Shrawan Kumar @ Shrawan Mandal vs. Enforcement Directorate Government Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, Shrawan Kumar @ Shrawan Mandal, filed an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail. He apprehended arrest in connection with Criminal Complaint No. 171 of 2019, pending before the Special Judge, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Raipur. The allegations against the petitioner involve a scheduled offense under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which is covered by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It is alleged that money was transferred from Pakistan for unlawful activities, with amounts received by Dheeraj Sao and subsequently transferred to the petitioner's account. The prosecution claims these funds were intended for terrorist activities and eventually reached Indian Mujahiddin organizers. The petitioner disputes the nexus and claims innocence, stating only a small amount was deposited in his account.

Held

The High Court dismissed the application for anticipatory bail. The Court considered the voluminous documents filed by both parties and the judgment of the Special Court, Raipur, dated 24.11.2021, which showed the prosecution of Dheeraj Sao, Jubair Hussain, and others. The Court noted that the allegations against the present applicant were that he was provided with Rs. 1 lakh by Dheeraj Sao to deposit in Jubair Hussain's account, and he influenced his cousin in transferring cash. The Court also noted allegations of cash advantage transactions and deposits of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 92,000/- by Dheeraj Sao into the applicant's and Aysha Bano's accounts, respectively, indicating the applicant's active involvement in channeling illegal money. Crucially, the Court observed that Dheeraj Sao stands convicted, and the present applicant is still absconding, which prevented the recording of his statement. Therefore, the Court opined that the benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. could not be extended to the applicant.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering the allegations of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he has been implicated solely on presumption and has not been declared an absconder. He contended that the amount allegedly withdrawn by Dheeraj Sahu and deposited in the petitioner's account was a small sum (Rs. 22,030/- withdrawn, Rs. 27,500/- deposited), and there is no direct nexus. He further submitted that allegations of handling Rs. 4 lakhs by Dheeraj Sao are purely presumptive, and nothing on record establishes the offense against him, thus entitling him to bail. Respondent's Arguments: The Enforcement Directorate argued that during the investigation by the NIA, it was found that money from Pakistan came to Dheeraj Sao and others, who then layered it into smaller accounts. These accounts were used to transfer funds to Jubair Husain, who carried out a blast in Bihar. The respondent asserted that the petitioner is absconding, preventing the recording of his statement under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.