Roshan Chandrakar Vs Directorate of Enforcement

This is the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the BNSS 2023 read with Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 seeking regular bail in ECIR/RPZO/04/2023 dated 14.10.2023 (“Subject ECIR”) relating to the offence under the provisions of Section 3 & 4 of the PMLA.

¶16

2

¶17

The applicant is a reputable businessman, engaged in custom rice milling and is a permanent resident of Kurud, Chhattisgarh and is a law abiding citizen of unimpeachable character with no prior criminal record, and enjoys deep roots and standing in the society.

¶18

3 . Details of the arrest and custody:

¶19

The applicant was arrested on 15.05.2024 at 23.40 hrs. in connection with the subject ECIR and remanded to ED custody until 27.05.2024 after which he has remained in judicial custody at Raipur Jail. The first bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed on 15.01.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 6369 of 2024.

¶20

The applicant challenged the aforesaid dismissal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court via SLP (Crl.) No. 1216/2025 which was withdrawn on 27.01.2025 with liberty to renew the bail application after six months which expired on 27.07.2025. A subsequent bail application filed before the learned Special Judge (PMLA), ASJ-04, Raipur on 28.07.2025 was dismissed on 12.08.2025 without considering the contentions raised.

¶21

4. Grounds for grant of bail:

¶22

Prolonged pretrial incarceration and delay in trial: The applicant has undergone over 15 months of pre-trial custody despite the investigation being fully completed and the prosecution complaint having bee filed on 28.06.2024. The charges have not yet been framed and the trial is unlikely to commence in the foreseeable future. Such protracted detention without trial, constitutes a gross violation of the applicant’s fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the

¶23

3

¶24

Constitution of India.

¶25

5. Parity with co-accused :

¶26

It is an admitted position on record that in several similar matters, in similar situation, the Apex Court has granted bail to the applicants in Cr. A. No. 1263 of 2025 (Arunpathi Tripathi Vs. State of CG) and Others arising out of SLP (Crl. No. 14646 of 2024; SLP (Crl.) No. 14697 of 2024 (Trilok Singh Dhillon Vs. The State of Chahttisgarh), Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.3148/2025 (Anil Tuteja Vs. Directorate of Enforcement), Cr.A. No. 2699 of 2025 arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2608 of 2025 (Arvind Singh Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh) while co-accused Manoj Kumar Soni has been granted by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 1950 of 2025 vide order dated 09.05.2025 . In the instant case, the allegations attributed to the present applicant are neither graver nor distinguishable in degree or nature as against those co-accused. The doctrine of parity is not a mere matter of convenience but a facet of constitutional equality under Article 14 ensuring that similarly situated accused are not subjected to arbitrary or discriminatory treatment. Where the allegations,r ole in the transaction and evidentiary foundation are substantially alike, denial of bail to one while others stands enlarged would amount to manifest injustice.

¶27

6. Bail granted in predicate offence :

¶28

The applicant was earlier granted bail in FIR No. 01/2024 in dated 16.01.2024 (PS-ACB/EOW) vide order dated 18.07.2025) inter alia on the grounds of delay in trial, absence of risk of flight and parity with co-

¶29

4

¶30

accused. The reasoning of the predicate offence fully applies in the present case.

¶31

7. Triple test fully satisfied :

¶32

The applicant is permanently settled with his family and business in Chhattisgarh and there is no tampering with the evidence, the investigation is complete; prosecution complaint and relied upon documents are filed. The witnesses are primarily government officials and documentary in nature; there exists no possibility of interference.

¶33

8. Absence of prima facie evidence of money laundering:

¶34

The case against the applicant is entirely circumstantial with no recovery of incriminating documents, proceeds of crime or any other material evidence from him. Willingness to comply with the conditions:

¶35

The applicant is fully willing to comply with all the conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court including but not limited to :

¶36

a. surrender of passport;

¶37

b. regular attendance with the investigating officer;

¶38

c. Furnishing adequate surety; and

¶39

d. Any other conditions deemed necessary by this Hon’ble Court.

¶40

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT :

¶41

Learned counsel for the applicant at the very outset submits that the applicant has been in continuous custody for over 15 months, despite the investigation qua him being complete and the Prosecution Complaint already filed. The prolonged deprivation of liberty without any

¶42

5

¶43

certainty of trial commencing or concluding in the foreseeable future, renders the applicant entitled to bail on well-established constitutional and legal principles.

¶44

It is trite law, repeatedly emphasized by the Apex Court that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. The only legitimate purpose of custody prior to conviction is to secure the presence of the accused at trial. Once it is established that the accused is not a flight risk, will not tamper with evidence, and will not influence witnesses, the continued incarceration becomes unjustified.( Refer Gudikanti Narasimhulu V. Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240; Manish Sisodia Vs. CBI (2023) & (2024); Prem Prakash Vs. ED, SLP (Crl.) NO. 5416 of 2024).

¶45

11. In the instant case,the triple test stands satisfied in favour of the applicant:

¶46

a. The applicant is a permanent resident of Kurud, District Dhamtari and has no propensity to abscond.

¶47

b. The Prosecution Complaint has already been filed; thus, there is no question of tampering with evidence.

¶48

c. No witness has ever alleged intimidation by the applicant nor is there any possibility of the applicant influencing witnesses, particularly since the alleged “victims” (rice millers) themselves have never complained of extortion.

¶49

It is submitted that several accused in similar situation and nature, namely, Anwar Dhebar, Anil Tuteja, Arunpati Tripathi, Trilok Singh Dhillon and Arvind Singh have been granted bail by the Apex

¶50

6

¶51

Court and further the co-accused Manoj Kumar Soni has already been admitted to bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 1950 of 2025 on 09.05.2025 on the ground of delay in trial, long custody and filing of the charge sheet. The case of the present applicant stands on the similar footing, if not on stronger grounds. The applicant is, therefore, entitled to bail on the principle of parity. Further he has drawn attention to the SLP (Crl.) No. 1216 of 2025 dated 27.01.2025, wherein the Apex Court recorded the submission of the petitioner therein, who sought to withdraw the SLP with liberty to renew the bail application before the concerned trial court after six months. Availing such liberty, the applicant had approached the Special Court (PMLA), Raipur by filing application on 12.08.2025 which came to be rejected, hence, the present application before this Court.

¶52

It is further submitted that no recovery of any incriminating material or proceeds of crime has been made from the applicant, despite extensive searches conducted by the Enforcement Directorate and tine Income Tax Department. The case against the applicant at best, rests on inadmissible Section 50 of the PMLA statements of coaccused persons and unsigned diaries, both of which lack any substantive evidentiary value ( CBI Vs. V.C.Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410 ).

¶53

Even assuming for the sake of argument that the allegations relate to a grave economic offence, it is well settled that gravity of the offence alone cannot justify denial of bail, and each case must turn on its own facts ( P.Chidambaram Vs. ED, (2020) 13 SCC 791 ) . Here, the alleged role of the applicant has neither been proved nor corroborated

¶54

7

¶55

by independent evidence and the trial is nowhere near commencement.

¶56

Most importantly, the applicant's right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India stands violated. The ED has cited 17 witnesses and relied upon over 3,400 pages of documents and the trial is not likely to commence in the near future. The Apex Court in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2021) and in several recent bail orders arising out of the alleged “liquor scam” cases, has consistently held that “ long pre-trial incarceration coupled with delay in trial constitutes sufficient ground for grant of bail.”

¶57

Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the ED has failed to establish a prima facie case of money laundering against him. The allegations are based on assumption and conjectures without any concrete evidence linking the applicant with the proceeds of crime. It is further submitted that the prolonged pre-trial incarceration is unjustified and his continued detention is causing undue hardship to his family and business. The applicant assures that he will not abscond or tamper with the evidence if granted bail and will fully cooperate with the investigation and trial. In these circumstances, the continued incarceration of the applicant would amount to a pre-trial punishment, which is impermissible in law. He has placed strong reliance on the principle of parity and urged that having regard to the liberty conferred upon his coaccused by superior courts,there is no reasonable ground to deny him same protection. To hold otherwise would result in unequal treatment amongst equals, which the law does not permit.

¶58

8

¶59

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/ ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

¶60

At the outset, it is submitted that the present application filed by the applicant seeking grant of bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is bereft of merit and must be dismissed in limine.

¶61

18. While opposing the application, it has been fairly submitted that though the investigation has not attained finality and the charge sheet is yet to be filed, the same is owing the complex, multilayered nature of the offence of money laundering which requires collection of extensive documentary evidence and examination of multiple witnesses across jurisdictions. It was, however, candidly admitted that as on date there is no tangible progress in trial and the proceedings have not advanced beyond the stage of custody. However, he submits that the seriousness of the economic offence under the PMLA cannot be diluted merely because of delay in filing of the charge sheet on the absence of progress in trial, and the gravity of the allegations should weigh with the Court while considering release of the applicant.

¶62

19. The applicant herein, has been implicated as a key conspirator and principal beneficiary of large scale extortion and money laundering, in connection with the ECIR No. RPZO/04/2023 dated 14.10.2023 registered by the Enforcement Directorate, Raipur arising out of the FIR No. 01/2024dated 16.01.2024 lodged by the ACB/EOW, Raipur. It is submitted that the submissions, averments and

¶63

9

¶64

statements made in the application are denied and disputed. The contents of the application are factually incorrect, legally misconceived and contrary to the material on record.

¶65

Specific Role of the Applicant

¶66

The investigation has revealed that the applicant, as a treasurer of the Chhattisgarh State Rice Millers Association, along with coconspirators, orchestrated a system of extortion , collecting Rs. 147 crores from rice millers of Chhattisgarh at the rate of Rs. 20/- per quintal under the threat of withholding their incentive bills from MARKFED.

¶67

The applicant exercised direct control over the collection of the extortion amounts , issued instructions to subordinate office bearers and coerced state machinery including the Food Department to take coercive action against the rice milers who resisted payment. The extortion amounts collected were utilized by the applicant to acquire properties in his own name and in the names of family members, thereby constituting offences punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA. Statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, corroborated by digital evidence including CDRs, Whatsapp messages and phone location data , establish beyond prima facie doubt that the applicant was the ultimate beneficiary of the proceeds of crime.

¶68

Conduct during custody and judicial observations:

¶69

It is submitted that while in custody at Central Jail, Raipur, the

¶70

10

¶71

applicant influenced other prisoners, created factions and availed illegal facilities through collusion with jail staff. The jail administration had to seek transfer of the Applicant to another jail due to security concerns and his disruptive conduct. The Special Court (PMLA) while remanding the applicant to ED custody and later to judicial custody has repeatedly recognized the seriousness of the offences and the need for continued investigation.

¶72

Legal position regarding bail under PMLA

¶73

It is submitted that the twin conditions enumerated under Section 45 (1) of the PMLA are mandatory and must be satisfied before bail can be granted. These conditions require that :

¶74

a. the public prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the bail application; and

¶75

b. the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

¶76

The Apex Court in Tarun Kumar Vs.ED (20230 SCC OnLine SC 1486; Satyendar Kumar Jain Vs. ED, 2024 SCC OnLine 317 and Saumya Chaurasia Vs. ED (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1674, has unequivocally held that these twin conditions are not mere procedural formalities but substantive safeguards.

¶77

It is submitted that the applicant fails to satisfy these twin conditions. There exists ample material on record , including bank statements, property documents, statements under Section 50 of the PMLA, digital evidence and eyewitness accounts , which prima

¶78

11

¶79

facie establish his guilt.

¶80

Seriousness of the economic offences:

¶81

The economic offence, by their very nature constitute a class apart such offence which has wife ranging impact on the economy, public trust and financial stability; involve deep rooted conspiracies and systematic criminality and undermine the probity and integrity of public administration. Apex Court in the matter of Y.S.Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439; Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 466; Gautam Kundu Vs. ED, (2015) 16 SCC 1 and State of Bihar Vs. Amit Kumar , (2017) 13 SCC 751, has consistently emphasized that bail in economic offences must be considered with utmost caution.

¶82

The gravity of the offence is not measured by the severity of the punishment but by the impact on society and the economy as recognized in State of Gujarat Vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987)

¶83

2 SCC 364 .

¶84

Linkage of proceeds of crime (POC) with the applicant:

¶85

It is submitted that the applicant demanded and received extortion amounts, either directly or through agents. He collected extortion amount of Rs. 20/- per quintal from rice millers through coercion and threats. The applicant directed office bearers and rice millers to hand over collected amounts to persons deputed by him with confirmation over phone. He acquired and utilized proceeds of crime to acquire properties in his name and his family’s name, satisfying the offence of

¶86

12

¶87

money laundering under Section 3 & 4 of the PMLA.

¶88

It is submitted that the statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA carry evidentiary value and constitute judicial proceedings under Sections 193 and 228 of the IPC. The applicant’s involvement is corroborated by multiple independent witnesses and phone location date. It is submitted that a mini-trial or scrutiny of admissibility of each evidence is neither required not permissible at the bail Stage. (Neeru Yadav Vs. State of UP, AIR 2015 SC 412).

¶89

Legal position on bail in PMLA cases:

¶90

The Apex Court has held in multiple judgments, including Tarun Kumar (supra) and The Union of India Vs. Kanhaiya Prasad, Criminal Appeal No. 728 of 2025 that :

¶91

a. In offences under PMLA, the bar under Section 45(1) is mandatory.

