Kerala High Court
M. Sivasankar vs Union Of India on 13 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL 2023 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1945
BAIL APPL. NO. 2166 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENTCRMP 185/2023 OF ADDITIONAL SPECIAL
SESSIONS COURT (SPE/CBI CASES)-III, ERNAKULAM
CRIME NO.ECIR/KCZO/09/2021 OF DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE SPECIAL COURT FOR PMLA CASES
(SPE/CBI-III), KALOOR, ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/9TH ACCUSED:
M. SIVASANKAR,
AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O. N D MADHAVAN NAIR,
DEVADARSANA, KATTUROAD, POOJAPURA
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 695012.
BY ADVS.
MANU SRINATH
GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
NIMESH THOMAS
SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI JAYADEEP GUPTA
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT:
1 UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.
2 DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR, KOCHIN ZONAL OFFICE, KANOOS CASTLE, A.K.
SHESHADRI ROAD (MULLASSERY CANAL ROAD WEST), COCHIN
- 682 011 (CRIME NO ECIR/KCZO/09/2021 OF
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE).
FOR R1 & R2 ADV JAISHANKAR V.NAIR
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.04.2023, THE COURT ON 13.04.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.A.No.2166/2023 2
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
B.A.No.2166 of 2023
================================
Dated this the 13th day of April, 2023
ORDER
This application for regular bail has been filed under Section
439(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 45 of
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (`PML Act' for short
hereinafter) and the petitioner is the 9th accused in Crime
No.ECIR/KCZO/09/2021 registered by the Enforcement Directorate
on 22.02.2021, within the jurisdiction of Special Court for PMLA
Cases (SPE/CBI-III), Kaloor, Ernakulam.
2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri Jaideep Gupta,
appearing for the petitioner and Sri R.Sankara Narayanan, the
learned Assistant Solicitor General of India (`ASGI' for short
hereinafter) appearing for the respondents, in detail.
3. Shown off unnecessary embellishments, the prosecution
case is that the petitioner herein, who is the 9 th accused in the above
crime, committed offences defined under Section 3 and punishable
under Section 4 of PML Act. The predicate offences as stated in the
arrest order in FIR No.VC.02/2020-SUI-1 dated 30.09.2020
registered by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau,
Thiruvananthapuram registered for offences under Sections 7(a),
7(b), 13(2) r/w 13(1)(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
FIR No.RC-0332020A0005 registered by the CBI, ACB, Cochin for
offences under Section 120B IPC r/w Section 35 r/w Section 3 of the
FCRA, 2010. The crux of the allegation in the ECIR as epitomized
in the Arrest Order is that pecuniary advantage/illegal gratification
was obtained by the accused out of the funds received from UAE
Red Crescent meant for flood victims in Kerala though `Life
Mission Project'.
4. The prosecution case runs on the premise that the `Life
Mission Project of Kerala Government' had made MoU on
11.07.2019 with M/s Red Crescent, UAE for construction of
residential apartments to flood affected people in Wadakkanchery
Municipality. The WhatsApp conversations between Smt.Swapna
Suresh and the petitioner herein clearly would indicate that the
contract for vendor for execution of the project was fixed in favour
of M/s Unitac Builders & Developers run by Sri. Santhosh Eapen.
Smt.Swapna Suresh had admitted that an upfront commission was
demanded as bribe and M/s Unitac Builders & Developers agreed to
pay the amount before execution of the project. The petitioner `had
his interest' in the upfront commission earned by co-accused
Smt.Swapna Suresh from M/s Unitac Builders & Developers run by
Sri. Santhosh Eapen. It was also found that the petitioner had
directed Mr.Venugopal, a Chartered Accountant, to open the locker
account of Smt.Swapna Suresh where the proceeds of the crime was
`handled'. It was also found that the Iphone in possession of the
petitioner belonged to Shri Santhosh Eapen. Most importantly
Santhosh Eapen admitted payment of upfront commission to procure
the contract in the Life Mission Project. As regards to the above
mentioned money trail, it was clearly revealed from the bank
statements that an amount of Rs.5.25 crore to the Federal Bank and
an amount of Rs.2.25 crore to the Axis Bank were transferred from
the Red Crescent Organization on 01.08.2019 and part of the said
amount (Rs.3,80,00,000/-) (in foreign money) was subsequently
withdrawn by Santhosh Eapen and handed over as an upfront
commission for allocating the content to him. The petitioner is also
alleged to be evasive and non-cooperative during the interrogation.
To summarise, the prosecution allegation herein is; reception of
bribe in foreign currency and rooting of the same through the
diplomatic channel.
5. While pursuing the relief of regular bail to the petitioner,
it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the
petitioner is totally innocent of the allegations levelled against him.
The action of arrest is a political stunt and is aimed at targeting the
earlier existed professional privity the petitioner had with the Chief
Minister of Kerala and the entire case is built up as a political hit by
the Enforcement Directorate to falsely implicate the petitioner and
by extension, the executive head of the State and his family
members. The petitioner is a reputed retired IAS officer with an
unblemished record of 30 years.
6. The petitioner also seeks regular bail on the ground of
illness ascribing that the rigour under Section 45 of the PML Act
does not apply to the petitioner since the petitioner is sick and infirm
and the alleged money laundering pertaining to the petitioner is a
sum less than Rs.1 crore. While canvassing bail on medical ground,
it is submitted that the petitioner is a cancer patient and he
underwent surgery thrice. Further it is contended that as on
23.02.2023, the petitioner underwent medical examination at
General Hospital, Ernakulam and the Medical Board recommended
surgical intervention. In support of plea to relax the rigour under
Section 45 of the PML Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner
pointed out the decisions reported in [(2019) SCC Online SC 1549],
P.Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement; [2015 SCC OnLine
SC 1333], Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement (PMLA)
and judgment dated 26.09.2022 in B.A.No.540/2022 passed by Delhi
High Court.
7. The first point argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the
instant crime are precisely and exactly the same as alleged in Crime
No.ECIR/KCZO/31/2020, where Annexure 11 supplementary
complaint was filed arraying the petitioner as an accused. In
Annexure 11, the allegations/findings therein are also that the
petitioner had received illegal gratification, under LIFE Mission
project, worth Rs.1,00,50,000/- which was parked over two bank
lockers belonging to Ms.Swapna Suresh - SBI locker
(Rs.64,00,000/-) and Federal Bank locker (Rs.36,50,000/-). The said
amounts were seized by the NIA Kochi Unit on 23.07.2020. It is
submitted that the allegation herein is also exactly the same and the
same proceeds of crime is projected as the proceeds of crime in this
case also. The substratum of allegations in the instant case is
identical to those in Crime No.ECIR/KCZO/31/2020 and in that he
was under remand custody for 98 days. Thus the present case is
foisted with illegal motives and in colorable exercise of power
wherein the petitioner was detained in custody for the same charge
by registering a new case on same proceeds of crime and on same
grounds.
8. Secondly it is argued that the petitioner was enlarged on
bail in Crime No.ECIR/KCZO/31/2020 which culminated in the
Annexure 11 Supplementary complaint. This Court categorically
held in Annexure 9 judgment, that the petitioner would get the
benefit of the proviso to Section 45 of PML Act, as he is a sick
person and the proceeds of the crime in the case, in relation to the
applicant goes, is less than 1 crore in value and therefore he was
entitled to bail. It was also recorded that the petitioner was unlikely
to commit further crimes on bail and also nothing on record to
suggest that he is at flight risk or that he may tamper with evidence
or influence witnesses. It is submitted that Annexure 9 bail order
was challenged by Enforcement Directorate before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP(Crl)No.1403/2021 which was heard by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and refused to interfere and the matter has
been pending, without any orders. Accordingly, it is submitted that
in order to defeat Annexure 9 order, indirectly, the petitioner was
arrested in the instant crime, germane from the allegations in
Annexure 11 crime.
9. It is pointed out that except the statements given by
the two co-accused, no other evidence is presented by the
Department to show the petitioner's complicity in the crime. The
sum and substance of the allegation, as supported by the evidence on
record, is that, as per the statement of co-accused Smt.Swapna
Suresh, the money parked at her locker (seized by NIA) was the kick
back received by her for the petitioner and such statements by itself
is insufficient to fasten culpability on the petitioner. No evidence is
stated to show for whether the petitioner has demanded, seen, or
touched or handled or transferred or at least knew about the money
parked at her locker. The petitioner was never aware of the
existence of such money or ever possessed the same. In such
circumstances, such statements must not be treated as trustworthy
enough to assume culpability of the petitioner so as to decline bail
under Section 45 of PML Act. The learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner placed a decision of the Apex Court reported in
[MANU/SC/0365/2001], T.T.Antony v. State of Kerala & Ors. to
contend that registration of second F.I.R and fresh investigation, in
relation to an occurrence whereby earlier FIR registered, are not
prescribed by law. In this connection, the learned counsel for the
petitioner placed emphasize to paragraphs 19 ad 20 of the above
judgment.
10. Another decision reported in [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 731],
Tarak Dash Mukharjee & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
also is placed in support of this contention.
11. Opposing the contentions raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 herein filed a detailed objection.
12. The learned ASGI refuted the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner on the submission that the
petitioner herein is the king pin, who orchestrated money laundering
and bribery since the very beginning. It is argued that there are 3
different offences emerged from the facts involved. The same are;
(i) gold smuggling, (ii) bribery and (3) a portion of bribe being
converted into foreign currency and taken through diplomatic
channel to a foreign country. The matters required to prove
smuggling are completely different from the materials required to
prove bribery, since the same is completely an independent transfer.
It is argued that the contract had been given in favour of M/s. Unitac
Builders and Developers of Mr.Santhosh Eapen and Ms.Swapna
Suresh admitted that an upfront commission as bribe was demanded
by Sivasankar and other consulate officials, which was paid by
Santhosh Eapen. It is argued further that it was Sivasankar, who
directed Sri P.Venugopal, his C.A, to assist Swapna Suresh to open a
joint locker in the name of Venugopal and Swapna Suresh, wherein
part of the proceeds of the crime generated out of commission from
bribe was kept. It is argued further that for registration of a crime
under the PML Act, the only necessity is registration of a
predicate/schedule offence prior to it. It is also submitted that the
investigation done by the Enforcement Directorate under the PML
Act is independent of the investigation conducted by any predicate
agency and Sivasankar would not have been arrested in the
scheduled offence if there would be any immunity from proceeding
with the investigation under the PML Act. It is specifically argued
that the present case is different from ECIR/KCZO/31/2020
registered by Enforcement Directorate for gold smuggling through
diplomatic channel and the allegation in the present case is
conversion of a portion of bribe money into foreign currency and
taking the same through the diplomatic channel to a foreign country.
13. It is argued further that the petitioner herein could not
claim exemption granted under Section 45 of PML Act on the
ground of illness or sickness, since Sivasankar did not have any
serious illness and in the earlier crime also he was granted bail by
relaxing the rigour under Section 45 of the PML Act on medical
grounds. But when he was released on bail, he joined duty and also
continued in service till his retirement without undergoing any
further treatment. Therefore, the petitioner could not be given the
benefit of sickness to relax the rigour under Section 45 of the PML
Act, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
14. The learned ASGI submitted that the exemption sought by
the petitioner by resorting to the proviso to Section 45 of PML Act
on the ground of medical illness cannot be considered since he had
denied surgery offered by the prosecution acting on the medical
report. The learned ASGI argued that investigation under PMLA,
2002 revealed that the petitioner/9th accused was constantly and
closely monitoring the M/s.UAE Red Crescent funded LIFE Mission
Project of Wadakkancherry even when Shri U.V.Jose assumed his
charge as the CEO of LIFE Mission Project. Shri U.V.Jose in his
statement dated 17.02.2023 given u/s 50 of PMLA, 2002 stated that
he had received the direction from the Government of Kerala to sign
the MoU only by noon on 11.07.2019, the day of signing MoU. It
shows that even the LIFE Mission CEO was not aware of the
happenings in the project as everything was done by the petitioner/9 th
accused even when he was not CEO. Further, when Shri. Santhosh
Eapen of M/s.Unitac Builders and Developers was awarded the
contract, he went to meet the petitioner/9 th accused and had extensive
meeting with petitioner/9th accused. At that time, petitioner/9th
accused had called the then CEO of LIFE Mission Shri. U.V.Jose and
directed him to ensure that timely clearances are indeed given and
petitioner/9th accused had introduced Shri.Santhosh Eapen to the then
CEO of LIFE and asked Shri. Santhosh to follow-up with them and
Inform him (petitioner/9th accused) in case of any difficulties. It may
be noted that Shri.U. V.Jose had also stated that they have allowed
M/s. Unitac Builders and Developers to start the work considering
the direction from Principal Secretary to CM of Kerala and that as
CEO of LIFE Mission he was bound to act on the directions of
Principal Secretary to CM of Kerala i.e., petitioner/9th accused.
