Bachhu Yadav Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Supreme Court of India)
Summary: The Supreme Court of India granted regular bail to Bachhu Yadav in a money-laundering case arising from allegations of illegal stone mining and transportation in Jharkhand. The petitioner challenged the order dated 5/21 March 2023 passed by the Jharkhand High Court in Criminal Bail Application No. 13289 of 2022, rejecting his bail application. The Enforcement Directorate alleged that the petitioner was involved in transporting 1,844 trucks or vehicles carrying stone chips between 1 June 2022 and 26 June 2022 and that ₹30 lakh deposited in his bank account represented proceeds of crime. The prosecution further alleged that he was associated with the principal accused, Pankaj Mishra, in large-scale illegal mining activities generating substantial unlawful proceeds.
The petitioner submitted that the ₹30 lakh cash deposit was made on 24 January 2022, several months before the alleged transportation activities. He argued that the amount could not be treated as proceeds generated from the specific activities attributed to him during June 2022. The petitioner also explained during the investigation that the money had been deposited in connection with the purchase of a house and land in Asansol for ₹26 lakh. According to his explanation, ₹26,00,024 was transferred through NEFT to Munmun Maji towards the property transaction. The petitioner disputed the allegations connecting him with the alleged illegal mining operations.
The Enforcement Directorate opposed bail, alleging that the petitioner was closely associated with Pankaj Mishra and participated in illegal mining, transportation and collection activities. It contended that the ₹30 lakh deposit represented only part of the proceeds of crime and that the wider illegal mining operations involved amounts approaching ₹13 crore. Before the High Court, the Directorate had also relied upon the petitioner’s alleged criminal antecedents, the statutory burden under Section 24 of the PMLA and judicial precedents concerning the seriousness of economic offences. The Jharkhand High Court had rejected bail after considering the allegations, material on record and criminal antecedents.
The Supreme Court examined the circumstances specifically relevant to the bail application without expressing any final opinion on the disputed allegations. It observed that the ₹30 lakh deposit preceded the period of illegal activity specifically attributed to the petitioner. The Court also took note of his explanation concerning the property transaction, while expressly leaving the factual correctness of that explanation for examination during trial. Regarding the other criminal cases referred to by the Enforcement Directorate, the Court observed that those proceedings would independently be taken to their logical conclusion.
The Supreme Court further noted that the petitioner had been arrested on 5 August 2022 and had already undergone a little over one year of incarceration. Although the chargesheet had been filed, charges framed and five witnesses reportedly examined, the prosecution had cited 42 witnesses in total. The Court also clarified that the earlier bail application of co-accused Pankaj Mishra had been withdrawn with liberty to seek interim bail on medical grounds and to apply afresh after six months, rather than having been dismissed on merits as suggested during arguments.
Considering the nature of the allegations, the timing of the bank deposit, the petitioner’s explanation, the period of incarceration and the progress of trial, the Supreme Court allowed the bail application. It directed that Bachhu Yadav be released on bail subject to appropriate conditions imposed by the trial court, diligent participation in the proceedings, non-interference with the administration of justice and his not being required in any other case. The Court directed his immediate production before the trial court for imposing conditions and issuing the release order. The decision was confined to bail and did not determine the petitioner’s guilt or the final character of the disputed funds.
Read Jharkhand High Court Judgment in this case: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Bail in PMLA Illegal Mining Case Involving Rs. 30 Lakh Deposit
Cases Discussed
1. Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary Vs Union of India — 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 (Supreme Court): Relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate before the Jharkhand High Court regarding the burden of proof under Section 24 of the PMLA. The supplied Supreme Court bail order did not independently decide that question.
2. Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs Central Bureau of Investigation — (2013) 7 SCC 439 (Supreme Court): Cited by the Enforcement Directorate before the High Court for the proposition that economic offences require a different approach in bail matters.
The supplied material also refers to Sayyed Nasar Vs Union of India & Ors., an NGT proceeding concerning illegal mining in Sahibganj, including an order dated 23 September 2020. Its complete case citation is not provided.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/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.
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 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 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 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 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.
(A.S. BOPANNA), J. (PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA), J.
New Delhi, September 06, 2023
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS (as appended to PDF)
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.
