Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in PMLA Case

The Chhattisgarh High Court has denied bail to the accused involved in Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA 2002) for not fulfilling the conditions to grant bail.

The bench of Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas has observed that the applicant is unable to fulfil the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 as from the factual matrix, it is quite vivid that the possibility of the accused being not guilty of the offence of money laundering is highly impossible. As per Section 45 of the PMLA, bail can be granted to an accused in a money laundering case only if two conditions are satisfied. Firstly, there should be prima facie satisfaction. Secondly, the accused has not committed the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

The FIR was registered under Sections 186, 204, 353 & 120B of IPC against one Suryakant Tiwari & other persons on the basis of complaint filed by Deputy Director of Income Tax, Foreign Assets Investigation Unit-I Bengaluru alleging that as part of conspiracy, during course of search by Income Tax department on 30.06.2022, Suryakant Tiwari had obstructed the officials from carrying their official duties and destroyed crucial incriminating documents and digital evidence about the alleged illegal extortion on Coal Transportation, payments collected by Suryakant Tiwari and his associates.

Senior counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was arrested on 02.12.2022 and a detailed supplementary prosecution complaint has been filed by the Enforcement Directorate on 30.01.2023 but the trial has not commenced yet due to laxity of the Enforcement Directorate which prolonged custody of the applicant without any reason which violates her fundamental rights.

Counsel for the Enforcement Directorate referred to the case of the prosecution mentioned in the ECIR and the role played by the applicant in commission of the offence.

He further submitted that the Supreme Court has already considered the important role played by the applicant in commission of offence and there is no change in circumstances.

The bench observed that the Supreme Court while rejecting the bail of the applicant has recorded its finding that there is sufficient evidence collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate to prima facie come to the conclusion that the applicant who was Deputy Secretary and OSD in the Office of the Chief Minister, was actively involved in the offence of Money Laundering as defined in Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002.

The court further observed that in case of Manish Sosidia, the Supreme Court has taken note of the fact that earlier also when the bail was rejected by the Supreme Court the prosecution agency has stated before the Supreme Court that the trial will be completed within 4-5 months, there is no such situation in the present case whereas in the present case, accused are not cooperating with the trial and the applicant has not fulfilled the twin conditions for grant of bail under the PMLA, 2002.