15. It is further submitted that the petitioner/9 th Accused did
not co-operate with the investigation during the custody period and
was evasive in his answers and he has not divulged the name of the
other persons involved with him in the instant case. Thus, the
accused is not entitled to get bail. This position is reiterated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in the case of Gautam Kundu Vs.
Manoj Kumar Assistant Director in CA. No. 1706 of 2015, dated
16.12.2015, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held as follows:
"32. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
At this stage we refrained ourselves from deciding the
questions tried to be raised at this stage since it is
nothing but a bail application. We cannot forget that this
case is relating to Money Laundering which we feel is a
serious threat to the national economy and national
interest. We cannot brush aside the fact that the schemes
have been prepared in a calculative manner with a
deliberative design and motive of personal gain,
regardless of the consequence to the members of the
society."
16. It is respectfully submitted that similar observations were
made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon Vs.
The Enforcement Directorate in CA. Nos. 1878-1879 of 2017 dated
10.11.2017, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held as follows:
"27. Suffice it to observe that the appellant has not
succeeded in persuading us about the inapplicability of
the threshold stipulation under Section 45 of the Act. In
the facts of the present case, we are in agreement with
the view taken by the Sessions Court and by the High
Court. We have independently examined the materials
relied upon by the prosecution and also noted the
inexplicable silence or reluctance of the appellant in
disclosing the source from where such huge value of
demonetized currency and also new currency has been
acquired by him. The prosecution is relying on
statements of 26 witnesses/accused already recorded, out
of which 7 were considered by the Delhi High Court.
These statements are admissible in evidence, in view of
Section 50 of the Act of 2002. The same makes out a
formidable case about the involvement of the appellant
in commission of a serious offence of money-laundering.
It is, therefore, not possible for us to record satisfaction
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
appellant is not guilty of such offence. Further, the
Courts below have justly adverted to the antecedents of
the appellant for considering the prayer for bail and
concluded that it is not possible to hold that the
appellant is not likely to commit any offence ascribable
to the Act of 2002 while on bail. Since the threshold
stipulation predicated in Section 45 has not been
overcome, the question of considering the efficacy of
other points urged by the appellant to persuade the Court
to favor the appellant with the relief of regular bail will
be of no avail. In other words, the fact that the
investigation in the predicate offence instituted in terms
of FIR No.205/2016 or that the investigation qua the
appellant in the complaint CC No.700/2017 is
completed; and that the proceeds of crime is already in
possession of the investigating agency and provisional
attachment order in relation thereto passed on 13th
February, 2017 has been confirmed; or that charge-sheet
has been filed in FIR No.205/2016 against the appellant
without his arrest; that the appellant has been lodged in
judicial custody since 2nd January, 2017 and has not been
interrogated or examined by the Enforcement Directorate
thereafter; all these will be of no consequence."
17. It is submitted that, in [2022/KER/21224], Thomas
Daniel vs. Directorate of Enforcement this Court held as under:
"21. After considering the totality of the situation
emerging in the case, I am not convinced that the
petitioner is justified in seeking bail. The learned
Additional Solicitor General and the learned Central
Government Counsel have seriously opposed the
application for bail. Having regard to the nature of the
allegations against the petitioner, the stake involved, the
gravity of offences, the fact that the petitioner has
business Interests in Dubai, Australia etc., it cannot be
said that there is no flight risk in the case. It has also
been pointed out that the entire proceeds of the crime are
not yet traced. There are prima facie materials to believe
that he is guilty of the offence alleged against him.
Moreover, some of the important witnesses are his own
employees. In the circumstances, this is not a fit case to
grant him bail,"
18. In [(2009) 14 SCC 286], Masroor v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Another, it was noted that while deciding the question
of bail, Courts must strike a balance between the interest of the
society in general and the right of an accused to personal liberty.
While stressing on the importance of achieving said balance, the
Supreme Court held,
"13. There is no denying the fact that the liberty of an
individual is precious and is to be zealously protected by
the courts. Nonetheless, such a protection cannot be
absolute in every situation. The valuable right of liberty
of an individual and the interest of the society in general
has to be balanced. Liberty of a person accused of an
offence would depend upon the exigencies of the case. It
is possible that in a given situation, the collective
interest of the community may outweigh the right of
personal liberty of the individual concerned. In this
context, the following observations of this Court in
Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan are quite
apposite: (SCC p. 691, para 6)
"6.... Liberty is to be secured through process of law,
which is administered keeping in mind the interests of
the accused, the near and dear of the victim who lost his
life and who feel helpless and believe that there is no
justice in the world as also the collective interest of the
community so that parties do not lose faith in the
institution and indulge in private retribution."
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in [(2013) 7 SCC 439], Y.S.
Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI, observed that the economic offences
having deep rooted conspiracy and involving huge loss of public
funds, need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences
affecting the economy of the country as whole and thereby poising
serious threat to the financial health of the country. Relevant paras
in Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI 's case (supra) while taking
special note of cases involving economic offences, are reproduced
herein below:-
"15. Economic offences constitute a class apart and
need to be visited with a different approach in the
matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-
rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public
funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as
grave offences affecting the economy of the country as
a whole and thereby, posing serious threat to the
financial health of the country.
16. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind
the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
conviction will entail, the character of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of
the public/State and other similar considerations."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down certain
conditions for granting bail in its order in Cr. MA No. 728 of 2023 in
the case of Shri.Nammagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation which also related to financial Crimes. The Hon'ble
Court has inter alia observed as follows in the said order dated
09.05.2013:
"While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
conviction will entail, the character of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of
the public/State and other similar considerations. It
has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of
granting bail, the Legislature has used the words
"reasonable grounds for believing" Instead of "the
evidence" which means the Court dealing with the
grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a
genuine case against the accused and that the
prosecution will be able to produce prima facie
evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at
this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt."
A larger bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, made
following observations in its order dated 12.09.2019 in the matter of
bail in Cr. MA 1381 of 2019 in the case of Serious Fraud
Investigation Office Vs. Nitin Johari:
"Economic offences constitute a class apart and need
to be visited with a different approach in the matter of
bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted
conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds
need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave
offences affecting the economy of the country as a
whole and thereby posing serious threat to the
financial health of the country.
While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the
nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in
support thereof, the severity of the punishment which
conviction will entail, the character of the accused,
circumstances which are peculiar to the accused,
reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the
accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of
the public/State and other similar considerations."
In B.A. No.4295/2021 of Delhi High Court in Raj Singh Gehlot v.
Directorate of Enforcement, it was held as follows:
"47. Considering the parameters of Section 45(1)
PMLA, I find no reasonable ground for believing that
the applicant is not guilty of the alleged offence. From
a prima facie view of the material placed on record
and in light of the gravity of the alleged offences, it
cannot be said either that the applicant is not likely to
commit any such offence while on bail. Accordingly,
the bail application is dismissed."
In Prem Prakash vs. Union of India, BA 12350/2022, the Hon'ble
High Court of Jharkhand held as follows:
"19. After having considered the rival submissions
advanced on behalf of both the sides, this Court is of
the view that the argument advanced on behalf of the
E.D. is persuasive enough to reject the petition for
bail. Contrary to the submission by the learned
Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, the offence of
money laundering is an independent offence and it is
not necessary that the accused charged with the
offence of money laundering are the same who are
made accused in predicate offence as per the ratio
decided in Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary (supra) (Para
269 and 270). The law enforcement agencies are now
confronted with a new species of crime in the form of
money laundering, which necessitated the special Act.
The law is evolving with different amendments and
Judicial pronouncements. These are not like
conventional crime and the modus operandi involves
three stages: (a) Placement: which is to move the
funds from direct association of the crime. (b)
Layering: which is disguising the trail to foll pursuit.
(c) Integration: which is making the money available
to the criminal from what seem to be legitimate
sources.
20. A normal business transaction between the
different entities involved in the criminal conspiracy
cannot be expected in such cases and therefore, the
provision for reverse burden has also been made under
Sections 23 and 24 of the PMLA. In the present case,
the role of this petitioner has come-up in the statement
of Ravi Kejriwal and Anil Jha, as discussed above.
Huge cash transactions have been shown in the
account of the company in the name of this petitioner,
regarding which no plausible explanation has been
offered. The investigation revealed that the cash
receipts amounting to Rs.5,65,17,000/- in Punjab
National Bank Account No.21881132000179 of M/s
Herbal Green Solutions Pvt. Ltd, and subsequent
payments worth Rs.5,31,18,000/- to one company M/s/
Aurora Studio Pvt. Ltd., a company of Amit Agarwal,
required to be satisfactorily answered by the petitioner,
but he failed to do so. Quite interestingly, even two AK
47 rifles were seized from his house which are said to
be of the security guards not posted in his place.
The case is still at its nascent stage and it will not be
in the interest of justice to enlarge teh petitoner on
bail.
20. It is pointed out that the High Court of Chennai held in
the matter of P.Rajendran vs. Assistant Director, ED as follows:
"15. On facts, we find that Rajendran [A6] had
voluntarily lent his name for the purchase of the
property under the sale deed dated 09.09.2009 with
the tainted money that was generated by G.Srinivasan
[A1] and R.Manoharan [A2] by committing a
scheduled offence. Under Section 24 of the PMLA,
there is a statutory presumption which can be
discharged only during trial.
In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is devoid
of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed."
21. It is submitted that unlike the submissions of the
petitioner/9th Accused, the arrest of the Petitioner in
ECIR/KCZO/09/2021 in the LIFE Mission Case is distinct from the
ECIR registered against the gold smuggling case. Some reference of
the facts of LIFE Mission Case in the complaint filed in Gold
Smuggling case does not mean that both cases are overlapping. The
registration of ECIR/KCZO/09/2021 and the ensuing investigation is
on a different crime and the Petitioner/9 th Accused is trying to
mislead this Court.
22. It is submitted that the exemption granted under Section
45 is applicable only to those who are terminally sick and not to
persons like the petitioner/9th Accused who claims to be sick only
when they realize that an arrest is imminent in a crime. After
obtaining bail from this Hon'ble Court on the ground of sickness
vide Order dated 25.01.2021 and subsequent to his reinstation to
service on 06.01.2022, Shri M. Sivasankar resumed his duties and
retired on superannuation on 31.01.2023. Moreover, as rightly noted
by the Special Court (PMLA) in the order impugned, the Petitioner
refused a second opinion on his illness while in custody. It is
submitted that while in judicial custody, the petitioner was admitted
in Hospital on 20th March 2023 and his Surgery was fixed on 21 st
March 2023. However, it would be pertinent to note that the
Petitioner himself withdrew the consent and the Surgery was
cancelled. Thus the contention of the Petitioner that he may be
granted bail on the grounds of his sickness and the urgency of
surgery has no legs to stand as he himself refused to undergo
surgery. Hence it is evident that the Petitioner is misrepresenting
facts before this Court.
23. It is further submitted that Shri M. Sivasankar had played
a very pivotal role in the employment of Smt. Swapna. Prabha
Suresh as Junior Consultant, in Space Park Project of KSITIL.
24. The Petitioner is a highly influential person closely
associated with the Kerala Government and his involvement with
other Government functionaries are under investigation. Hence,
granting bail to the Petitioner at this stage would derail the
investigation as there is a likelihood of tampering with the evidence
and influencing other witnesses. The possibility of the petitioner /9 th
Accused likely to commit the offence of Money Laundering again
by concealing the proceeds of crime or by projecting it as untainted
money, is very high, especially in light of the highly influential
position of Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister of Kerala,
which he held and the tremendous power he wields throughout the
State of Kerala, by virtue of having held such office. There is a strong
apprehension and likelihood that material evidence would be tampered
with and witnesses would be influenced, if the petitioner/9th accused
is released on bail. There is also a very strong likelihood
that he would continue to commit the offence of Money Laundering
by concealing the proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted.
25. While addressing the first question that has been raised
by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the submission that since
earlier crime vide Crime No. ECIR/KCZO/31/2020 was registered
based on the same facts, ie. Rs.1,00,50,000/-, which was kept in 2
bank lockers belonged to Ms.Swapna Suresh, ie. in SBI locker
Rs.64,00,000/- and in Federal Bank locker Rs.36,50,000/-, and this
crime also was registered on the same facts, it has to be observed
that this is a larger issue to be decided after perusing the entire case
records pertaining to both crimes. Since this Court is considering
bail plea at the instance of the petitioner in the instant crime on
scrutiny of the relevant materials in the present case, this Court
cannot consider the said aspect without going into niceties of the
facts of the two cases in detail. Therefore, I leave the said question
to be decided at an appropriate stage after referring all the materials
in both these crimes meticulously. As of now, for the just disposal of
the bail application, I am inclined to accept the argument tendered by
the learned ASGI that a portion of the bribe being converted into
foreign currency and taken to diplomatic channel to the foreign
country, emanated from the predicate offence as pointed out by the
learned ASGI, and the said aspect is a matter within the ambit of
PML Act for which detailed investigation shall go on.
26. Now comes the significance as to whether the petitioner
is liable to be released on bail by resorting to proviso to Section
45(1) of PML Act. In this connection, I am inclined to extract
Section 45 of PML Act, which runs as under:
45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.--
(1) [Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an
offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three
years under Part A of the Schedule shall be released on bail or on
his own bond unless--]
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to
oppose the application for such release; and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the
court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing
that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail: Provided that a person who is
under the age of sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm,
[or is accused either on his own or along with the other accused of
money laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees] may be
released on bail, if the special court so directs: Provided further
that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence
punishable under section 4 except upon a complaint in writing
made by-- (i) the Director; or
(ii) any officer of the Central Government or State
Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central
Government by a general or a special order made in this behalf by
that Government.
(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other provision of
this Act, no police officer shall investigate into an offence under
this Act unless specifically authorised, by the Central Government
by a general or special order, and, subject to such conditions as
may be prescribed.
(2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in sub-section (1)
is in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in
force on granting of bail."
On a plain reading of the proviso to Section 45(1), it could be
gathered that a person who is under the age of sixteen years or is a
woman or is sick or infirm, may be released on bail, if the special
court so directs. Coming to the mandate of Section 45 of the PML
Act, Section 45(1) provides that no person accused of an offence
punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than 3 years under
part A of the schedule shall be released on bail or on his own bond
unless 2 conditions, viz., (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where
the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied
that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of
such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on
bail. However proviso to Section 45(1) carves out an exception to
the twin conditions. The exceptions are: (i) in the case of a person
aged 16 years; (ii) a woman and (iii) a sick or an infirm person. In
Gautam Kundu (supra) the Apex Court observed that we have not
missed the proviso to Section 45 of the said Act (PML Act) which
indicates that the legislature has carved out an exception for grant
of bail by or special court when any person is under the age of 16
years or is a woman or is a sick or infirm.
27. It is interesting to note that the Act doesn't define the term
either `sick' or `infirm'. The term `sick' as per the Oxford English
dictionary means, "affected by illness; unwell, ailing". Similarly, the
term `infirm' means "not physically strong or healthy; weak; feeble,
especially through old age". Therefore, the `sick' or `infirm'
condition of a person has to be inferred from the materials available
in each individual case. However, it is pertinent to note that the
statute provides release of an accused on bail, who are covered by
the proviso reading the same disjunctively and the statute used the
word `may'. Thus it has to be held that release of a person covered
by the proviso to Section 45(1) of PML Act is not mandatory and the
same is the discretion of the court.
28. In this connection, I am inclined to refer 3 decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, viz., [1984 (3) SCC 555], State v.
Jaspal Singh Gill, [2020 SCC OnLine SC 843], State of U.P. v.
Gayatri Prasad Prajapati and [1998 (2) SCC 105], Directorate of
Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, referred in the judgment of the
High Court of Delhi in Bail Application No.540/2022,
Crl.M.A.2909/2022 and 3665/2022 dated 26.09.2022.
29. In Jaspal Singh Gill's case (supra), the Apex Court dealt
with a case alleging commission of offence under Section 3 of the
Official Secrets Act 1923 with which the accused is charged relates
to military affairs, punishable upto 14 years and observed in
paragraph 11 as under:
"11. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the High
Court should not have enlarged the respondent on bail in the larger
interests of the State. It is urged that the respondent is a person who
has undergone a cardiac operation and needs constant medical
attention. I am sure that the prison authorities will arrange for
proper treatment of the respondent whenever the need for it arises."
30. In Ashok Kumar Jain (supra), the Apex Court dealt with
a case under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA), it
has been observed that, we have noticed that learned Sessions Judge
while dismissing the application for pre-arrest bail has taken due
note of the aforesaid plea of the respondent and made necessary
observations regarding the need to provide medical care and
protection to the respondent in view of the medical reports. It cannot
be contended, nor has it been contended before us, that respondent
is immune from arrest on even interrogation simply on account of his
physical conditions. No doubt investigating officials of the
Directorate are duty bound to bear in mind that the respondent has
put forth a case of delicate health conditions. They cannot overlook
it and they have to safeguard his health while he is in their custody.
