1 2025:CGHC:3250 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 6787 of 2024 Order reserved on 11/11/2024 Order delivered on 17/01/2025 Satish Chandrakar S/o Shri Govardhan Chandrakar R/o Flat No. 604, A Block, Wallfort Heights, Bhatagaon, Raipur Chhattisgarh (Currently In Judicial Custody At Raipur Central Jail) ... Applicant versus Directorate of Enforcement, Government Of India, Represented Through Assistant Director, Raipur Zonal Office, A-1 Block, 2nd Floor, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Gagan Tiwari and Ms. Ritika Dubey, Advocates For Respondent/ED : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravind ra Kumar Agrawal C.A.V. Order Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN 2 1. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested on 22.08.2023 for the offence under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “PMLA-2002”), in ECIR No. RPZO/10/2022, registered by the Enforcement Directorate, Raipur (for short “ED”). 2. The prosecution’s case is that an FIR of Crime No. 112 of 2022, registered on 29.07.2022 at Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg, Chhattisgarh under Section 4-A of the Public Gambling (CG Amendment) Act, 1976 and Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC and Section 66-D of Information Technology Act, 2000, which was registered against five accused persons, namely Alok Singh Rajput, Ram Pravesh Sahu, Kharag @ Raja Singh, Abhishek and Pintu. The ED had registered the Enforcement Case Information Report (for short ‘ECIR’) No. RPZO/10/2022. On the secrete information gathered by the officers of ED, the raid was conducted on the premises of other accused persons, in which it was found a set with laptop and they were collecting money by creating online IDs and through the said IDs they were placing bets for others through Mahadev book, on online Cricket matches, Horse racing, Greyhound racing and Kabaddi, etc. Upon interrogation, the accused persons disclosed the name of two persons, namely, Abhishek and Pintu, who taught them the procedure of creating the IDs and placing bets in various sports through the Mahadev book. Initially, treating the FIR No. 112 of 2022 (Final Report No. 157/2022) of P.S. Mohan Nagar, Durg as Scheduled/Predicate Offence, the respondent/ED registered 3 the ECIR No. RPZO/9/2022, which was re-numbered as ECIR No. RPZO/10/2022 vide corrigendum dated 07.11.2022 issued by the ED. *******In the said ECIR, FIR No. 206/2023 dated 02.06.2023 registered at P.S. Cyber Crime Vishakhapattanam Commissionerate, Andhra Pradesh, FIR No. 37/2023 registered at P.S. Bhilai Bhatti, District Durg (C.G.), FIR No. 86/2023 dated 27.02.2023 registered at P.S. Chhawani, District Durg (C.G.), FIR No. 336/2023 dated 10.08.2023 registered at P.S. Gudhiyari, District Raipur (C.G.), FIR No. 685/2023 dated 11.08.2023 registered at P.S. Khamtarai, District Raipur (C.G.), FIR No. 6/2024 dated 04.03.2024 registered at EOW, Raipur (C.G.) and FIR No. 206/2020 dated 24.09.2020 registered at P.S. Burtola, Kolkata, West Bengal, have been included in the said ECIR. *******On 20.10.2023, the ED filed its first prosecution complaint against 14 accused persons, alleging that the online gambling app in the name of Mahadev Online Book is established for illegal betting in different live games like; poker, card games, chance games, betting on cricket, badminton, tennis, football, etc. and also to provide facility for playing several card games like; teen patti, dragon tiger, virtual cricket games using cards, etc. It is also alleged that the Mahadev Online Book advertised about these betting websites through closed WhatsApp groups and Facebook pages. *******During the investigation conducted by the ED, it comes in the investigation that the promoters of the Mahadev Online Book, namely 4 Sourabh Chandrakar and Ravi Uppal, were running the said illegal betting app through online mode and the tentacles of the online betting app have been spread wide enough and the promoters created a system of franchising the panels for illegal online betting app within the Indian territory as well as at abroad. The betting app is operated by various panel/branches, which are sold in a small franchise by the promoters Sourabh Chandrakar and Ravi Uppal through their associates. An elaborate system to receive incoming money from the betting user and also to pay them back as winning amount has been created in a well planned manner. They created a system that the betting user cannot directly pay money on the website and they need to contact on WhatsApp and deposit money into bank accounts in India, which have been obtained by the panel operators/promoters by way of deceiving and cheating the peoples. All centres will tag him with a panel, which will share the bank account details and create the user ID, allocate points/tokens etc. The promoters keep nearly 70-75% of the profit of the panel operations. A panel has an owner and workers who are usually four in numbers. One person can own multiple panels and there was no bar on number of panels being operated by one person. The head office is at Dubai who creates ID and password for the panel owners. The panel operator using the IDs can further create sub-IDs for player/punters. The IDs are generally created on multiple websites as depicted on the app of Mahadev online book. After receiving the details of panel, the players/punters deposit the minimum amount of Rs.100/- for online betting with no maximum