TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 123
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to ED custody until 27.05.2024 after which he has remained in judicial custody at Raipur Jail. The first bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed on 15.01.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 6369 of 2024. The applicant challenged the aforesaid dismissal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court via SLP (Crl.) No. 1216/2025 which was withdrawn on 27.01.2025 with liberty to renew the bail application after six months which expired on 27.07.2025.A subsequent bail application filed before the learned Special Judge (PMLA), ASJ-04, Raipur on 28.07.2025 was dismissed on 12.08.2025 without considering the contentions raised. 4. Grounds for grant of bail: Prolonged pretrial incarceration and delay in trial: The applicant has undergone over 15 months of pre-trial custody despite the investigation being fully completed and the prosecution complaint having bee filed on 28.06.2024. The charges have not yet been framed and the trial is unlikely to commence in the foreseeable future. Such protracted detention without trial, constitutes a gross violation of the applicant's fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 5. Parity with co-accused : It is an a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gular attendance with the investigating officer; c. Furnishing adequate surety; and d. Any other conditions deemed necessary by this Hon'ble Court. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT : 9. Learned counsel for the applicant at the very outset submits that the applicant has been in continuous custody for over 15 months, despite the investigation qua him being complete and the Prosecution Complaint already filed. The prolonged deprivation of liberty without any certainty of trial commencing or concluding in the foreseeable future, renders the applicant entitled to bail on well-established constitutional and legal principles. 10. It is trite law, repeatedly emphasized by the Apex Court that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. The only legitimate purpose of custody prior to conviction is to secure the presence of the accused at trial. Once it is established that the accused is not a flight risk, will not tamper with evidence, and will not influence witnesses, the continued incarceration becomes unjustified. (Refer Gudikanti Narasimhulu V. Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240; Manish Siso....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts (P. Chidambaram Vs. ED, (2020) 13 SCC 791). Here, the alleged role of the applicant has neither been proved nor corroborated by independent evidence and the trial is nowhere near commencement. 15. Most importantly, the applicant's right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated. The ED has cited 17 witnesses and relied upon over 3,400 pages of documents and the trial is not likely to commence in the near future. The Apex Court in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2021) and in several recent bail orders arising out of the alleged "liquor scam" cases, has consistently held that "long pre-trial incarceration coupled with delay in trial constitutes sufficient ground for grant of bail." 16. Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the ED has failed to establish a prima facie case of money laundering against him. The allegations are based on assumption and conjectures without any concrete evidence linking the applicant with the proceeds of crime. It is further submitted that the prolonged pre-trial incarceration is unjustified and his continued detention is causing undue hardship to his family and business. The applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Rice Millers Association, along with co-conspirators, orchestrated a system of extortion, collecting Rs. 147 crores from rice millers of Chhattisgarh at the rate of Rs. 20/- per quintal under the threat of withholding their incentive bills from MARKFED. 21. The applicant exercised direct control over the collection of the extortion amounts, issued instructions to subordinate office bearers and coerced state machinery including the Food Department to take coercive action against the rice milers who resisted payment. The extortion amounts collected were utilized by the applicant to acquire properties in his own name and in the names of family members, thereby constituting offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA. Statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, corroborated by digital evidence including CDRs, Whatsapp messages and phone location data, establish beyond prima facie doubt that the applicant was the ultimate beneficiary of the proceeds of crime. Conduct during custody and judicial observations: 22. It is submitted that while in custody at Central Jail, Raipur, the applicant influenced other prisoners, created factions and availed illegal facilitie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the applicant demanded and received extortion amounts, either directly or through agents. He collected extortion amount of Rs. 20/- per quintal from rice millers through coercion and threats. The applicant directed office bearers and rice millers to hand over collected amounts to persons deputed by him with confirmation over phone. He acquired and utilized proceeds of crime to acquire properties in his name and his family's name, satisfying the offence of money laundering under Section 3 & 4 of the PMLA. 28.It is submitted that the statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA carry evidentiary value and constitute judicial proceedings under Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC. The applicant's involvement is corroborated by multiple independent witnesses and phone location date. It is submitted that a mini-trial or scrutiny of admissibility of each evidence is neither required not permissible at the bail Stage. (Neeru Yadav Vs. State of UP, AIR 2015 SC 412). Legal position on bail in PMLA cases: 29.The Apex Court has held in multiple judgments, including Tarun Kumar (supra)and The Union of India Vs. Kanhaiya Prasad, Criminal Appeal No. 728 of 2025 that : a.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uarely applies to the present case. 31. The founding principles of criminal jurisprudence remind that liberty is the rule and detention an exception unless justified by the most compelling circumstances. Liberty is the very quintessence of civilized existence and deprivation thereof is an extreme measure to be resorted to only where the circumstances imperatively demand so. The Apex Court has consistently reminded that the right to personal; liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct, and the courts while balancing the scales of justice must lean in favor of preserving liberty unless its exercise demonstrably threatens the orderly progress of trial or the sanctity of investigation. 32. The allegations against the applicant indeed, are grave in nature, touching upon the fabric of financial propriety and public trust. However, at the stage of deciding the bail, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or to weigh the probative force of each portion of evidence meticulously. What the court must ascertain is whether a prima facie case of guilt entitling the applicant to bail exists and whether the applicant, if enlarged on bail, is like....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....01.2025 in M.Cr.C. No,. 6369 of 2024. The said order was thereafter assailed before the Apex Court by way of SLP (Crl.) No. 1216 of 2025. On 27.01.2025, while the matter was under consideration and it was ordered as under: "Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the Special Leave petition with liberty to renew the application for bail, before the concerned trial court after six months. Permission is granted. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty." 37. It is thus, manifest from the above that the liberty reserved by the Apex court matured upon expiry of six months on 27.07.2025. The applicant therefore, is now entitled to press the present application for consideration on merits before this court. 38. In the considered opinion of this Court, denial of bail in the present facts would not only amount to discrimination vis-a-vis similarly placed co-accused but would also strike a blow to the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the principle of parity, a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, unequivocally....