Chattisgarh High Court
Asim Das vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 11 March, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:12197
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 913 of 2025
Order reserved on 05/03/2025
Order delivered on 11/03/2025
Asim Das S/o Shri Shushil Das Aged About 41 Years R/o House No. 15/17
Ward No. 16 Insustrial Area Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.).
... Applicant
versus
Directorate Of Enforcement Government Of India, Represented By Its
Assistant Director, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Raipur Zonal Office A-1 Block 2nd
Floor, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Applicant : Mr. Uttam Pandey, Advocate along with
Ms. Pooja Sinha, Advocate
For Respondent/ED : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra 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 03.11.2023 for the offence under
Digitally signed
by VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for
2
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 name 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. 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,
3
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
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
4
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 peoples. 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 numbers. 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 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
5
be the kingpin of the betting empire and indulge in money laundering
with their associates. In the investigation, it also come that the said
panel operations was 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.
*******During the investigation, the ED came to know that the present
applicant is engaged in handling the illegal funds generated from the
promoters of Mahadev Online Book. On 02.11.2023, the present
applicant had come to Raipur from Dubai on the instructions of Mr.
Subham Soni @ Pintu for delivery of cash amount emanating from the
betting operations. When he stayed at Hotel Triton at Raipur a search
was conducted on 02.11.2023 and in the car which was in his
possession, the cash amount of Rs. 3,11,70,000/- have been seized
and from the search of his residential house at Bhilai (C.G.), cash
amount of Rs. 2,27,47,500/- have been seized from him. It also
reveals that previously also the applicant travelled to Dubai on the
6
instructions of Shubham Soni @ Pintu and all the expenses were
incurred out of the betting proceeds. While replying the summons
under Section 50 issued to Subham Soni @ Pintu, he replied through
e-mail that the present applicant is his Liaisoner with the politicians
and bureaucrats in the State of Chhattisgarh and from the mobile
phones of the applicant, the relevant data and call details have been
recovered, which connects him with the other accused persons.
Seizure of Rs. 5.39 Crores from the present applicant itself evident
that he was managing the illegal funds derived from Mahadev Book
and it was the proceeds of crime intended for delivery under the
instructions of Shubham Soni @ Pintu and he knowingly possessed
and managed the proceeds of crime and thus, considering his prima
facie involvement in the offence in question, he has been arrested on
03.11.2023 and presently in judicial custody, in which he is claiming
regular bail.
The applicant is actively involved in money laundering having been
touch with bureaucrats to run the Mahadev Online Book without any
objection. 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 there is no
evidence in the prosecution complaint that the applicant had travelled
from Dubai to Raipur just before when he was arrested. He is neither
the owner of the car from which the cash amount of Rs. 3,11,00,000/-
have been seized nor he was the occupant of the said car, when the
7
amount was seized. He was also not there in his house, when the
amount of Rs. 2,27,00,000/- is said to have been seized by the ED.
The source of such a huge amount has also not been investigated by
the ED. There is no connection with the other accused person either
physically or telephonically. The applicant is in jail since 03.11.2023
and till date there is no information about the trial as to when it will
commence. There are number of witnesses cited by the prosecution in
the prosecution complaint, which may take years together to be
examined. Till date, even the charges have not been framed against
the applicant and although the prosecution complaint has been filed
against the present applicant, but the investigation is still continued.
He would also submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated
the pre-trial detention and speedy trial is the fundamental right of the
accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He
would rely upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the matter of “Prem Prakash v. Union of India, through the
Directorate of Enforcement” 2024 (9) SCC 787 and “Tapas Kumar
Palit v. State of Chhattisgarh” 2025 SCC Online SC 322 and has
submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
allegation against the present applicant and also his long detention
period, he may be released on bail.
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 the present applicant Asim Das was in
constant touch with Subham Soni @ Pintu, who is one of the main
perpetrator of Mahadev Book App and running the operations of the
8
App and payments made as liaisoning money. On 02.11.2023, he
came to Raipur from Dubai under the instructions of Subham Soni @
Pintu and stayed at Hotel Triton at Raipur. From the car, in which he
was traveling and came to hotel at Raipur, a huge cash amount of Rs.
3,11,70,000/- was seized. When the ED searched his residential
house at Bhilai (C.G.), cash of Rs. 2,27,47,500/- have also been
seized. Subham Soni @ Pintu, in his e-mail submission against the
summon dated 26.10.2023 under Section 50 of PMLA-2002 has
stated that the present applicant has acted as his liaisoner with the
politicians in the State of Chhattisgarh. The voice messages from
Subham Soni have been retrieved from the mobile phone seized from
the present applicant and the voice recording clearly reveals that the
present applicant was directed to go to Raipur to supply cash amount
and thus, the present applicant is fully aware about the betting
operations generated from Mahadev Book and the same is the
proceeds of crime. Despite that he willingly and knowingly involved in
the said illegal activities related to money laundering. The seizure of
Rs. 5.39 Crores cash amount itself shows that he was managing the
illegal funds derived from the Mahadev Online Book. There is
sufficient evidence that he closely connected with Subham Soni @
Pintu, who is one of the main perpetrators of the offence and thus in
lieu of his involvement in the offence of money laundering as defined
under Section 3 of PMLA-2002, he was arrested by ED on
03.11.2023, 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
9
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.
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
10reasonable 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
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:
11
(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.
(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 matter of “State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar” 2017 (13) SCC 751,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:
12
“11… Although “bail is the rule and jail is an exception”
is well established in our jurisprudence, we have to
measure competing forces present in facts and
circumstances of each case before enlarging a person
on bail.
13…It is well settled that socio-economic offences
constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a
different approach in the matter of bail. Usually socio-
economic offence has deeprooted conspiracies
affecting the moral fibre of the society and causing
irreparable harm, needs to be considered seriously.
14. Further, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the
investigating agency is going to file additional charge-
sheet. Therefore, the respondent’s presence in the
custody may be necessary for further investigation.”
10. In the present case, from the possession of the applicant, a huge cash
amount of Rs. 5.39 Crores have been seized for which he has not
given any explanation to the ED, rather the investigation reveals that
he is closely related with Subham Soni @ Pintu. He visited Dubai a
number of times on the instructions of said Subham Soni @ Pintu,
who is one of the main perpetrators of the crime. On his reply, it has
been stated that the present applicant is a liaisoner with the politicians
in the State of Chhattisgarh. Just before the seizure of cash amount
from him, he traveled from Dubai to Raipur and when he had gone to
the Hotel Triton to deliver the cash amount to a particular politician, he
has been caught by the ED. From his mobile phone, the relevant
datas have been extracted, which clearly demonstrated the
connection with the present applicant with the persons, who running
13
the Mahadev Online Book and the applicant knowingly and willingly
engaged himself in layering of the proceeds of crime.
11. 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.”
12. 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.
14
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.
13. 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
15offender proportionately, but also helps in
preventing the offence and creating a deterrent
effect.”
14. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective
parties and also from the material produced in the present case, it is
not acceptable that the present applicant did not know about the
transactions that the amount utilized by him not comes from Mahadev
online book. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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 in the Mahadev Book App, it is found that there is
sufficient evidence collected by the ED/respondent to prima facie
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,
16
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.
17. Consequently, the present bail application filed by the applicant- Asim
Das is rejected.
Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)
Judge
ved