The Supreme Court, today, granted interim bail to Saumya Chaurasia, a former Deputy Secretary in the office of the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, in a money laundering case.

Chaurasia was a former officer of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Services who was posted as Deputy Secretary in the office of Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel and was working as an Officer on Special Duty (OSD). She is an accused in a money laundering case relating to a coal scam.

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan ordered, "Keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner has already gone 1 year 9 months of incarceration, the co-accused being out on regular/interim bail, the charges yet to be framed...Without expressing any view on merits...we direct as the interim measure to release the petitioner on interim bail subject to furnishing the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. The State Government is directed not to reinstate the petitioner in service merely because she has been granted bail."

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave appeared on behalf of Chaurasia while ASG SV Raju appeared on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate.

Raju submitted, "As far as the parity is concerned that her co-accused(s) have been granted bail, the general principle is that you have to look into the role. If the role of the Accused is equal to that or equivalent to that, you are entitled to bail. I have already demonstrated that, as far as others are concerned their role is very trivial to her."

He also submitted that as far as Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('PMLA') is concerned, which carves out an exception for women, it cannot be applied in every case. He further stated that she has the power to influence the witnesses, therefore, bail must not be granted to her.

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave submitted, "Charges have not been framed, last status report says that investigation is still going on."

Justice Kant said, "This is a case where 1 year 9 months have passed...law will take it on course."

Justice Bhuyan also said, "This is PMLA, there is no predicate offence... can't keep women, children, infirm like this."

The Court remarked that they have to see the intent of the legislature and such legislative policy. "This is how our representatives felt while enacting the law...that some special treatment, some humanitarian treatment, additionally, should be given to women and children.", Justice Kant said.

To this, Raju replied, "But the legislature has used the word 'may' and it is not 'shall'."

Justice Kant remarked, "That is why it is a very mature wisdom...these are very serious offences, we don't wish to convey any message to anyone that it should be taken lightly. In our society, we have to be extra firm about it. We should have a zero tolerance."

Justice Bhuyan said, "Without charge being framed, how long should she be in custody? 5 years, 6 years, 7 years, how many years? Shouldn't be the system like that?"

A search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out against an individual and an FIR was lodged against him for the offences under Sections 186, 204, 120-B, and 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). She was arrested and the ED sought judicial custody of her for 14 days, however, the Special Court granted the same initially for 5 days which was then extended. She filed an application under Section 437 of the CrPC read with Sections 45 and 65 of the PMLA before the Special Court.

It was the case of the Prosecution before the High Court that she was actively associated with one Suryakant Tiwari. WhatsApp chats of a limited period from March 2022 onwards establish that she had close, personal, and financial association with Suryakant Tiwari. They discussed political development and issues relating to the official work of the State Government. Suryakant Tiwari was acting as a middleman and receiving and conveying unofficial instructions from the present applicant to the District level IAS/IPS officers. The applicant working as Deputy Secretary, CMO enjoyed powerful command over the entire State bureaucracy and could give extra-legal directions to the officer. She was the source of the influence enjoyed by Suryakant Tiwari over other bureaucrats.

The Special Court rejected her bail application and hence, she filed the same before the High Court. However, the High Court also rejected her application and the complainant filed a protest petition under Section 173(8) of the CrPC against the final report of the State Police praying for the completion of the investigation of offences. The accused being aggrieved by the order of the High Court, preferred the appeal before the Apex Court under Article 136 of the Constitution in 2023, which was rejected.

The Supreme Court had observed that it is not mandatory to grant bail by invoking the first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA merely because the accused is a woman. The Court had noted that nowadays the educated and well-placed women in society engage themselves in commercial ventures and enterprises, and advertently or inadvertently engage themselves in illegal activities.

The Chhattisgarh High Court had rejected her second and third bail applications. Aggrieved by the last order of dismissal, she filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court.

Cause Title: Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate Of Enforcement (SLP(Crl) No. 12494/2024)

Justice Surya KantJustice Dipankar DattaJustice Ujjal Bhuyan

Aastha Kaushik