period Maya Varrier has purchased many properties in her name and also in her family members names using the proceeds of crime to launder the same and project the same as untainted property. The properties purchased by the applicant Smt. Maya Varier and her family members Page 6 of 20 are as follows. S.No. Date Property Purchased Registry Total Cash paid Seller details in the value purchase name name of Rs. considerat ion 1. 20.06.2022 Khasra No. Maya 40,50,000/-11475000 74,25,000/- Ashok 408/4, 3375 Varrier Kumar Jain. sq.ft, Maharshi Valmiki Ward No.28, PH No.113/65, Gram Labhandi, Raipur, CG. 2. 31-7-2022 5.7 acres at PRK 24,55,000/-8955000 6500000 Kaushalya Aarang Varrier and plus 170000 Bai Padma Varrier cash for Chandrakar brokerage 3. 16-2-2021 0.28 hec. Asha 1000000/- 1568700 568700/- Pankaj (Kh.No.225, Varrier 226), village Amavas, PHN.30, Tehsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund. Kumar s/o. Rakesh Sahu 4. 21-1-2021 0.63hec.(lh.No. Asha 654000/- 378000 3126000 Harleen 227/2, 227/3, Varrier 227/4, Village Amavas, PHN.30, Tehsil- Mahasamund. Kaur Sachdev. 5. 15-12-20210.64 hec. Asha 665000/- 2410000/- 1745000/- Besan Bai (Kh.No. 242/1, Varrier Chandrakar Page 7 of 20 242/8, 243/3, 243/4), village Amavas, PHN.30, Tehsil Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund. 6. 15.12.2021 0.52 hec. (kh Asha 500000/- 23,40,000/- 18,40,000/- Besan Bai No.223, 227/1) Varrier Chandrakar kvillage Amavas, PHN. 30, tehsil Mahasamund, Dist. Mahasamund. 7. 9-9-2022 Village Birbira PRK 125000 12,00,000/-10,50,000/- Sumit Garg Tehsil Arang, Varrier Dist. Raipur whose Khasra Nho.126/4, area 0.0600 hectare approx.15 dismil. Total 2,24,24,700/- 5. During investigation, it has come to the notice that the applicant has taken the bribe amount in ingenious ways. She asked Sanjay Shende, one of the vendors of DMF, to pretend to show her sister Asha Varrier as an employee in his firm Jyoti Trading Company and make monthly payouts. Ravi Jambhulkar (brother-in-law of Sanjay Shende) has also Page 8 of 20 confirmed in his statement dated 06.11.2024 that he was the only supervisor in field for Jyoti Trading Company and Asha Varrier has never done any work for Jyoti Trading Company. Further, a new Innova Crysta car was purchased in the name of Ravi Jambhulakar (brother- in-law of Sanjay Shende) on 29.10.2021 and given to Maya Varrier to possess and use it, which is nothing but the POC received by the Applicant from the vendors Sanjay Shende in lieu of facilitation of his work under DMF and release of payments for the same. 6. 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 involved in the money laundering which prima facie suggests the