Raju Khan vs. Enforcement Directorate

Facts

The applicant, Raju Khan, is seeking his second bail application after his first was dismissed. He was arrested in connection with ED Case No. 171 of 2019, related to offences under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The case originated from an FIR registered by Khamtari Police for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which was later investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an ECIR based on the FIR. The NIA filed a charge-sheet, showing the applicant as absconding. The ED subsequently filed a complaint against the applicant and seven others. The applicant was arrested on April 4, 2022, and has been in custody since. His co-accused in the PMLA case have been granted bail, and he was also granted bail in the related NIA case.

Held

The Court allowed the second bail application. The primary reasoning for granting bail was the principle of parity, as all seven similarly situated co-accused persons had already been granted regular bail by coordinate benches of the High Court. Additionally, the Court noted a significant discrepancy in the evidence presented by the Enforcement Directorate regarding the alleged financial transactions. While the ED alleged that over Rs. 25 lakhs were transacted from the applicant's bank account, the complaint did not include the relevant bank statement. Furthermore, a chart within the complaint itself showed only Rs. 16,831/- credited to the applicant's ICICI bank account, contradicting the larger sum claimed. The Court also considered the applicant's detention period. The operative directions included releasing the applicant on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh with one surety, appearing before the trial court on each date, not influencing witnesses, not engaging in prejudicial acts, submitting property and bank account details, and informing the police station of any out-of-state movement. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the ground of parity, considering that all seven similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted regular bail by coordinate benches of this Court? 2. Whether the evidence presented by the Enforcement Directorate regarding the alleged transaction of Rs. 25,14,195/- from the applicant's account is sufficient to deny bail, especially in light of discrepancies in the presented documents? Arguments for the Applicant: The applicant contends that he is entitled to bail on the principle of parity, as all seven of his co-accused in the PMLA case have been granted bail by this Court. He also highlights that he has been granted bail in the related NIA case. The applicant points out that the ED's claim of a Rs. 25,14,195/- transaction from his account is not substantiated by the bank statement, and there is a discrepancy between the total amount alleged and the amount shown in his ICICI bank account as per the complaint. Arguments for the Respondent (Enforcement Directorate): The ED argues that the applicant is involved in a terror funding case. They allege that the main accused, Dheeraj Sao, received money from a Pakistani national and distributed it to other accused, including the applicant, who then handed it over to individuals connected with SIMI and Indian Mujahideen. The ED states that an amount of Rs. 25,14,195/- was transacted from the applicant's account, indicating his active involvement.