Supreme Court: In a petition under Article 136 of Constitution of India filed by Saumya Chaurasia, the then Deputy Secretary to former Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Bhupesh Baghel, challenging the dismissal of bail application under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) by the Chhattisgarh High Court vide order dated 23-06-2023, the Division Bench of Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi*, JJ. dismissed the petition while reprimanding misrepresentation on her behalf.
Background
The appellant was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement (‘ED’) on 2-12-2022 for offences punishable under Sections 186, 204, 353, 384, 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) read with Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’).
Court’s Analysis
The Court pointed towards the grievance raised that the High Court failed to appreciate the absence of any scheduled offence against the appellant, since offences under Sections 384 and 120-B of IPC were already dropped from chargesheet dated 8-06-2023 and the lower court had also taken cognizance of offences under Sections 204 and 353 of IPC only. The Court noted that the judgment of the High Court was reserved earlier, while the aspects related to chargesheet and cognizance took place later, but before the delivery of impugned judgment on 23-06-2023, which led this Court to put a query on 9-10-2023 regarding whether the said documents were brought to the notice of the High Court. An affidavit was also filed in that regard on behalf of the appellant, remaining silent on whether chargesheet was produced before the High Court.
The Court explained the reason behind mention of aforementioned facts was that Order XXI of Supreme Court Rules 2013 framed under Article 145 of Constitution dealing with provisions regarding Special Leave Petitions under Article 136 of Constitution, Rule 3 mandating confining SLPs only to pleadings before court/tribunal whose order was challenged, and petitioner may produce copies of such documents which are part of record in case before court/tribunal below, if necessary to answer the question of law arising for consideration, or to make out grounds urged in the SLP as annexures.
In the instant matter, the said chargesheet and cognizance order were neither part of pleadings nor was produced during arguments before High Court, and the certificate at the end of SLP given by Advocate-on-Record for appellant was given without verifying the facts otherwise apparent from record. The Court pointed lack of verification in the various affidavits so filed. The Court remarked that the two documents were neither pleaded nor argued before the High Court, but an attempt was sought to allege throughout before the Supreme Court that the High Court had grossly erred in not appreciating the said documents. The Court took all this as “a bold attempt made by and on behalf of the appellant to misrepresent the facts for challenging the impugned order”. The Court commented that non-consideration of the said documents could not be made the basis for challenging the impugned order in the SLP before the Court.
The Court clarified that “The Certificate to be issued by the Advocate-on-Record and the Affidavit to be filed by or on behalf of the petitioner/appellant at the end of the SLP as per the provisions contained in the Supreme Court Rules, do carry sanctity in the eyes of law.” The Court cautiously expressed that “It cannot be gainsaid that every party approaching the court seeking justice is expected to make full and correct disclosure of material facts and that every advocate being an officer of the court, though appearing for a particular party, is expected to assist the court fairly in carrying out its function to administer the justice. It hardly needs to be emphasized that a very high standard of professionalism and legal acumen is expected from the advocates particularly designated Senior advocates appearing in the highest court of the country so that their professionalism may be followed and emulated by the advocates practicing in the High Courts and the District Courts.”
The Court specifically caught the attempt in the affidavit to avoid answering query raised by the Court regarding ex-facie inconsistencies appearing in the grounds mentioned in the SLP.
The Court reiterated the object of PMLA, perused Sections 2(1)(p), 3, 45, cited Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929 and opined that “Though it is true that the Court while considering an application seeking bail is not required to weigh the evidence collected by the investigating agency meticulously, nonetheless the Court should keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence collected in support thereof, the severity of the punishment prescribed for the alleged offences, the character of the accused, the circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial, reasonable apprehension of the witness being tempered with, the large interest of the public/ state etc. Though the findings recorded by the Court while granting or refusing to grant bail would be tentative in nature, nonetheless the Court is expected to express prima facie opinion while granting or refusing to grant bail which would demonstrate an application of mind, particularly dealing with the serious economic offences.”
The Court went through investigation details regarding the role of Saumya-appellant in the offence of money laundering, and prima facie found the appellant involved in commission of offence under Section 3 of PMLA. Regarding benefit for being a woman as per proviso 1 to Section 45 of PMLA, the Court followed observations in this regard in Enforcement Directorate v. Preeti Chandra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 930. The Court expressed that “The use of the expression “may be” in the first proviso to Section 45 clearly indicates that the benefit of the said proviso to the category of persons mentioned therein may be extended at the discretion of the Court considering the facts and circumstances of each case, and could not be construed as a mandatory or obligatory on the part of the Court to release them.”
It further expressed that Courts should not be ignore that educated and well-placed women engage in commercial ventures and enterprises, and in illegal activities, because of which, Courts should judiciously exercise discretion while granting benefit to category of persons mentioned under proviso 1 to Section 45 of PMLA.
Therefore, the court dismissed the said appeal independently as well as on merits. It further imposed cost of Rs 1 lakh to be deposited by the appellant before the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks.
[Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8847 of 2023, decided on 14-12-2023]
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
