1 2025:CGHC:49521-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 526 of 2025 Hemant Chandrakar S/o Shri K.K. Chandrakar Aged About 40 Years R/o- S/5, Phase-II, Kanchan Nagar Colony, Behind Science College, DD Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Union of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 2 - Directorate Of Enforcement Through Its Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi 3 - Joint Director Directorate Of Enforcement, Raipur Zonal Office, 2nd Floor, Subhash Stadium, Moti Bag, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Assistant Director Directorate Of Enforcement, Regional Office, 2nd Floor, Subhash Stadium, Moti Bag, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6 - Director General Of Police, Chhattisgarh Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 7 - Superintendent Of Police, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 8 - Station House Officer Police Station City Kotwali, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 9 - Neeraj Kumar Singh Deputy Director, Directorate Of Enforcement, Raipur Zonal Office, 2nd Floor, Subhash Stadium, Moti Bag, Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.C.Verma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/UoI : Mr. S.V.Raju, Additional Solicitor General, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General and Ms. Anmol Sharma, Standing Counsel. For Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4/Enforcement Directorate : Mr. Zoheb Hossain (through Video Conferencing), Advocate and Dr. Sourabh 2 Kumar Pande, Special Public Prosecutor For Respondent No. 5, 6, 7 and 8 /State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06/10/2025 1 Heard Mr. S.C.Verma, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Gagan Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.V.Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India/respondent No. 1, Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande and Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel for the respondent/Enforcement Directorate, as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. 2 The petitioner, by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks for the following relief(s): “10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ/ order directing constitution of independent judicial inquiry under the supervision of this Hon'ble Court into the incidents of custodial torture; 10.2. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus against the respondent no.1 to 3 and 9 to investigate/ record the statement of the petitioner in fair manner in the CCTV and in the presence of advocate; 10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent to cause immediate registration of FIR against the concerned ED officials and respondent no.9 for custodial violence and illegal detention; 10.4. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent no.5 and 6 to ensure protection to the petitioner against the further harassment/ intimidation by the ED officials; 3 10.5. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass any other relief(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 3 The facts, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner is a businessman and proprietor of M/s Srishti Organics which deals in fertilizer and pesticides manufacturing. The petitioner is running the said Unit since 2008 and filing the ITR since then. The petitioner is awarded various Government tenders for providing fertilizers and pesticides in this long span of business even till date under the present regime of Government, the petitioner is allotted work of supply of fertilizer and pesticides. While working with the Government, the work of the petitioner has always been found satisfactory and no adverse remark is made. 4 Mr. S.C.Verma, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that on 03.09.2025, the officials of Directorate of Enforcement (for short, the ED) conducted raid at the house of the petitioner in connection with the ECIR No. RPZO/2/2023. The petitioner was unaware about the subject matter of the said ECIR. The said fact came in the knowledge of the petitioner subsequently when notice under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, the PMLA) was served via mail dated 09.09.2025 to the petitioner for appearance before the ED office on 10.09.2025. During the said raid, nothing incriminating was found against the petitioner. The proceeding of said raid concluded late night and during the said raid the petitioner and family members were subjected to mental pressure and were abused by the officers of ED. When the raid was conducted the petitioner was compelled to switch off the CCTV camera of the house so that officers of ED could do anything as per their convenience. The petitioner was further forced to admit that the work done by the petitioner was 4 obtained by paying commission to the Ex- Chief Minister Shri Bhupesh Baghel’s associates, namely Vijay Bhatiya, Ramgopal Agrawal, Ashish Verma, Mandeep Chawla and their agents Aditya Agrawal, Shashwat Jain, Kishore Chandrakar and Satpal Singh Chhabra otherwise the entire family will roped in a false case. The respondent authorities on the said date orally directed the petitioner to submit accounting details of the M/s Shrishti Organics. The petitioner was so much harassed by the officials that the petitioner signed on some documents without even reading the same. The petitioner was threatened by the officers of ED and with a hope since nothing has been found against the petitioner or family members such inhuman behavior of the respondent ED officials will stop. However, it got aggravated day by day. 5 Mr. Verma further submits that adhering to the notice of summons issued to the petitioner through mail under Section 50 of the PMLA dated 09.09.2025, the petitioner appeared before the respondent authorities on 10.09.2025 along with the documents as sought by the officials of ED on 03.09.2025. Though the petitioner submitted details as sought by the ED however, they denied giving acknowledgement of the same. The petitioner during entire interrogation co-operated with the respondent No.9. While recording statement of the petitioner, question was asked from the petitioner who all are in the family and business. The petitioner categorically submitted about Lomendra Bais (Brother-in-law of the petitioner) who is business partner of the petitioner. The petitioner also categorically submitted that, Ramesh Bais (Ex Hon'ble Governor of the State of Maharashtra) is the Great Grandfather of the Lomendra Bais. It was further stated that, Lomendra is also relative of Narayan Chandel (Ex- Leader of opposition 2022-23) and Vijay Baghel Ex- MLA and Ex- Parliamentary Secretary. But the same was not recorded by the 5 respondent. Further, the petitioner was forced to admit that the work was done by paying commission to the Ex- Chief Ministers Bhupesh Baghel and his associates, namely Vijay Bhatiya, Ramgopal Agrawal, Ashish Verma, Mandeep Chawla and their agents Aditya Agrawal, Shashwat Jain, Kishore Chandrakar and Satpal Singh Chhabda otherwise the entire family will roped in the false case. The illegality did not stop here the petitioner was subjected to mental torture and abusive language was used against the petitioner. 