Bachhu Yadav vs Directorate of Enforcement Government of India Represented by its Assistant Director (PMLA) & Anr.

NON-REPORTABLE 2023INSC808 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No.7561 of 2023

Bachhu Yadav .… Petitioner(s)

Versus

Directorate of Enforcement Government of India Represented by its Assistant Director (PMLA) & Anr. …. Respondent(s)

ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated

5/21.03.2023 whereby the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in

Criminal Bail Application No.13289 of 2022 has rejected the prayer of

the petitioner for bail. It is in that light, the petitioner is before this

Court.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Nisha Khulbey Date: 2023.09.06 16:29:39 IST Reason: SLP(Crl.) No. 7561/2023 2

2. Heard Sh. Basant R., learned senior counsel for the petitioner,

Sh. S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent

and perused the petition papers.

3. The instant bail application is filed by the petitioner in respect of

the case registered in ECIR Case No. 04/2022 under Section 4 of the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’ for short). The said

case is registered against the petitioner as well as the other accused.

Insofar as the petitioner is concerned the allegation essentially is that

the petitioner has involved himself in the transportation of 1844

trucks/vehicles carrying stone chips during the period 01.06.2022 to

26.06.2022. In that regard, it is alleged that on the scrutiny of his

bank account it showed huge cash deposited, on 24.01.2022

amounting to Rs.30 lakhs. Thus, the respondents contending that the

said amount is proceeds of crime, has included the petitioner as an

accused in the instant case.

4. The learned senior counsel would contend that though the said

amount was available in his bank account, considering the period

during which the illegal activity is alleged against the petitioner, the

SLP(Crl.) No. 7561/2023 3

credit of Rs.30 lakh referred to is not during the said period but much

earlier, on 24.01.2022 and as such the said amount cannot be

classified as proceeds from crime. In that light, it is contended that the

very inclusion of the name of the petitioner as an accused is not

justified and in that light would contend that he is entitled to bail.

5. The learned Additional Solicitor General would however

vehemently oppose the grant of bail. It is contended that the petitioner

is a henchman of the main accused Pankaj Mishra who is indulging in

large-scale illegal mining and the petitioner is aiding such illegal

activities. In that regard, it is contended that the amount as indicated

to be found in the account of the petitioner is only a part of such ill-

gotten money and if the entire activities of illegal mining involving the

petitioner, led by the said Pankaj Mishra is taken into consideration

the amount would be to the extent of nearly 13 crores and as such the

arrest of the appellant is justified and his custody is required to be

continued.

6. In the light of the gist of the contentions noted above, we have

perused the petition papers, but without adverting to much details at

this stage since the basic facts required for considering an application

for bail alone is to be noted without effecting the main contentions of

SLP(Crl.) No. 7561/2023 4

the parties to be put forth during trial. The basic allegation as made

against the petitioner as noted is regarding the illegal activity during

the period 01.06.2022 to 26.06.2022. Though the learned Additional

Solicitor General with reference to the objection statement wherein

details of the FIR filed in three other cases is referred to indicate the

illegal activities in which the petitioner is involved, it is needless to

mention that in the said cases the proceedings in any event would be

taken against the petitioner to its logical conclusion.

7. In that background, keeping in view the allegation against the

petitioner is of possessing the amount of Rs.30 lakh in his bank

account, apart from the fact that the very allegation is that the said

amount was deposited on 24.01.2022 which is prior to the period of

illegal activity alleged, for the present there is an explanation as put

forth by the petitioner during the course of investigation in answer to

the specific question on being confronted with the account details in

Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Bhagiamari Branch. The explanation is that

the amount was deposited by him in respect of the transaction for

purchase of house with land in Asansol for Rs.26 lakhs. It is further

stated that the sum of Rs.26,00,024/- was transferred through NEFT

to one Munmun Maji and it is stated that the said amount was the

SLP(Crl.) No. 7561/2023 5

sale consideration for the property. To enable transfer of the same, it

had been deposited in the bank account. At the point of hearing this

petition, it was stated across the bar that the sale has also been

registered. Be that as it may, these are aspects which, in any event,

would be looked at during the course of the trial.

8. Further, though the learned Additional Solicitor General has

contended that the bail application filed by the main accused Pankaj

Mishra has been dismissed by this Court on 26.04.2023 in Special

Leave Petition (Criminal) No.4682 of 2023, it is seen that the

application filed has in fact been withdrawn with liberty to file an

application for interim bail on medical ground and also to file afresh

bail application after six months. Be that as it may, in the instant

facts, the nature of the allegation in the present proceedings has been

taken note. In that circumstance, it is seen that the petitioner was

arrested on 05.08.2022 and he has spent a little over one year of

incarceration. The chargesheet is filed and the Trial Court having

framed the charges, no doubt has started the trial and it is stated

across the bar that five witnesses have been examined but it is also

stated that in all 42 witnesses are cited to be examined. In that

circumstance, taking into consideration all aspects of the matter and

SLP(Crl.) No. 7561/2023 6

also making it subject to the condition that the petitioner shall

diligently participate in the trial without interfering in the course of

justice and also complying with the other appropriate conditions to be

imposed by the trial court, the prayer is accepted.

9. Hence, we direct that the petitioner be enlarged on bail subject to

appropriate conditions being imposed by the trial court and the

petitioner diligently adhering to such conditions, as also not being

required in any other case. For the purpose of imposition of such

conditions and issue of release order the petitioner shall be produced

forthwith before the trial court. The petition is disposed of, in the

above terms.

10. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

………………...…………………….J. (A.S. BOPANNA)

..………………….…………………J. (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)

New Delhi, September 06, 2023

SLP(Crl.) No. 7561/2023 7

(NON-REPORTABLE ORDER)

ITEM NO.1501 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 7561/2023

(Arising out of impugned final judgment & order dated 5/21-03-2023 in BA No. 13289/2022 passed by the High Court Of Jharkhand At Ranchi)

BACHHU YADAV Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR(PMLA) & ANR.Respondent(s)

(IA No. 118882/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

Date : 06-09-2023 These matters were called on for pronouncement of non-reportable Order today.

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Basant R. Sr. Adv. Mr. Prem Prakash, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhijit Bhatnagar, Adv. Ms. Aishvarya, Adv. Ms. Deepali Nanda, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. S.V. Raju, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.

Mr. Vishnu Sharma, Adv. Ms. Madhusmita Bora, AOR Mr. Dipankar Singh, Adv. Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amar Jyoti Sharma, Adv.

SLP(Crl.) No. 7561/2023 8

Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna pronounced the non-

reportable ORDER of the Bench comprising His Lordship and

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

The operative part of the order reads as hereunder;

“We direct that the petitioner be enlarged on bail subject to appropriate conditions being imposed by the trial court and the petitioner diligently adhering to such conditions, as also not being required in any other case. For the purpose of imposition of such conditions and issue of release order the petitioner shall be produced forthwith before the trial court.”

The petition is disposed of in terms of the signed

order. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

(NISHA KHULBEY) (DIPTI KHURANA) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

(Signed non-reportable order is placed on the file)

SLP(Crl.) No. 7561/2023