Pappu Mandal vs Enforcement Directorate, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 264 Chatt

                                        1



                                                                            NAFR
            HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                         MCRC No. 9084 of 2022
    Pappu Mandal S/o Gorelal Mandal Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Chattu
     Dhanma, Post Kakan, Jamui, District : Jamui, Bihar

                                                                     ---- Applicant

                                     Versus

    Enforcement Directorate, Government Of India Through The Assistant
     Director, Raipur, Sub Zonal Office 303, A-B Block C, G.S.T. Building, New
     Dhamtari Road, Tikrapara, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

                                                                ---- Non-Applicant

For the Applicant               :      Mr. Shikhar Bhakhtiyar, Advocate
For Non-Applicant               :      Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate

                    Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
                                 Order On Board
13.01.2023
    1. The applicant has preferred the first bail application under Section 439 of
       CrPC for grant of regular bail as he is in jail since 03.03.2020 in
       connection with Crime No. ECIR/RPSZO/01/2014 registered at Police
       Station- Enforcement Directorate (P.S. Khamtarai), District- Raipur (C.G.)
       for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 Prevention of Money
       Laundering Act.

   2. The case of prosecution in brief the applicant and other co-accused are
       indulged in the offence registered under Section 417 of IPC and under
       Sections 17, 40 (1)(b) and 40 (1)(c) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
       Act, 1967 ( for short 'the Act, 1967) wherein the National Investigation
       Agency investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet before the
       Special Court, Raipur vide judgment dated 24.11.2021. The Enforcement
       Directorate ( for short 'the ED') filed a complaint case under Sections 3 &
       4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2022 (for short 'the PMLA
       Act') wherein it is alleged that against the applicant that he has received
       Rs.30,000/- on 08.11.2013 in his bank account and on dated 19.11.2013
       Rs.7050 from other co-accused namely Dhiraj Sao. Based on the
       aforesaid allegations, a complaint has been filed before the Special
       Court.

   3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not
                                      2

   committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in this case. He
   further submits that there are total 8 accused persons charge-sheeted in
   the said crime and one of co-accused namely Dhiraj Sao against whom
   similar allegation and similar evidence are collected by the prosecution
   has been extended benefit of regular bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of
   this Court passed in MCRC No.7468 of 2022 order dated 30.09.2022, he
   submits that the case of present applicant cannot be differentiated
   because the allegation against the co-accused and evidence collected by
   the prosecution are identical in nature. He submits that the applicant is in
   jail since 03.03.2020, trial is not concluded as yet and the applicant is
   ready to abide by all terms and conditions imposed by this Court,
   therefore, he may be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the bail

application and submits that it is a case of terrorist funding and looking to the evidence collected by the prosecution, his application may be rejected. However he could not dispute the fact that the allegation leveled against the co-accused and evidence collected by the prosecution are similar in nature.

5. On the last date of hearing this Court directed to respondent counsel to verify about the status of the trial and to verify about the status of any appeal being filed against the order of granting bail to co-accused. It has been informed at the bar that the matter is listed on 27.01.2023 for framing of charge before the trial Court. Mr. Pandey submits that no appeal or SLP is filed against the order granting bail to co-accused Dheeraj Sao at present. However, respondent is intending to file an appeal or SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions.

7. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, looking to the fact that by a detailed order passed by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No.7468 of 2022 dated 30.09.2022 granted regular bail to co-accused Dheeraj Sao, and as admitted by learned counsel for the parties that the allegations against the present applicant and the material collected by the prosecution are similar to that of co-accused and also looking to the detention period, trial may take some time, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I am

inclined to allow this bail application.

8. Accordingly, the bail application filed by applicant is allowed and it is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

 He shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1 lakh with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.

 He shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given by the said trial Court.

 He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court.

 He shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial.

 The applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his Adhaar Card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the Adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court.

 He shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future.

 He shall after his release, within 15 days, furnish the details of movable and immovable properties, details of all bank accounts held by him and his family members viz. Wife & dependent children and shall not alienate the immovable property without the prior permission of the concerned trial Court.

 He shall inform about his movement outside the State to the concerned Police Station in whose jurisdiction he normally resides.

        9. Certified copy as per rules.                                           Sd/-
                                                                    Sd/-

                                                         (Sachin Singh Rajput)
                                                                   Judge
parul