¶92

b. Economic offences are of serious public importance and bail cannot be granted as a matter of course. c. Courts must consider gravity of offence,impact on society, financial system and probability of tampering with evidence of influencing witnesses.

¶93

In light of the above, the present applicant is not entitled for bail

¶94

as:

¶95

a. the twin conditions under Section 45(1) are not satisfied.

¶96

b. the applicant’s conduct demonstrates a clear risk of

¶97

absconding, tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.

¶98

It is therefore submitted that the bail application of the applicant be rejected in the interest of justice. Grant of bail at this stage would be prejudicial to the investigation and to public interest, given the serious

¶99

13

¶100

nature of the offence, the role of the applicant and the evidence collected.

¶101

CONSIDERATION :

¶102

Having bestowed anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant and the Directorate of Enforcement, and upon a careful perusal of the records placed before this Court, certain principles of law and justice emerge with clarity. The court cannot lose sight of the fact that the applicant has remained in custody for a considerable length of time ie. more than 15 months . The trial is nowhere on the horizon of immediate commencement. In such a situation, prolonging the applicant's detention would transgress from pre-trial custody into a punitive incarceration, striking at the very heart of constitutional protection. With the progress of trial being uncertain and in similarly situated and similarly placed accused in liquor scam, having been granted the benefit of bail either by the Apex Court or by this Court ( in Cr. A. No. 1263 of 2025 (Arunpathi Tripathi Vs. State of CG) and Others arising out of SLP (Crl. No. 14646 of 2024; SLP (Crl.) No. 14697 of 2024 (Trilok Singh Dhillon Vs. The State of Chahttisgarh), Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.3148/2025 (Anil Tuteja Vs. Directorate of Enforcement), Cr.A. No. 2699 of 2025 arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2608 of 2025 (Arvind Singh Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh) while coaccused Manoj Kumar Soni has been granted by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 1950 of 2025 vide order dated 09.05.2025 .), the principle of parity squarely applies to the present case.

¶103

14

¶104

The founding principles of criminal jurisprudence remind that liberty is the rule and detention an exception unless justified by the most compelling circumstances. Liberty is the very quintessence of civilized existence and deprivation thereof is an extreme measure to be resorted to only where the circumstances imperatively demand so. The Apex Court has consistently reminded that the right to personal; liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is sacrosanct, and the courts while balancing the scales of justice must lean in favor of preserving liberty unless its exercise demonstrably threatens the orderly progress of trial or the sanctity of investigation.

¶105

The allegations against the applicant indeed, are grave in nature, touching upon the fabric of financial propriety and public trust. However, at the stage of deciding the bail, the Court is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or to weigh the probative force of each portion of evidence meticulously. What the court must ascertain is whether a prima facie case of guilt entitling the applicant to bail exists and whether the applicant, if enlarged on bail, is likely to abscond, tamper with evidence or influence the witnesses.

¶106

On a cumulative assessment, it appears that the charges have not yet been framed nor there is progress in trial. The material witnesses, including rice millers and officials have recorded their statements under Section 50 of the PMLA, which carry evidentiary value. Therefore, the apprehension of the applicant frustrating investigation by influencing witnesses or destroying evidence, while not

¶107

15

¶108

unfounded, stands largely mitigated by the advancement of the investigation to its present stage.

¶109

The Court also cannot lose site of the principle that pre-trial incarceration must not assume the character of punishment. To detain a person indefinitely without conclusion of trial would be antithetical to the foundational values of the Constitution. As was poignantly observed by the Apex Court in Sanjay Cahndra Vs. SBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, deprivation of liberty even before pronouncement of guilt must be justified by weighty and compelling circumstances; otherwise, it would be akin to substituting the presumption of innocence with a presumption of guilt. The twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA though mandatory, are not to be applied with such rigidity as to defeat the essence of constitutional liberties. This Court is persuaded that at this stage, there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant may not be guilty in the sense of inevitable conviction and further there is no compelling circumstance to hold that he is likely to commit offence while on bail, provided stringent conditions are imposed.

¶110

Liberty, it has been said, is the “light of the soul” and the “breath of life”. While the might of the State is undoubtedly formidable, it must always be tampered by the humility of constitutional compassion. Thus,in the eternal balance between individual liberty and societal interest, this Court finds that the scales for the present tilt in favor of granting bail to the applicant.

¶111

16

¶112

Having regard to the sequence of proceedings, it is evident that the applicant had earlier approached the trial court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 of the PMLA which was dismissed on 07.08.2024. Thereafter, the Applicant invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of the BNSS read with Section 45 of the PMLA, which too, was declined by this Court vide order dated 15.01.2025 in M.Cr.C. No,. 6369 of 2024.

¶113

The said order was thereafter assailed before the Apex Court by way of SLP (Crl.) No. 1216 of 2025. On 27.01.2025, while the matter was under consideration and it was ordered as under:

¶114

“Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the Special Leave petition with liberty to renew the application for bail, before the concerned trial court after six months.

¶115

Permission is granted.

¶116

The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.”

¶117

It is thus, manifest from the above that the liberty reserved by the Apex court matured upon expiry of six months on 27.07.2025. The applicant therefore, is now entitled to press the present application for consideration on merits before this court.

¶118

In the considered opinion of this Court, denial of bail in the present facts would not only amount to discrimination vis-a-vis similarly placed co-accused but would also strike a blow to the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of

¶119

17

¶120

India. Thus, the principle of parity, a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, unequivocally favors the present applicant. To deny him the same relief despite situational equality would be a negation of fairness and equal treatment in the administration of justice. The mere elongation of custody without meaningful progress in trial cannot be permitted to denude a person of his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore this Court is unwavering in its view that the continued incarceration of the applicant serves no penological purpose. To preserve liberty is to preserve justice and to deny liberty beyond necessity is to imperil justice itself.”

¶121

To prolong the continued incarceration of the applicant notwithdstanding the enlarged liberty of the co-accused and the protracted course of investigation, would amount to not only inflicting undue hardship upon him but also set a precedent detrimental to the sacred balance between the authority of the State and the liberty of the individual.

¶122

In the above backdrop and without delving into the merits of the prosecution’s allegations, this Court is persuaded to hold that the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail. As the applicant has been in custody since 05.09.2024 and has undergone over 15 months of incarceration, and despite the voluminous material collected, 17 witnesses and 108 documents running into 3400 pages and that the charges have not yet been framed and the trial is unlikely to commence in the near future and the maximum prescribed period of sentence is

¶123

18

¶124

7 years as of today. Prolonged pre-trial detention, coupled with delay in commencement of trial, is a well recognized ground for grant of bail even in cases under the PMLA. In the similar matter, co-accused Manoj Kumar Soni has already been granted bail by this Court on similar grounds. The principle of parity, therefore, also ensures to the benefit of the present applicant.

¶125

The concerned trial court shall enlarge the applicant on bail subject to the stringent conditions as may be fixed after hearing the ED /respondent which include (a) the applicant shall deposit and surrender his passport, if any, before the trial court without fail and he shall not apply for issuance of a fresh passport during the prevalence of the trial except with prior permission of the court concerned. (b). The applicant shall file an undertaking on oath before the trial court to the effect that he shall regularly, punctually and without default attend the trial proceedings and shall extend his fullest cooperation to the Court concerned for the expeditious trial and early disposal of the case. (c) it is made clear that in the even it is found, reported or brought to the notice of the trial court that the applicant is not cooperating with the expeditious conduct of the trial, or if he commits any breach of violation of the aforesaid conditions, it shall be open for the respondent/ED to move an application for cancellation of bail, which the trial court shall consider on its own merits, without being inhibited by the grant of bail herein. (d) the applicant shall not, in any manner, tamper with the prosecution evidence, influence or intimidate witnesses, or indulge in any act that may obstruct the administration of justice.

¶126

19

¶127

This Court reiterates, in line with the dictum of the Apex Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala (2005) 13 SCC 283 , that the conditions of bail are not empty formalities; they are solemn obligations cast upon the accused, and any deliberate infraction shall invite the instant cancellation of bail. The Enforcement Directorate shall remain at liberty to act with promptitude in such circumstances.

¶128

Accordingly, while the liberty of the applicant is preserved under the canopy of Article 21, it is equally girded by stringent obligations to ensure that justice is not thwarted. The applicant shall be released forthwith upon compliance with the above terms.

¶129

The application is allowed.

¶130

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶131

Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY DUBEY Date:2025.09.17 18:18:38 +0530

Roshan Chandrakar v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Chandrakar v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hamid Vs South Eastern Coalfields Limited

Kawasi Lakhma Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Taturam Sahu Vs the Deputy Registar ( Firms and Society)

Ashok Bera Vs Union of India

Radheshyam Sahu Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Pushpa Minj Vs Union of India