TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 154
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to 2023, resulting in alleged generation of proceeds of crime amounting to approximately Rs. 2883 crores, out of which about Rs. 2161 crores is alleged to be illegal earnings. The prosecution alleges existence of a criminal syndicate comprising senior bureaucrats, political functionaries, intermediaries and private persons, which manipulated the excise policy and liquor procurement system to generate illegal commissions and unaccounted income. 3. The predicate offence was registered by EOW/ACB Raipur vide FIR No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Sections 7 and 12 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR alleges that certain public servants and private persons conspired to collect illegal commissions from distillers, Supply unaccounted liquor, Manipulate excise policy and Cause loss to State exchequer. The alleged loss to the Government is stated to be approximately Rs. 2161 Crores and the aforesaid offences under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act constitute scheduled offences under the PMLA. Accordingly, Enforcement Directorate registered ECIR No. ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 dated 11.04.2024 and initiated investigation under PMLA. Investig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eged that the excise officials allegedly facilitated the operation and this activity allegedly continued between 2019 to 2022. PART-C The Annual commission was allegedly collected from distillers for permitting them to operate in the State. PART-D A new mechanism was allegedly introduced in April 2020 by introduction of FL-10A licenses. And three firms allegedly close to syndicate members were granted FL-10A licenses. The license holders allegedly acted as intermediaries, procured foreign liquor, sold to Government warehouses and earned commission. Approximately 10% profit margin was allegedly earned and out of the profit, 60% allegedly went to syndicate and 40% retained by license holders. 6. The contracts were allegedly awarded to associates of syndicate members including manpower supply agencies, cash collection agencies and hologram suppliers. The duplicate holograms were allegedly supplied for sale of illegal liquor and the cash collection agencies allegedly collected illegal commission. EOW Raipur has filed charge sheet dated 29.06.2024 before Special Court. Supplementary charge sheets were filed on 26.09.2024, 17.11.2024, 27.06.2025, 30....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the syndicate, thereby indicating that the financial transactions were periodically reviewed and supervised at her level. The prosecution asserts that the financial accounts of the syndicate were regularly reported to senior political authorities and disputes relating to the accounts were resolved at that level under the supervision of the applicant. 11. The investigation further alleges that the applicant played a significant role in facilitating appointments of key officers in the Excise Department and related institutions. WhatsApp communications dated 07.05.2019 allegedly show that the applicant forwarded draft note-sheets regarding appointments in the Excise Department to Anil Tuteja even prior to formal approval. It is alleged that the names of Niranjan Das and Arun Pati Tripathi had already been finalized by the syndicate for appointment as Excise Commissioner and Managing Director of CSMCL. 12. The prosecution case is that after approval of the note-sheet by the competent authority, the applicant forwarded the signed note-sheet to Anil Tuteja, who further transmitted the same to other members of the syndicate. According to the prosecution, this demonstrates the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aries handling cash collections and supervised hawala transactions for layering and integration of proceeds of crime. It is alleged that the applicant ensured delivery of illegal proceeds to political beneficiaries. The prosecution has alleged that the applicant knowingly assisted in generation of proceeds of crime, possessed proceeds of crime,concealed proceeds of crime and projected proceeds of crime as untainted property. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the prosecution asserts that the applicant has knowingly participated in activities connected with proceeds of crime and is therefore liable for offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. 17. It is alleged that the applicant acquired proceeds of crime, possessed proceeds of crime, concealed proceeds of crime and used proceeds of crime projecting proceeds of crime as untainted. The prosecution contends that the material on record including statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA, Digital evidence, WhatsApp communications, diary entries and financial records establishes a prima facie case of money laundering against the applicant. It is therefore alleged that there exist reasonable grounds for b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccessive arrests. The Apex Court in Binay Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand (2026) deprecated multiple arrests to prolong custody and granted bail. Such practice violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. V. BAIL GRANTED IN MULTIPLE CASES 22. It is contended that the Applicant has already been granted bail in multiple cases including Coal case (ED), Coal case (EOW), Disproportionate Assets case and DMF case. The interim bails granted by the Apex Court have been confirmed. The Applicant has never violated any bail condition. This establishes that the Applicant is not likely to Abscond, Tamper evidence and Influence witnesses. In Sanjay Chandra vs CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Apex Court held that Bail is the rule and jail is the exception. VI. PARITY WITH CO-ACCUSED 23. Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that out of 81 accused persons, only 9 were arrested. Several alleged key conspirators have already been granted bail including Anwar Dhebar, Arun Pati Tripathi, Anil Tuteja, Kawasi Lakhma, and Chaitanya Baghel and the Applicant stands on better footing. Bail on parity is a recognized principle. In Dataram Singh vs State of UP (2018) 3 SCC 22, the Apex Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vs K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Apex Court has held that Prolonged incarceration violates Article 21. XII. APPLICANT IS A WOMAN - BENEFIT OF PROVISO TO SECTION 45 29. It is contended that the Applicant is a woman and the first proviso to Section 45 PMLA permits bail to women. In Enforcement Directorate vs Preeti Chandra (2023 SCC Online SC 930), the Supreme Court has held that benefit to women is discretionary but relevant consideration. The Applicant deserves liberal approach. XIII. TWIN CONDITIONS SATISFIED 30. There are reasonable grounds to believe that Applicant is not guilty because she has not been named in FIR, No recovery, No independent evidence and statements only evidence, Parity with co-accused. The applicant is not likely to commit offence while on bail because multiple bails have been granted, no violation and is a permanent resident having deep roots. Thus twin conditions are satisfied. XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES 31. Bail jurisprudence is rooted in Article 21. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs Public Prosecutor (1978) 1 SCC 240, the Court held: Personal liberty cannot be casually curtailed. In Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union of India (2018) 11 S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submits that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any real apprehension that the Applicant will tamper with evidence. Entire evidence is Documentary, Digital and already seized. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 held that "Where evidence is documentary, apprehension of tampering is minimal. The Applicant has already remained on bail in multiple cases without any violation. XIX. REPEATED ARRESTS VIOLATE ARTICLE 21 37. The Applicant has been arrested repeatedly in different ECIRs on substantially identical material. Such successive arrests defeat the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. The Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51 emphasized that criminal law cannot be used to perpetuate custody. Repeated arrests amount to indirect denial of bail. XX. BENEFIT OF PROVISO TO SECTION 45 - WOMAN ACCUSED 38. It is contended that the applicant is a woman and therefore entitled to liberal consideration under the first proviso to Section 45 PMLA. The proviso reflects legislative intent to adopt a humane approach. The Courts have consistently granted bail to women even in stringent statutes. The Supreme Court in Ranjits....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect denial of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 44. The interim bails granted to the Applicant by the Apex Court in different proceedings have subsequently been confirmed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 28.01.2026, thereby affirming that the Applicant is not required to remain in custody. The following chronology demonstrates the repeated arrests and grant of bail to the Applicant: 1. 02.12.2022 Arrested in Coal (ECIR/RPZO/09/2022) Scam by ED 2. 23,05.2024 Petitioner arrested in Coal Scam by EOW (FIR No. 03/2024 3. 25.09.2024 ED Interim Bail granted in Coal Scam by Apex Court 4. 08.11.2024 Arrested in Disproportionate Assets case (FIR No. 22/2024) 5. 08.01.2025 Default bail granted in disproportionate Assets case 6. 03.03.2025 EOW Interim bail granted in Coal scam by Supreme Court 7. 03.03.2025 Arrested in DMF scam immediately (FIR No. 02/2024 8. 29.05.2025 Interim bail granted in DMF scam by the Apex Court 45. The above sequence unmistakably establishes that the Applicant has been consistently found entitled to bail by constitutional courts, and at no stage has the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd of parity, particularly when the persons alleged to be the main architects of the offence have already been enlarged on bail. The following chart reflects the bail granted to the co-accused persons in the present case: 1. Trilok Singh Dhilon Cr.A. No. 1535 of 2025 26.03.2025 2. Anwar Dhebar Cr.A. No. 2669 of 2025 19.05.2025 3. Arun Pati Tripathi Cr.A. No. 725 of 2025 12.02.2025 4. Anil Tuteja SLP (Crl.) No. 3148 of 2025 15.04.2025 5. Arvind Singh Cr.A. No. 2576 of 2025 13.05.2025 6. Chaitanya Baghel MCRC No. 8716 of 2025 02.01.2026 7. Kawasi Lakhma SLP (Crl.) No. 16980/2025 03.02.2026 49. The above direction makes it clear that the previous bail orders in favour of the Applicant and similarly placed co-accused persons constitute a decisive and relevant consideration for adjudication of the present bail application. Once the Apex Court has directed consideration of the present bail application on the threshold of bail granted to the Applicant and co-accused, there remains no justification for continued incarceration of the Applicant, particularly when the investigation is complete and the prose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of rupees. The material collected during investigation clearly establishes the Applicant's active participation in the process and activity connected with proceeds of crime, thereby attracting Section 3 punishable under Section 4 PMLA. The Applicant does not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA, and therefore is not entitled to bail. I. APPLICANT PLAYED A KEY AND SUPERVISORY ROLE IN MONEY LAUNDERING 54. Investigation has revealed that the Applicant, while functioning as Deputy Secretary to the Chief Minister, acted as a senior political coordinator and supervisory authority in the liquor syndicate. The evidence collected demonstrates (i) Supervisory Role Coordinated with Anil Tuteja, Anwar Dhebar, Chaitanya Baghel and Arun Pati Tripathi. The WhatsApp chats and digital evidence clearly demonstrate Settlement of accounts ("Hisab"), Transfer of funds, Appointment of excise officers and Policy manipulation. This establishes active involvement in laundering process. Under the Section 3 of the PMLA, Knowing assistance or facilitation is sufficient. The Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v Union of India (2022) 10 SCC 744 / (2023) 12 SCC 1, has held that "Direct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....own. Similarly in Rohit Tandon (2018) 11 SCC 46, Money laundering rarely involves direct possession. VI. GRAVITY OF OFFENCE EXTREMELY HIGH 59. The present case involves Multi-crore scam, Organized syndicate Policy manipulation, Hawala transactions and Political protection. The Supreme Court in State of Bihar v Amit Kumar (2017) 13 SCC 751 has held that Economic offences are a class apart and require stricter approach in bail. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439 it has been held that Economic offences affect society at large and bail must be granted cautiously. VII. DELAY IN TRIAL NO GROUND FOR BAIL 60. It is submitted that the prosecution's reliance on Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024 SCC OnLine SC 623) and Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528, to contend that delay alone cannot justify bail in serious offences warranting continued custody, is thoroughly misconceived and inapplicable to the facts of the present case. In Gurwinder Singh (supra), the Apex Court has merely clarified that prolonged delay in trial, without more, does not ipso facto entitle an accused to bail where overwhelming evidence of culpability exists ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing juniors while penalizing supervisory oversight absent mens rea. This position aligns with State of Kerala v. Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784, holding parity inapplicable to those in superior positions without prima facie evidence of active conspiracy. Rejection of parity is thus compelled, warranting Applicant's release on parity with those already enlarged. IX. ARREST AFTER TWO YEARS JUSTIFIED 63. The Applicant's arrest after nearly two years from FIR is eminently justified, as incriminating evidence emerged in 2025 statements of protected witnesses/co-accused, disclosing his supervisory role and policy influence in laundering proceeds-material unavailable earlier despite diligent probe. The Main Chargesheet (01.07.2024) and Supplementary Chargesheets prudently omitted him pending these disclosures, aligning with investigative prudence. The Supreme Court in Tarun Kumar v. Directorate of Enforcement (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486) squarely holds late implication valid where evidence surfaces later in layered probes like PMLA, overruling mechanical timelines. Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51 is inapposite, applying to routine cases sans economic offence gravity. Custody is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l public interest, witness safety, and probe integrity upon release, demanding continued custody per Saumya Chaurasia v. ED (2024) 6 SCC 401. Binding precedents brook no dilution: Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) 10 SCC 229 mandates PMLA twin conditions u/s 45(1) as"mandatory and non-derogable" (para 160), overriding general bail norms. Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (2022) 9 SCC 465 reinforces rigorous satisfaction imperative; "not guilty" contemplation demands assessing entire prosecution case, not preliminary skirmishes (para 28). Bail rejection is thus statutorily compelled. XIII. PLEA OF MALAFIDES IS IRRELEVANT AT THE STAGE OF BAIL 69. The Applicant has attempted to contend that the present proceedings are motivated by political vendetta and mala fides, and therefore the bail application deserves to be allowed. The said contention is wholly misconceived and legally untenable. It is a settled position of law that allegations of malafides are irrelevant where the prosecution is supported by material collected during investigation. The Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 held that Allegations of mala....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is sufficient even without direct possession. It is further submitted that major properties of the Applicant already stand attached in earlier ECIRs, which clearly establish handling of proceeds of crime. A person cannot claim benefit merely because the proceeds of crime have been layered and concealed. XVI. ABSENCE OF ATTACHMENT IRRELEVANT; MONEY LAUNDERING PROVEN 72. It has been submitted that mere absence of attachment in ECIR avails naught. The Supreme Court in Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46 lucidly holds that money laundering entails concealment and indirect possession of proceeds of crime (para 12)-prima facie established herein via 2025 statements revealing Applicant's supervisory layering, rendering attachment ancillary. XVII. SHORT CUSTODY PERIOD - BAIL NOT WARRANTED 73. Applicant's prolonged incarceration plea is preposterous: She is in Custody since 16.12.2025 (~2 months) which falls woefully short of "inordinately long." Manish Sisodia v. CBI (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1393) mandates Article 21 wherein it is held that bail is only for extended periods (para 45). Recently, Udhav Singh v. Directorate of Enforcement (2025 SCC OnLi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i-agency probes imperil recovery/witness integrity (Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, 2023 12 SCC 1, para 160-mandatory, non-derogable).Compounding flight: Influential heft, key conspiratorial role, and offence's gravity (socio-economic carnage) demand continued custody, per P. Chidambaram v. ED (2019) 9 SCC 24 and Udhav Singh v. ED (2025 SCC OnLine SC 357). Bail, if granted, would emasculate PMLA, rewarding economic predators. Thus, the prayer for rejection stands vindicated. XXIV. FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS VALID AND AUTHORIZED 78. The Applicant has contended that the Directorate of Enforcement has conducted further investigation without obtaining permission of the Special Court.- The said contention is wholly erroneous. It is submitted that further investigation is permissible even after filing of prosecution complaint. The Supreme Court in Anil Tuteja v Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2110 has specifically directed the Directorate of Enforcement to File an additional prosecution complaint after completing further investigation. Subsequently, by order dated 30.01.2026, the Supreme Court extended time for completion of investigation and clarified that any bail applica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Makwana, 2021) 6 SCC 230; Sagar v. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 1370). Therefore Applicant's supervisory mastermind role obliterates equivalence to parity may be rejected XXVIII. APPLICANT IS KEY CONSPIRATOR, WITNESS INFLUENCE RISK IMPERILS PROBE 82. It is next submitted that the investigation unmasks the applicant as principal orchestrator who facilitated appointments of syndicate operatives; coordinated entire syndicate; handled cash movement exceeding Rs.100 crores; supervised accounts/layering and directed intermediaries. Unlike peripheral co-accused, he embodies Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439's "key conspirator" archetype: "not to be lightly released" (para 44). Witness influence menace looms: Powerful political perch endangers drivers, middlemen, officials, syndicate members via intimidation/tampering/concealment (P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24: "possibility of influencing witnesses" fatal to bail, para 71). PMLA Section 45(1) twin conditions remain catastrophically unmet therefore custody continuance is non-negotiable. FINDINGS AND REASONS 83. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gations, the evidentiary value whereof will be examined during trial. ARREST AFTER PROLONGED INVESTIGATION 87. It is not in dispute that the ECIR was recorded in the year 2024 and the Applicant came to be arrested only on 16.12.2025 after prolonged investigation. The Applicant had appeared before the investigating agency on several occasions. The prosecution complaint has already been filed. The Supreme Court has consistently held that arrest after prolonged investigation and filing of prosecution complaint is a relevant factor for grant of bail. CUSTODY DURATION AND TRIAL TIMELINE 88. The Applicant is in custody since 16.12.2025 (~2 months) scarcely qualifying as "prolonged." The prosecution complaint lists voluminous witnesses, portending a protracted trial unlikely to conclude imminently. While Manish Sisodia v. CBI (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1393) deems extended incarceration relevant alongside trial delays, Applicant's brevity circumscribes its application. Similarly, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24 guards against indefinite detention in economic offences, but only post material custody thresholds absent here amid PMLA's Section 45 rig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng bail consideration. Such circumstances, indicative of potential overreach, cannot be discountenanced in equity. INVESTIGATION SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE 92. The prosecution complaint stands filed, marking investigation's culmination. No custodial interrogation of the Applicant remains warranted, as probe materials (statements, trails) stand crystallized sans further yield. The Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24 emphatically holds: "once investigation is substantially complete, continued custody is rarely justified" (para 69)-a safeguard against indefinite pre-trial detention, particularly post-chargesheet where recovery/tampering risks abate (Natasha Delhi v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2020) 17 SCC 184). The Applicant's release aligns with this principle, trumping routine PMLA apprehensions. POSSIBILITY OF TAMPERING 93. The apprehension of Directorate of Enforcement regarding evidence tampering remains entirely general and devoid of particulars. No specific material on record suggests the Applicant has attempted witness influence or tampering. Such nebulous concerns stand addressed through stringent bail condit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng witnesses). This collapses against Completed investigation (prosecution complaint filed) and Parity matrix (principal co-accused already on bail). No direct PMLA complicity shown - mere supervisory role allegation insufficient at bail stage. Second Limb - "Not likely to commit any offence while on bail" : No flight risk evidence and there is no recidivism history. Conditions neutralize risks: daily reporting, witness non-contact, passport surrender, GPS if needed. Both statutory conditions are met for bail entitlement under Section 45 PMLA. ED proves no specific threat. Investigation is over and Co-accused have been freed. Both twin conditions stand prima facie satisfied. Prolonged detention lacks justification once the police investigation concludes (e.g., via charge sheet filing), as further custody serves no investigative purpose. The Courts must apply parity-equal treatment-where risks like tampering or absconding are adequately mitigated by bail conditions such as reporting, sureties, or travel bans, rather than indefinite incarceration. 96. Section 45(1) proviso of the PMLA provides as under: "Provided that a person who is under the age of 16 years or is a woma....