Chattisgarh High Court
Sandip Fogla vs Directorate Of Enforcemet on 6 May, 2025
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 Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
C.A.V. Order
1. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 483
VEDPRAKASH
DEWANGAN
of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to
Digitally signed by
VEDPRAKASH
the applicant, who has been arrested on 24.01.2025 for the offence
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
[ad_1]
Source link