On February 4, 2025, the Bombay High Court granted bail to Suraj Chavan, an aide of Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray, allegedly involved in a ₹6.7 crore "Khichdi scam" that dates back to the Covid-19 pandemic’s relief efforts. A single-judge bench of Justice Milind Jadhav allowed his release on a provisional ₹1 lakh cash bail, with an option to provide one or two sureties of the same amount within four weeks.

The High Court imposed strict conditions for Chavan’s bail. He is required to furnish a ₹1,00,000 bond with sureties or immediate cash bail, report to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) monthly for three months, attend all court dates, and cooperate with the trial. Additionally, he cannot leave Maharashtra without prior permission, must surrender his passport within a week, and is prohibited from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. Any violation of these conditions may result in the cancellation of bail.

The ED had accused Chavan of financial irregularities in the distribution of food to migrant workers during the pandemic and arrested him after he failed to explain his financial links. However, the High Court noted that Chavan had been in judicial custody for over a year without significant progress in the trial. Justice Jadhav emphasized the importance of a fair and speedy trial, stating:

"It is seen that Applicant was arrested 17.01.2024. Thus he is in custody for the last more than 1 year, except from taking cognizance there is no other progress of the trial and the charges are yet to be framed and considered by the Special Court. There are 20 prosecution witnesses cited by the ED in their complaint and it would therefore be difficult to comprehend that trial is likely to be completed in the foreseeable future, rather there seems to be no possibility that trial would be concluded in a reasonable time.”

The court further observed that Chavan had cooperated with the investigation and made all necessary disclosures. Continuing his detention without a clear timeline for trial completion would amount to a violation of his fundamental rights.

"In view of my above prima facie observations and findings and the Applicant having been incarcerated for more than one year, in the prima facie facts of the present case, trial of the Scheduled Offence and consequently PMLA offences not likely to be completed in the foreseeable future, if Applicant's detention is further continued, it would amount to infringement of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of a speedy trial and guarantee of personal liberty. Principal allegation that Applicant being in an influential position in the State at the then time may have been related in the so called alleged situation as put forth by the prosecution but the said situation no longer prevails in the current dispensation. Therefore any apprehension of prosecution regarding tampering with the evidence can be redressed by imposing appropriate conditions.”

Justice Jadhav also pointed out the legal framework under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), highlighting that for an offense under Section 3 of the PMLA to stand, the existence of proceeds of crime must be established through the prosecution of a Scheduled Offense. In this case, the absence of a chargesheet and the delay in trial weakened the foundation of the ED’s allegations.

"Perusal of the above statutory provisions clearly depicts that the existence of the Scheduled Offense is a sine qua non for alleging the existence of proceeds of crime. Property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by a person as a result of criminal activity relating to a Scheduled Offense constitutes proceeds of crime. Thus, the existence of proceeds of crime at the time of trial under Section 3 of the PMLA can only be proven if the Scheduled Offense is established in prosecution. This clearly envisages that even if trial of the case under the PMLA proceeds it cannot be officially tested unless the trial of the Scheduled Offence concludes. In the present case, the chargesheet has not been filed, and the trial is not likely to start in the near foreseeable future.”

With no certainty on when the trial might conclude, the court ruled that further incarceration would serve no purpose other than unjust punishment before guilt is proven.

Case Details: Suraj Satish Chavan vs. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr., Criminal Bail Application No. 4141 of 2024

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade, Ms. Nikita Mandaniyan, Mr. Dileep Satale, Ms. Shagufta Patel, Mr. Shyam Dewani, Mr. Sachet Makhija, & Mr. Dashang Doshi

Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. H.S. Venegavkar, Special P.P. a/w Mr. Aayush Kedia for Respondent No. 1—ED, Mr. Hitendra J. Dedhia, APP for the State and Mr. Suryakanth Swankar, AD & Ms. Priyam Dubey, EO