Chattisgarh High Court
Saumya Chaurasia vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 28 February, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:10603
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ORDER RESERVED ON 24.02.2026
ORDER DELIVERED ON 28.02.2026
ORDER UPLOADED ON 28.02.2026
MCRC No. 1653 of 2026
1 - Saumya Chaurasia D/o Lt. Shri O.N. Chaurasia Aged About 46
Years R/o A/21, Surya Residency Junwani Road Kohka Bhilai Durg
Chhattisgarh, (Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail Raipur
(C.G.) )
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - Directorate Of Enforcement, Raipur Zonal Office, Through Its
Assistant Director Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh 2nd Floor, Subhash Stadium
Moti, Bagh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001.
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Shri Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Shri Harshwardhan
Parganiha, Shri Mayank Jain, Shri Anshul
Rai, Shri Madhur Jain, Shri Harshit
Sharma, Shri Arpit Goel and Ms. Alekhya
Shastry, Advocates through VC and Ms.
Manubha Shankar, Advocate.
For Respondent/ED : Mr. Zohaib Hossain, Advocate through VC
assisted by Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande,
Special Public Prosecutor
2
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
C A V Order
The present matter arises out of ECIR No. ECIR/RPZO/04/2024
dated 11.04.2024 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur
Zonal Office under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) on the basis of a predicate offence
registered by EOW/ACB, Raipur.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The prosecution case pertains to an alleged large-scale liquor
procurement and distribution scam in the State of Chhattisgarh during
the period 2019 to 2023, resulting in alleged generation of proceeds of
crime amounting to approximately Rs. 2883 crores, out of which about
Rs. 2161 crores is alleged to be illegal earnings. The prosecution
alleges existence of a criminal syndicate comprising senior bureaucrats,
political functionaries, intermediaries and private persons, which
manipulated the excise policy and liquor procurement system to
generate illegal commissions and unaccounted income.
3. The predicate offence was registered by EOW/ACB Raipur vide
FIR No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
and 120-B IPC and Sections 7 and 12 Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. The FIR alleges that certain public servants and private persons
conspired to collect illegal commissions from distillers, Supply
3
unaccounted liquor, Manipulate excise policy and Cause loss to State
exchequer. The alleged loss to the Government is stated to be
approximately Rs. 2161 Crores and the aforesaid offences under IPC
and Prevention of Corruption Act constitute scheduled offences under
the PMLA. Accordingly, Enforcement Directorate registered ECIR No.
ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 dated 11.04.2024 and initiated investigation under
PMLA. Investigation revealed alleged laundering of proceeds of crime
generated through illegal liquor operations.
4. It is the allegation that the State Excise Policy was amended in
the year 2017, and the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation
Limited (CSMCL) was established and the CSMCL was entrusted with
exclusive responsibility of Retail sale of liquor, Procurement from
manufacturers and supply through Government shops. The stated
objectives of the policy included Supply of genuine liquor, Prevention of
illegal liquor, Securing State revenue and price regulation. The Liquor
sold in the State was divided into two categories:
• Country Liquor (CL)
• Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL)
Country liquor was supplied through three distilleries:
• Chhattisgarh Distilleries Ltd.
• Bhatia Wines & Merchants Pvt Ltd.
• Welcome Distilleries Pvt Ltd.
5. The prosecution alleges that a criminal syndicate led by influential
persons subverted the excise policy and procurement mechanism. It is
alleged that senior officials and intermediaries manipulated the liquor
4
policy, Controlled procurement, Collected illegal commissions and
distributed proceeds among conspirators. The prosecution has further
alleged that the syndicate exercised control through Placement of
favourable officers, Award of contracts to associates, policy
manipulation and Creation of parallel systems. There was modus
operandi of Alleged Offences:
PART-A
Illegal Commission on Accounted Liquor- The Illegal commission was
allegedly collected from distillers on supply of country liquor to CSMCL.
Meetings were allegedly conducted with distillers in March 2019 where
commission of Rs. 75 per case was fixed. It is alleged that the
procurement prices were increased and the distillers paid commission
which was shared among conspirators. The commission was allegedly
collected regularly through intermediaries.
PART-B
A parallel system of liquor supply was allegedly created and it is alleged
that unaccounted liquor was produced off-record, duplicate holograms
were used, duplicate bottles were procured and Liquor was sold
through Government shops. The entire sales were allegedly Cash
based, Off books and without tax payment. The illegal liquor was
transported directly from distilleries to shops bypassing State
warehouses.
It is alleged that the excise officials allegedly facilitated the
operation and this activity allegedly continued between 2019 to 2022.
PART-C
The Annual commission was allegedly collected from distillers for
5permitting them to operate in the State.
PART-D
A new mechanism was allegedly introduced in April 2020 by
introduction of FL-10A licenses. And three firms allegedly close to
syndicate members were granted FL-10A licenses. The license holders
allegedly acted as intermediaries, procured foreign liquor, sold to
Government warehouses and earned commission. Approximately 10%
profit margin was allegedly earned and out of the profit, 60% allegedly
went to syndicate and 40% retained by license holders.
6. The contracts were allegedly awarded to associates of syndicate
members including manpower supply agencies, cash collection
agencies and hologram suppliers. The duplicate holograms were
allegedly supplied for sale of illegal liquor and the cash collection
agencies allegedly collected illegal commission. EOW Raipur has filed
charge sheet dated 29.06.2024 before Special Court. Supplementary
charge sheets were filed on 26.09.2024, 17.11.2024, 27.06.2025,
30.06.2025, 24.08.2025 and 24.11.2025.
7. The charge sheets allege Criminal conspiracy, Forgery,
Corruption, Cheating and abuse of official position. As per investigation,
proceeds of crime quantified by EOW are approximately Rs.
2883,19,99,622/- in which breakup includes Part-A Commission, Part-B
Illegal liquor sales, Part-C Annual commission and FL-10A profits and
the breakup includes Part-A Commission, Part-B Illegal liquor sales,
Part-C Annual commission and FL-10 A profits.
6
8. The main Prosecution Complaint is dated 19.06.2024 and the
supplementary complaints dated 30.08.2024, 05.10.2024,12.03.2025
15.09.2025 and 26.12.2025. These complaints contain allegations of
laundering of proceeds of crime. The prosecution has alleged the
systematic corruption within Excise Department. It is alleged that policy
decisions were influenced to maximize illegal gain. The entire system is
alleged to have been controlled by a syndicate consisting of Politicians,
Bureaucrats and Private persons.
9. Investigation is based on the statements recorded under Section
50 PMLA, documentary evidence, financial records, Procurement
records and Digital data and Excel sheets. The investigation is based
on the statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA, Documentary
evidence, Financial records, Procurement records and Digital data
Excel sheets. The evidence allegedly shows systematic collection of
illegal commissions. The prosecution alleges that the syndicate
manipulated liquor policy, generated illegal proceeds and laundered
proceeds of crime. The alleged proceeds of crime are approximately
Rs. 2883 crores and the investigation is continuing.
ROLE OF THE APPLICANT/ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE APPLICANT
10. According to the prosecution, digital evidence and recovered
electronic communications d Anil Tuteja demonstrate that the applicant
was actively involved in monitoring the financial accounts (“hisab”) of
the syndicate. It is alleged that the applicant regularly coordinated with
senior bureaucrats and syndicate members for:
7
• Settlement of accounts
• Reconciliation of illegal collections
• Transfer of proceeds of crime
• Upward flow of illicit revenue.
The Recovered WhatsApp communications allegedly show that
the applicant instructed Anil Tuteja to send Arun Pati Tripathi to meet
Chaitanya Baghel (“Bittu”) regarding settlement of accounts of the
syndicate, thereby indicating that the financial transactions were
periodically reviewed and supervised at her level. The prosecution
asserts that the financial accounts of the syndicate were regularly
reported to senior political authorities and disputes relating to the
accounts were resolved at that level under the supervision of the
applicant.
11. The investigation further alleges that the applicant played a
significant role in facilitating appointments of key officers in the Excise
Department and related institutions. WhatsApp communications dated
07.05.2019 allegedly show that the applicant forwarded draft note-
sheets regarding appointments in the Excise Department to Anil
Tuteja even prior to formal approval. It is alleged that the names of
Niranjan Das and Arun Pati Tripathi had already been finalized by the
syndicate for appointment as Excise Commissioner and Managing
Director of CSMCL.
12. The prosecution case is that after approval of the note-sheet by
the competent authority, the applicant forwarded the signed note-sheet
to Anil Tuteja, who further transmitted the same to other members of
8
the syndicate. According to the prosecution, this demonstrates the
applicant’s active role in ensuring the placement of compliant officers to
facilitate smooth operation of the illegal liquor scheme. The prosecution
has alleged that the applicant was actively coordinating with Chaitanya
Baghel for settlement of accounts and transfer of proceeds of crime.
13. It is alleged that the applicant supervised reconciliation of
accounts and ensured proper distribution of illegal proceeds among
beneficiaries. The investigation asserts that the applicant functioned as
a senior political coordinator responsible for movement and
management of illicit funds. The Supreme Court in Siddharth v. State
of UP (2022) 1 SCC 676 held that Custodial arrest is not necessary
once investigation is complete. Continued detention is therefore
unjustified.
14. The prosecution relies upon the statement of K.K. Shrivastava
dated 23.06.2025, wherein it is alleged that he received approximately
Rs. 72 Crores in cash from Laxminarayan Bansal under the
instructions of the applicant and handed over the same to hawala
operators at Raipur. It is further alleged that the drivers employed
under him confirmed transportation of cash consignments strictly as per
instructions communicated on behalf of the applicant. The prosecution
also relied upon the statement of Nikhil Chandrakar dated 02.12.2025,
wherein he allegedly stated that he received approximately Rs. 5
Crores in cash from Laxminarayan Bansal under instructions of the
applicant. He had collected funds from Dipen Chawda on behalf of the
applicant.
9
15. The prosecution further relies upon diary entries allegedly
recovered from Suryakant Tiwari, wherein receipts attributed to the
applicant from Anwar Dhebar have been recorded. On the basis of
these diary entries, the prosecution alleges that the applicant received
approximately Rs. 43.50 Crores from proceeds of the liquor scam. The
prosecution alleges that the applicant has handled, assisted, acquired
and possessed proceeds of crime to the extent of approximately Rs.
115.5 Crores.
16. It is further alleged that the applicant invested such proceeds in
acquisition of properties in her own name and in the names of family
members. The prosecution alleges that the applicant knowingly
assisted in the movement of illicit funds, Cash handling, Hawala
transactions and layering of proceeds of crime. According to the
prosecution, the applicant directed intermediaries handling cash
collections and supervised hawala transactions for layering and
integration of proceeds of crime. It is alleged that the applicant ensured
delivery of illegal proceeds to political beneficiaries. The prosecution
has alleged that the applicant knowingly assisted in generation of
proceeds of crime, possessed proceeds of crime,concealed proceeds
of crime and projected proceeds of crime as untainted property. On the
basis of the aforesaid allegations, the prosecution asserts that the
applicant has knowingly participated in activities connected with
proceeds of crime and is therefore liable for offence under Section 3
punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA.
17. It is alleged that the applicant acquired proceeds of crime,
10
possessed proceeds of crime, concealed proceeds of crime and used
proceeds of crime projecting proceeds of crime as untainted. The
prosecution contends that the material on record including statements
recorded under Section 50 PMLA, Digital evidence, WhatsApp
communications, diary entries and financial records establishes a prima
facie case of money laundering against the applicant. It is therefore
alleged that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the
applicant is guilty of the offence of money laundering within the
meaning of Section 45 of the PMLA.
I. INTRODUCTORY SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
18. The present applicant seeks grant of regular bail in connection
with ECIR No. ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 registered by the Directorate of
Enforcement under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002. The Applicant was arrested on 16.12.2025, after
prolonged investigation extending over nearly two years and after filing
of multiple prosecution complaints. The Applicant has cooperated
throughout the investigation and has never avoided summons or
proceedings. The Applicant satisfies the Triple test for bail and Twin
conditions under Section 45 PMLA and is therefore entitled to bail.
II. APPLICANT NOT NAMED IN FIR OR ECIR
19. Shri Siddarth Dave, learned Senior Counsel contended that the
Applicant is neither named in the predicate FIR No. 04/2024 or the
ECIR No. ECIR/RPZO/04/2024. The applicant was implicated only
subsequently during investigation without any independent incriminating
11
material. No recovery whatsoever has been made from the Applicant
and no proceeds of crime have been traced to the Applicant. The Apex
Court in Prem Prakash vs Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 9 SCC
787 held that existence of proceeds of crime and nexus with accused
must be shown. In absence of any recovery or traceable proceeds of
crime, continued incarceration is unjustified.
III. ARREST AFTER YEARS OF INVESTIGATION
20. The Applicant has been arrested after prolonged investigation
and after filing of prosecution complaints. The Apex Court in Arvind
Kejriwal vs Directorate of Enforcement (2025) 2 SCC 248, has held
that arrest must be justified by necessity and not merely formality. It has
held that arrest cannot be mechanical or merely because it is lawful to
do so. The Applicant was never arrested earlier despite repeated
investigations which clearly shows absence of necessity. The present
arrest is therefore a residual and formal arrest, liable to be viewed with
suspicion.
IV. EVERGREENING OF CUSTODY
21. Next contention on behalf of the applicant s that the applicant has
been arrested repeatedly in multiple cases. The Applicant has been
arrested six times in total despite being granted bail repeatedly. This
establishes deliberate attempt to prolong incarceration by successive
arrests. The Apex Court in Binay Kumar Singh vs State of
Jharkhand (2026) deprecated multiple arrests to prolong custody and
granted bail. Such practice violates Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitution.
V. BAIL GRANTED IN MULTIPLE CASES
12
22. It is contended that the Applicant has already been granted bail in
multiple cases including Coal case (ED), Coal case (EOW),
Disproportionate Assets case and DMF case. The interim bails granted
by the Apex Court have been confirmed. The Applicant has never
violated any bail condition. This establishes that the Applicant is not
likely to Abscond, Tamper evidence and Influence witnesses. In Sanjay
Chandra vs CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Apex Court held that Bail is the
rule and jail is the exception.
VI. PARITY WITH CO-ACCUSED
23. Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that out of 81
accused persons, only 9 were arrested. Several alleged key
conspirators have already been granted bail including Anwar Dhebar,
Arun Pati Tripathi, Anil Tuteja, Kawasi Lakhma, and Chaitanya Baghel
and the Applicant stands on better footing. Bail on parity is a recognized
principle.
In Dataram Singh vs State of UP (2018) 3 SCC 22, the Apex
Court has held that Consistency in granting bail is an important facet of
Article 14. Similarly in Ravindra Saxena vs State of Rajasthan (2010)
1 SCC 684, parity was recognized as valid ground.
VII. SELECTIVE ARRESTS – PICK AND CHOOSE POLICY
24. Several persons alleged to be involved including distillery owners,
Cash aggregators, Contractors have not been arrested. The Applicant
alone has been singled out. The Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi vs
Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 held that State action mus The Delhi
13
High Court in Vipin Yadav vs ED, 2025 SCC Online Del 6237 held that
pick-and-choose arrests justify bail.
VIII. ENTIRE CASE BASED ON STATEMENTS OF CO-ACCUSED
25. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the entire case of
the prosecution rests upon statements of co-accused and witnesses
recorded under Section 50 PMLA. There is no independent
documentary evidence. The Apex Court in Haricharan Kurmi vs State
of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1184 has held that Confession of co-accused
has weak evidentiary value. Similarly in Subramanya vs State of
Karnataka (2023) 11 SCC 255, the Court has held that Conviction
cannot be based solely on confession of co-accused. In Prem
Prakash vs ED (2024) 9 SCC 787, it has been held that reliance solely
on statements was deprecated.
IX. NO PROCEEDS OF CRIME RECOVERED
26. There were no proceeds of crime recovered from the Applicant.
No bank account showing laundering has been identified and no
property has been attached exclusively belonging to the Applicant from
alleged proceeds. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India
(2022) 10 SCC 1, the Apex Court held that Proceeds of crime is
foundational requirement. Absence of traceable proceeds negates
money laundering allegation.
X. INVESTIGATION COMPLETE
27. The investigation qua Applicant is complete and the prosecution
Complaint dated 26.12.2025 has already been filed. Entire evidence is
documentary in nature therefore no custodial interrogation is required.
14
In P. Chidambaram vs ED (2019) 9 SCC 24, the Apex Court has held
that when investigation is complete, continued custody is not justified.
XI. TRIAL WILL TAKE LONG TIME
28. The prosecution involves 81 accused, 117 witnesses, hundreds of
documents, The Predicate offence involves 52 accused, 1193
witnesses and 11000+ documents., the trial is unlikely to conclude in
near future. In Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb(2021) 3 SCC 713, the
Apex Court has held that Prolonged incarceration violates Article 21.
XII. APPLICANT IS A WOMAN – BENEFIT OF PROVISO TO
SECTION 45
29. It is contended that the Applicant is a woman and the first proviso
to Section 45 PMLA permits bail to women. In Enforcement
Directorate vs Preeti Chandra (2023 SCC Online SC 930), the
Supreme Court has held that benefit to women is discretionary but
relevant consideration. The Applicant deserves liberal approach.
XIII. TWIN CONDITIONS SATISFIED
30. There are reasonable grounds to believe that Applicant is not
guilty because she has not been named in FIR, No recovery, No
independent evidence and statements only evidence, Parity with co-
accused. The applicant is not likely to commit offence while on bail
because multiple bails have been granted, no violation and is a
permanent resident having deep roots. Thus twin conditions are
satisfied.
XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES
15
31. Bail jurisprudence is rooted in Article 21. In Gudikanti
Narasimhulu vs Public Prosecutor (1978) 1 SCC 240, the Court held:
Personal liberty cannot be casually curtailed. In Nikesh Tarachand
Shah vs Union of India (2018) 11 SCC 1, importance of liberty was
emphasized.
XV. FAILURE OF RESPONDENT TO ESTABLISH “REASONS TO
BELIEVE”
32. It is respectfully submitted that the arrest of the Applicant under
Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is vitiated as the
mandatory requirement of recording valid “reasons to believe” based on
credible material has not been satisfied. The Respondent has merely
reproduced allegations from statements and prosecution complaints
without demonstrating the independent application of mind required
under Section 19 PMLA. The Supreme Court in Arvind Kejriwal v.
Directorate of Enforcement, (2025) 2 SCC 248, has held that “The
requirement of “reasons to believe” must be real and based on tangible
material and cannot be mechanical reproduction of allegations.”
33. The arrest memo and grounds of arrest in the present case
merely summarize allegations without showing how the Applicant:
acquired proceeds of crime, Possessed proceeds of crime and
projected proceeds as untainted property. Therefore the statutory
requirement under Section 19 PMLA stands violated.
XVI. ABSENCE OF DIRECT NEXUS WITH PROCEEDS OF CRIME
34. It is submitted that the Respondent/ED has failed to establish a
direct nexus between the Applicant and proceeds of crime, which is the
16
sine qua non for invoking Section 3 PMLA. The Supreme Court in
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) 10 SCC 1, held
that Proceeds of crime must be linked with the accused person. In the
present case, No proceeds were recovered, there was no money trail,
No bank accounts traced and no financial layering shown.
The allegation that the Applicant handled Rs.115.5 crores is
based solely on statements without documentary support. Such bald
allegations cannot satisfy Section 45 PMLA.
XVII. ENTIRE CASE BASED ON INFERENCES
35. The prosecution case is based upon assumptions, Inferences,
Interpretations of chats and statements of interested witnesses. No
independent documentary evidence exists linking the Applicant with
laundering activity. The Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v.
Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24 held that bail can be
granted where evidence is primarily documentary and custodial
interrogation is unnecessary. The Applicant is not required for further
investigation.
XVIII. NO POSSIBILITY OF TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE
36. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Respondent
has failed to demonstrate any real apprehension that the Applicant will
tamper with evidence. Entire evidence is Documentary, Digital and
already seized.
The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40
held that “Where evidence is documentary, apprehension of tampering
is minimal. The Applicant has already remained on bail in multiple cases
without any violation.
17
XIX. REPEATED ARRESTS VIOLATE ARTICLE 21
37. The Applicant has been arrested repeatedly in different ECIRs on
substantially identical material. Such successive arrests defeat the
constitutional guarantee of personal liberty. The Supreme Court in
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51 emphasized that
criminal law cannot be used to perpetuate custody. Repeated arrests
amount to indirect denial of bail.
XX. BENEFIT OF PROVISO TO SECTION 45 – WOMAN ACCUSED
38. It is contended that the applicant is a woman and therefore
entitled to liberal consideration under the first proviso to Section 45
PMLA. The proviso reflects legislative intent to adopt a humane
approach. The Courts have consistently granted bail to women even in
stringent statutes. The Supreme Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing
Sharma v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 5 SCC 294 has held that Bail
conditions must be interpreted in a manner consistent with personal
liberty. The Applicant deserves benefit of the proviso.
XXI. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE CONTINUES
39. The Respondent seeks to treat allegations as proof. Bail
proceedings cannot become a mini trial. As has been held by the
Supreme Court in Dataram Singh v. State of UP (2018) 3 SCC 22 that
Presumption of innocence continues till conviction. The Applicant
cannot be detained merely on suspicion.
XXII. ECONOMIC OFFENCE NOT ABSOLUTE BAR TO BAIL
40. The Respondent has emphasized seriousness of offence. Gravity
alone cannot justify denial of bail. The Supreme Court in Sanjay
Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 has held that Seriousness of
18
offence cannot override right to liberty. Similarly in P. Chidambaram v.
ED (2019) 9 SCC 24, bail was granted in a PMLA case.
XXIII. BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE FAVOURS BAIL
41. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is not
a flight risk, has cooperated and roots in society, already on bail in other
cases and the investigation is complete. The continued custody serves
no purpose.
42. In short, it is contended that the Applicant satisfies Twin
Conditions, reasonable grounds of innocence exist, not likely to commit
offence. In the Triple Test, there is no flight risk, no tampering and no
influence. The continued incarceration of the Applicant is
disproportionate and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. It is
therefore respectfully prayed that the Applicant be enlarged on bail.
43. The Applicant has been granted bail by the Supreme Court on
three occasions and by the learned Sessions Court on one
occasion, and the said bail orders continue to operate without any
violation on the part of the Applicant. Despite this, the Applicant has
been subjected to repeated arrests and has been arrested as many as
six times in total, which clearly demonstrates a pattern of successive
and overlapping arrests designed to prolong incarceration. The
successive arrests of the Applicant on substantially similar
material reveal a deliberate attempt to circumvent the grant of bail
by courts of competent jurisdiction and to ensure continued custody
through different proceedings. Such repeated arrests defeat the very
19
purpose of bail jurisprudence and amount to indirect denial of liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
44. The interim bails granted to the Applicant by the Apex Court
in different proceedings have subsequently been confirmed by the
Supreme Court vide order dated 28.01.2026, thereby affirming that
the Applicant is not required to remain in custody. The following
chronology demonstrates the repeated arrests and grant of bail to the
Applicant:
1. 02.12.2022 Arrested in Coal Scam by ED
(ECIR/RPZO/09/2022)
2. 23,05.2024 Petitioner arrested in Coal Scam by EOW (FIR
No. 03/2024
3. 25.09.2024 ED Interim Bail granted in Coal Scam by Apex
Court
4. 08.11.2024 Arrested in Disproportionate Assets case (FIR
No. 22/2024)
5. 08.01.2025 Default bail granted in disproportionate Assets
case
6. 03.03.2025 EOW Interim bail granted in Coal scam by
Supreme Court
7. 03.03.2025 Arrested in DMF scam (FIR No. 02/2024
immediately
8. 29.05.2025 Interim bail granted in DMF scam by the Apex
Court
45. The above sequence unmistakably establishes that the Applicant
has been consistently found entitled to bail by constitutional courts, and
at no stage has the Applicant misused the liberty granted to her. It is
further submitted that the Supreme Court, after hearing the
Applicant on the issue of multiple arrests, illegal arrests and evergreen
custody, passed order dated 09.02.2026 in W.P. (Criminal) No. 18 of
20
2026, directing that the present bail application be considered by this
Court keeping in view the previous bail orders granted to the Applicant
as well as to other co-accused persons. The Supreme Court
specifically observed as under:
“The High Court is requested to take up both matters
on a priority basis and make an endeavor to decide the
same at the earliest, but not later than two weeks. The
High Court will also keep in mind the various orders
passed by this Court granting bail to the Petitioner and
other co-accused.”
The Supreme Court’s aforementioned direction unequivocally
underscores that prior bail orders favouring the Applicant and similarly
situated co-accused represent a material and compelling consideration
for the instant application.
46. Having been repeatedly enlarged on bail by the Apex Court–
complying scrupulously with all imposed conditions–the Applicant
merits parity and consistent treatment herein. In light of these facts and
the Supreme Court’s express mandate, her continued incarceration
offends settled tenets of parity (State of Maharashtra v. Suresh
Nivrutti Bhokare, 2024 INSC 157), judicial consistency, and Article 21
safeguards of personal liberty (Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT of Delhi,
2001 4 SCC 280).
47. It is further submitted that out of 81 accused persons in the
present case, only 9 have been arrested and as many as 7 arrested
accused have already been enlarged on bail, while the remaining
accused persons have been charge-sheeted without arrest.
21
Significantly, even the alleged principal conspirators, namely Anil
Tuteja, Anwar Dhebar, Arun Pati Tripathi, Kawasi Lakhma and
Chaitanya Baghel, have already been granted bail by the competent
courts.
48. The Applicant stands on a far better footing than the said co-
accused, inasmuch as there is no recovery of proceeds of crime from
the Applicant, no direct financial trail has been attributed to her, and her
alleged role is based primarily on statements of co-accused and
inferential allegations. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence
that similarly situated accused are entitled to bail on the ground of
parity, particularly when the persons alleged to be the main architects of
the offence have already been enlarged on bail. The following chart
reflects the bail granted to the co-accused persons in the present case:
1. Trilok Singh Dhilon Cr.A. No. 1535 of 2025 26.03.2025
2. Anwar Dhebar Cr.A. No. 2669 of 2025 19.05.2025
3. Arun Pati Tripathi Cr.A. No. 725 of 2025 12.02.2025
4. Anil Tuteja SLP (Crl.) No. 3148 of 15.04.2025
2025
5. Arvind Singh Cr.A. No. 2576 of 2025 13.05.2025
6. Chaitanya Baghel MCRC No. 8716 of 2025 02.01.2026
7. Kawasi Lakhma SLP (Crl.) No. 03.02.2026
16980/2025
49. The above direction makes it clear that the previous bail orders in
favour of the Applicant and similarly placed co-accused persons
constitute a decisive and relevant consideration for adjudication of the
present bail application. Once the Apex Court has directed
consideration of the present bail application on the threshold of bail
22
granted to the Applicant and co-accused, there remains no justification
for continued incarceration of the Applicant, particularly when the
investigation is complete and the prosecution complaint has already
been filed.
XXIV. NO PRIMA FACIE CASE UNDER SECTION 3 PMLA
50. It is submitted that no prima facie case under Section 3 of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is made out against the
Applicant, even on a bare reading of the Supplementary Prosecution
Complaint dated 26.12.2025. The entire case of the Respondent
proceeds on assumptions and inferential allegations without
establishing any direct nexus between the Applicant and the alleged
proceeds of crime. The Supreme Court in Prem Prakash v.
Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 9 SCC 787 has held that the
prosecution must demonstrate a clear nexus between the accused and
the proceeds of crime.
XXV. SCHEDULED OFFENCE NOT ESTABLISHED
51. It is submitted that the prosecution under PMLA is dependent
upon the existence of a scheduled offence generating proceeds of
crime. Charges in the predicate offence are yet to be framed. Trial in
predicate offence has not commenced. Investigation in predicate
offence remains open. The Supreme Court in V. Senthil Balaji v.
Directorate of Enforcement (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626) has held
that Proceeds of crime must arise from a scheduled offence and the
same must be established in prosecution. In absence of final
determination of scheduled offence, continued incarceration under
PMLA is unjustified.
23
XXVI. PROLONGED TRIAL JUSTIFIES BAIL
52. The prosecution involves 81 accused persons, 117 witnesses,
61,000+ pages of documents and multiple prosecution complaints. The
trial has not commenced and is unlikely to conclude within reasonable
time. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3
SCC 713 held that Prolonged incarceration violates Article 21 even in
stringent statutes. Similarly in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC
40, it was held that Detention during trial cannot become punishment.
Continued incarceration of the Applicant would amount to pre-trial
punishment.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE ED
53. Shri Zohaib Hossain, learned counsel for the respondent/ED
contended that the present application seeking bail under Section 45 of
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is wholly misconceived,
premature and liable to be rejected, as the Applicant has played a
central and supervisory role in the generation, handling and layering of
proceeds of crime in the Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam involving hundreds
of crores of rupees. The material collected during investigation clearly
establishes the Applicant’s active participation in the process and
activity connected with proceeds of crime, thereby attracting Section 3
punishable under Section 4 PMLA. The Applicant does not satisfy the
twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA, and therefore is not entitled to
bail.
I. APPLICANT PLAYED A KEY AND SUPERVISORY ROLE IN
MONEY LAUNDERING
24
54. Investigation has revealed that the Applicant, while functioning as
Deputy Secretary to the Chief Minister, acted as a senior political
coordinator and supervisory authority in the liquor syndicate. The
evidence collected demonstrates (i) Supervisory Role Coordinated
with Anil Tuteja, Anwar Dhebar, Chaitanya Baghel and Arun Pati
Tripathi. The WhatsApp chats and digital evidence clearly
demonstrate Settlement of accounts (“Hisab”), Transfer of funds,
Appointment of excise officers and Policy manipulation. This
establishes active involvement in laundering process. Under the
Section 3 of the PMLA, Knowing assistance or facilitation is sufficient.
The Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v Union of India
(2022) 10 SCC 744 / (2023) 12 SCC 1, has held that “Direct handling
of money is not necessary; involvement in any activity connected with
proceeds of crime attracts Section 3.”
II. DIRECT MONEY TRAIL AND CASH HANDLING ESTABLISHED
55. The statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA reveal that one
of the co-accused namely, K.K. Shrivastava received Rs.72 Crores
under instructions of Applicant and delivered to hawala operators. This
apart, one Nikhil Chandrakar, received Rs.5 Crores under instructions
of the applicant. The Diary Entries receipt of approx Rs.43.5 Crores was
utilized for assets and the total involvement approximately to Rs.115.5
Crores which establishes Possession, Use, Layering and Projection
that fully attracts Section 3 of the PMLA. The Supreme Court in Tarun
Kumar v Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486,
has held that “Statements recorded under Section 50 PMLA are
substantive evidence and can form basis of prosecution.”
25
III. STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 50 PMLA ARE ADMISSIBLE
56. The Applicant’s argument that Section 50 statements are weak
evidence is incorrect. The Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary (2023) 12 SCC 1 has held that statements under Section
50 are admissible and ED officers are not police officers. It has been
held in Rohit Tandon v Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC
46 that Such statements constitute important evidence.
Further it has been held in Tarun Kumar v ED (2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1486) that Statements are sufficient to establish prima facie
case at bail stage.
IV. WHATSAPP CHATS ARE VALID EVIDENCE
57. The Applicant’s contention regarding WhatsApp chats is
misleading. Digital evidence recovered from co-accused is legally
admissible. The Supreme Court in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v
Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal (2020) 7 SCC 1, has held that
rtquirement of certificate arises at trial stage. At bail stage, prima facie
evaluation is sufficient. It has also been held in the matter of
Mahimananda Mishra v State of Orissa (2018) that Court must not
conduct mini trial at bail stage. Therefore admissibility objections
irrelevant.
V. NO REQUIREMENT OF RECOVERY FROM ACCUSED
58. It is contended on behalf of the Applicant that there was no
recovery- this argument is legally untenable. Money laundering
involves layering and concealment. The Supreme Court in Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary (supra) held that Possession not necessary if
26
involvement shown. Similarly in Rohit Tandon (2018) 11 SCC 46,
Money laundering rarely involves direct possession.
VI. GRAVITY OF OFFENCE EXTREMELY HIGH
59. The present case involves Multi-crore scam,Organized syndicate
Policy manipulation, Hawala transactions and Political protection. The
Supreme Court in State of Bihar v Amit Kumar (2017) 13 SCC 751
has held that Economic offences are a class apart and require stricter
approach in bail. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439
it has been held that Economic offences affect society at large and bail
must be granted cautiously.
VII. DELAY IN TRIAL NO GROUND FOR BAIL
60. It is submitted that the prosecution’s reliance on Gurwinder
Singh v. State of Punjab (2024 SCC OnLine SC 623) and Chandra
Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav (2004) 7 SCC 528, to
contend that delay alone cannot justify bail in serious offences
warranting continued custody, is thoroughly misconceived and
inapplicable to the facts of the present case. In Gurwinder Singh
(supra), the Apex Court has merely clarified that prolonged delay in
trial, without more, does not ipso facto entitle an accused to bail where
overwhelming evidence of culpability exists and public interest
demands restraint; however, the said precedent is wholly
distinguishable herein, as the Applicant’s arrest effected post filing of
the Main Chargesheet dated 01.07.2024 and seven Supplementary
Chargesheets, without arraigning her as accused, conclusively belies
any incriminating material, rendering custody not only unnecessary but
constitutionally impermissible under Article 21. Similarly, Chandra
27
Sarkar (supra) pertains to economic offences involving massive public
exchequer loss with prima facie complicity established pre-arrest, unlike
the instant matter where no such pre-chargesheet evidence implicates
the Applicant, and investigation stands complete sans his involvement.
The prosecution’s mechanical invocation of these authorities ignores
the statutory mandate of Section 167(2) CrPC, entitling default bail
upon expiry of 90 days absent completed Chargesheet against the
Applicant, as affirmed in Bikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2020) 19
SCC 289. Continued detention, absent tangible material, thus
constitutes colourable exercise of power, deserving to be
discountenanced.
VIII. PARITY NOT APPLICABLE
61. The prosecution’s invocation of parity is wholly misconceived and
untenable, as the Applicant occupies the position of the senior-most
functionary, supervisory authority, and key policy influencer, with
responsibilities distinct and superior to those of any co-accused granted
interim bail. The principle of parity, as expounded by the Supreme Court
in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (2021)
6 SCC 230, applies strictly where accused share identical roles,
culpability, and antecedents, a sine qua non absent herein. In the cited
case, Their Lordships clarified that “parity does not mean and cannot
mean that every accused must be granted bail or refused bail on the
same grounds,” emphasizing differentiation based on hierarchical
disparity and distinct involvement.
62. Unlike junior functionaries whose alleged acts, if any, fall under
28
direct supervision of the Applicant, the prosecution has failed to
attribute any specific overt act, command, or policy directive implicating
him, as evidenced by his non-inclusion in the Main Chargesheet dated
01.07.2024 and seven Supplementary Chargesheets. Granting bail to
subordinates while denying it to the Applicant on parity would
perversely invert justice, rewarding juniors while penalizing supervisory
oversight absent mens rea. This position aligns with State of Kerala v.
Raneef (2011) 1 SCC 784, holding parity inapplicable to those in
superior positions without prima facie evidence of active conspiracy.
Rejection of parity is thus compelled, warranting Applicant’s release on
parity with those already enlarged.
IX. ARREST AFTER TWO YEARS JUSTIFIED
63. The Applicant’s arrest after nearly two years from FIR is
eminently justified, as incriminating evidence emerged in 2025
statements of protected witnesses/co-accused, disclosing his
supervisory role and policy influence in laundering proceeds–material
unavailable earlier despite diligent probe. The Main Chargesheet
(01.07.2024) and Supplementary Chargesheets prudently omitted him
pending these disclosures, aligning with investigative prudence. The
Supreme Court in Tarun Kumar v. Directorate of Enforcement (2023
SCC OnLine SC 1486) squarely holds late implication valid where
evidence surfaces later in layered probes like PMLA, overruling
mechanical timelines. Satender Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51 is
inapposite, applying to routine cases sans economic offence gravity.
Custody is thus lawful.
29
X. NO EVERGREENING OF CUSTODY
64. The arrest of the applicant on 16.12.2025 follows Saumya
Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 6 SCC 401
upholding PMLA arrests on credible material, with investigation ongoing
2025 statements mandate further sifting of digital trails/assets
attributable to Applicant as senior functionary. Section 167(2) CrPC
default is inapplicable mid-probe (Abhishek Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 1622, para 18). Continued custody is imperative for
recovery/confrontation as per Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of
India (2022) 18 SCC 1 (PMLA rigours). Bikramjit Singh (2020) 19
SCC 289 pertains to routine offences, not PMLA’s stringent paradigm.
Bail rejection safeguards public interest.safeguards public interest.
XI. POSSIBILITY OF TAMPERING VERY HIGH
65. He contended that the applicant is an Influential bureaucrat, has
Political connections and Senior role. The witnesses include
bureaucrats, syndicate members, drivers and intermediaries, and
therefore the release will prejudice investigation. It has been held in
P.Chidambaram Vs. ED (2019) 9 SCC 21 that influence factor is
relevant.
XII. SUPREME COURT ORDER 09.02.2026 DOES NOT HELP
APPLICANT
66. The Supreme Court’s order dated 09.02.2026 unequivocally
mandates adjudication of bail strictly on merits, issuing no direction for
grant thereof. This forecloses any reliance on parity or extraneous
30
considerations. Rigorous Twin Conditions Under Section 45 NDPS Act
Unmet Section 45 NDPS Act erects an impregnable bar and the bail is
permissible only upon satisfaction that (i) the Applicant is not guilty; and
(ii) unlikely to commit further offences while on bail. The Applicant
satisfies neither. From the Prosecution evidence–documentary and
investigative–establishes prima facie complicity beyond pale of doubt.
67. Mere absence from FIR or initial Chargesheet confers no
immunity as post-supplemental statements (2025) unequivocally reveal
the Applicant’s pivotal supervisory/policy role in laundering,
necessitating arrest post-emergence of this layered evidence–prudent
investigative sequencing upheld in Tarun Kumar v. ED (2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1486).
68. Reoffending risk looms large: The gravity of the ofence (multi-
crore laundering), prior conditional bail enlargements of co-accused,
and parallel multi-agency probes (ED/CBI) imperil public interest,
witness safety, and probe integrity upon release, demanding continued
custody per Saumya Chaurasia v. ED (2024) 6 SCC 401.
Binding precedents brook no dilution: Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v.
Union of India (2022) 10 SCC 229 mandates PMLA twin conditions u/s
45(1) as”mandatory and non-derogable” (para 160), overriding general
bail norms. Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
(2022) 9 SCC 465 reinforces rigorous satisfaction imperative; “not
guilty” contemplation demands assessing entire prosecution case, not
preliminary skirmishes (para 28). Bail rejection is thus statutorily
compelled.
31
XIII. PLEA OF MALAFIDES IS IRRELEVANT AT THE STAGE OF
BAIL
69. The Applicant has attempted to contend that the present
proceedings are motivated by political vendetta and malafides, and
therefore the bail application deserves to be allowed. The said
contention is wholly misconceived and legally untenable. It is a settled
position of law that allegations of malafides are irrelevant where the
prosecution is supported by material collected during investigation. The
Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
222 held that Allegations of mala fide after lodging of FIR are of no
consequence and cannot be the basis for quashing proceedings.
Similarly, in State of Maharashtra v. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri (1996) 1
SCC 542 it was held that If ingredients of the offence exist, prosecution
cannot fail merely because of alleged mala fides. The Supreme Court
in Monica Kumar v State of U.P. (2008) 8 SCC 781 (Para 37) held that
Mere allegations of mala fides would be no ground for quashing
proceedings. In Umesh Kumar v State of A.P. (2013) 10 SCC 591
(Paras 23-26) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Criminal
prosecution otherwise justified does not become vitiated on account of
mala fides. Recently, in Ramveer Upadhyay v State of U.P., 2022
SCC OnLine SC 484 the Supreme Court held that Criminal
prosecution otherwise justified does not become vitiated on account of
mala fides.
70. The Applicant’s plea of political vendetta as vitiating proceedings
is wholly untenable, warranting summary dismissal. The Supreme Court
32
has unequivocally held that political vendetta cannot, by itself, justify
quashing criminal proceedings where prima facie case exists–robustly
independent of extraneous motives (Daxaben v. State of Gujarat,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 936, para 35: “Criminal prosecution, if otherwise
justified, is not vitiated on account of vendetta”).This binds herein:
Incriminating 2025 statements, layered PMLA evidence, and
Applicant’s supervisory role establish prosecutorial justification,
untainted by alleged malice. General bail jurisprudence yields to
PMLA’s rigours (Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, 2022) 10 SCC 229),
rendering the plea a red herring unfit for traction. Outright rejection
follows as a matter of law.
XVI. ABSENCE OF ATTACHMENT OR RECOVERY NO GROUND
FOR BAIL
71. The Applicant has contended that no recovery or attachment has
been made qua the Applicant in the present ECIR. The said contention
is misleading. Investigation has revealed that properties worth
approximately Rs.383.5 crores have already been attached in the
present money laundering investigation. Merely because attachment
proceedings against certain properties of the Applicant are under
process does not dilute the prosecution case. Attachment and arrest
are independent powers under PMLA. The Supreme Court in Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary v Union of India (2023) 12 SCC 1 held that
Involvement in process connected with proceeds of crime is sufficient
even without direct possession. It is further submitted that major
properties of the Applicant already stand attached in earlier ECIRs,
which clearly establish handling of proceeds of crime. A person cannot
33
claim benefit merely because the proceeds of crime have been layered
and concealed.
XVI. ABSENCE OF ATTACHMENT IRRELEVANT; MONEY LAUNDERING PROVEN
72. It has been submitted that mere absence of attachment in ECIR
avails naught. The Supreme Court in Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of
Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46 lucidly holds that money laundering
entails concealment and indirect possession of proceeds of crime (para
12)–prima facie established herein via 2025 statements revealing
Applicant’s supervisory layering, rendering attachment ancillary.
XVII. SHORT CUSTODY PERIOD – BAIL NOT WARRANTED
73. Applicant’s prolonged incarceration plea is preposterous: She is
in Custody since 16.12.2025 (~2 months) which falls woefully short of
“inordinately long.” Manish Sisodia v. CBI (2023 SCC OnLine SC
1393) mandates Article 21 wherein it is held that bail is only for
extended periods (para 45). Recently, Udhav Singh v. Directorate of
Enforcement (2025 SCC OnLine SC 357) deems even 7 months non-
prolonged; Karnataka HC in G.T. Dinesh Kumar v. Director of
Enforcement (2026) rejects 127 days; Calcutta HC in Kuldeep Rai
Sharma v. ED (2026) discounts 200 days in PMLA and the plea stands
to be rejected.
XVIII. ECONOMIC OFFENCES DEMAND STRICT APPROACH
74. The matter involves Rs.100+ crores laundering, this epitomizes
economic offences warranting stricter scrutiny (Y.S. Jagan Mohan
Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, para 44). State of Bihar v. Amit
34
Kumar (2017) 13 SCC 751 cautions against casual bail in socio-
economic crimes; Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 466
mandates weighing magnitude/societal harm; State of Gujarat v.
Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 2 SCC 364 notes community-wide
injury; P. Chidambaram v. ED (2019) 9 SCC 24 affirms gravity. In a
latest judgment of Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. ED (2025 INSC
349) insists strict PMLA approach and has held that bail is
impermissible.
XIX. SECTION 50 STATEMENTS ESTABLISH PRIMA FACIE CASE
75. It is contended that the twin Conditions are Unmet and
Challenging Section 50 PMLA statements is futile. Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary v. Union of India (2023) 12 SCC 1 affirms their
admissibility (para 85); Tarun Kumar v. ED (2023 SCC OnLine SC
1486) holds them sufficient for prima facie involvement at bail stage
(para 25). Statements of K.K. Shrivastava, Nikhil Chandrakar,
Laxminarayan Bansal irrefutably implicate Applicant in
handling/layering proceeds. Twin conditions u/s 45(1) PMLA remain
unsatisfied and bail statutorily barred.
76. The prosecution’s edifice is unassailable at this stage
cumulatively establishing the Applicant’s guilt a writ-large. The Direct
involvement in layering proceeds, per Section 50 statements (K.K.
Shrivastava; Nikhil Chandrakar; Laxminarayan Bansal); Money trail
exceeding Rs.100 crores, traced via banking ledgers/digital
forensics;Witness testimonies (2025 protected disclosures) unveiling
concealment mechanics; Digital evidence (devices/emails)
35
corroborating policy-driven siphoning;Supervisory role as senior-most
functionary orchestrating the racket.The Applicant catastrophically fails
Section 45(1) PMLA twin conditions:
77. Reasonable belief of guilt: Direct + digital + testimonial matrix
satisfies Rohit Tandon (2018) 11 SCC 46 rigour; Non-reoffending
likelihood: Influential stature, prior co-accused flight risks, and multi-
agency probes imperil recovery/witness integrity (Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary, 2023 12 SCC 1, para 160–mandatory, non-
derogable).Compounding flight: Influential heft, key conspiratorial role,
and offence’s gravity (socio-economic carnage) demand continued
custody, per P. Chidambaram v. ED (2019) 9 SCC 24 and Udhav
Singh v. ED (2025 SCC OnLine SC 357). Bail, if granted, would
emasculate PMLA, rewarding economic predators. Thus, the prayer for
rejection stands vindicated.
XXIV. FURTHER INVESTIGATION IS VALID AND AUTHORIZED
78. The Applicant has contended that the Directorate of Enforcement
has conducted further investigation without obtaining permission of the
Special Court.- The said contention is wholly erroneous. It is submitted
that further investigation is permissible even after filing of prosecution
complaint. The Supreme Court in Anil Tuteja v Union of India, 2025
SCC OnLine SC 2110 has specifically directed the Directorate of
Enforcement to File an additional prosecution complaint after
completing further investigation. Subsequently, by order dated
30.01.2026, the Supreme Court extended time for completion of
investigation and clarified that any bail application shall be decided on
36
its own merits. Therefore the Applicant cannot challenge the legality of
further investigation. It is submitted that investigation is still in progress
and the money trail is being uncovered therfore, grant of bail at this
stage will seriously prejudice investigation.
