Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh along with Mr. Naveen Malhotra and Mr. Ritvik Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Das along with Mr. Saurav Kumar, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate.
2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with ECIR Case No.02 of 2023(A) arising out of ECIR/RNSZO/16/2020, registered for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, PML Act, Ranchi.
3. Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh along with his associates submitted that without any cogent and reliable evidence as against the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in the case. He submitted that the petitioner earlier moved before this Court in B.A. No.10189 of 2023, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 23.02.2024. He submitted that the petitioner, namely, Ram Prakash Bhatia has been arrayed as accused no.8 in the supplementary complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 44(2) read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 for the commission of the offences defined under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. He submitted that the main complaint was filed against Veerendra Kumar Ram, Alok Ranjan, Raj Kumari and Genda Ram in which the petitioner was not an accused. He further submitted that the said ECIR case was registered on the basis of information received from FIR No.13/2019, dated 13.11.2019 registered by the ACB, Jamshedpur and subsequently Final Report has been submitted by the ACB, Jamshedpur bearing No.01/2020 dated 11.01.2020 under Section 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused persons i.e. Alok Ranjan and Suresh Prasad Verma. He then submitted that the Enforcement Directorate has exceeded its jurisdiction in arraigning the petitioner as an accused in the present case when he cannot even be remotely linked to the predicate offence in the present case arising out of FIR No.13/2019 dated 13.11.2019, which was registered by the ACB, Jamshedpur. He submitted that the said FIR was registered against Suresh Prasad Verma, which is not even remotely connected to the petitioner. He also submitted that the co-accused, namely, Alok Ranjan has been charged only for the offence under Section 120B read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code in the said FIR case and in view of that, the present petitioner has no nexus with the alleged recovery of money from the house of Surendra Prasad Verma, who is the main accused in the said FIR. He submitted that even if the prosecution complaint is read in its entirety, prima facie no case under Section 3, punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in as much as, such allegations fall short of the essential ingredients for offence of money-laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. He submitted that the petitioner has duly cooperated with the investigation and joined the investigation as and when asked by the Investigating Agency. He further submitted that the cognizance has been taken vide order dated 22.08.2023 and the investigation qua the petitioner is complete and there is no likelihood of concluding the trial shortly and in view of that, the petitioner deserves bail. He then submitted that the ACB case was registered on the trap laid down against Suresh Prasad Verma and the FIR No.13/2019 was arising out of the said cause of action and in view of that, the petitioner is not remotely connected with the said Suresh Prasad Verma and the prosecution against the petitioner is bad and he has got no connection with the predicate offence in the present ECIR case. He submitted that the ground of arrest in writing is not informed to the petitioner, which is against the mandate of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and others, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 576. By way of inviting attention of the Court to paragraph 2 of the prosecution complaint case, he submitted that with regard to FIR No.13/2019, Suresh Prasad Verma and Alok Ranjan are named accused. He further drawn attention of the Court to paragraph 2.8 of the complaint case and submitted that it is alleged that on the basis of information shared under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Police Head Quarter on 03.03.2023 an FIR No.22/2023 was registered by the Economic Offence Wing (EOW), Delhi against Veerendra Kumar Ram, Mukesh Mittal and unknown others and the said FIR No.22/2023 registered by EOW, Delhi was merged with the investigation of ECIR No. RNSZO/16/2020. He submitted that the co-accused, namely, Harish Yadav has been released on bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3616 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.6174 of 2024 vide order dated 30.08.2024. He further submitted that Rajkumari and Genda Ram have been provided relief by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in light of Section 88 of Cr.P.C. in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office, reported in (2024) 7 SCC 61. He submitted that interim relief of no arrest has been granted in favour of the co-accused, namely, Mukesh Mittal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2615 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.3928 of 2024 vide order dated 22.03.2024. He further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and others, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SCC 929 and referred paragraph 88 of the said judgment and submitted that the Court is not required to weigh evidence to find the guilt of the accused, which is of course the work of the trial court, as has been held therein. He submitted that recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail to Manish Sisodia on the ground of delay in trial in Criminal Appeal No. 3295 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.8781 of 2024. He also submitted that Prem Prakash has been granted bail in Criminal Appeal No.3572 of 2024 arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5416 of 2024 vide order dated 28.08.2024. On these grounds, he submitted that the petitioner may kindly be released on bail.
4. Per contra, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate by way of inviting attention of the Court to para 7.4.20 of the complaint case submitted that on instruction of Mukesh Mittal, entries were provided by Ram Prakash Bhatia in the bank accounts of Rakesh Kumar Kedia, Manish and Neha Shrestha and it was found that their accounts have received majority of the funds from the bank accounts of three proprietorship of one same person named Sachin Gupta. He submitted that the statement of Tara Chand was also recorded under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act on 21.02.2023, wherein, he stated that he opened the bank accounts in the name of three firms of Sachin Gupta and he also stated that Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal requested him in 2017 to open different bank accounts and provide bogus entry for which Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal would give him commission. He was also found in the possession of Rs.16.90 Lakhs cash during the search conducted on 21.02.2023 about which he stated that Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal instructed him to keep the cash. He further submitted that Tara Chand has also stated that Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal and Harish Yadav used to operate all the bank accounts and only he could explain the transactions. By way of inviting attention of the Court to paragraph 5.4.2 (ix) of the supplementary complaint, he submitted that the statement of Tara Chand was also recorded later under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, wherein he stated that he used to collect cash from Ram Prakash Bhatia, to whom Mukesh Mittal used to hand over the cash of Veerendra Kumar Ram, on the instructions of Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal and the total funds of Rs.3.52 Crores that have been transferred to the bank accounts of Rakesh Kumar Kedia, Manish and Neha Shrestha, which were provided by Ram Prakash Bhatia and these are only fake business entries given in lieu of commission. He further submitted that four bank accounts of Tara Chand were operated by Harish Yadav on the instruction of Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal. By way of referring para 5.4.2 (x) of the supplementary complaint, he submitted that the Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal has stated in his statement recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act that in the year 2022, Ram Prakash Bhatia (petitioner) gave him bank accounts and asked him to provide entries therein against the cash provided by Ram Prakash Bhatia. He further stated that Tara Chand later provided him four bank accounts (three proprietorship and one individual, accounts of Tara Chand) and he was well aware of the fact that out of these four bank accounts, three were opened on the basis of forged identity cards. He also stated that he transferred Rs.3.52 Crores, which was proceeds of crime acquired by Veerendra Kumar Ram through commission from the balance which were already available with the four bank accounts on the instructions of Ram Prakash Bhatia and when asked about the source of such balance he stated that these funds were deposited by the farmers in lieu of purchasing crates, which he was supposed to give to crate manufacturers i.e. seller of such crates. He used to receive cash from Ram Prakash Bhatia in short duration after giving RTGS entries and then such cash was given to crate manufacturer i.e. seller of such crates. The whole findings of investigation regarding purchase-sale of crates and transfer of funds in lieu of such transactions have been discussed therein. He further stated that he used to give Rs.25,000/- per month of Harish Yadav to operate the aforesaid bank accounts and make RTGS entries. By way of referring 5.4.2 (xi) of the supplementary complaint, he submitted that Ram Prakash Bhatia (petitioner) in his statement recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act stated that he knows Mukesh Mittal for last 2.5 to 3 years and there was a deal that Mukesh Mittal would provide him cash and he would provide the RTGS entries to the bank accounts provided by Mukesh Mittal. He used to take a commission of 0.75% from Mukesh Mittal and 0.2% from Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal He also stated that he has taken RTGS entries of Rs.4 Crores between December, 2022 to February, 2023 from Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal. He made these RTGS entries in the bank accounts of Manish, Rakesh Kumar Kedia and Neha Shrestha on the instruction of Mukesh Mittal. He then submitted that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner and there is every likelihood that the trial may complete soon. He submitted that so far as Mukesh Mittal is concerned, he has been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering his burn injury. According to him, Harish Yadav is the employee of Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal and Raj Kumari and Genda Ram have been given benefit of Section 88 of Cr.P.C. in light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Lal (supra). He submitted that those cases are distinguishable in the facts of the present case. He further submitted that the bail application of Veerendra Kumar Ram has been rejected by this Court in B.A. No.11948 of 2023 and the bail application of Tara Chand has been rejected in B.A. No.11095 of 2023. On these grounds, he submitted that the regular bail application, so far as the petitioner is concerned, may kindly be rejected.
5. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the allegation made against the petitioner and finds that so far as Ram Prakash Bhatia is concerned, he was the main person who was managing all the things and how money transactions were made that have been disclosed in paras 5.4.2(ix), 5.4.2(x) and 5.4.2(xi) of complaint (supra). Mukesh Mittal used to hand over the cash of Veerendra Kumar Ram on the instruction of this petitioner and total funds of Rs.3.52 Crores have been transferred in the bank accounts of Rakesh Kumar Kedia, Manish and Neha Shrestha, which were provided by Ram Prakash Bhatia and operated by Harish Yadav on instruction of Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal and that has come in the complaint case. Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal has stated in his statement that for entries purpose, he asked Tara Chand to provide some bank accounts for which he would provide Tara Chand a handsome amount. He has further stated that Tara Chand later provided him four bank accounts (three proprietorship and one individual accounts of Tara Chand) and he was well aware of the fact that out of those four bank accounts, three were opened on the basis of forged identity cards.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau Investigation, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 337 has come up with triple test under Section 439 of Cr.PC, while dealing with cases involving economic offences. The principles that were summarized in this judgment is extracted hereunder:
“21. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of the well-settled principles having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. The following factors are to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail: (i) the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution;
(ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; (iii) reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; (iv) character, behaviour and standing of the accused and the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; (v) larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations.”
7. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Santosh Krnani and Another, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 427 has observed that corruption poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is being referred as under:-
“31. The nature and gravity of the alleged offence should have been kept in mind by the High Court. Corruption poses a serious threat to our society and must be dealt with iron hands. It not only leads to abysmal loss to the public exchequer but also tramples good governance. The common man stands deprived of the benefits percolating under social welfare schemes and is the worst hit. It is aptly said, ―Corruption is a tree whose branches are of an unmeasurable length; they spread everywhere; and the dew that drops from thence, Hath infected some chairs and stools of authority. Hence, the need to be extra conscious.”
8. In paragraph no.284 of the judgment passed in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), it has been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute a person for offence of money laundering only if it has reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in possession of “proceeds of crime”. Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process. So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 is concerned, at paragraph-412 of the judgment rendered in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), it has been held therein that rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act.
9. The investigation disclosed that Mukesh Mittal contacted Ram Prakash Bhatia (petitioner), who is engaged in the illegal business of providing entries in lieu of commission for taking the entries into the bank account of Genda Ram. Subsequently, Ram Prakash Bhatia provided those entries with the help of his associate Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal. There was a deal between the petitioner and Mukesh Mittal by which Mukesh Mittal promised to give Rs.7 Lakhs to the petitioner as commission for the entries and provide bills for purchase of foodgrains/pulses in the name of Manish, Rakesh Kumar Kedia and Neha Shrestha to disguise the transfer of illicit money into the bank account of Genda Ram, however, Mukesh Mittal just paid him Rs.4.5 Lakhs as petitioner could not provide the bills. A person of the petitioner used to collect cash from Mukesh Mittal's premises as and when the same was received from the hawala operators and entires were received against the cash in the bank accounts of Rakesh Kumar Kedia, Neha Shrestha and Manish. It was also seen that the bank accounts of Genda Ram received high-valued funds from the bank accounts of Rakesh Kumar Kedia, Manish and Neha Shrestha, who are relatives of Mukesh Mittal, which were used in purchasing immovable property in the name of Genda Ram. Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal regularly instructed Tara Chand to collect cash from Ram Prakash Bhatia, who used to receive the same from Mukesh Mittal. It prima facie appears that the petitioner was found to be involved in the hawala operations as various currency notes in the denomination of Re.1, Rs.2, Rs.5 and Rs.10 total worth Rs.293/- in small denominations which were used as tokens for hawala transactions were seized from his premises during the course of search under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act on 23.06.2023. The petitioner was found to be engaged in the illegal business of money transfer and providing entry, in lieu of commission. The petitioner has received commission to the tune of 0.75% of the total amount from Mukesh Mittal in lieu of providing entries as well as to the tune of 0.2% from Neeraj Mittal in lieu of providing cash. The petitioner was found to be directly involved or assisted in the process or activity which are related to proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs.4.545 Crores and he received commission of Rs.4.5 Lakhs from Mukesh Mittal for providing entries into the bank accounts of Rakesh Kumar Kedia, Manish and Neha Shrestha.
10. Further, the cases of Veerendra Kumar Ram and Tara Chand have already been dismissed by this Court in B.A. No.11948 of 2023 and B.A. No.11095 of 2023 respectively.
11. So far as Mukesh Mittal is concerned, he has been granted bail on the ground of health issue.
12. The allegation against Harish Yadav is that he was acting on the advise of Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal. Thus, he is found to be an employee of Neeraj Mittal @ Niraj Mittal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that prima facie the role of Harish Yadav is not direct and in view of that, he has been granted bail.
13. So far as Raj Kumari and Genda Ram are concerned, they have been given benefit of Section 88 Cr.P.C. in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office (supra). Thus, those orders are on different footing.
14. So far as Prem Prakash is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it does not prima facie indicate any role of Prem Pakash and considering that aspect Prem Pakash has been granted bail. In view of above facts, the case of the present petitioner is distinguishable with the case of Prem Prakash, as such, the case of Prem Prakash is further not helping the petitioner.
15. So far as the case of Manish Sisodia is concerned, this Court finds that in the case of Manish Sidsodia in the earlier the Directorate of Enforcement had informed the Hon’ble Supreme Court that within the stipulated period the trial will be concluded however the trial was not concluded and Sidsodia was behind bar since 17 months and on these grounds Manish Sisodia was granted bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court. The fact in the present case is otherwise.
16. When a serious offence of such a magnitude mere fact that accused was in jail for long time inconsequential besides such casual approach would undermine trust of public in integrity of Investigating Agency. Further, bail is the rule and jail is an exception but competing forces need to be carefully measured before enlarging the accused on bail. Socio economic offences constituted a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail since socio economic offences have deep-rooted conspiracies affecting moral fibre of society and causing irreparable harm. Moreover, investigating agency was in process of expediting the trial. A reference may be made to the judgment passed in the case of State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, reported in (2017) 13 SCC 751. Paragraphs 8 to 15 of the said judgment are as under:
“8. A bare reading of the order impugned discloses that the High Court has not given any reasoning while granting bail. In a mechanical way, the High Court granted bail more on the fact that the accused is already in custody for a long time. When the seriousness of the offence is such the mere fact that he was in jail for however long time should not be the concern of the courts. We are not able to appreciate such a casual approach while granting bail in a case which has the effect of undermining the trust of people in the integrity of the education system in the State of Bihar.
9. We are conscious of the fact that the accused is charged with economic offences of huge magnitude and is alleged to be the kingpin/ringleader. Further, it is alleged that the respondent-accused is involved in tampering with the answer sheets by illegal means and interfering with the examination system of Bihar Intermediate Examination, 2016 and thereby securing top ranks, for his daughter and other students of Vishnu Rai College, in the said examination. During the investigation when a search team raided his place, various documents relating to property and land to the tune of Rs 2.57 crores were recovered besides Rs 20 lakhs in cash. In addition to this, allegedly a large number of written answer sheets of various students, letterheads and rubber stamps of several authorities, admit cards, illegal firearm, etc. were found which establishes a prima facie case against the respondent. The allegations against the respondent are very serious in nature, which are reflected from the excerpts of the case diary. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the credibility of the education system of the State of Bihar.
10. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent claimed parity with twenty-eight (28) other accused persons in the same case who have already been granted bail. We find that though some of the accused are released on bail most of them are teachers who performed the invigilation duty and members of the Managing Committee against whom the charges are not so serious. It is not appropriate to compare the case of the respondent-accused, with those who were on bail, as the respondent is alleged to be the kingpin of the entire crime.
11. Although there is no quarrel with respect to the legal propositions canvassed by the learned counsel, it should be noted that there is no straitjacket formula for consideration of grant of bail to an accused. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Government's interest in preventing crime by arrestees is both legitimate and compelling. So also is the cherished right of personal liberty envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is the bail provision, places responsibility upon the courts to uphold procedural fairness before a person's liberty is abridged. Although “bail is the rule and jail is an exception” is well established in our jurisprudence, we have to measure competing forces present in facts and circumstances of each case before enlarging a person on bail.
12. We are of the considered opinion that Sanjay Chandra [Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 26 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 397] , as relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, is distinguishable from the case at hand as the charges in that case carried a maximum punishment for a term which may extend to seven years. In the present case, charge-sheet has been submitted, inter alia, for the offences under Sections 409 [ Which carries punishment of imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend up to ten years and shall also be liable for a fine.] , 465, 467 [ Which carries punishment of imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description which may extend up to a term of ten years and shall also be liable to a fine.] , 468, 471, 188, 201, 212 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 8 [ Which carries punishment of imprisonment for minimum of three years and may extend up to seven years with fine.] , 9 [ Which carries punishment of imprisonment for minimum of three years and may extend up to seven years with fine.] , 13(1)(c)/(d) read with Section 13(2) [ Which carries punishment of imprisonment for minimum of four years and may extend up to ten years with fine.] of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [ It is to be noted that Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was amended by ‘the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013’, Act 1 of 2014 (w.e.f. 16-1-2014). This amendment has increased the minimum prescribed punishment under Sections 8, 9, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.] . Therefore, Sanjay Chandra [Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 26 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 397] provides no assistance for the respondent herein.
13. We are also conscious that if undeserving candidates are allowed to top exams by corrupt means, not only will the society be deprived of deserving candidates, but it will be unfair for those students who have honestly worked hard for one whole year and are ultimately disentitled to a good rank by fraudulent practices prevalent in those examinations. It is well settled that socio-economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail [Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 575; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 552] . Usually socio-economic offence has deep-rooted conspiracies affecting the moral fibre of the society and causing irreparable harm, needs to be considered seriously.
14. Further, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the investigating agency is going to file additional charge-sheet. Therefore, the respondent's presence in the custody may be necessary for further investigation. Furthermore, we cannot approve the order of the High Court, in directing the investigating authority concerned to file the charge-sheet within a month, as the case involves almost 32 accused and a complex modus operandi.
15. Having bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the gravity of the offence and several other crucial factors which are discussed in detail in preceding paragraphs, we are of the opinion that it is not advisable to release the respondent-accused on bail at this stage. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on final merits of the case, we set aside the order of the High Court. The appeal stands allowed.”
17. In view of the above facts and considering that there is direct allegation against the petitioner and he is involved in proceeds of crime, as such, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
18. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
