Gyan Prakash Sarawgi v. Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8190 of 2023 Gyan Prakash Sarawgi ..... … Petitioner Versus Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement -------- ..... … Opposite Party
Legal Reasoning
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner ------ : : : : ------ 07/ 08.11.2023 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate. Mr. Rishav Kumar, Advocate. Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate. Mr. Saurav Kumar, Advocate. For the ED petitioner and Mr. A.K. Das along with Mr. Saurav Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement. 2. This petition has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, who is an accused in connection with ECIR Case No. 01 of 2022, which was registered for the alleged offence under Section 3 read with Section 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short PMLA) and also under Section 4 of the PMLA, pending in the court of learned Special Judge, CBI-cum-Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi. 3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this court in B.A. No. 8470 of 2022, which was rejected by order dated 21.11.2022. He submits that at that time, the chargesheet was not submitted and that’s why the said B.A. was rejected and now the chargesheet has already been submitted and the petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.03.2022 and he has already spent one year and seven months of his custody. He further submits that the charge has already been framed on 26.07.2023 and even the other two co-accused namely Abhishek Agarwal @ Abhishek Agrawal and Amit Sarawagi have already been granted anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate bench of this court by order dated 24.04.2023 in A.B.A. Nos. 10336 of 2022 and A.B.A. No. 10337 of 2022 respectively. He further submits that if the conviction is made, the maximum sentence is seven years. He further submits that the petitioner will not try to delay the trial and the petitioner will co-operate in the trial. He further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Agarwal Versus Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2022) SCC Online SC 1748 -2- granted the regular bail to the petitioner considering that the petitioner has undergone the custody for about a year, wherein the punishment is prescribed for seven years. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may kindly be enlarged on bail. 4. The said prayer for regular bail was opposed by Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate on the ground that only nineteen witnesses are there to be examined and the trial will be concluded soon and in view of that the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail, as the stage of evidence is started with effect from 18.08.2023. 5. On query from the court about the examination of the witnesses, learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate submits that the matter was posted on 18.08.2023, however, no witness was examined on that day. 6. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the case of Manish Sisodia Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2023) SCC Online SC 1393, where the liberty aspect has been considered and in para-27 of the said judgment, it has been observed as under:- - Manish Sisodia. the Constitution Bench “27. However, we are also concerned about the prolonged period of incarceration suffered by In P. the appellant Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, the appellant therein was granted bail after being kept in custody for around 49 days, relying on in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, and Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case. Ultimately, the consideration has to be made on a case to case basis, on the facts. The primary object is to secure the presence of the accused to stand trial. The argument that the appellant therein was a flight risk or that there was a possibility of tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses, was rejected by the Court. Again, in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of to Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh v. State of this Court referred Investigation, -3- to ensure officers the Constitution. Punjab and Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, to emphasise that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right within the broad scope of Article 21 of In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), this Court while highlighting the evil of economic offences like money laundering, and its adverse impact on the society and citizens, observed that arrest infringes the fundamental right to life. This Court referred to Section 19 of the PML Act, for the in-built safeguards to be adhered to by the authorised fairness, objectivity and accountability. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), also held that Section 436A of the Code can apply to offences under the PML Act, as it effectuates the right to speedy trial, a facet of the right to life, except for a valid ground such as where the trial is delayed at the instance of the accused himself. In our opinion, Section 436A should not be construed as a mandate that an accused should not be granted bail under the PML Act till he has suffered incarceration for the specified period. This Court, in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami that while v. State of Maharashtra, held ensuring proper enforcement of criminal law on one hand, the court must be conscious that liberty across human eras is as tenacious as tenacious can be.” 7. However, considering that the petitioner of that case was remained in custody for only 49 days and the investigating agency informed the court that the investigation will be completed within six to eight months. In view of that the petitioner of that case was put at liberty to move fresh application of bail in case of change of circumstance. In the case in hand the two of the co-accused namely Abhishek Agarwal @ Abhishek Agrawal and Amit Sarawagi have already been provided the privilege of anticipatory bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this court and the petitioner has remained in jail custody for one year and seven months and the undertaking is given before this court that the petitioner will not delay the trial. At the time of earlier rejection of the regular bail of the petitioner, the petitioner was remained in custody only for eight months and the chargesheet was not submitted. Now the chargesheet has been submitted and the charge has also been framed. -4- 8. In view of the above and considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, CBI-cum-Special Judge, PMLA, Ranchi, in connection with ECIR Case No. 01 of 2022 subject to the condition that the petitioner shall swear an affidavit that upon being released on bail, his presence in the court on every date of hearing of the case will be made and the petitioner will not hamper the witnesses in any manner. Any such attempt or action in that regard shall entail in cancellation of relief granted by this court. 9. This petition is allowed and disposed of with the above observation. Amitesh/- (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)