Denial of Bail Unveils Misrepresentation, Strong Nexus to Money Laundering Charges by Supreme Court
TITLE: SAUMYA CHAURASIA V. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
CITATION: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3840 OF 2023 @SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 8847/2023
DECIDED ON: 14 DECEMBER 2023
CORAM: JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
Facts of the Case
Saumya Chaurasia, a government officer, faced arrest in connection with a money laundering case. Despite the rejection of her bail application by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, she appealed to the Supreme Court. The appellant contended that scheduled offences under Sections 384 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code were omitted from the chargesheet, focusing on Sections 204 and 353 of the IPC. The appellant argued that these points were brought to the High Court’s attention, though detailed arguments were allegedly not heard. An affidavit was filed, stating that relevant documents were submitted, but clarity on the chargesheet’s production was lacking. The appellant sought bail, asserting a lack of substantive evidence and no connection with the co-accused. However, the respondent-ED countered with evidence showing a strong nexus between the appellant and illicit financial transactions.
Issues Involved
Whether the scheduled offences were dropped from the charge sheet, and if so, its impact on the case. Whether the High Court erred in not considering the appellant’s arguments and documents in detail. Whether the appellant is entitled to bail due to the lack of substantive evidence and the alleged absence of a connection with the co-accused. Whether the court should exercise discretion under the first proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in granting bail to the appellant. Whether there was an attempt to misrepresent facts by the appellant. Whether the inconsistencies in the grounds and documents submitted with the SLP impact the merit of the appeal.
Legal Provisions
Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) defines money laundering. Section 4 of PMLA designates money laundering as a cognizable and non-bailable offence. Sections 384, 120-B, 204, and 353 of the Indian Penal Code are relevant to the charges against the appellant. Section 45 of PMLA provides for the conditions for grant of bail in cases of money laundering. The first proviso to Section 45 allows for bail for women accused of money laundering, subject to certain conditions.
Court’s Observation and Analysis
The Supreme Court, while dismissing the appeal, scrutinized the appellant’s conduct, emphasizing the necessity of disclosing material facts accurately. The court disapproved of the appellant’s attempt to misrepresent facts and highlighted inconsistencies in the grounds and documents presented in the Special Leave Petition (SLP). Despite dismissing the appeal on these grounds alone, the court proceeded to evaluate its merits. Addressing the appellant’s claim regarding dropped scheduled offences, the court clarified that the final determination rests with a competent court and found no merit in the argument. The court, considering the evidence presented by the respondent-ED, rejected the plea for bail, citing a strong nexus with money laundering. Moreover, the court exercised discretion under the first proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, denying bail. In light of misleading statements in the appeal, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on the appellant.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami