Nafr High Court · 2025
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:1032 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6388 of 2024 Order reserved on 16/10/2024 Order delivered on 07/01/2025 Mr. Nitish Diwan S/o Sanjeev Kumar Diwan Aged About 25 Years R/o Shop No. 06, Gol Market, Vaishali Nagar Bhilai, Durg Chhattisgarh versus ... Applicant Directorate Of Enforcement Through Assistant Director, Government Of India Represented By Its Assistant Director, Mukesh Kumar, Raipur Zonal Office, A-A-1 Block 2nd Floor Pujari Chambers Pachpedi, Naka Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent For Applicant For Respondent/ED : : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate and Ms. Monika Singh, Advocate Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravind ra Kumar Agrawal C.A.V. Order 1. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested on 15.02.2024 for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN 2 Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “PMLA-2002”), in ECIR No. RPZO/10/2022, registered by the Enforcement Directorate, Raipur (for short “ED”). 2. An FIR of Crime No. 112 of 2022, registered on 29.07.2022 at Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, Chhattisgarh under Section 4-A of the Public Gambling (CG Amendment) Act, 1976 and Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC and Section 66-D of Information Technology Act, 2000, which was registered against five accused persons, namely Alok Singh Rajput, Ram Pravesh Sahu, Kharag @ Raja Singh, Abhishek and Pintu. The ED had registered the Enforcement Case Information Report (for short ‘ECIR’) No. RPZO/10/2022. On the secrete information gathered by the officers of ED, the raid was conducted on the premises of other accused persons, in which it was found a set with laptop and they were collecting money by creating online IDs and through the said IDs they were placing bets for others through Mahadev book, on online Cricket matches, Horse racing, Greyhound racing and Kabaddi, etc. Upon interrogation, the accused persons disclosed the name of two persons, namely, Abhishek and Pintu, who taught them the procedure of creating the IDs and placing bets in
Facts
various sports through the Mahadev book. Initially, treating the FIR No. 112 of 2022 (Final Report No. 157/2022) of P.S. Mohan Nagar, Durg as Scheduled/Predicate Offence, the respondent/ED registered the ECIR No. RPZO/9/2022, which was re-numbered as ECIR No. RPZO/10/2022 vide corrigendum dated 07.11.2022 issued by the ED. 3 *******In the said ECIR, FIR No. 206/2023 dated 02.06.2023 registered at P.S. Cyber Crime Vishakhapattanam Commissionerate, Andhra Pradesh, FIR No. 37/2023 registered at P.S. Bhilai Bhatti, District Durg (C.G.), FIR No. 86/2023 dated 27.02.2023 registered at P.S. Chhawani, District Durg (C.G.), FIR No. 336/2023 dated 10.08.2023 registered at P.S. Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.), FIR No. 685/2023 dated 11.08.2023 registered at P.S. Khamtarai, District Raipur (C.G.), FIR No. 6/2024 dated 04.03.2024 registered at EOW, Raipur (C.G.) and FIR No. 206/2020 dated 24.09.2020 registered at P.S. Burtola, Kolkata, West Bengal, have been included in the said ECIR. *******On 20.10.2023, the ED filed its first prosecution complaint against 14 accused persons, alleging that the online gambling app in the name of Mahadev Online Book is established for illegal betting in different live games like; poker, card games, chance games, betting on cricket, badminton, tennis, football, etc. and also to provide facility for playing several card games like; teen patti, dragon tiger, virtual cricket games using cards, etc. It is also alleged that the Mahadev Online Book advertised about these betting websites through closed WhatsApp groups and Facebook pages. *******During the investigation conducted by the ED, it comes in the investigation that the promoters of the Mahadev Online Book, namely Sourabh Chandrakar and Ravi Uppal, were running the said illegal betting app through online mode and the tentacles of the online betting app have been spread wide enough and the promoters created a system of franchising the panels for illegal online betting 4 app within the Indian territory as well as at abroad. The betting app is operated by various panel/branches, which are sold in a small franchise by the promoters Sourabh Chandrakar and Ravi Uppal through their associates. An elaborate system to receive incoming money from the betting user and also to pay them back as winning amount has been created in a well planned manner. They created a system that the betting user cannot directly pay money on the website and they need to contact on WhatsApp and deposit money into bank accounts in India, which have been obtained by the panel operators/promoters by way of deceiving and cheating the peoples. All centres will tag him with a panel, which will share the bank account details and create the user ID, allocate points/tokens etc. The promoters keep nearly 70-75% of the profit of the panel operations. A panel has an owner and workers who are usually four in numbers. One person can own multiple panels and there was no bar on number of panels being operated by one person. The head office is at Dubai who creates