SARAT KUMAR SAHOO Vs. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail as per Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Complaint Case (PMLA) No. 60 of 2018 pending in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (C.B.I.-I)-cum-Special Court under the PMLA Act, Bhubaneswar.

(2.) It appears from the record that 23 FIRs were registered in various Police Stations under BhubaneswarCuttack Commissionerate against several persons including the petitioner alleging commission of various crimes such as, abduction, murder, criminal conspiracy, crimination intimidation, extortion, tender fixing, possession of illegal arms and ammunitions, counterfeit currencies and forgery etc. The present petitioner has been charge sheeted under Ss. 387/120-B/34 of IPC read with Sec. 25/27 of Arms Act in Chauliaganj P.S. Case No. 27 of 2016 and under Ss. 25(1-B)/25(1-A)A of Arms Act in Badambadi P.S. Case No. 80 of 2016. Such offences being scheduled offences as per the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, an ECIR being ECIR/02/BBSR/2016 dtd. 3/6/2016 was registered and upon completion of preliminary enquiry, a complaint being Complaint Case (PMLA) No.60 of 2018 has been filed in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (C.B.I.-I)-cum-Special Court under the PML Act, Bhubaneswar. The allegation as against the petitioner as culled out from the FIRs registered in connection with the aforementioned two cases are that he had invested in several immovable properties in his name as well as his wife's name amounting to Rs.71.00 Lakhs at different places, even though his total income is Rs.16.00 Lakhs from a grocery shop. It was found during enquiry/investigation that he had generated huge proceeds of crime by extortion, tender fixing, possession and running illegal trade of arms and ammunitions etc. Further, he was fixing tender for balighats (sand quarries) on behalf of Dhalasamant brothers (co-accused persons). In course of investigation, the petitioner's statement was recorded under Sec. 50 of the PML Act. He fully cooperated in the investigation and as such, there was no move by the investigating agency to arrest him at any point of time. After filing of the complaint, the Court below issued summons for his appearance. The petitioner appeared through his lawyer and moved an application for dispensation of his personal attendance in the Court, which came to be rejected by order dtd. 17/7/2023. Thus, apprehending that he may be taken to custody on his appearance, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present application.

(3.) Heard Mr. D. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate.