Shrawan Kumar @ Shrawan Mandal vs Enforcement Directorate ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4319 Chatt

                                  1

   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                    MCRCA No. 443 of 2022

      Shrawan Kumar @ Shrawan Mandal S/o Naresh Mandal,
      Aged About 40 Years At- Village Chattu Dhanaama, Post
      Kakaan, Jaamui, District : Jamui , Bihar --- Petitioner

                              Versus

      Enforcement Directorate Government of India through
      Assistant Director Raipur Sub Zonal Office, At-303, A-B
      Block CGST Building, New Dhamtari Road, Tikrapara,
      Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent

For the applicant : Mr. Vinay Nagdev, Advocate.

For the State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Advocate with Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order on Board

08 .07.2022

1. Apprehending arrest in connection with Criminal

Complaint No. 171 of 2019 pending before the Special

Judge Prevention of Money Laundering Act & 4th

Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur for the offences

punishable U/ss 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, 2002 the applicant has filed this

application u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The allegation against the applicant is that he has

committed a scheduled offence under the Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 which is covered under

the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It is

alleged that the money was transferred from different

accounts from Pakistan for operating unlawful activities.

Dheeraj Sao was one of the accused who received the

amounts and in turn was transferred to different

accounts including the account of present applicant.

After retaining the part of sums by way of kick-backs the

money was further transferred to accumulate in an

account, which was meant to be used for operating

terrorist activities. Eventually the money was reached to

the hands of Indian Mujahiddin Organizers, which was

transferred by Dheeraj Sao in different accounts

including the present applicant. Since the source of

income was illegal, the offence was registered under the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that only on

presumption, the applicant has been inculpated. He has

not been declared as absconder by any Court and

referring to the case of prosecution, he would submit

that an amount of Rs.22,030/- was withdrawn by Dheeraj

Sahu on different dates i.e.,11.1.2103, 15.1.2013 &

17.1.2013 and the deposit of Rs.27,500 was made in the

account of the present applicant. Therefore, there is no

nexus with the person who had deposited money in his

account. He further submits that the allegation of

deposit of Rs.4 lakhs and handling the same by Dheeraj

Sao is only on presumption and nothing is on record to

establish the offence, therefore, the applicant who is

completely innocent in the subject matter is entitled to

bail.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

Enforcement Directorate would submit that during the

investigation carried out by NIA it was found that the

money from Pakistan came to the account of Dheeraj

Sao and others. They by way of layering the same

transferred it into different small account holders, who in

turn again transferred it to the account of one Jubair

Husain who carried out the blast in Bihar. He further

submits that the present applicant is absconding,

therefore, even the statement u/s 50 of the Prevention

of Money Laundering Act, 2002 could not be recorded.

5. Perused the voluminous documents filed by both the

parties.

6. The judgment of Special Court, Raipur dated 24.11.2021

is on record, which shows that Dheeraj Sao, Jubair

Hussain, Aisha Bano, Sukhen Haldar and Pappu Mandal

were prosecuted. The facts of that case would show that

at the instance of one Khalid who is operating from

Pakistan different accounts were opened and Dheeraj

Sao along with others hatched criminal conspiracy and

transferred the money to the branded organisation of

Indian Mujahiddin after obtaining certain kick-backs.

7. As against this applicant, the allegations are that he was

provided with Rs. 1 lakh by Dheeraj Sao to further

deposit in the account of Jubair Hussain. The allegations

also contain that he influenced and encouraged his

cousin in the act of transferring the case. Certain cash

advantage transactions have also been stated. It is also

alleged that Dheeraj Sao has also deposited an amount

of one lakh in the account of present applicant in the

year 2012 and Rs.92,000/- in the account of Aysha Bano

thereby he received a cash deposits from various places

and channelised the same. Thus the applicant has

actively involved in the money laundering knowing fully

aware of the fact that Dheeraj Sao and others stand

convicted by the sessions Court and at present this

applicant is also still absconding.

8. Considering the nature of allegations and the role played

by Dheeraj Sao, who stands convicted and taking into

account the alleged monetary transactions of illegal

money made between Dheeraj Sao and the present

applicant and further considering the fact that the

statement of present applicant could not be recorded as

he is still absconding, I am of the opinion that it is not a

case where the benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C., can be

extended to the applicant. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Sd/-

GOUTAM BHADURI JUDGE

Rao