Shashank Chopda vs. Directorate Of Enforcement

Facts

The applicant, Shashank Chopda, filed a First Bail Application before the Chhattisgarh High Court under Section 483 of the BNSS. He was arrested in connection with ECIR/RPZO/07/2025, registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on February 18, 2025, for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). This ECIR stemmed from a predicate FIR registered on January 22, 2025, at ACB/EOW Raipur for offences under Sections 120B read with Section 409 of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(A), 13(2), and 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against officers of Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited and others. The applicant was arrested in the predicate FIR on January 28, 2025. The ED conducted search and seizure operations on July 30/31, 2025, and August 28, 2025, but did not arrest the applicant. The applicant's anticipatory bail application in the ECIR was dismissed on November 20, 2025. The ED arrested the applicant on January 14, 2026, under Section 19 PMLA, after interrogating him. The applicant's first bail application in the ECIR was dismissed on March 13, 2026, the same day the ED filed its Prosecution Complaint.

Held

The Court held that the applicant had made out a case for the grant of regular bail. It reasoned that the applicant had been in custody since January 28, 2025, and the prosecution complaint had been filed by the ED. The Court noted the Supreme Court's observation in *Arvind Walia v. Directorate of Enforcement* that Section 45 of the PMLA cannot be interpreted to justify indefinite detention and that constitutional courts must intervene to safeguard personal liberty. The Court found that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were satisfied in this case. It further observed that the applicant had remained in custody for a substantial period, the trial was likely to take considerable time due to the nature of allegations, volume of documents, and number of witnesses, and continued incarceration would serve no fruitful purpose. The respondent had not brought substantial material on record to demonstrate that the applicant was likely to abscond, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses. Therefore, the Court allowed the bail application, releasing the applicant on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to specified conditions regarding his presence in court and non-adjournment of evidence dates.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail in ECIR/RPZO/07/2025 under Section 483 of the BNSS, considering his period of detention and the filing of the prosecution complaint? Contentions of the Applicant: The applicant argued that his arrest was belated, unnecessary, and successive, being made after a year of investigation on the basis of material already available to the ACB. He contended that the ED and EOW worked in tandem to ensure his prolonged custody. He also argued that the twin conditions under Section 45(1) of the PMLA were satisfied, as the investigation was complete, the prosecution complaint had been filed, and he had undergone substantial detention. He relied on the Supreme Court's observation in *Arvind Walia v. Directorate of Enforcement* that Section 45 of the PMLA cannot justify indefinite detention and that constitutional courts must intervene to safeguard personal liberty. Contentions of the Respondent (ED): The respondent argued for the existence of a prima facie case against the applicant and the non-fulfillment of the twin conditions enumerated in Section 45(1) of the PMLA.