ID and password for the panel owners. The panel operator using the IDs can further create sub-IDs for player/punters. The IDs are generally created on multiple websites as depicted on the app of Mahadev online book. After receiving the details of panel, the players/punters deposit the minimum amount of Rs.100/- for online betting with no maximum amount. All the games are rigged in a manner that overall, the panel owners will not lose money. During the investigation, multiple panel operators were raided, who were working under the Mahadev online book and it came on record that the said betting syndicate was generating proceeds of crime worth Rs.450 crores per month through the panel 5 operations. It also came in the investigation that Sourabh Chandrakar and Ravi Uppal in the entire investigation to be the kingpin of the betting empire and indulge in money laundering with their associates. In the investigation, it also come that the said panel operations was running with active support and connivance of local police and politicians and after receiving illegal gratification, they supported the said illegal betting racket by closing their eyes. It also come that one ASI Chandrabhushan Verma who acted as Lysner for the Mahadev online book promoters with political executives of the Chhattisgarh State, who negotiated between them. He was collecting Hawala payments made available by the promoters of Mahadev book and distributing the same to the bureaucrats/politicians for ensuring smooth operations of the illegal betting websites. The funds have moved in and out of India to Dubai through various channels. Involvement of a number of persons were found during the investigation including the persons who engaged in layering the proceeds of crime. *******The ED, during the investigation also caught hold the Hawala kings namely Anil Kumar Dammani and Sunil Kumar Dammani. The proceeds of crime generated by the main promoters are being layered and invested in order to acquire assets abroad. Large expenditure in cash is also being done in India for advertising the betting websites to attract new users and franchises. During the investigation, raids/searches were conducted at various places through which the associates of promoters of Mahadev online book, individuals associated with them, event organizers, panel operators 6 working on commission basis for Mahadev online book, family of the promoters of Mahadev online book, Hawala operators. A huge amount was seized and frozen during the searches. *******During the investigation, it is also unveiled that ASI Chandrabhushan Verma was having role of Chief Liaisoner for Mahadev betting app in Chhattisgarh, Satish Chandrakar was operating Mahadev panel and distributing funds at the behest of Ravi Uppal, Anil Dammani and Sunil Dammani were knowingly distributing funds for Mahadev betting app, Bheem Singh and Aseem Das were involved in delivery of the Liaisoning money, Nitin Tibrewal was engaged in layering the proceeds of crime through his foreign entities and generation of illegal betting earning through sky exchange, Amit Agrawal for layering the betting earning in land transaction and Nitish Deewan for being involved in the betting operations and assisting the main promoters of Mahadev online book in their money laundering activities. *******During the investigation the involvement of the present applicant is also found that he had played an active role in laundering of proceeds of crime generated out of illegal operations of Mahadev online book. He was holding assets in his name which was acquired by the benefits of Mahadev online book. He was fully aware of the illegal operations of Mahadev online book and despite that he was holding bank accounts and operating these bank accounts for routing funds. During the investigation, the mobile phones of the present applicant was impounded in which various information was extracted. He was found to be holding shares of entities beneficially owned by 7 promoters of Mahadev online book. His statement under Section 50 of PMLA-2002 was recorded on 10.11.2023, in which he admitted that he was managing bank accounts under instructions of promoters of Mahadev online book. He also admitted that he utilized almost Rs.15 crores jointly with the associate of Mahadev online book. He purchased the property in UAE for an amount of Rs. 85 lakhs AED in his name under the instruction of Sourabh Chandrakar, however he claims that this property has been sold. On the online records of Dubai government, the property is still being shown as the applicant is owner of the property. He also admitted that he operated crypto wallets opened in his name under the instruction of Sourabh Chandrakar and thus the applicant knowingly and willingly associated himself with Mahadev online book and was involved in concealing and enjoying the proceeds of crime, and thus had committed the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of PMLA- 2002, which is punishable under Section 4 of PMLA-2002. The applicant’s statement under Section 50 of PMLA was again recorded on 09.02.2024 and he was arrested on 15.02.2024 and on 11.03.2024 the second supplementary prosecution complaint was filed against accused persons including the present applicant. 3.
Legal Reasoning
the prima facie material against the accused in the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case (supra) has observed in para 401 of its judgment that:- "401. We are in agreement with the observation made by the Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma [(2005) 5 SCC 294). The Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the Court based on available material on record is required. The Court will not weigh the evidence to find the guilt of the accused which is, of course, the work of Trial Court. The Court is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material collected during the investigation and the said view will not be taken into consideration by the Trial Court in recording its finding of the guilt or acquittal during trial which is based on the evidence adduced during the trial. As explained by this Court in Nimmagadda Prasad [(2013) 7 SCC 466], the words used in Section 45 of the 2002 Act are "reasonable grounds for believing" which means the Court has to see only if there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt." 7. In the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2007) 11 SCC 195, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "at the stage of granting of bail, the Court can only go into the question of prima facie case established for granting bail, it cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability of witnesses put up by the prosecution. The question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses can only be tested during trial." 15 8. The Delhi High Court in its order dated 07.03.2024 passed in Bail Application No. 3807/2022 (Sanjay Jain Vs. Enforcement Directorate) after relying upon the observations made in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (Supra) has observed in para 49 that:- "49. It thus, emerges that at the stage of considering a bail application under the PMLA, the Court has to bear in mind the following aspects: (i) Whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea. (ii) The words used in Section 45 of the 2002 Act are "reasonable grounds for believing" which means the Court has to see only if there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. (iii) A positive finding that the accused had not committed an offence under the Act is not required to be recorded. A delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal/conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of the trial is to be maintained. (iv) The evidence is not to be weighed meticulously but a finding is to be arrived at on the basis of broad probabilities with reference to the material collected during investigation. The weighing of evidence to find the guilt of the accused is the work of Trial Court. (v) A finding is also required to be recorded as to the possibility of the bail applicant committing a crime after grant of bail. This aspect has to be considered having regard to the antecedents of the accused, his propensities and the nature and manner in which he is alleged to have committed the offence." 16 9. In the present case, on 05.11.2023 the applicant was interrogated by the ED at their office at Delhi and his statement was recorded on 05.11.2023, which continued on 06.11.2023, 07.11.2023, 08.11.2023 and 09.11.2023. Copy of statement is annexed in the petition as Annexure A/6, at page No. 442 in the present petition. In his statement, he clearly admitted that he associated with Sourabh Chandrakar, who was engaged in Mahadev online book. He also disclosed the manner, in which he came into contact with Sourabh Chandrakar and other co-accused persons. He also disclosed the running of Mahadev online book and distribution of the panel to the panel operators. They also hired Bollywood celebrities. He also opened company in the name of Sports Buzz and Sourabh Chandrakar sponsored IIFA through the present applicant and subsequently he kept him aside and send him to Zimbabwe. During that period some dispute arose between them with respect to the account and then he returned to India on 14th September, 2023 and when on 05.11.2023, he was going to Dubai, he came to know that LOC is issued against him. In his statement, he disclosed all the details of Mahadev book and his involvement in the said offence as well as running of the Mahadev online book. He also admitted that he purchased the property at Dubai in his own name on the consideration of Rs.85 lakhs AED. From the mobile phone of the present applicant, certain other information was also extracted which also reflects that he was also associated with Reddy Anna book, which is one of the Illegal online betting app having branch code 110. It is also revealed that he also connected with Trinity Solutions LLC and is having bank accounts at Dubai. From his mobile phone the 17 screenshots of Whatsapp messages were also extracted, which further shows his involvement with the Mahadev online book. 10. The proceeds of crime have been defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA-2002, which reads as under: "2(1)(u)- "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property, or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad; Explanation:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" including property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence." 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 has held in para 34 and 35 of its judgment that "34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep- rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the 18 character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. 12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) has observed in para 398 as under :- "398. Thus, it is well settled by the various decisions of this Court and policy of the State as also the view of international community that the offence of money-laundering is committed by an individual with a deliberate design with the motive to enhance his gains, disregarding the interests of nation and society as a whole and which by no stretch of imagination can be termed as offence of trivial nature. Thus, it is in the interest of the State that law enforcement agencies should be provided with a proportionate effective mechanism so as to deal with these types of offences as the wealth of the nation is to be safeguarded from these dreaded criminals. As discussed above, the conspiracy of money-laundering, which is a three-staged process, is hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness, thus, it becomes imperative for the State to frame such a stringent law, which not only punishes the offender proportionately, but also helps in preventing the offence and creating a deterrent effect." 13. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and also from the material produced in the present case, it is not acceptable that the present applicant did not know about the transactions that the amount utilized by him in purchasing the assets comes from Mahadev online book. Denial by the accused itself is not sufficient to consider prima facie that there is no mens rea of the 19 applicant for the said offence under the PMLA-2002. 14. Considering the nature of allegation against the present applicant and also the material collected during the investigation and further the gravity of the offence, the benefit of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be extended to him for releasing him on bail at this stage, as the facts and circumstances of the present case and the allegation against the applicant is different than the facts and circumstances of the cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant. 15. As has been discussed hereinabove, it cannot be said that there is no involvement of the applicant in the offence in question. Considering the role of the applicant in the ensuing money laundering case of proceeds of crime in the Mahadev Book App, it is found that there is sufficient evidence collected by the ED/respondent to prima facie show the involvement of the applicant in the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. It is an organized crime having various facets of its complexion, therefore, further considering the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 this Court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground for believing that the applicant is involved in the offence and he is likely to commit any other offence while on bail, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 16. Consequently, the present bail application filed by the applicant is rejected. ved Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge
Arguments
Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is in jail since 15.02.2024. Initially he was intercepted on 05.11.2023 at Delhi Airport and he was interrogated. His cell phones were seized on 05.11.2023 by the ED and the same was impounded on that very day. He was continuously interrogated up to 06.11.2023. From the impounding order of cell phones dated 05.11.2023, it is clear that his 8 cell phones were seized on 05.11.2023, but no seizure memo was prepared there at Delhi. The present applicant is not named in any of the predicate offences nor even he is named in the FIR, on the basis of which the ECIR in the present case is registered. The main allegation against the present applicant that he is close to Mr. Sourabh Chandrakar and he was interested with hiring Bollywood celebrities for different events of Mahadev book. The applicant had gone to Dubai in search of work and in that process the promoters of Mahadev book had taken his ID cards and passport and he employed him as the manager to the Trinity Solutions LLC and Excel Ventures LLC, which were engaged in the work of issuing visa to the workers, who were seeking work at Dubai. The name of the present applicant has not come in the statement of any of the other co- accused persons or witness that the present is also involved in illegal betting app. Except from extracting a online record allegedly extracted from the mobile phone of the applicant shown to be the owner of property at Dubai, no other evidence available in the case against the present applicant. Although the applicant denied the ownership of any property at Dubai, however there is no evidence that the said property was purchased by the applicant from the proceeds of crime. He would further submit that in case of Prem Prakash v. Union of India, Through the Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl.) No. 5416 of 2024, reported in 2024 Live Law SC 617, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the statement recorded under Section 50 of PMLA to the same investigating agency is inadmissible against the maker. He would also submits that except the statement of Section 50 of the PMLA-2002 of the applicant there 9 is no other evidence against him. The cell phone of the applicant seized by the ED and has been made the basis for reason to believe that the applicant involved in money laundering and utilized the proceeds of crime, but the provisions of the Evidence Act with respect to the electronic evidence has not been complied with, therefore the same is also inadmissible in evidence. The applicant was employed in a company who engaged in issuing visas to various persons during their travel to Dubai and in that process he got to meet the different Bollywood celebrities and get a chance to have a photo with those celebrities. The applicant has filed a retraction from his statement on 06.06.2024 and submits that he made statements in fear and apprehension in mind and had signed under the direction of the respondent/ED. He would also rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929. *******Learned counsel for the applicant would further submits that the ED is required to prove the proceeds of crime from the scheduled offence is generated and the applicant is directly or indirectly involved in the illegal activities connected with the said proceeds of crime. In the present case, it is alleged against the applicant that he is one of the partner of Excel Ventures LLC, which is the subsidiary of Mahadev online book, but the said Excel Ventures LLC is not made as an accused in the present ECIR. There is no person who were cheated by the applicant and there is no evidence to that effect that any persons were cheated. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement 10 (Criminal Appeal No. 2779 of 2023) submitted that every crime which may generate proceeds of crime need not be a scheduled offence. The offence under Section 120-B of IPC included in part A of the schedule will become a scheduled offence only if the criminal conspiracy is to be commit any offence already included in parts A, B or C of the schedule, which is lacking in the present case. The proceeds of crime is defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA-2002 and the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA-2002 comes into play only when the proceeds of crime comes into existence. The consideration of a statement under Section 50 of the PMLA-2002 is a subject matter of trial and cannot be tested at the stage of bail, which can be meticulously appreciated during the trial. The applicant is in jail since 15.02.2024 and till date even the charges have not been framed therefore there is every possibility of delay in trial. The long period of his incarceration and in view of the violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the applicant is entitled for release on bail. He would also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51. *******In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC, 713. Ashim @ Asim Kumar Haranath Bhattacharya @ Asim Harinath Bhattacharya @ Aseem Kumar Bhattacharya v. National Investigation Agency, Criminal Appeal No. 1525 of 2021, order dated 01.12.2021, Angela Harish Sontakke v. State of 11 Maharashtra, (2021) 3 SCC, 723, Ramkripal Meena v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl.) No. 3205 of 2024, order dated 30.07.2024, Sanjay Agarwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Appeal No. 1835 of 2022, Abdul Razak Peediyakkal v. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 2585 of 2023, order dated 25.08.2023, Ramchand Karunakaran v. Directorate of Enforcement and another, Criminal Appeal No. 1650 of 2022, and submitted that considering the long detention of the applicant and there is every possibility of delay in trial, he may be released on bail. He would also relied upon the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunil Dammani v. Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Appeal No. 4108 of 2024 and Sheikh Javed Iqbal @ Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, order dated 27.08.2024, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2790 of 2024 and Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, order dated 12.07.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2493 of 2024. He would also submit that the applicant is having various health problems during his detention in jail and his physical condition is deteriorating day by day, which may seriously affect his health in absence of proper medical treatment. The applicant is the permanent resident of Bhilai, District Durg and there is no chance of his absconding. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and will abide by all the conditions and directions, which may be imposed by this Court while granting bail. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ED has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the 12 applicant and submitted that during the investigation, it revealed that the present applicant had played an active role in laundering of proceeds of crime generated from illegal operations of Mahadev Online Book. He was working at the highest level of Mahadev Online Book and holding assets in his name. He knowingly held bank accounts and operated the same for routing funds which were obtained from illegal operations of Mahadev Online Book. During his interrogation, it revealed that he was aware of each and every aspect of illegal operations of Mahadev Online Book. His mobile phone was impounded and a number of evidence in support of his involvement in the alleged offence were found. It is also found that he is holding shares of entities beneficially owned by promoters of Mahadev Online Book. During his statement, he himself admitted that these entities were used for issuing visas to Indian citizens who worked in the head office of Mahadev Online Book and also for routing funds. He further admitted in his statement dated 10.11.2020 that he was managing bank accounts under instructions of the promoters of Mahadev Online Book and he utilized almost Rs. 15 Crores jointly with one of Mahadev Online Book Associates for living a lavish life. From his statement dated 06/07.11.2023, it also revealed that he purchased a property in UAE for an amount of Rs. 85 lakhs AED in his name under the instruction of Mr. Sourabh Chandrakar. However, he claimed that the said property has been sold, but has not submitted any document. From the online record of Dubai government, the said property is still shown as the applicant is own the said property. From his statement dated 09.11.2023, he also admitted that he operated crypto wallets opened in his name under 13 the instruction of Mr. Sourabh Chandrakar. Thus, he knowingly and willingly associated himself with Mahadev Online Book and was involved in concealment, layering and use of proceeds of crime and committed the offence defined under Section 3 of PMLA-2002 which is punishable under Section 4 of PMLA-2002. Considering the said involvement of the applicant in the offence in question and the evidence available against him, he was arrested by the ED on 15.02.2024 and supplementary prosecution complaint has been filed against him. *******In support of his contention, he also relied upon the judgement of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, Pawana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal No. 2779 of 2023), Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and others, (1987) 2 SCC 364 and submitted that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offence cannot be a ground to grant bail. He would also submit that observing the economic offence is committed with deliberate design, with an eye on personal profit, regardless to the consequence to the community, which will damage to the national economy and national interest, and therefore the applicant is not entitled for bail and his bail application is liable to be dismissed. 5. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed in the present case by both the parties. For consideration of the bail application under PMLA, 2002 the Court need not go deep inside the merits of the case but should consider 14