Shravan Mandal vs. Enforcement Directorate

Facts

The applicants, Shravan Mandal and Avinash Ranjan, are seeking bail in connection with a case registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act) by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). They were arrested in connection with a main criminal case involving offences under the IPC, IT Act, and UAPA, where other co-accused were acquitted of some charges but convicted of others. The ED's complaint alleges that the applicants received proceeds of crime, allegedly transferred by a Pakistani national, Khalid, to organizations like SIMI and Indian Mujahideen. The applicants claim innocence, that they were enlarged on bail in the main offence, and that other co-accused in the PMLA case have also been granted bail. They highlight that the alleged transactions occurred in 2013, and the ED filed its complaint in 2018. The applicants have been in jail for over two years.

Held

The Court allowed the bail application, directing the release of the applicants on bail. The Court considered the submissions of both parties, particularly noting that other co-accused had already been released on bail. It also took into account that the alleged money transfers occurred in 2013, while the complaint case was filed in 2018, indicating a delay in investigation despite the parallel registration of the main offence in 2013. The Court further considered the nature of the accusation, the quality of available evidence, and the length of detention, acknowledging that the trial is likely to take considerable time. Without commenting further on the merits of the case, the Court found it inclined to grant bail. The applicants were directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh with one surety each, appear on every date before the trial court, refrain from influencing witnesses, not engage in prejudicial acts to the trial, submit property and bank account details, and not involve themselves in similar offences in the future.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of money laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA Act? Petitioner's arguments: The applicants contend they are innocent and falsely implicated. They point out that they have already been granted bail in the predicate offence and that co-accused with similar allegations in the PMLA case have also been released on bail. They emphasize that the alleged transactions are from 2013, and the ED filed its complaint after a significant delay of over five years. They also note their prolonged detention of over two years and the maximum sentence under Section 4 of the PMLA Act. Non-applicant's (ED) arguments: The ED opposes the bail application, submitting that evidence shows the applicants received money from Dhiraj Sao, deducted commission, and deposited it into Aayesha Bano's account. Specifically, Shravan Mandal allegedly received Rs. 1 lakh from Dhiraj Sao by cheque, deposited Rs. 92,000/- into Aayesha Bano's account after commission. The ED claims Shravan Mandal was absconding since 2013 and arrested in 2022, and Avinash Ranjan also absconded despite summons.