6 Mr. Verma submits that the right to life and liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes right to life with dignity. The respondent authorities not only misused its power but also violated the fundamental right of the petitioner having right life with dignity. Time and again by way of various pronouncements by various Courts across the India, the ED has been directed that the statement must necessarily be recorded during early hours and not in the night. However, on 10.09.2025, the petitioner was subjected to custodial interrogation after sun-set i.e., about 8-9 p.m. which can very well be verified by CCTV footage of Zonal Office of ED. The statement of the petitioner which is recorded by the respondent No.9 and officers of ED is in piecemeal manner adopting pick and choose method as per their own convenience . The statement of petitioner is recorded in the CCTV but when the statement is not given by the petitioner as per direction of the respondent No.9 or respondent No.4, then the petitioner is taken to cabin of the respondent No.4 and 9 where the petitioner is subjected to threats and harassment. Then again statements were recorded and if the statement is not given as per the will of the officials then again the petitioner is subjected to harassment in the private cabin. While leaving from the office of the ED, the petitioner was directed to appear on 6 17.09.2025 for further recording of statement under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002. The petitioner vide its letter dated 15.09.2025 requested for giving 13 days time from appearing at the office of the ED on 17.10.2025 and requested for further date for presence of the petitioner after Dashgatra and Tehri Karma of the cousin. In the meanwhile the respondent No.4 sent mail to the petitioner on 13.09.2025 to appear personally or through authorized representative for forensic data extraction proceedings of the digital device (Samsung Galaxy S21 5G) seized from the house of the petitioner. The petitioner immediately replied the same and sought some time on account of rituals to be done at the house of the petitioner. On 22.09.2025, the petitioner received mail from the respondent No.4 for appearance on 29.09.2025 for recording of statement under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002. The petitioner adhering the notice received via mail dated 22.09.2025, appeared before the Zonal Office of the ED. During the entire interrogation the petitioner co-operated with the respondent No.9 and 4. 7 Mr. Verma submits that during the interrogation, the petitioner was again forced to admit that the work that was done by the petitioner was obtained by paying commission to the Ex- Chief Minister Shri Bhupesh Baghel and his associates, namely Vijay Bhatiya, Ramgopal Agrawal, Ashish Verma, Mandeep Chawla and their agents Aditya Agrawal, Shashwat Jain, Kishore Chandrakar and Satpal Singh Chhabda otherwise the entire family will roped in the false case and your daughter will not be able to see your face in her entire life. The illegality does not stop here the petitioner was subjected to mental torture, abusive language and physical torture. The petitioner was assaulted by the respondent No. 9 by using rod like thing over butt and legs. The petitioner was also threatened if he did not gave statement as per their 7 directions then the life of the petitioner will be made like hell. On 29.09.2025, the petitioner was released from the custody at about 8-9 p.m. from the ED Raipur Zonal Office and directed to appear before the authority on 30.09.2025. On account of the entire incident which took place on 29.09.2025, the petitioner got very much scared and for the protection of himself and family members made a detailed complaint before the Police of PS- Civil Line, Raipur and various other authorities. In the complaint, the petitioner stated that, the officers of ED are deliberately trying to harass the petitioner and his family members and are attempting to extract a statement from the petitioner illegally. The petitioner also stated that, the petitioner was physically tortured, and requested that a medical examination be conducted, an impartial investigation be conducted and appropriate legal action be taken against the concerned officers. Even the police authorities were under threat to take any action against the officers of ED therefore neither FIR/ Complaint/investigation was made nor any medical examination of the petitioner was done. The petitioner also approached various private hospitals for medical examination but when it was disclosed by the petitioner that the injuries are being caused by the officer of the ED, then nothing was don. The said incident was published in the e-page of the Danik Bhaskar e-portal. Hence, the petitioner is compelled to take shelter of this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and prefer the instant writ petition in order to protect himself and family members from being mental/ physical harassment. 8 Mr. S.V.Raju, learned Senior Advocate and Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India as well as Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, learned counsel for the respondent/ED submit that the petitioner is being interrogated and the said interrogation is also being recorded through 8 CCTV cameras and no coercive steps or third degree method is being adopted by the authorities of the ED at the time of interrogation and the same is being conducted strictly in accordance with law. As such, the prayer of the petitioner that the interrogation should be done in presence of an Advocate, has no substance. He further assures this this Court that in future, if the petitioner is required to be summoned by the ED for interrogation, the same shall be done in accordance with law without any coercion or threat. He further submits that if the petitioner has any grievance that any authorities of the ED has misbehaved, tortured or used abusive language, he may take recourse to proceedings under Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. as held by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others {(2008) 2 SCC 409}. 9 Since the learned Additional Solicitor General has already given an undertaking that the petitioner shall not be coerced or any third degree method shall not be adopted by the ED while interrogation, if summoned for recording of his statement, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. So far as registration of FIR or initiation of criminal proceedings against the authorities of the ED are concerned, the petitioner may take recourse to proceedings under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. as has been observed in Sakiri Vasu (supra) and further with regard to the prayer that the petitioner be medically examined, the petitioner may take recourse to law before the appropriate forum. 10 With the aforesaid observation and direction, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.10.06 18:54:27 +0530