1 2025:CGHC:20805 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2548 of 2025 Order reserved on 29/04/2025 Order delivered on 06/05/2025 Sandip Fogla S/o Om Prakash Fogla Aged About 55 Years R/o Flat- 3f, City High Tower, 2nd Tower, 85, Prince Anwar Shah Road, Near Navina Cinema, Tollygunge, Kolkata-700033 ... Applicant versus Directorate Of Enforcement Through Assistant Director Raipur Zonal Office, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Mudit Jain, Advocate (through virtual mode) and Mr. Pranav Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/ED : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravind ra Kumar Agrawal C.A.V. Order 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 24.01.2025 for the offence VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.05.06 19:01:29 +0530 2 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 names 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 the ECIR No. RPZO/9/2022, which was re-numbered as ECIR No. 3 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 Vishakhapatnam 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 people. 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 number. 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 5 Rs.100/- for online betting with no maximum amount. All the games 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 kingpins of the betting empire and indulged in money laundering with their associates. In the investigation, it also came that the said panel operations were 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 6 proceeds of crime generated by the main promoters are being layered and invested in order to acquire assets abroad. Large 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. 7 *******Further investigation in the case revealed that one Mr. Harishankar Tibrewal, who is accused No. 24 in the third supplementary prosecution complaint, is also with associate of the promoters of Mahadev Online Book owned and operated one of the illegal betting website Sky-exchange. He was investing the proceeds of crime generated from the said Sky-exchange in the Indian Stock Market by way of foreign portfolio investment route. He invested a huge amount of proceeds of crime in Indian Stock Market generated from Sky-exchange with the help of Govind Kumar Kedia (A-46). During the investigation, it further revealed that Govind Kumar Kedia are also involved in the illegal operation of Sky-exchange and earned huge amount of proceeds of crime along with his associates Rupesh Kumar Singh, Pawan Marodia @ Banti, Sandeep Fogla (present applicant), Mr. Bineet Agarwal, who invested the said proceeds of crime in the Indian Share Market. During the investigation, from the digital device seized from Govind Kumar Kedia, it came that the present applicant Sandeep Fogla is having user ID “sfhkd20” and was also involved in the illegal operation of Sky-exchange. The statement of the present applicant under Section 50 of PMLA-2002 was recorded on 23.01.2025, in which he admitted that he is having said user ID of Sky-exchange and used to play illegal betting on Sky-exchange. The investigation also revealed that in the year 2020-21, the bank account of the present applicant received huge credits from the entities of his brother Sanjay Fogla. It was shown as loan taken in his balance 8 sheet, however, Sanjay Fogla admitted in his statement that the said credits are against the cash and they have fraudulently shown the same as loan in the balance sheet. In the year 2019-20, the son of the present applicant received a huge credit from M/s. Morison Traders and Development, M/s. S.L.N. Finance and Leasing Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Incent Consultants Pvt. Ltd. etc. and shown the said transaction as loan. However, the said was not the loan, but against cash paid by the present applicant. The analysis of digital data of mobile phone of son of the present applicant also established that the present applicant is involved in transaction of cash amount and he made instrumental of his son for the said transaction. Considering the evidence collected during the investigation, when it was found that the present applicant is associated with the Sky-exchange and the cash owned by Govind Kedia, he has been arrested, and fifth supplementary prosecution complaint has been filed against him. 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 24.01.2025. 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 9 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 money from it and providing the same to one of the police officers 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. All the witnesses are the official witnesses and there is no sufficient material against the applicant to proceed the case against him. *******The allegation against the present applicant is that he was associated with one Govind Kedia, who was allegedly closely connected with the betting app of Mahadev Online Book and involved in investing the proceeds of crime in stock trading. It is alleged that said Govind Kedia is managing the stock trading account of the present applicant, but there is no evidence that the present applicant is involved in stock trading with Govind Kedia. The applicant has been arrested by the ED with the allegation that Mr. Govind Kedia had received the proceeds of crime and the trading was connected with the proceeds of crime. From the prosecution complaint against the applicant, itself reveals that the total profit earned in 18 weeks i.e. from 01.08.2022 to 05.12.2022 will be Rs. 60,24,105/- and weekly income will be Rs. 3,34,672/-. The Kolkata police have registered the 10 offence on 24.09.2020 and the estimation of date of operation of Sky- exchange by Govind Kumar Kedia was taken the said date and the cut-off date was set as 24.09.2020. The Sky-exchange was operated prior to that date and therefore, the ED has estimated the total proceeds of crime earned by Govind Kedia by illegal betting operation of Sky-exchange from September 2020 to the date of such i.e. 09.09.2023 is Rs. 5.15 crores approximately and thus as per the allegation of the ED, they are having evidence with respect to the proceeds of crime of Rs. 60 lakhs. Out of Rs. 5.15 crores, the contribution of the present applicant is zero. The proviso to Section 45 of PMLA-2002 provides that if the proceeds of crime is less than Rs. 1 crore, then the case of the applicant comes under the proviso. Section 22 of the PMLA provides that if any document is being collected by the ED during the search, it is presumed to be correct. The presumption of correctness can be of Rs. 60 lakhs. Sections 23 and 24 also relate to interconnected transactions, or if charges were framed, then the presumption of alleged proceeds of crime would arise. He would also submit that Section 50 of PMLA would provide that the statement made by any person would be considered as an evidence, but it would be subject to the proof of its correctness during the trial. Neither Govind Kedia nor the present applicant has admitted in his statement, nor the ED has any statement which connects the present applicant with the proceeds of crime. The present applicant is engaged in the stock trading business having the entire documentary evidence with him regarding its correctness and no 11 connection with cash dealings with Govind Kedia. The proceeds of crime should be specific, tangible and not on the estimation. The proceeds of crime, as defined in the PMLA is the property actually been derived or obtained. The ED has recorded the statement of two witnesses, who are the accused persons- Bineet Agarwal and Pawan Marodia, but have not been arrested till date. From their statements, the kachcha trading was also disclosed, but the present applicant has never been involved in said kachcha trading. From the statement of these witnesses, the ED has presumed that the present applicant has also been engaged in kachcha trading along with them. He would also submit that till date the charges have not been framed and the investigation is still going on against the other accused persons. The similarly situated co-accused Amit Agrawal has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No. 15243 of 2024 vide its order dated 28.01.2025. Therefore, the applicant is also entitled for the same benefit as the co-accused person has 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 submit 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 12 record, the basis for reason to believe that the applicant is 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 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 submit 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 come 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 13 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 rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI and another, (2022) 10 SCC 51. 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 there are 03 ingredients of money laundering i.e. placement, layering and integration. A person can be restricted of his act, either placement or layering or integration. Either earning the crime or facilitating in layering of the proceeds of crime would come under the money laundering as under Section 3 of PMLA-2002. He would refer Section 3 of PMLA-2002. In the present case, the role of the applicant is clear that he is involved in the Sky- exchange betting platform and having the user ID, which has been given in their reply and was involved in the illegal operation of Sky- exchange. The present applicant, in his statement dated 23.01.2025, which was recorded under Section 50 of PMLA-2002, admitted that he was having said user ID of Sky-exchange betting platform and used to play illegal bets on the said Sky-exchange through Govind Kedia. From the electronic device seized from the house of Govind Kedia, the detail of the present applicant was discovered, and an Excel sheet was found, in which the name and ID of the present 14 applicant is extracted, which was extracted from the deleted items. The present applicant has admitted that he was engaged in betting operation with the said ID in Sky-exchange through Govind Kedia. He would also submit that in the year 2020-21, the bank account of present applicant received huge credits from entities of his brother Sanjay Fogla and the present applicant shown the said credits as loan taken in his balance sheet, whereas from the statement of his brother Sanjay Fogla, it is clearly revealed that it was a fraudulent transaction shown as a loan in the balance sheet. He also received various credits as loans taken from various entities, but the same is also found that the said transaction of bank entries was against the case paid by the present applicant