XXV. SUPREME COURT ORDERS DO NOT SUPPORT THE
APPLICANT
79. The Applicant has attempted to rely upon orders passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in earlier proceedings. The said reliance is
misplaced. The Supreme Court has specifically clarified that bail
application shall be decided on its own merits. Therefore no inference
in favour of the Applicant can be drawn. The Supreme Court never
recorded any finding that the Applicant is not guilty, Evidence is weak,
or Arrest is illegal therefore reliance on Supreme Court orders is wholly
misconceived.
XXVI. PARITY WITH CO-ACCUSED NOT APPLICABLE
80. The Applicant has heavily relied upon the principle of parity. The
said submission is legally untenable. The Supreme Court in Tarun
Kumar v Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486
(Para 17) held that “Parity is not the law and the role of each accused
must be considered independently. Recently, the Supreme Court in
Sagar v State of U.P., 2025 INSC 1370 (Para 14) has held that Parity
cannot be the sole ground for grant of bail. It is submitted that the
Applicant’s role is far more serious than other accused persons. The
Applicant acted as Political coordinator, Supervisor of funds, Link
between syndicate and political beneficiaries.
XXVII. CO-ACCUSED BAIL GRANTS ON DISTINCT GROUNDS
37
81. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the ED that parity wholly
inapplicable because parity is a mirage herein–each co-accused
enlarged on radically different factual matrices, underscored by custody
durations and peculiarities eclipsing applicant’s mere ~2 months
incarceration.
• Trilok Singh Dhillon : bail post 9 months custody. Anwar Dhebar:
Bail post 9+ months custody.
• Arun Pati Tripathi: Bail on lack of sanction + peculiar
circumstances.
• Anil Tuteja: Bail post ~1 year custody.Arvind Singh: Bail post 10
months custody.
• Chaitanya Baghel: Bail post 5½ months custody.
• Kawasi Lakhma: Interim bail only post 1+ year custody.
The Supreme Court mandates parity only upon identical
roles/culpability (Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Makwana,
2021) 6 SCC 230; Sagar v. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 1370). Therefore
Applicant’s supervisory mastermind role obliterates equivalence to
parity may be rejected
XXVIII. APPLICANT IS KEY CONSPIRATOR, WITNESS INFLUENCE
RISK IMPERILS PROBE
82. It is next submitted that the investigation unmasks the applicant
as principal orchestrator who facilitated appointments of syndicate
operatives; coordinated entire syndicate; handled cash movement
exceeding Rs.100 crores; supervised accounts/layering and directed
intermediaries.
Unlike peripheral co-accused, he embodies Y.S. Jagan Mohan
38
Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439’s “key conspirator” archetype: “not to
be lightly released” (para 44). Witness influence menace looms:
Powerful political perch endangers drivers, middlemen, officials,
syndicate members via intimidation/tampering/concealment (P.
Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24:
“possibility of influencing witnesses” fatal to bail, para 71). PMLA
Section 45(1) twin conditions remain catastrophically unmet therefore
custody continuance is non-negotiable.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
83. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant and the
learned counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement at considerable
length. I have meticulously perused the record, including the
prosecution complaint and accompanying documents. This bail
application must be adjudicated against the stringent backdrop of
Section 45, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 mandating
satisfaction of its twin conditions, the investigation’s material corpus,
and the rival contentions advanced.
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 45 PMLA
84. It is well settled that while considering bail under the PMLA, the
Court is required to record satisfaction with regard to the twin conditions
contained in Section 45 of the Act. The Supreme Court in Vijay
Madanlal Choudhary vs Union of India, (2022) 10 SCC 386 has
upheld the constitutional validity of Section 45 and has held that the
twin conditions are mandatory. However, the said satisfaction is
required to be prima facie satisfaction and not a finding of acquittal. The
39
Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram vs Directorate of Enforcement,
(2019) 9 SCC 24 has held that while dealing with an application for bail
under the PMLA, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial and
detailed appreciation of evidence is not warranted. Having considered
the material placed on record in the light of the aforesaid principles, this
Court proceeds to examine whether the Applicant has made out a case
for grant of bail.
NATURE OF ALLEGATIONS AND EVIDENCE
85. The prosecution case against the Applicant primarily rests upon
statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA, Digital chats and
statements of co-accused and witnesses Alleged diary entries. The
Directorate of Enforcement has sought to demonstrate that the
Applicant played a supervisory role in the alleged liquor syndicate and
facilitated movement of proceeds of crime. However, at this stage, it is
neither necessary nor permissible to undertake a detailed evaluation of
the evidentiary value of the said material. The Supreme Court in
Satender Kumar Jain vs Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 6 SCC
715 has held that the material relied upon by the prosecution is required
to be tested during trial and the Court at the stage of bail is only
required to form a prima facie opinion.
86. Upon prima facie consideration, this Court finds that the case
against the Applicant is largely based on statements and inferential
allegations, the evidentiary value whereof will be examined during trial.
ARREST AFTER PROLONGED INVESTIGATION
87. It is not in dispute that the ECIR was recorded in the year 2024
40
and the Applicant came to be arrested only on 16.12.2025 after
prolonged investigation. The Applicant had appeared before the
investigating agency on several occasions. The prosecution complaint
has already been filed. The Supreme Court has consistently held that
arrest after prolonged investigation and filing of prosecution complaint is
a relevant factor for grant of bail.
CUSTODY DURATION AND TRIAL TIMELINE
88. The Applicant is in custody since 16.12.2025 (~2 months)
scarcely qualifying as “prolonged.” The prosecution complaint lists
voluminous witnesses, portending a protracted trial unlikely to conclude
imminently. While Manish Sisodia v. CBI (2023 SCC OnLine SC
1393) deems extended incarceration relevant alongside trial delays,
Applicant’s brevity circumscribes its application. Similarly, P.
Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24
guards against indefinite detention in economic offences, but only post
material custody thresholds absent here amid PMLA’s Section 45 rigour
and hence, bail remains unwarranted.
PARITY WITH CO-ACCUSED
89. This apart, several co-accused, including alleged principal
conspirators, have been enlarged on bail, a fact not disputed by the
prosecution. Parity, though not absolute, remains a salient
consideration in bail adjudication [Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v.
Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230]. Critically, the
Supreme Court, vide order dated 09.02.2026 in W.P.(Criminal)
No.18/2026, directed that:
” 3. The High Court is requested to take up both the
41matters on a priority basis and make an endeavor to
decide the same at the earliest, but not later than
two weeks. The High Court will also keep in mind
the various orders passed by this Court granting bail
to the petitioner and other co-accused.”
90. The present Applicant is entitled to the benefit of parity, inasmuch
as the alleged principal conspirators, namely Shri Dhebar, Shri Arun
Pati Tripathi, Shri Anil Tuteja and Shri Trilok Singh, have already
been enlarged on bail. The Supreme Court, vide order dated
09.02.2026 (Diary No. 18/2026), has also directed consideration of the
Applicant’s case on the touchstone of parity. The Supreme Court has
already granted bail to the Applicant in the Coal Scam as well as in the
DMF Scam, and therefore, continued detention in the present matter
would be inconsistent with the settled principle of parity. Hence, the
Applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity with
the co-accused.
This binds the instant application. This Court cannot disregard: (i)
majority of arrested co-accused on bail; (ii) principal conspirators
similarly released; (iii) remaining accused unarrested. Continued
detention of the Applicant would flout parity, warranting reconsideration.
MULTIPLE ARRESTS AND CUMULATIVE CUSTODY
91. The record discloses a troubling pattern: the Applicant faces six
arrests across multiple cases by diverse agencies (ED/CBI), entailing
considerable aggregate incarceration. Notably, the Supreme Court has
repeatedly granted bail, confirmed vide order dated 28.01.2026
upholding prior interim reliefs. This sequence of successive
apprehensions prima facie resiling from earlier releases bespeaks
42
continued incarceration warranting scrutiny. The issue engaged the
Apex Court’s attention, culminating in its directive dated 09.02.2026
mandating bail consideration. Such circumstances, indicative of
potential overreach, cannot be discountenanced in equity.
INVESTIGATION SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE
92. The prosecution complaint stands filed, marking investigation’s
culmination. No custodial interrogation of the Applicant remains
warranted, as probe materials (statements, trails) stand crystallized
sans further yield. The Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v.
Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24 emphatically holds:
“once investigation is substantially complete, continued custody is
rarely justified” (para 69)–a safeguard against indefinite pre-trial
detention, particularly post-chargesheet where recovery/tampering risks
abate (Natasha Delhi v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2020)
17 SCC 184). The Applicant’s release aligns with this principle,
trumping routine PMLA apprehensions.
POSSIBILITY OF TAMPERING
93. The apprehension of Directorate of Enforcement regarding
evidence tampering remains entirely general and devoid of particulars.
No specific material on record suggests the Applicant has attempted
witness influence or tampering. Such nebulous concerns stand
addressed through stringent bail conditions (non-contact, reporting,
GPS), as routinely imposed sans custodial predicate. Article 21
mandates liberty over speculative fears.
94. Economic offences are undoubtedly serious, constituting a class
apart warranting heightened judicial vigil [Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v.
43
CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, para 44: “Economic offences stand on a
different footing”]. Yet, this Court has consistently repudiated
seriousness alone as bail-denial grounds: P. Chidambaram v.
Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24 (para 71): “Severity of
offence cannot per se justify refusal”–balancing Article 21 liberty
against societal harm. Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51
(para 11): “Bail is rule, jail exception” endures, even in economic
crimes; gravity yields to prima facie scrutiny. Manish Sisodia v. CBI
(2023 SCC OnLine SC 1393): Prolonged detention impermissible
absent twin conditions satisfaction u/s 45 PMLA.PMLA’s rigour tempers
–but does not eclipse–bail jurisprudence. Material appraisal, not
offence labelling, governs.
SATISFACTION OF SECTION 45 PMLA TWIN CONDITIONS
95. This Court has meticulously evaluated the bail application
through the statutory prism of Section 45, Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002, weighing :
1. Material on record: Prosecution complaint sans direct attribution;
Applicant’s non-inclusion in Main Chargesheet (01.07.2024) + seven
Supplements.
2. The Role attributed: Supervisory capacity alleged, but unlinked to
specific overt acts/money trails post exhaustive probe.
3. Parity with co-accused: Parity with co-accused also weighs in
favour of the Applicant, particularly when even the principal accused
have been enlarged on bail and the Applicant has already been granted
bail by the Supreme Court in other related matters.
44
4. Investigation status: Prosecution complaint filed; custodial
interrogation concluded (P. Chidambaram v. ED, (2019) 9 SCC 24).
5. Custody period: ~2 months since 16.12.2025, insufficient for
Article 21 erosion (Manish Sisodia v. CBI, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1393).
6. Supreme Court directions: Orders dated 28.01.2026 &
09.02.2026 in Applicant’s own cases compel balanced adjudication.
First Limb – “Reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not
guilty”:The ED’s tampering fears are vague/generalized (no specific
instances of Applicant influencing witnesses). This collapses against
Completed investigation (prosecution complaint filed) and Parity matrix
(principal co-accused already on bail). No direct PMLA complicity
shown – mere supervisory role allegation insufficient at bail stage.
Second Limb – “Not likely to commit any offence while on bail” : No
flight risk evidence and there is no recidivism history. Conditions
neutralize risks: daily reporting, witness non-contact, passport
surrender, GPS if needed. Both statutory conditions are met for bail
entitlement under Section 45 PMLA. ED proves no specific threat.
Investigation is over and Co-accused have been freed. Both twin
conditions stand prima facie satisfied. Prolonged detention lacks
justification once the police investigation concludes (e.g., via charge
sheet filing), as further custody serves no investigative purpose. The
Courts must apply parity–equal treatment–where risks like tampering
or absconding are adequately mitigated by bail conditions such as
reporting, sureties, or travel bans, rather than indefinite incarceration.
45
96. Section 45(1) proviso of the PMLA provides as under:
” Provided that a person who is under the age of
16 years or is a woman or is sick or infirm (or is
accused either onhisown or along with other co-
accused of money laundering as um of less than
one crore rupees) may be released on bail, if the
special court so directs:”
In the instant case, the Applicant–a lady, bears a peripheral role
dwarfed by principal conspirators conspicuously enlarged on bail by the
Supreme Court. Notably, the respondent/ED has filed prosecution
complaints against over 40 accused, including deeply complicit excise
officials, sans arrest. Manifest parity thus enures in her favour.
97. This Court cumulatively holding that Section 45 PMLA stands
satisfied – the twin conditions are met, no reasonable grounds exist to
believe the Applicant guilty of money laundering and No material
indicates likelihood of reoffending while on bail.
CONCLUSION
98. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the material placed on
record, and the settled principles governing grant of bail under the
provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, this Court
is of the considered view that the Applicant has succeeded in making
out a case for grant of bail at this stage. This Court has taken into
consideration the nature of allegations and the material relied upon by
the prosecution; the stage of investigation and filing of prosecution
complaint;the period of custody undergone by the Applicant; the parity
46
with co-accused who have been enlarged on bail; the directions issued
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Applicant’s own case; and the fact
that the presence of the Applicant during trial can be adequately
secured by imposing suitable and stringent conditions.
99. While the allegations pertain to economic offences of serious
nature, it is equally well settled that gravity of accusation alone cannot
be the sole ground to deny bail, particularly when the investigation is
substantially complete and the trial is likely to take considerable time.
Reference in this regard may be made to P. Chidambaram vs
Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 and Satender Kumar
Antil vs CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51.
100. This Court is satisfied, at this stage, that the ends of justice would
be adequately served by enlarging the Applicant on bail subject to
stringent conditions so as to ensure her presence during trial and to
obviate any possibility of misuse of liberty. Accordingly, the present bail
application deserves to be and is hereby allowed.
101. The Applicant shall be released on bail on such stringent terms
and conditions as may be fixed by the learned Trial Court after hearing
the Directorate of Enforcement, which shall, inter alia, include:
a) The Applicant shall surrender her passport before the Trial Court, if
not already surrendered, and shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the Court. It is clarified that the observations made
hereinabove are strictly confined to the adjudication of the present bail
application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on
47the merits of the case, which shall be considered independently by the
Trial Court at the appropriate stage.
b) The Applicant shall furnish an undertaking on oath before the Trial
Court that she shall regularly and punctually appear before the Trial
Court on each and every date of hearing and shall fully cooperate in the
expeditious disposal of the trial.
c) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly attempt to contact,
influence or intimidate any witness connected with the present case.
d) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence in any manner
whatsoever.
102. In the event the Applicant is found to be non-cooperative with the
proceedings of the Trial Court or commits breach of any of the
conditions imposed, it shall be open to the Directorate of Enforcement
to move an appropriate application for cancellation of bail in accordance
with law.
103. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are strictly
confined to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not
be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case,
which shall be considered independently by the Trial Court at the
appropriate stage. Investigation remains secure; Applicant’s liberty
restored.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Digitally signed
by SUGUNA
DUBEY
SUGUNA Date:
DUBEY 2026.02.28
17:37:05
+0530