2025 (1) TMI 150 - HC - Money Laundering

HC rejects bail in money laundering case involving illegal levy collection from coal transporters citing active participation in extortion syndicate

Shiv Shankar Naag, Roshan Kumar Singh, Sheikh Moinnuddin Qureshi, Sandeep Kumar Nayak, Chandra Prakash Jaiswal, Virendra Kumar Jaiswal, Hemant Jaiswal, Parekh Kurre. Versus Anti-Corruption Bureau/ Economic Offence Wing Raipur, State of Chhattisgarh ACB & EOW, Chhattisgarh, Economic Offence Wing and Anti-Corruption Bureau Through Deputy Superintendent of Police, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

The Chhattisgarh HC rejected regular bail applications in a money laundering case involving illegal levy collection from coal transporters. The court ... Grant of Regular bail - Moeny Laundering - collection of illegal levy amounts from the coal transporters - alleged offences under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of the IPC and Sections 7, 7-A, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - HELD THAT:- The prosecution has collected the material regarding active involvement of the applicants in the syndicate and main accused-Suryakant Tiwari has extorted money, which has been utilized for purchase of properties. Thus, involvement of the applicants in commission of offence under Section 7, 7A & 12 of the PC Act, is prima facie reflected. Hon’ble the Supreme Court while considering the gravity of economic offence in case of P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT] has held that 'Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation.' The prosecution has collected sufficient material to demonstrate that the applicants have active participation in the syndicate which has collected illegal money as per the directions of the main accused Suryakant Tiwari by extorting money which has also been utilized for purchase of properties by the accused persons and in the bail petition, they have contended that they are falsely implicated in the crime by taking the stand which is required to be ascertained by the trial Court only during the trial and the applicants have not placed any material to demonstrate that they are not prima facie involved in the commission of offence. The accused persons have nowhere stated that they are unknown to the main accused and there is no linkage between them for commission of offence by the main accused-Suryakant Tiwari with the add of government officers - looking to the involvement of the applicants, gravity of the offence which is economic offence, the applicants are not entitled to get bail. As such, this is not a fit case where the applicants should be granted regular bail. Conclusion - The prosecution has collected sufficient material to demonstrate that the applicants have active participation in the syndicate which has collected illegal money as per the directions of the main accused. This is not a fit case where the applicants should be granted regular bail. All the bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. are liable to be and are hereby rejected. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with the alleged offences under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of the IPC and Sections 7, 7-A, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.Whether there is prima facie evidence of the applicants' involvement in the alleged illegal coal levy collection syndicate.Whether the applicants' continued detention is justified based on the nature and gravity of the alleged economic offences.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Entitlement to BailRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework involves Section 439 of the CrPC for bail, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Precedents include P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement and Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, which emphasize the gravity of economic offences and the different approach needed for bail in such cases.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court considered the seriousness of economic offences, which are committed with deliberate design for personal profit, affecting the community and national economy.Key Evidence and Findings: The prosecution presented evidence of the applicants' active participation in a syndicate led by Suryakant Tiwari, which extorted money from coal transporters and traders, allegedly used for purchasing properties.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principles of bail jurisprudence, considering the nature of accusations, evidence, severity of punishment, and potential for tampering with evidence.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The applicants argued their innocence and lack of evidence linking them to the offences. The prosecution countered with evidence of their involvement and the need for custodial interrogation.Conclusions: The court concluded that the applicants are not entitled to bail due to the prima facie evidence of their involvement in serious economic offences and the risk of tampering with evidence.Issue 2: Prima Facie Evidence of InvolvementRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court referenced the Prevention of Corruption Act and relevant IPC sections, along with precedents on economic offences and bail considerations.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found sufficient material demonstrating the applicants' active participation in the syndicate, which collected illegal levies under the direction of Suryakant Tiwari.Key Evidence and Findings: Evidence included statements from witnesses, WhatsApp chats, and financial transactions indicating the applicants' roles in the syndicate.Application of Law to Facts: The court assessed the evidence against the legal standards for bail, considering the applicants' alleged roles and the economic impact of their actions.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The applicants claimed false implication and lack of evidence, while the prosecution provided detailed accounts of their involvement and the need for further investigation.Conclusions: The court determined that there is prima facie evidence of the applicants' involvement in the offences, justifying their continued detention.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The court noted, 'Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.'Core Principles Established: Economic offences require a distinct approach to bail due to their impact on the national economy and the deliberate design behind them.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court rejected all bail applications, emphasizing the need for custodial interrogation and the risk of evidence tampering, given the gravity of the offences.The court concluded that the applicants' involvement in the alleged offences is prima facie established, and their continued detention is necessary to prevent tampering with evidence and to ensure a thorough investigation. The decision underscores the seriousness with which economic offences are treated in the context of bail applications.