amount. All the games 5 are rigged in a manner that overall, the panel owners will not lose money. During the investigation, multiple panel operators were raided, who were working under the Mahadev online book and it came on record that the said betting syndicate was generating proceeds of crime worth Rs. 450 crores per month through the panel operations. It also came in the investigation that Sourabh Chandrakar and Ravi Uppal in the entire investigation to be the kingpin of the betting empire and indulge in money laundering with their associates. In the investigation, it also come that the said panel operations was running with active support and connivance of local police and politicians and after receiving illegal gratification, they supported the said illegal betting racket by closing their eyes. It also come that one ASI Chandrabhushan Verma who acted as Liaisoner for the Mahadev online book promoters with political executives of the Chhattisgarh State, who negotiated between them. He was collecting Hawala payments made available by the promoters of Mahadev book and distributing the same to the bureaucrats/politicians for ensuring smooth operations of the illegal betting websites. The funds have moved in and out of India to Dubai through various channels. Involvement of a number of persons were found during the investigation including the persons who engaged in layering the proceeds of crime. *******The ED, during the investigation also caught hold the Hawala kings namely Anil Kumar Dammani and Sunil Kumar Dammani. The proceeds of crime generated by the main promoters are being layered and invested in order to acquire assets abroad. Large 6 expenditure in cash is also being done in India for advertising the betting websites to attract new users and franchises. During the investigation, raids/searches were conducted at various places through which the associates of promoters of Mahadev online book, individuals associated with them, event organizers, panel operators working on commission basis for Mahadev online book, family of the promoters of Mahadev online book, Hawala operators. A huge amount was seized and frozen during the searches. *******During the investigation, it is also unveiled that ASI Chandrabhushan Verma was having role of Chief Liaisoner for Mahadev betting app in Chhattisgarh, Satish Chandrakar was operating Mahadev panel and distributing funds at the behest of Ravi Uppal, Anil Dammani and Sunil Dammani were knowingly distributing funds for Mahadev betting app, Bheem Singh and Aseem Das were involved in delivery of the Liaisoning money, Nitin Tibrewal was engaged in layering the proceeds of crime through his foreign entities and generation of illegal betting earning through sky exchange, Amit Agrawal for layering the betting earning in land transaction and Nitish Deewan for being involved in the betting operations and assisting the main promoters of Mahadev online book in their money laundering activities. *******The allegation against the applicant is that he owned 04 panels of Mahadev Online Book and receiving 5% of the total profits of these panels out of illegal betting proceeds. It is also alleged that the applicant has provided instances of the illegal money delivered to 7 corrupt officials on the instruction of Chandrabhushan Verma for not taking any action against Mahadev Book. On 01.01.2024 the ED has filed its first supplementary prosecution complaint before the learned trial Court and on 11.03.2024 the second supplementary prosecution complaint has been filed. Further, on 30.04.2024 the third supplementary prosecution complaint has been filed by the ED before the learned trial Court. *******It is also the allegation against the present applicant that he earned about Rs.2.5 crores from 04 panels which is the 20% of the profit amount and he was in constant touch with Ravi Uppal, who is the owner and perpetrator of Mahadev Book App. The applicant is actively involved in money laundering having been touch with bureaucrats to run the Mahadev Online Book without any objection. Thus, the applicant committed the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of PMLA-2002, which is punishable under Section 4 of PMLA-2002 against whom the prosecution complaint has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is in jail since 22.08.2023. The investigating agency has acted in most arbitrary manner and the same is ill-motivated and mala fide intention to rope the applicant on the whims of investigating officer. The applicant is not an accused in the scheduled/predicate offence, he is not associated with any other person related with the business of Mahadev Book. Initially the applicant has been arrested on the ground that he is operating a panel of Mahadev Book and receiving 8 money from it and providing the same to one of the police officer to protect the Mahadev Book. The applicant has been implicated in the offence on the basis of his own statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA-2002, which is not admissible against him and there is no evidence in the entire prosecution complaint, which gives reason to believe that he is guilty in the offence of money laundering and the parameters were not fulfilled for his arrest in the alleged offence. He would also submit that the applicant has retracted from his statement on 12.12.2023. All the witnesses are the official witnesses and there is no sufficient material against the applicant to proceed the case against him. *******He would further submit that the similarly situated co-accused Sunil Dammani has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03.10.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4108 of 2024 on the grounds that said applicant being a Hawala operator assisted the other accused persons in transferring the proceeds of crime and further taking note of the fact that the prosecution intends to examine almost 98 witnesses and further that the investigation against the said accused Sunil Dammani is complete and complaint has also been filed, he was released on bail. The case of the present applicant is not different than the case of Sunil Dammani. Another co- accused Bheem Singh Yadav have also granted bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 25.10.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4407 of 2024 considering the role ascribed to the accused Bheem Singh Yadav as well as Sunil Dammani and that the co- accused Sunil Dammani has been granted bail vide its order dated 9 03.10.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 4108 of 2024, the co- accused Bheem Singh Yadav was also granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He would also submit that another co-accused Anil Dammani was also granted bail by co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 23.10.2024, passed in MCRC No. 7054 of 2024 as his case was also similar to the case of Sunil Dammani. He would further submit that in the case of the present applicant also, there are 98 witnesses are to be examined and till date even the charges have not been framed and the investigation against the other accused persons are still continuing and there is every possibility of delay in trial of the case. Therefore, the applicant is also entitled for the same benefit as the co-accused persons have been granted and he may also be released on bail. *******He would further submit that in case of Prem Prakash v. Union of India, Through the Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl.) No. 5416 of 2024, reported in 2024 Live Law SC 617, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the statement recorded under Section 50 of PMLA to the same investigating agency is inadmissible against the maker. He would also submits that except the statement of Section 50 of the PMLA-2002 of the applicant there is no other evidence against him. The ED has based its case on electronic record, the basis for reason to believe that the applicant involved in money laundering and utilized the proceeds of crime, but the provisions of the Evidence Act with respect to the electronic evidence has not been complied with, therefore the same is also inadmissible in evidence. He would also rely upon the judgment passed by the 10 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929. *******Learned counsel for the applicant would further submits that the ED is required to prove the proceeds of crime from the scheduled offence is generated and the applicant is directly or indirectly involved in the illegal activities connected with the said proceeds of crime. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal No. 2779 of 2023) submitted that every crime which may generate proceeds of crime need not be a scheduled offence. The offence under Section 120-B of IPC included in part A of the schedule will become a scheduled offence only if the criminal conspiracy is to be commit any offence already included in parts A, B or C of the schedule, which is lacking in the present case. The proceeds of crime is defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA-2002 and the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA-2002 comes into play only when the proceeds of crime comes into existence. The consideration of a statement under Section 50 of the PMLA-2002 is a subject matter of trial and cannot be tested at the stage of bail, which can be meticulously appreciated during the trial. The applicant is in jail since 22.08.2023 and till date even the charges have not been framed therefore there is every possibility of delay in trial. The long period of his incarceration and in view of the violation of his fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the applicant is entitled for release on bail. He would also relied 11 upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51. *******In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Prem Prakash v. Union of India, SLP (Crl) No. 5416 of 2024 (SC), order dated 28.08.2024, Hemant Soren v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC Online (Jhar.) 2042, Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl.) No. 8781 of 2024 (SC), order dated 09.08.2024, V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Appeal No. 4011/2024 (SC), order dated 26.09.2024, Anil Dammani v. Directorate of Enforcement, MCRC No. 7054/2024 (CG High Court), order dated 23.10.2024, Bhim Singh Yadav v. Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Appeal No. 4407/2024 (SC), order dated 25.10.2024, Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai and others, (2009) 8 SCC 617, Ramesh Manglani v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC Online Delhi 3234, Mariam Fasihuddin and another v. State by Adugodi Police Station and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 58, Ashish Mittal v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, 2023 SCC Online Delhi, 2484, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 797. He would also relied upon the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunil Dammani v. Directorate of Enforcement, Criminal Appeal No. 4108 of 2024 and Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, order dated 12.07.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 12 2493 of 2024. The applicant is permanent resident of Raipur and there is no chance of his absconding. He is ready to furnish adequate surety and will abide by all the conditions and directions, which may be imposed by this Court while granting bail. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ED has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the present applicant Satish Chandrakar was in constant touch with Ravi Uppal, who is the main perpetrator of Mahadev Book App and running the operations of the App and payments made as liaisoning money. The investigation reveals that the present applicant owns 04 panels of Mahadev Book, which are being handled by others on behalf of the applicant and he receiving 5% of the total profits of these panels out of illegal betting proceeds, which is the proceeds of crime emanating through the illegal betting app Mahadev Book. The amount obtained from the illegal betting app is also delivered to corrupt officials of the State for not taking any action against the Mahadev Book and its owners. In his statement recorded under Section 50 of PMLA-2002 on 22.08.2023, he himself has admitted that the instances of illegal money transactions to the corrupt officials of the State on the instructions of Chandrabhushan Verma. The present applicant was fully aware about the betting operations through Mahadev Book are illegal. Despite knowing the same, he willingly involved himself in the activities of money laundering and thus committed the offence as defined under Section 3 of PMLA-2002, which is punishable under Section 4 of PMLA-2002. 13 Having considered the sufficient material against the applicant he was arrested on 22.08.2023 and prosecution complaint has been filed on 20.10.2023 against him. He would also submit that retracting from the statement by the applicant is highly belated, which does not benefited him. There is sufficient material to draw a conclusion that he is guilty of the offence and therefore he is not entitled for bail. *******In support of his contention, he also relied upon the judgement of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929, Pawana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal No. 2779 of 2023), Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and others, (1987) 2 SCC 364 and submitted that mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offence cannot be a ground to grant bail. He would also submit that observing the economic offence is committed with deliberate design, with an eye on personal profit, regardless to the consequence to the community, which will damage to the national economy and national interest, and therefore the applicant is not entitled for bail and his bail application is liable to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed in the present case by both the parties. 6. For consideration of the bail application under PMLA, 2002 the Court need not go deep inside the merits of the case but should consider the prima facie material against the accused in the case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case (supra) has observed in para 401 of its judgment that:- 14 "401. We are in agreement with the observation made by the Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma [(2005) 5 SCC 294). The Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the Court based on available material on record is required. The Court will not weigh the evidence to find the guilt of the accused which is, of course, the work of Trial Court. The Court is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material collected during the investigation and the said view will not be taken into consideration by the Trial Court in recording its finding of the guilt or acquittal during trial which is based on the evidence adduced during the trial. As explained by this Court in Nimmagadda Prasad [(2013) 7 SCC 466], the words used in Section 45 of the 2002 Act are "reasonable grounds for believing" which means the Court has to see only if there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt." 7. In the case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2007) 11 SCC 195, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "at the stage of granting of bail, the Court can only go into the question of prima facie case established for granting bail, it cannot go into the question of credibility and reliability of witnesses put up by the prosecution. The question of credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses can only be tested during trial." 8. The Delhi High Court in its order dated 07.03.2024 passed in Bail Application No. 3807/2022 (Sanjay Jain Vs. Enforcement Directorate) after relying upon the observations made in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (Supra) has observed in para 49 that:- 15 "49. It thus, emerges that at the stage of considering a bail application under the PMLA, the Court has to bear in mind the following aspects: (i) Whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea. (ii) The words used in Section 45 of the 2002 Act are "reasonable grounds for believing" which means the Court has to see only if there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. (iii) A positive finding that the accused had not committed an offence under the Act is not required to be recorded. A delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal/conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of the trial is to be maintained. (iv) The evidence is not to be weighed meticulously but a finding is to be arrived at on the basis of broad probabilities with reference to the material collected during investigation. The weighing of evidence to find the guilt of the accused is the work of Trial Court. (v) A finding is also required to be recorded as to the possibility of the bail applicant committing a crime after grant of bail. This aspect has to be considered having regard to the antecedents of the accused, his propensities and the nature and manner in which he is alleged to have committed the offence." 9. In the present case, the applicant was interrogated on 22.08.2023, in which he disclosed the entire details of the transaction and running of the Mahadev Book Online App and its business. He also disclosed in the statement about giving of illegal amount to bureaucrats to the State for not to take any action against Mahadev App. From the 16 material collected during the investigation, the involvement of the present applicant clearly appears that he knowingly engaged in receiving proceeds of crime. He was also having deeply routed with the promoters of Mahadev Book namely Ravi Uppal and others who are promoters of Mahadev Book. 10. The proceeds of crime have been defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA-2002, which reads as under: "2(1)(u)- "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property, or where such property is taken or held outside the country, then the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad; Explanation:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "proceeds of crime" including property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence." 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. CBI, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 has held in para 34 and 35 of its judgment that "34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep- rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby 17 posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. 12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) has observed in para 398 as under :- "398. Thus, it is well settled by the various decisions of this Court and policy of the State as also the view of international community that the offence of money-laundering is committed by an individual with a deliberate design with the motive to enhance his gains, disregarding the interests of nation and society as a whole and which by no stretch of imagination can be termed as offence of trivial nature. Thus, it is in the interest of the State that law enforcement agencies should be provided with a proportionate effective mechanism so as to deal with these types of offences as the wealth of the nation is to be safeguarded from these dreaded criminals. As discussed above, the conspiracy of money-laundering, which is a three-staged process, is hatched in secrecy and executed in darkness, thus, it becomes imperative for the State to frame such a stringent law, which not only punishes the offender proportionately, but also helps in preventing the offence and creating a deterrent effect." 13. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and also from the material produced in the present case, it is 18 not acceptable that the present applicant did not know about the transactions that the amount utilized by him not comes from Mahadev online book. Denial by the accused itself is not sufficient to consider prima facie that there is no mens rea of the applicant for the said offence under the PMLA-2002. 14. Considering the nature of allegation against the present applicant and also the material collected during the investigation and further the gravity of the offence, the benefit of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicant cannot be extended to him for releasing him on bail at this stage, as the facts and circumstances of the present case and the allegation against the applicant is different than the facts and circumstances of the cases cited by learned counsel for the applicant. Further, the role of the present applicant in the offence in question is distinguishable from the case of other accused persons, who have been granted bail. 15. As has been discussed hereinabove, it cannot be said that there is no involvement of the applicant in the offence in question. Considering the role of the applicant in the ensuing money laundering case of proceeds of crime in the Mahadev Book App, it is found that there is sufficient evidence collected by the ED/respondent to prima facie show the involvement of the applicant in the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002. It is an organized crime having various facets of its complexion, therefore, further considering the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 this Court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground for 19 believing that the applicant is involved in the offence and he is likely to commit any other offence while on bail, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail. 16. Consequently, the present bail application filed by the applicant- Satish Chandrakar is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved