Dhiraj Sao vs. Enforcement Directorate

Held

The Court allowed the bail application. It considered that the applicant had been in custody for over 2.5 years. Crucially, it noted the delay in the ED's investigation and complaint filing, which occurred more than 5 years after the schedule offence was registered. The Court also took into account that the applicant had already been granted bail under Section 389 of the CrPC in the schedule offence, having served over 8 years. Further, it referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Alok Kumar Agrawal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, where bail was granted to an applicant in jail for over 2.5 years, who had also been released in the schedule offence. The Court also considered the nature of the accusation, the evidence, and the applicant's defence that he was trapped in organized crime. Finding that the trial was likely to take considerable time and without commenting on the merits, the Court inclined to release the applicant on bail, subject to stringent conditions including furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh, appearing in court on every date, not tampering with evidence or witnesses, submitting property and bank account details, and not involving himself in similar future offences.

Facts

The applicant, Dhiraj Sao, sought 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). This was his second bail application, the first having been dismissed as withdrawn. The prosecution alleged that the applicant received Rs. 19,02,679/- from a Pakistani national for criminal activities and deposited it into the accounts of co-accused, from where it was sent to SIMI and Indian Mujahideen. The applicant claimed innocence, stating he had already been granted bail in the scheduled offence under Section 389 of the CrPC after suffering over 8 years of imprisonment, and that the ED had belatedly filed its complaint in 2018, leading to his arrest in March 2020. The ED opposed bail, citing the withdrawal of the previous application, the serious nature of economic offences, and the applicant's potential to abscond.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 45 of the PMLA Act, considering the conditions stipulated therein, including the Public Prosecutor's opportunity to oppose and the court's satisfaction regarding reasonable grounds for believing the applicant is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offences? 2. Whether the delay in investigation and filing of the complaint by the ED, coupled with the applicant's prolonged incarceration and bail granted in the scheduled offence, warrants the grant of bail in the PMLA case? Petitioner's arguments: The applicant argued his innocence and false implication. He highlighted that his bail was granted in the scheduled offence (under the Act, 1967 and IPC) where the maximum sentence is 10 years, having already served over 8 years and 7 months. He contended that the ED deliberately delayed the investigation, filing the complaint in 2018 for an offence registered in 2013, leading to his arrest in 2020. He also pointed out that the minimum punishment under Section 4 of the PMLA Act is 3 years, and he had already completed over 2.5 years in custody. He relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Alok Kumar Agrawal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement. Revenue's arguments: The ED opposed bail, arguing that filing a successive bail application without substantial change in circumstances amounts to an abuse of process, citing Bhunesh Vs. State of Haryana. They emphasized the serious nature of economic offences, requiring a different approach to bail, referencing Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation. The ED also invoked Section 24 of the PMLA Act, stating the burden of proof is on the accused, and expressed concern that the applicant might abscond if released.