Read Time: 17 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, through a judgment dated September 10, granted bail to Sukanya Mondal the daughter of Trinamool Congress Leader Anubrata Mondal concerning her involvement in the cattle smuggling case. The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that the Supreme Court granted bail to Anubrata Mondal in July 2024 on the grounds that the trial was unlikely to commence soon.

The court held, “As has been observed in the context of this case itself while deciding bail of Anubrata Mondal (Supra) the documents involved are voluminous and the trial may take a long time to get concluded…Considering the totality of the circumstances as narrated above, the Applicant is admitted to regular bail”. 

In April 2018, the CBI initiated a prelim inquiry against Satish Kumar, Md. Enamul Haque, and others to uncovered illegal cattle smuggling from India to Bangladesh, with bribes being paid to Border Security Force (BSF) personnel stationed at the border. The CBI alleged that Enamul Haque paid Rs. 2000 per cattle to BSF officials and Rs. 500 to customs officers, along with 10% of the auction price from successful bidders like Haque. 

Despite Sukanya Mondal joining the investigation in Nov, 2022, she was arrested on 26 April 2023, allegedly without sufficient justification. She was placed in judicial custody after an initial three days in police custody. Dissatisfied with her arrest and remand, she filed an application seeking to quash the compaint case as well as the summoning order against her.

Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, representing Sukanya Mondal, asserted that the ED had failed to establish any link between her and the cattle smuggling case. She emphasized that a co-accused, Tania Sanyal, was also granted bail on 25 July, 2022 and her position was more favorable than that of Sanyal.

Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa further highlighted that, as a woman, Sukanya was entitled to certain relaxations under Section 45 of the PMLA and noted her medical condition, including gynecological and thyroid issues, which required surgery. She argued that her continued detention, after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet, amounted to pre-trial punishment.

Special Counsel Anupam S. Sharma, representing Directorate of Enforcement, submitted that investigations uncovered that Sheikh Abdul Latif and Md. Enamul Hoque, business partners in M/s Naj Marbles, had contact Sehegal Hossain, a Police Constable with the West Bengal Police and the personal bodyguard of Anubrata Mondal. Hossain allegedly collected illegal payments from Sheikh Abdul Latif and Md. Enamul Hoque in exchange for providing protection to their illegal cross-border cattle smuggling business. Further investigation revealed that a sum of ₹12,80,98,237, which constituted proceeds of crime, was deposited in 18 bank accounts linked to Anubrata Mondal, Sukanya Mondal, their family members, and related firms. 

It was found that ₹1,35,87,409 was deposited in seven bank accounts belonging to the Sukanya Mondal, in addition to various amounts deposited in her business entities. Sukanya Mondal portrayed herself as a primary school teacher, but the investigation revealed that she was actively involved in managing the finances of her family’s business on a daily basis.

The court noted that the allegations against the Sukanya Mondal involved Satish Kumar, the then Commandant of the 36th Battalion of the BSF and the second husband of Tania Sanyal, who allegedly accepted bribes in connection with cattle smuggling across the border. It was claimed that the Sukanya Mondal’s father, Anubrata Mondal, received money from Satish Kumar, and Sukanya facilitated in laundering the amount of ₹12,00,00,000 through her Companies/Firm. Although she presented herself as a primary school teacher, the court noted substantial prima facie evidence indicating her ownership or management of several Firms and Companies, through which the proceeds of crime from the cattle smuggling offense were laundered.

“The facts essentially are in pari materia, the Applicant is the daughter of Anubrata Mondal and the allegations essentially against her are that she had used her Company/Firm accounts to launder the money, proceeds of crime which was received by her father”, the court noted. 

However, the court reiterated that the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is a sacred right, even in cases involving strict provisions under special enactments. Additionally, the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, 2002, affords women special consideration when their bail applications are under review. The court acknowledged this proviso, stating that certain categories of accused, including women, may be granted bail without satisfying the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA. However, this benefit is not automatic, and the facts and circumstances of each case must be considered, with specific reasons provided if the benefit is denied.

The bench further emphasized the need for courts to be more sensitive and sympathetic towards individuals falling under the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA, noting that vulnerable groups, such as women, could be exploited by others and made scapegoats in criminal activities. The court further observed that “the educated and well-placed women in the society engage themselves in commercial ventures and enterprises and advertently or inadvertently engage themselves in the illegal activities”. As such, judicial discretion should be exercised prudently in these cases.

However, considering that the Supreme Court granted bail to her father, Anubrata Mondal, due to the extensive chargesheet. Similarly, the court held that Sukanya who was in judicial custody since April 2023, was entitled to bail under the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, considering the circumstances mentioned above. 

“Considering the totality of the circumstances as narrated above, the Applicant is admitted to regular bail upon her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- and one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:- 
a) Applicant shall appear before the Court as and when the matter is taken up for hearing; 
b) Applicant shall provide her mobile number to the IO concerned, which shall be kept in working condition at all times and he shall not change the mobile numbers without prior intimation to the Investigating Officer concerned; 
c) Applicant shall inform the IO the address where she shall be available in Delhi; 
d) Applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the learned Trial Court; 
e) Applicant shall not try to contact, threaten or influence any of the witnesses of this case; and 
f) Applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not communicate with or come in contact with the witnesses”. 

Background: 

Mondal had approached the Supreme Court concerning his arrest in 2022, linked to the Bengal cattle smuggling racket across the Indo-Bangladesh border. The CBI had conducted raids at a rice mill in the Badhagora area, allegedly owned by Mondal’s nephew, a local Trinamool Congress leader. Following these investigations, the CBI froze fixed deposits worth ₹16.97 crore, allegedly linked to Mondal and his family, as part of the probe.

Mondal had approached the Delhi High Court in December 2022, challenging a production warrant issued by the Rouse Avenue Court in a related case filed by the ED in a broader multi-crore cattle smuggling operations in West Bengal.

Mondal, a close aide to West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, was first arrested by the CBI on August 11, 2022, following a summons issued on August 5 for questioning related to the smuggling case. Despite being summoned to the CBI office on August 8, he delayed his appearance before finally being taken into custody.

The case against Mondal is part of a larger investigation into cattle smuggling along the India-Bangladesh border, where several other accused individuals, including former Trinamool Congress leader Vinay Mishra, his brother Vikas Mishra, and Md. Enamul Haque, the alleged kingpin, were named in the charge sheet filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).

In 2022, Mondal, citing medical conditions, requested that the CBI interrogate him via video conferencing from his residence in Birbhum, West Bengal, rather than subjecting him to physical questioning.

For Applicant: Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa with Advocates Shadman Ahmed Siddiqui, Garvil Singh and Nikita Jain 
For Respondent: Special Counsel Anupam S. Sharma with Advocates Harpreet Kalsi, Prakarsh Airan, Abhishek Batra, Ripudaman Sharma, Vashisht Raoo, and Syamantak Modgil

Case Title: Sukanya Mondal v Directorate Of Enforcement (2024:DHC:6967)