But to say that interrogation should be subject to the opinion of the
cardiologists of the AIIMS and that the officials of the Directorate
should approach the Director of AIIMS to constitute a Board of
Cardiologists to examine the respondent etc. would, in our opinion,
considerably impair the efficient functioning of the investigating
authorities under FERA. The authorities should have been given
freedom to chalk out such measure as are necessary to protect the
health of the person who would be subjected to interrogatory
process. They cannot be nailed to fixed modalities stipulated by the
court of conducting interrogations. It is not unusual that persons
involving themselves in economic offences, particularly those living
in affluent circumstances, are afflicted by conditions of cardiac
instability. So the authorities dealing with such persons must adopt
adequate measures to prevent deterioration of their health during
the period of custodial internment. The court would interfere when
such authorities fail to adopt necessary measures. But we are not in
favour of stipulating in advance modalities to be followed by the
authorities for that purpose. According to us such anticipatory
stipulations are interferences with the efficient exercise of statutory
functions when dealing with economic offences. Hence learned
Single Judge ought not have imposed such conditions on the
Directorate.
31. In [2021 SCC OnLine Del 228], Surjeet v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi), where the court while rejecting bail noted the
following :
"5. It is not in dispute that petitioner is on interim bail
since 12.06.2020 on medical grounds and another extension
of interim bail is sought on medical grounds only. As per
status report dated 28.01.2021, necessary verification was
done from the Head of the Department of Deen Dayal
Hospital, New Delhi. Discharge summary sheet dated
25.01.2021 placed on record notes that petitioner was
admitted on 13.01.2021 for anti coagulation therapy and
optimization and after treatment was discharged on
25.01.2021 in stable condition. In the aforesaid discharge
summary sheet, Dr. P.S. Sarang, Specialist and HOD
(Surgery) has specifically stated that this treatment is also
available in Tihar Jail. In view of aforesaid, I am of the view
that petitioner can continue his treatment within jail premises,
if so required and extension of his interim bail on medical
grounds is unwarranted."
32. In [2011 SCC OnLine Del 2967], Karim Morani v
Central Bureau of Investigation, where court refused bail whilst
making the following observations :
"8. From the aforesaid record, it transpires that the
petitioner underwent by-pass surgery around the year 2007.
Thereafter, for a continuous period of 4 years, there is no medical
record, which prima facie indicates that during the period from
2007 to 2011, the petitioner did not suffer any medical
complication. Coming to the medical record of the petitioner for
the year 2011, it would be seen that the record submitted by the
petitioner starts from 25th April, 2011. It is pertinent to note that
supplementary charge sheet showing the petitioner as one of the
accused was also filed in the court on 25th April, 2011. From the
medical record of year 2011 submitted by the petitioner, it cannot
be said that petitioner is suffering from such a medical condition
which cannot be managed by proper treatment regime in jail
hospital. As per the report of Dr. Yash Lokhandwala, D.M.
(Cardiology) dated 13th May, 2011, following line of treatment
was suggested to the petitioner:
"Suggest
• Neurosurgery opinion.
• No anti-hypertensives.
• Stop Aquazide.
• Increase the salt and water intake.
• Dietary and postural advice
• Strongly avoid any stressful situation.
• To see the Holter report.
• LP (a) and Homocysteine"
The record also suggests that the petitioner got admitted in
Lilavati Hospital & Research Centre for treatment on 11 th May,
2011 with the complaint of episode of Syncope two days earlier
and breathlessness. He was diagnosed for Neurocardiogenic
Syncope, Pituitary Adenoma-cystic IHD, Post CABG Status,
HTN, Nasal Polynosis, Cervical lumbar spondylosis etc. and as
per his Discharge Summary, his stay in the hospital was
uneventful. He was advised medication and physiotherapy.
Besides that, the petitioner has also placed on record a
certificate dated 20th June, 2011, purported to have been issued
by Dr. Jolly Bansal which is based upon the medical record
provided to him and not on the basis of physical examination of
the patient. This certificate does not even indicate as to what
medical record was shown to him. Therefore, much reliance
cannot be placed upon it.
......
13. On careful consideration of the previous medical
reports of the petitioner and the medical reports received from
the Board of Doctors of G.B. Pant Hospital, it is apparent that
since his detention in jail, the condition of the petitioner is stable
and it is being properly managed by medication. Thus, I do not
find it a fit case for grant of interim bail on medical grounds,
particularly when the release of the petitioner for a period of 4- 6
weeks would not change his medical history or situation."
33. Reading the ratio of the above decisions, if the jail
authorities or the prosecution agency could arrange proper and
adequate treatment, even a sick person need not be released on bail.
34. While canvassing dilution of the rigour under Section 45
of PML Act, the learned counsel for the petitioner given emphasize
to 2 specific aspects: first one is that this Court while granting bail in
Crime No. ECIR/KCZO/31/2020 as per order dated 25.01.2023 in
B.A.No.7878/2020 in para.8 considered the said aspect relying on
P.Chidambaram's case (supra) and finally granted bail. Para.18 of
the order is as under:
"18. Reverting to the rigour of the twin test under
Section 45 of the PMLA, it has to be considered whether the
applicant would qualify to get bail. There is no doubt about the
complicity of the applicant and there are no reasonable grounds
to believe that he is not guilty. However, it should also be
considered whether there is a likelihood of the applicant
committing any offence while on bail. I am afraid that the
prosecution has not been able to establish this fact. Going by the
allegations made by the ED, the applicant was indulged in
laundering of 64 lakhs which was seized from the SBI locker. ₹
There is no indication that the applicant had anything to do with
the locker belonging to A2 in Federal Bank. Thus the proviso to
Section 45 (1) of the PMLA would operate in view of the fact
that the money allegedly laundered is less than rupees one
crore. The fact that the applicant is suffering from various
illness would also come to his benefit as the proviso to Section
45 exempts a sick person from the rigours of the Section. As was
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P Chidambaram's case,
the applicant is neither a flight risk nor has he been shown to
have any propensity to tamper with evidence or influencing
witnesses, apart from the fact that the evidence is all
documentary in nature and has already been collected
according to the ED. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI 2011 KHC
5051: AIR 2012 SC 830 it was held that the object of bail is not
punitive but to secure the presence of the accused for trial. The
accused may not be detained just to give him a taste of
imprisonment is what the Supreme Court held."
35. Anyhow it is an admitted fact that the said order produced
as Annexure 9 by the petitioner is a subject matter pending before
the Honourable Apex Court. Secondly, the learned counsel given
much emphasis to the medical board report given by the medical
board consisting of Head of Departments of General Medicine and
Department for Orthopaedics, Medical College Hospital, Ernakulam
as extracted in the lower court order in para.12, which is as under:
"Mr.Sivasankar, has come with complaints of low back ache
radiating to right lower limb of 4 years duration and pain right knee
of 10 days duration. He gives a history of twisting injury right knee
10 days ago after which the back pain aggravated and pain right
knee started. Clinical examination of the lower back and right knee
revealed signs suggestive of inter vertebral disc prolapse and
internal derangement of right knee. MRI of Lumbosacral spine and
right knee was done. MRI revealed severe inter vertebral disc
prolapse L1-2, L2-3, L4-5 and L5-S1 medical medial meniscal injury
of right knee. The patient need urgent admission in hospital, bed
rest, physiotherapy (IFT, UST, MFR - myofascial release and
electrical traction) and other supportive measures (intra venous
steroids and analgesics and other neurotropic vitamins) and
arthroscopy procedure of right knee. He is suggested to avoid lifting,
bending sitting prolonged and long travel."
36. To be on the crux of the matter, no doubt, crime
No.ECIR/KCZO/31/2020 arose out of predicate offence registered
by the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau and CBI and the
present crime arose out of predicate offence in OR.No.7/2020,
registered by the Customs (Preventive) Commissionerate of Cochin
and Crime No.2/2020, registered by NIA and, therefore, as I have
already pointed out, there is no reason to hold at this stage that
registration of this crime is bad in law.
37. In this connection, the learned ASGI submitted that as per
the statement given by Venugopal and Swapna Prabha Suresh in this
crime it is crystal clear that they opened joint locker since
Sivasankar had told Venugopal to open locker with Swapna Prabha
Suresh and it was opened during November, 2018 till December,
2018. Subsequently Venugopal gave statement that Sivasankar
messaged through WhatsApp that Rs.35 lakh should be done
separately. It is pointed out by the learned ASGI that as per the
statement given by Sri Venugopal on 16.02.2023 when he was asked
to give details about the visit of Sri Sivasankar along with
Smt.Swapna Prabha Suresh to the house of Venugopal, the date of
visit, purpose of visit, cash and cash brought by them, it was stated
by Sri Venugopal that it was on 28.11.2018 both of them came to his
house with cash to the tune of Rs.34 lakh and money was brought by
Sri Swapna Prabha Suresh and Sivasankar together. Both of them
came in different cars. Further Venugopal gave statement that
Sivasankar asked him to include his name also in the locker for
operational purposes. That apart, the learned ASGI given emphasis
to the WhatsApp chat in between Swapna Prabha Suresh and
Sivasankar running into pages whereby the entrustment of Life
Mission Project to Unitac owned by Santhosh Eapen and the
arrangement of the subject matter which led to receipt of bribe and
conversion of the same into foreign money. It is relevant to note that
Santhosh Eapen given statement that Rs.3,80,00,000/- was
withdrawn by him from bank accounts of his firms and an amount of
Rs.1.4 crore (approximately) was converted into USD which was
around USD 190000 with the help of Irshad and Sheshadri both were
Axis Bank employees. Further Rs.25 lakh was converted into USD
on 1.8.2019 by one of his staff and it was transported and handed
over to him at Hotel Hycinth Hotel, Trivandrum. Further Rs.50 lakh
was converted into USD on 2.8.2019 by one of his staff, Jose, with
the help of Irshad and others and it was transported by Bijulal and
was handed over to him at Hotel Hycinth, Trivandrum and some
amount also was arranged by Sheshadri of Axis Bank, Karamana
Branch, Trivandrum, but he did not know how much amount was
converted by Sheshadri. He also stated about the transfer of
money in 3 bank accounts and in turn entrusted the same to Swapna
Prabha Suresh. Further, Venugopal given statement that Sri
Sivasankar IAS had immense trust on him and it was stated that "the
amount is 35 lakh and `so it is to be done separately'", but Venugopal
didn't know what was meant by that. Joint application filed by
Venugopal and Swapna Prabha Suresh to operate joint locker in their
names also is part of the records. That apart, U.V.Jose, the CEO,
Life Mission Project also given statement regarding the
implementation of the project and the role of Savasankar in this deal
as the Principal Secretary of the Chief Minister of Kerala.
38. Although it is argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that none of the witnesses had given statements showing
involvement of the petitioner in the present crime in the matter of
conversion of foreign currency to Indian currency, the pith and
substance of the statements, as recorded as that of the witnesses,
form part of the lengthy statements available before this Court,
inclusive of the WhatsApp messages, would go to show that the
petitioner has also involvement in this crime and the money
deposited in the joint locker opened in the name of Smt.Swapna
Prabha Suresh and Mr.Venugopal is the money converted into
foreign currency given by Santhosh Eapen as upfront commission
for allocating the project in his name. Further, a portion of the
money is meant for Sivasankar.
39. As far as the sick condition of the petitioner is concerned,
the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the medical board
report on 25.02.2023 suggesting treatment of the petitioner and also
the medical certificate showing admission and discharge of the
petitioner at Thriveni Nursing Home from 14.03.2021 to 27.03.2021.
40. The prime question to be considered herein is as to
whether the petitioner is entitled to get exemption under the proviso
to Section 45(1) of the PML Act. It is true that in para.18 of
Annexure-A9 judgment, this Court found that the petitioner is
entitled to get benefit of the proviso holding that the petitioner is a
sick person. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
said finding would bind this Court even though the said finding is
under challenge before the Apex Court since there is no interference
or stay of its operation.
41. In this matter, though the learned ASGI placed statement
of the witnesses in sealed cover, the same was returned since `sealed
cover production of documents' is not a generally accepted rule.
Therefore, this Court called for the entire case records from the
Special Court and perused the same in detail. Here, the prosecution
has specific case as to involvement of the petitioner who was the
Principal Secretary of the Chief Minister and the records available
would also justify the same prima facie. As far as release of the
petitioner by relaxing the twin conditions under Section 45(1) of the
PML Act with reference to its proviso treating the petitioner as a sick
person, the learned ASGI vehemently submitted that the petitioner is
not a sick person covered by the proviso since he claimed to be sick
only when arrest and detention are imminent and on getting bail such
ground would cease. It is submitted that after release of the
petitioner on bail as per Annexure-A9 order, he got reinstated in
service on 6.1.2022 and continued the same till 31.01.2023 without
undergoing any treatment. It is also pointed out that even though a
second opinion was suggested with regard to his medical conditions,
he had denied consent for the same. Further the petitioner was
admitted in hospital on 20.03.2023 and his surgery was fixed on
21.03.2023, he refused to undergo surgery. According to the learned
ASGI, the petitioner in fact is not a sick person within the meaning
of the proviso of Section 45(1) and he wanted to be released on bail
on medical ground. In fact, these aspects are having force. That
apart, the argument advanced by the learned ASGI as stated in
paragraphs 12 to 24 is having force.
42. In P.Chidambaram's case (supra), the Honourable Apex
Court considered 2 aspects while considering bail. Those are, flight
risk and the propensity to tamper with evidence or influencing
witnesses.
43. In the instant case, the petitioner could not be held as a
person who would flee from trial. However, his propensity to
tamper with the evidence and to influence witnesses could be
foreseeable, since the petitioner is a person having very much
influence in the ruling party of Kerala, particularly with the Chief
Minister of Kerala. It is apposite to refer that even after his initial
arrest and subsequent release on bail, the petitioner was reinstated in
service w.e.f 6.1.2022 and he continued the same till his retirement
holding pivotal post in the State of Kerala, ignoring his involvement
in serious crimes. That is to say, his involvement in serious crimes
prior to this crime, in no way affected his official stature because of
his authority in the State Government.
44. Since it has been discussed that the petitioner is not co-
operating with the treatment offered, I am not inclined to release him
on medical ground since his sickness would be addressed by the
prosecution agency/jail authorities by providing adequate treatment.
Similarly, his chance of propensity to tamper with evidence or
influencing witnesses, is very much there, since the petitioner is a
person having very much influence in the ruling party of Kerala,
particularly with the Chief Minister of Kerala.
45. In this matter, the investigation is at the initial stage.
Many accused are yet to be arrested including Smt.Swapna Prabha
Suresh. Why the prosecution is delaying the arrest of Swapna
Prabha Suresh is also a matter of serious concern, though she had an
active role in the present crime.
For the above reasons, the petitioner cannot be released on bail
at this stage and this application is liable to be dismissed. In the
result, this Bail Application is dismissed.
Sd/-
(A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE)
rtr/
APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. 2166/2023
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES
Annexure 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST ORDER DATED
14.02.2023 ALONG WITH THE GROUNDS OF
ARREST ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure 2 FREE COPY OF ORDER DATED 02.03.2023
PASSED BY THE ADDL. SPECIAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, (SPE/CBI)- III, ERNAKULAM IN
CRL.MP. NO.185 OF 2023 IN
ECIR/KCZO/09/2021.
Annexure 3 A COPY OF THE TREATMENT SUMMARY REPORT
DATED 17.02.2023 ISSUED BY DR SUBRAMANIA
IYER, PROFESSOR AND HOD, HEAD AND NECK
PLASTIC/RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY AT AMRITHA
INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AT COCHIN.
Annexure 4 A COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED
07.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE ARYA VAIDYA
SALA, KOTTAKKAL.
Annexure 5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY
DATED 30.07.2019 ISSUED BY THE ARYA
VAIDYA SALA, KOTTAKKAL.
Annexure 6 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
DATED 18.02.2021 ISSUED BY DR. SUDHISH
KARUNAKARAN OF LAKESHORE HOSPITAL.
Annexure 7 A TRUE COPY OF MRI REPORT ON CERVICAL
SPINE AND ITS DIAGNOSIS DATED 17.02.2021
ISSUED BY PRS HOSPITAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
Annexure 7A A TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY
DATED 27.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE TRIVENI
NURSING HOME.
Annexure 8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25.02.2023
SUBMITTED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD OF THE
GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, ERNAKULAM.
Annexure 9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
25.02.2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.7878 OF 2020.
Annexure 10 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 29.07.2021 IN OR
NO.13/2021 ISSUED BYTHE CUSTOMS
PREVENTIVE.
Annexure 11 A COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY COMPLAINT
DATED 24.12.2020 FILED BY DIRECTORATE OF
ENFORCEMENT IN CRIME NO.
ECIR/KCZO/31/2020.
Annexure 12 TRUE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED
15.02.2023 FILED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN
CRIME NO. ECIR/KCZO/09/2021.
Annexure 13 TRUE COPY OF THE ARREST ORDER DATED
28.10.2020 IN CRIME NO.
ECIR/KCZO/31/2020.
Annexure 14 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED
17.08.2020 BY MR. SANTHOSH EAPEN IN CRIME
NO. ECIR/KCZO/31/2020.
Annexure 15 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED
25.08.2020 BY MR. VINOD PRABHAKARAN IN
CRIME NO. ECIR/KCZO/31/2020.
Annexure 16 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED
31.10.2020 BY MR. SANTHOSH EAPEN IN CRIME
NO. ECIR/KCZO/31/2020.