and not the loan. He would further submit that the generation of proceeds of crime and knowingly received the same by the present applicant with the help of his friend Govind Kedia, who is involved in the illegal operation of Sky- exchange and generated the huge amount of proceeds of crime, would make him liable for the accusation in the present offence. The present applicant earned/received a huge amount of approximately Rs. 9-10 crores in cash, which is part of the proceeds of crime as defined under Section 2(1)(u) of the PMLA-2002. From his statement recorded on 23.01.2025, he clearly admitted the Excel sheet extracted from the laptop seized from the house of Govind Kedia that Govind Kedia has informed about the betting platform of Sky- exchange and he too can play online betting and he also played on Sky-exchange online betting in the year 2021-22 and the said ID 15 “skfhd20” is his own ID. He also read over the statement of Sanjay Fogla, who is the brother of the present applicant, in which he clearly admits the involvement of the present applicant in the offence. He would also submit that in the statement of the present applicant recorded on 18.12.2024, he stated that his accounts are being managed by his CA Mr. Pradeep Agrawal and his brother Sanjay Fogla, whereas in the statement made by Mr. Pradeep Agrawal dated 13.01.2024, stated that he is having no connection with the present applicant and his family. He contradicts the statement made by the present applicant. The present applicant is a close associate of Govind Kedia and failed to provide any satisfactory answer with respect to cash amount against which he took bank entries. All his trading accounts were managed by Govind Kedia and his employees, Abhishek Kedia and Anurag Kedia. The present applicant was also paying salary to another employee of Govind Kedia, i.e. Shekhar Ghosh. All the transactions clearly reveal that the present applicant is closely associated with Govind Kedia and engaged in Sky-exchange. Further, the statement of Bineet Agarwal and Pawan Marodia corroborates the involvement of the present applicant with the alleged offence. During the investigation, the mobile phone of the son of the applicant was impounded, and from the analysis of the said mobile phone and WhatsApp chat, it is clear that the son of the applicant was collecting cash amount from one Aditya Bhaiya and informing his father, i.e. the present applicant, about the same. The WhatsApp chat recovered from the mobile 16 phone of the son of the applicant clearly demonstrates that the transaction of the applicant was made through his son. 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. Having considered the sufficient material against the applicant, he was arrested on 24.01.2025 and prosecution complaint has been filed against 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. 17 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:- "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 18 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:- "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. 19 (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 23.01.2025, in which he disclosed the entire details of the transaction. From the digital device seized from Govind Kedia, the user ID of the present applicant was extracted, which proved that the applicant was involved in illegal operation of Sky-exchange. In his statement, the applicant admitted that he was having the said user ID of Sky- exchange betting platform and used to play illegal bets on Sky- exchange through Govind Kedia. From the investigation, it also reveals that the bank account of the present applicant received huge credits from various entities of his brother Sanjay Fogla, which was shown as loan, but from the statement of his brother Sanjay Fogla, it reveals that it was not the true transaction of loan, but fraudulently shown as loan in the balance sheet and was against cash provided by the present applicant. From the statement of Bineet Agarwal and Pawan Marodia also the involvement of the present applicant is disclosed. From the mobile phone of the son of the applicant, a huge transaction is detected, which also the evidence of involvement of the applicant with the offence in question. From the material collected during the investigation, the involvement of the present applicant 20 clearly appears that he knowingly engaged in receiving proceeds of crime. 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 posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 21 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 22 not acceptable that the present applicant did not know about the transactions that the amount utilized by him are not the proceeds of crime. 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. The allegation against the co-accused Amit Agrawal is different from the allegation against the present applicant and therefore, even though he has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the present applicant cannot be benefited. 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, it is found that there is sufficient evidence collected by the ED/respondent to prima facie 23 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 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- Sandeep Fogla is rejected. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved