In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3840 OF 2023-SC- Top Court refuses to accept bail plea of former Chhattisgarh CM’s Dy Secretary Saumya Chaurasia, imposes cost of Rs 1 lakh for misrepresenting facts
Justices Aniruddha Bose & Bela M. Trivedi [14-12-2023]

Read Order: SAUMYA CHAURASIA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, December 18, 2023: While rejecting the bail plea of former Chhattisgarh CM’s Deputy Secretary, Saumya Chaurasia, the Supreme Court has observed that educated and well-placed women in the society engage themselves in commercial ventures and advertently or inadvertently engage themselves in illegal activities.

The factual background of this case revealed that a search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out against the appellant, and FIR was registered against her for the offences under Sections 186, 204, 120-B, 384 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.  The Directorate of Enforcement registered an ECIR on the basis of the said FIR.

The appellant- Saumya Chaurasia, who happened to be the Deputy Secretary, in the office of the Chief Minister, Chhattisgarh, came to be arrested under the said ECIR. She was remanded to ED custody till 06.12.2022, which came to be extended till 10.12.2022 by the Special Court.  The appellant filed an application under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. read with Sections 45 & 65 of the PMLA but the same was rejected. 

ED had filed a Prosecution Complaint against another accused- Suryakant Tiwari for the offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA. A supplementary complaint was also filed naming the appellant amongst others as the accused. The appellant filed a Bail Application before the High Court of Chhattisgarh. However, the same was rejected. Thus, the appellant approached the Top Court by filing this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

The Division Bench, comprising of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, was of the view that the appellant, an officer of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Services who was posted as the Deputy Secretary in the Office of Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh and was working as an OSD to CM, enjoyed unprecedented power & control because of her direct access to higher political powers.

It was highlighted by the Top Court that the information shared by the Income Tax Department and analysis of documents and digital devices seized during the searches conducted u/s 17 of PMLA, 2002 revealed that the appellant was one of the key persons in creation of the syndicate headed by Shri Suryakant Tiwari.

“An extortion racket of this magnitude & nature was possible only when multiple State agencies fell in place and everyone supported the illegal acts of Suryakant Tiwari. This was made possible by Saumya Chaurasia so that pliant officers were posted in the coal mining districts who would listen to Suryakant Tiwari”, the Bench opined.

According to the Bench, the fact that Suryakant Tiwari had personal & close official dealings with her and was carrying her instructions to the Officers, made it possible for Suryakant Tiwari to also command senior District level officers. This illegal authority was essential for him to run his empire of illegal extortion from Coal & Iron Pellet transportation.

“All this was made possible by the fact that he was in the good books of Mrs. Saumya Chaurasia. Therefore, she has directly indulged in the offence of Money Laundering as defined under section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 being actually involved in the process of Money Laundering by way of possession, concealment, use, acquisition and projecting the Proceeds of Crime as untainted”, the Bench observed.

The Bench also considered the issue whether the appellant being a woman should be granted the benefit of the first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA. The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 confers a discretion on the Court to grant bail where the accused is a woman.

It was highlighted by the Bench that there was sufficient evidence collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate to prima facie come to the conclusion that the appellant who was Deputy Secretary and OSD in the Office of the Chief Minister, was actively involved in the offence of Money Laundering as defined in Section 3 of the PMLA.

“As against that there is nothing on record to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the appellant is not guilty of the said offence and the special benefit as contemplated in the proviso to Section 45 should be granted to the appellant who is a lady”, the Bench remarked.

The Bench also did not find any substance in the submission of the Senior Counsel for the Appellant that the scheduled offences i.e. Section 384 and 120 B having been dropped from the chargesheet submitted against the accused Suryakant Tiwari and the ACJM Bengaluru having taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 204 and 353 IPC only, which are not the scheduled offences under the PMLA Act, no scheduled offence survived at the time of passing of the impugned order.

The Bench clarified that there was no discharge, acquittal or quashing of the criminal case by the court of competent jurisdiction against Suryakant Tiwari in the predicate/ scheduled offence.

The Bench found that there was an attempt made by and on behalf of the Appellant to misrepresent the facts by making incorrect statements in the appeal for assailing the impugned order passed by the High Court. Therefore, the Top Court dismissed the appeal with cost of Rs 1 Lakh.