Chattisgarh High Court
Dipen Chawda vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11109
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ORDER RESERVED ON 09.02.2026
ORDER DELIVERED ON 03.03.2026
ORDER UPLOADED ON 03 .03.2026
MCRC No. 43 of 2026
1 - Dipen Chawda S/o Jawahar Chawda Aged About 52 Years R/o
Chaitinaya Tower Ananta Vihar Colony, Daldal Senoi District - Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Acb/ Eow, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant (s) : Shri Sunil Otwani, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Gagan Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy.AG (Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) C A V Order The present application, preferred under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeks the grant of regular bail to the Applicant in connection with Crime No. 01/2024 of the 2 Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), pertaining to offences under Sections 11, 13(1)(a), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, read with Sections 120-B, 384, and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The prosecution case, in brief yet comprehensive terms, unfolds as follows: On 09.01.2024, the State Economic Offences Investigation Bureau (SEOIB) received a pivotal communication from the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Raipur, prompting the initiation of a confidential verification exercise. This inquiry targeted widespread allegations of illegal monetary collections orchestrated in connection with custom milling processes across the State of Chhattisgarh--a critical component of the State's public distribution system (PDS) under which rice millers are allotted quotas for processing paddy into fortified rice for government procurement via entities like MARKFED (Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd.).
3. It was specifically alleged that certain influential office-bearers of the Chhattisgarh State Rice Millers Association, acting in criminal collusion and conspiracy with public servants, had systematically extracted unlawful payments from registered rice millers. These exactions were purportedly made as quid pro quo for securing preferential allotments of custom milling quotas, facilitating processing contracts, and ensuring smooth execution thereof. The implicated public servants included senior officials of MARKFED, district-level authorities responsible for quota distribution, and other regulatory functionaries, who allegedly abused their official positions to favour the accused 3 association office-bearers.
4. The modus operandi, as per the prosecution narrative, involved the creation of fictitious demands for "association fees," "processing charges," or "facilitation amounts" totaling substantial sums, siphoned off under the guise of legitimate operational costs. This racket not only undermined the transparency of PDS procurement but also caused pecuniary loss to the state exchequer and individual millers coerced into payments. The SEOIB's (State Economic Offences Investigation Bureau) verification, grounded in the ED's inputs, uncovered documentary evidence such as ledgers, bank transactions, communications, and witness statements corroborating the syndicate's operations, leading to the registration of the instant FIR and subsequent investigation under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, and allied statutes.
5. Pursuant to the aforementioned communication, FIR No. 01/2024 dated 16.01.2024 was registered at the State Economic Offences Investigation Bureau, Raipur, invoking offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The allegations center on systematic illegal recoveries of approximately ₹240 per quintal from rice millers during custom milling operations, with investigations revealing that substantial sums were handled and disbursed among the implicated individuals.
6. Further, searches by the Income Tax Department, followed by probing, yielded seizures of cash, documents bearing cryptic entries, 4 and digital records ostensibly documenting these illicit financial transactions. During the investigation, the respondent agency submitted its initial charge-sheet on 01.02.2025 before the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Raipur, arraying certain accused and citing 144 witnesses. A supplementary charge-sheet dated 06.10.2025 followed, incorporating additional accused and expanding the witness list to 205. Subsequently, a second supplementary final report dated 09.12.2025 was filed, wherein the present applicant was named as an accused for the first time.
7. As per the allegations contained in the said supplementary report, the applicant was stated to be acquainted with co-accused persons and allegedly involved in logistical aspects relating to the movement and handling of funds. The prosecution asserts that the applicant facilitated travel, meetings, and arrangements for certain co-accused persons and allegedly handled cash at different stages, including storage, counting, and transfer, at the instance of other accused persons. It is further alleged that digital evidence recovered during investigation indicates financial dealings among co-accused persons, which according to the prosecution supports the involvement of the applicant.
8. The applicant was arrested by EOW/ACB, Raipur on 11.09.2025 in connection with the said crime. After completion of investigation qua the applicant, his name was incorporated in the subsequent supplementary charge-sheet filed before the Special Court. It is not in dispute that the charge-sheet has been filed and investigation, so far as the applicant is concerned, stands completed.
5
9. The applicant had earlier preferred an application for regular bail before the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Raipur, which came to be rejected by order dated 15.12.2025. Thereafter, the present application has been filed seeking grant of regular bail by this Court.
10. It is further alleged that the offence concerns organized illegal collections in connection with public distribution and custom milling operations causing substantial financial impact, and the investigation involves examination of voluminous documentary and electronic records along with a large number of witnesses. On the other hand, the applicant asserts that the allegations against him are based primarily on statements of co-accused persons and materials collected subsequently during investigation, and that his implication surfaced only at a later stage through supplementary reports. These, in substance, constitute the factual background in which the present bail application has been placed before this Court for consideration.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
11. Shri Otwani, learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the present prosecution, as projected in the charge-sheet and supplementary reports, does not disclose any legally sustainable or prima facie case warranting continued incarceration of the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated on the basis of belated, contradictory and legally inadmissible material, without any independent evidence linking him with the alleged offence. It is 6 contended that the entire case against the applicant originates from a communication issued by the Enforcement Directorate, on the basis of which the subject FIR came to be registered, alleging illegal collection of funds in connection with custom milling operations. It is alleged that certain office bearers of the Rice Millers Association and officials of MARKFED, along with other persons, formed a syndicate to collect illegal kickbacks from rice millers.
12. He contended that the prosecution case primarily revolves around allegations against co-accused persons, including Roshan Chandrakar, Manoj Kumar Soni, and Anwar Dhebar, who are alleged to have played principal roles in the alleged syndicate. The investigation further named other accused persons including Anwar Dewar and Anil Tuteja, among others, in supplementary reports. He submits that the applicant's name did not figure in the initial investigation or in the first charge-sheet filed against principal accused persons. His implication surfaced only in a later supplementary charge-sheet, indicating that allegations against him are an afterthought introduced at a belated stage.
13. It is argued that the prosecution case against the applicant rests primarily on statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of certain witnesses including Ankur Paliwal, Suraj Pawar, and Siddharth Singhania, whose versions have materially changed over time and appear tailored to suit the investigation. These witnesses are themselves involved or interested persons who have admitted their own participation in the alleged transactions, thereby rendering their 7 statements inherently unreliable. It is submitted that earlier statements of witnesses did not implicate the applicant in the alleged illegal collection or handling of funds, and his name surfaced only at a later stage shortly before submission of supplementary reports, clearly indicating an attempt to fill investigative gaps.
14. In this context, learned Senior counsel for the applicant relied upon the settled legal position laid down by the Apex Court in Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar (1964) SCC OnLine SC 28, wherein it was held that confession or statement of a co-accused is not substantive evidence and cannot form the sole basis for implication of another accused. The same principle has been reiterated in Somasundaram v. State (2020) 7 SCC 722, emphasizing that statements of co-accused require independent corroboration.
15. It is further submitted that the prosecution seeks to rely upon selectively extracted WhatsApp chats allegedly exchanged among co- accused persons such as Anwar Dewar and Anil Tuteja. However, no direct communication between the applicant and any co-accused person has been demonstrated. The alleged chats do not disclose any specific incriminating act attributable to the applicant.
16. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the investigating agency never seized the applicant's mobile phone, nor is there any material to show that the applicant authored, sent, or received the alleged messages. The chats are claimed to have been sourced from devices seized by the Income Tax Department allegedly belonging to co- 8 accused persons, yet no lawful chain of custody or forensic authentication has been produced.
17. It is further submitted that there exists an unexplained break in the chain of custody and no forensic laboratory report certifying integrity or authenticity of electronic data has been placed on record. Additionally, no valid certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act has been produced. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473, which categorically holds that electronic evidence is inadmissible unless accompanied by certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. In absence thereof, the alleged electronic records cannot be relied upon.
18. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that no incriminating recovery has been made from the applicant. Despite allegations involving movement and handling of large sums, no cash, documents, digital records, bank trail, or financial instruments have been seized from him. No ledger entry, communication record, or financial link connects the applicant to alleged proceeds of crime. It is further submitted that allegations of transportation of funds through vehicles allegedly linked to the applicant's family remain speculative and unsupported by evidence. Mere acquaintance or associationwith co- accused persons such as Anwar Dewar, Roshan Chandrakar, or Manoj Kumar Soni cannot establish conspiracy or criminal liability.
19. Learned counsel submits that even if the prosecution case is accepted at face value, the materials only suggest that the applicant 9 allegedly facilitated travel or logistical arrangements at the instance of co-accused persons, without any allegation of personal gain, decision- making authority, or participation in collection or distribution of funds. There is thus complete absence of mens rea.
20. It is further submitted that the applicant has been in custody since 11.09.2025, investigation qua him stands completed, and charge-sheet has already been filed. No further custodial interrogation is required, and trial is likely to take several years, particularly when more than 350 witnesses have been cited.
21. Reliance is placed upon recent decisions of the Apex Court, including Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement SLP (Crl.) No. 15478 of 2025, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, and Kapil Wadhawan v. Central Bureau of Investigation SLP (Crl.) No. 16953 of 2025, wherein prolonged incarceration pending trial was held to violate Article 21 of the Constitution.
22. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that principles of parity strongly operate in favour of the applicant. Co-accused persons against whom substantially more serious allegations exist including Roshan Chandrakar, Manoj Kumar Soni, and Anwar Dhebar, who are alleged to be principal actors or kingpins of the syndicate have already been granted bail by this Court. In comparison, the applicant is attributed only a peripheral and derivative role. Continued detention of the applicant, when principal accused persons are already on bail, 10 would amount to discriminatory treatment. It is therefore submitted that in absence of recovery, lack of admissible electronic evidence, absence of credible corroboration, absence of mens rea, completion of investigation, and grant of bail to similarly or more seriously placed co- accused persons, continued custody of the applicant serves no lawful purpose.
23. It is submitted that the principle of parity squarely applies in favour of the present applicant. The prosecution itself alleges that co-accused persons Roshan Chandrakar, Manoj Kumar Soni, Anwar Dhebar, and Anil Tuteja were principal actors and key beneficiaries of the alleged syndicate involved in collection and diversion of funds. Despite serious and direct allegations attributed to them, all the aforesaid co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court. Notably, Roshan Chandrakar, alleged to be centrally involved in the conspiracy, has been granted bail; Manoj Kumar Soni, alleged to have misused his official position and played a pivotal role in the alleged scheme, stands released on bail; Anwar Dhebar, projected as one of the kingpins of the syndicate, has also been granted bail and Anil Tuteja, a public servant alleged to have systematically facilitated diversion and collection of funds, has likewise been enlarged on bail.
24. It is further contended that out of the principal accused persons, four have already been granted bail and only the present applicant continues to remain in custody despite being attributed a comparatively peripheral and derivative role. Thus, continued incarceration of the applicant would result in unequal and discriminatory treatment, contrary 11 to settled bail jurisprudence. Learned counsel for the applicant fairly submits that the applicant has been named in another case registered by EOW/ACB, Raipur. However, it is well settled that the mere existence of antecedents cannot automatically result in denial of bail unless the prosecution demonstrates likelihood of misuse of liberty or repetition of offence. The Apex Court in Ayub Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 INSC 994, Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., (2020) SCC OnLine SC 75, and Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4919, has clarified that antecedents are only one of the factors and cannot override other considerations such as strength of evidence, length of custody, and stage of trial.
In the present case, investigation stands completed and the applicant's custody is no longer required. Hence, antecedents cannot be treated as a standalone ground for refusal of bail.
25. It is next contended by the counsel for the applicant in response to the State's allegation that the applicant was Director of AJS Agro Company and the prosecution itself states that the company was formed and controlled by co-accused Anwar Dewar; no material shows that any property was purchased by the applicant out of alleged illegal proceeds; the applicant functioned merely in an employee-like capacity managing day-to-day affairs on a salary basis. Thus, mere nominal association with a company allegedly controlled by another accused cannot establish criminal conspiracy or financial benefit.
26. The applicant has remained in custody for a substantial period, 12 investigation qua him stands completed, and trial is not likely to commence in the near future considering the voluminous record and large number of witnesses. The Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, held that it is not in the interest of justice to detain accused in custody for an indefinite period once investigation is complete. Similarly, in Manish Sisodia v. ED, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813, the Court reiterated that prolonged incarceration pending trial violates Article 21.
27. Further reliance is placed on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, wherein it was held that statutory rigours cannot override constitutional courts' duty to protect personal liberty where trial is unlikely to conclude within reasonable time. The principle was originally emphasized in Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81, recognizing speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21.
28. Charge-sheet and supplementary reports already stand filed and prosecution relies on documentary material already secured. Custodial interrogation is over and no further recovery remains to be effected. Thus, continued incarceration serves no investigational purpose. The Apex Court consistently upholds the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception", as reiterated in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308, and followed in a long line of decisions thereafter.
29. It is therefore submitted that bail proceedings are not intended as 13 a mechanism for pre-emptive punishment prior to adjudication on merits. Detention pending trial must remain the exception, not the rule, as consistently held by the Apex Court. In the instant case, where the evidence is predominantly documentary, all recoveries stand complete, and custodial interrogation has concluded without yielding any incriminating material, the applicant's continued incarceration inexorably amounts to punishment without trial, warranting immediate grant of bail.
30. In light of the bail already granted to the principal co-accused, the complete absence of any recovery from the applicant, the doubtful admissibility of the purported electronic evidence, and the total lack of direct evidence linking the applicant to the offence coupled with the investigation having long concluded, the applicant's prolonged incarceration, inexcusable delay in commencement of trial and unassailable satisfaction of the triple test, continued detention stands wholly unjustified. Settled constitutional principles, as enshrined in Article 21 and reiterated by the Apex Court, unequivocally tilt the scales in favour of individual liberty where the prosecution's case is bereft of foundational probative material.
31. Next contention on behalf of the applicant is that the prosecution case itself attributes the primary role in the alleged offence to co- accused persons including Roshan Chandrakar, Manoj Kumar Soni, and other principal conspirators alleged to have conceptualized and operated the mechanism for illegal collection of funds from rice millers. Despite such serious and direct allegations, this Court has already granted bail to the principal accused persons. Co-accused Roshan 14 Chandrakar, who is alleged to have been actively involved in organizing and executing the alleged collection mechanism, was arrested on 04.01.2024 and has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18.07.2025 passed in MCRC No. 2836/2025.
32. Similarly, co-accused Manoj Kumar Soni, who at the relevant time held the position of Managing Director of MARKFED and is alleged to have played a pivotal and facilitating role in the alleged syndicate by virtue of his official position, has also been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 09.05.2025 passed in MCRC No. 2078/2025.
33. The allegations against these accused persons are substantially graver and depict them as principal beneficiaries and decision-makers in the alleged scheme. In stark contrast, the role attributed to the present applicant is extremely limited and peripheral. According to the prosecution's own case, the applicant is alleged, at best, to have acted in the collection, custody, or delivery of money at the instance of co- accused Anwar Dewar, without any allegation of planning, control, conspiracy formation or personal financial gain. There is no material on record to suggest that the applicant exercised any control over the alleged syndicate or that he was a beneficiary of the alleged proceeds. Thus, when principal conspirators and alleged kingpins have already been enlarged on bail, continued incarceration of the applicant, whose role is subordinate and derivative, results in hostile discrimination and violates the settled doctrine of parity and equality before law. 15
The applicant satisfies all conditions necessary for grant of bail:
• No likelihood of absconding;
• The applicant is a permanent resident of District Raipur with settled family and social roots. There is no possibility of flight risk. • No possibility of tampering with evidence; • All material evidence relied upon by the prosecution has already been seized and forms part of the charge-sheet. The applicant cannot influence documentary or digital evidence already secured.
• No likelihood of influencing witnesses:
• Most witnesses cited are official or documentary witnesses, and there is no allegation that the applicant has attempted to influence any witness.
Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in P. Chidambaram v. CBI, (2020) 13 SCC 337, which reiterates that once the triple test is satisfied, detention pending trial becomes unwarranted. The trial court, while rejecting bail, has not pointed out any specific or cogent material showing likelihood of misuse of liberty. Mere apprehension without substantiation cannot justify continued incarceration.
34. It is settled law that bail proceedings are not punitive in nature. The object of detention is only to secure investigation or ensure presence of the accused during trial. The Apex Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118, has held that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. 16
35. In the present case the investigation qua the applicant stands completed; Charge-sheet and supplementary reports have already been filed; No further recovery or custodial interrogation remains pending; trial is not likely to conclude in the near future. Thus, continued custody of the applicant amounts to pre-trial punishment, which is impermissible under law. Even if the prosecution case is accepted in its entirety for the purpose of bail consideration, the role attributed to the applicant remains ancillary and subordinate. The prosecution does not allege that the applicant planned or designed the alleged scheme, he exercised decision-making authority, he derived financial benefit, he controlled or directed operations, or that illegal proceeds were recovered from him.
36. The applicant is alleged merely to have acted under instructions of other accused persons, without any independent authority or gain. Thus, continued incarceration of a person alleged to have played only a derivative role, when principal accused are already on bail, is wholly unjustified.
37. The entire case now rests on documentary and electronic evidence already in custody of the prosecution. Custodial interrogation of the applicant has concluded, and investigation against him stands completed. Therefore, his detention serves no further investigative purpose. The Apex Court has consistently reiterated that once investigation is complete, bail should ordinarily follow unless exceptional circumstances exist. No such exceptional circumstance is shown in the present case.
17
38. He therefore submits that in view of the bail already granted to the principal co-accused, the applicant's limited role as attributed, completion of investigation, total absence of recovery from him, lack of any risk of absconding or tampering with evidence, prolonged pre-trial custody, and settled constitutional principles favouring individual liberty over punitive detention, the applicant deserves enlargement on bail. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/STATE
39. Learned counsel for the respondent, submits the following objections to the present application seeking grant of regular bail. The submissions are made keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the nature of evidence collected, and the ongoing investigation into a large- scale organized economic offence having deep ramifications on public administration and public funds.
40. It is submitted that the present case arises out of a large-scale organized conspiracy relating to illegal collection of money from rice millers in the State of Chhattisgarh in connection with custom milling operations and processing of incentive payments. The investigation reveals a structured mechanism involving:
* illegal kickback/extortion from rice millers, * deliberate manipulation of bill clearance processes, * misuse of official position by public servants, and * organized movement and handling of huge amounts of cash.
The case originated from material disclosed during investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with money- laundering proceedings relating to the Custom Milling Scam, where 18 predicate offences falling within the jurisdiction of ACB/EOW were detected and accordingly shared with the State authorities.
41. Upon receipt of credible information, the FIR was registered and a comprehensive investigation commenced, which has since unearthed a multi-layered criminal conspiracy involving public servants, office bearers of miller associations, intermediaries and cash handlers.
42. Investigation reveals that incentives payable to rice millers for custom milling operations were artificially enhanced and thereafter portions of such payments were illegally collected back as kickbacks for facilitating clearance of bills. Payments were linked to compliance with illegal cash delivery channels and processing of bills depended upon participation in the illegal payment mechanism. The investigation has disclosed deliberate manipulation of official processes, selective approvals, and coordinated bill movements across districts. Statements of millers and association office bearers recorded during investigation clearly indicate demand and payment of illegal gratification for clearance of bills and processing of incentive payments.
43. The investigation has already resulted in filing of charge-sheets and supplementary charge-sheets before the competent court. However, considering the multi-layered nature of the conspiracy, investigation continues with respect to additional beneficiaries, handlers, delivery channels and proceeds of crime. The role of the present applicant came to light in subsequent stages of investigation, following collection of additional evidence and examination of digital and 19 documentary material. Investigation into further links, property trails and concealment mechanisms is still in progress. Thus, filing of charge- sheet does not signify closure of investigation in respect of the larger conspiracy.
44. Contrary to the submission that the applicant played only a peripheral role, the material collected during investigation prima facie establishes that the applicant functioned as a key operative in the illegal cash movement mechanism. Investigation reveals that:
* The applicant actively participated in receiving, handling and delivering huge amounts of illegal cash;
* He functioned as an executing link in the cash movement chain at predetermined locations;
* A structured mechanism of delivery through vehicles and designated drop points was in operation;
* Witnesses have specifically identified the applicant as the person managing cash transactions at several delivery locations.
Test Identification Proceedings conducted before the Executive Magistrate further corroborate the presence and role of the applicant in handling cash deliveries. Statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. disclose the operational chain of illegal collection and routing of funds, clearly implicating the applicant as an entrusted link responsible for physical handling of proceeds.
45. Digital evidence seized during searches, including WhatsApp chats and other electronic communications recovered from co-accused persons, further corroborates the applicant's role in receiving and 20 delivering illegal funds.
46. Call Detail Records and location data substantiate the presence of the applicant at delivery locations and meetings connected with cash handling operations. Investigation also indicates use of encrypted and alternate communication channels to avoid interception, including use of specific digital accounts to coordinate movement of funds. Such material prima facie establishes that the applicant was not a casual associate but a trusted operational handler entrusted with movement of huge cash amounts.
47. Investigation further reveals that the applicant maintained close association with principal accused persons including Anwar Dhebar, who is alleged to be one of the central figures in the syndicate. Material also indicates that the applicant acted as a trusted associate and logistical handler for movement of illegal proceeds, including transactions involving very large amounts. There are also allegations regarding his association with entities linked to principal accused persons for acquisition and concealment of assets, which are under investigation. Thus, the applicant's involvement is not incidental but integral to the operational execution of the conspiracy.
48. Considering the applicant's role as an operational handler and his proximity to other conspirators, there exists a real likelihood that if released on bail, he may:
* influence or intimidate witnesses;
* coordinate with co-accused persons; 21 * tamper with digital or documentary evidence; or * obstruct further investigation.
Investigation is still ongoing regarding identification of remaining beneficiaries and tracing of proceeds of crime, and release of the applicant at this stage would seriously prejudice the process.
49. The Apex Court has repeatedly emphasized that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be viewed seriously. In State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364, the Apex Court observed that economic offences undermine the financial system of the country and must be dealt with sternly. In Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Apex Court held that economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and huge loss to public funds must be considered seriously at the stage of bail.
50. Similarly, in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari, (2019) 9 SCC 165, it was held that economic offences involving public money stand on a different footing and require cautious consideration while granting bail.
In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, the Supreme Court reiterated that economic offences involving laundering or diversion of funds have serious societal impact and courts must consider gravity and potential influence of accused persons.
51. The defence plea of parity is misconceived. Grant of bail to another accused does not automatically entitle every co-accused to bail. Parity applies only when roles are identical. The material against the 22 present applicant shows his operational role in the cash movement chain. Bail granted to other accused persons does not dilute the seriousness of evidence against the applicant. The Apex Court in Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 1 SCC 684, has clarified that parity cannot be claimed when roles and evidence differ.
52. It is well settled that mere filing of charge-sheet does not entitle an accused to bail where risks of influencing witnesses or obstructing investigation persist. The Apex Court in Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466, held that in economic offences, filing of charge-sheet alone is not sufficient ground to grant bail. In the present case, investigation into proceeds of crime and wider conspiracy is still ongoing, and the applicant's release may frustrate further investigation.
53. Considering the organized and large-scale nature of the offence, which reveals a sophisticated syndicate involving illegal cash movement exceeding crores, the applicant's pivotal operational role therein cannot be discounted. Strong prima facie evidence, including corroborative witness statements from independent sources and irrefutable digital material such as bank trails and encrypted communications, firmly establishes his complicity beyond mere surmise. The investigation remains ongoing into the wider conspiracy and laundering of proceeds of crime, with vital leads into upstream financiers and downstream beneficiaries yet to be fully unravelled. Granting bail at this juncture carries a grave likelihood of the applicant influencing key witnesses several of whom have already expressed apprehension and obstructing the probe, thereby frustrating the ends of justice. In economic offences 23 of this magnitude, where public exchequer stands imperilled and societal trust in financial systems is eroded, the discretionary relief of bail must be denied to safeguard the investigative process and prevent impunity, as reiterated by the Apex Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24 and State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (1987) 1 SCR 1.
54. In view of the aforesaid facts, circumstances, and settled legal principles governing grant of bail in serious economic offences involving money laundering and organized crime, it is most respectfully prayed that the present application seeking enlargement of the applicant on bail be dismissed, lest it prejudices the ongoing investigation and subverts the cause of justice.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
55. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length. Perused the case diary, charge-sheet, supplementary charge-sheets, and material on record with utmost care. The instant application seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No. 01/2024 of Police Station EOW/ACB, Raipur, pertaining to allegations of illegal money collection qua custom milling operations and cognate financial irregularities.
56. Learned State counsel has strongly opposed the bail application contending that the applicant played an operational role in handling and routing illegal cash and that investigation into the larger conspiracy and proceeds of crime is still continuing. It is further contended that release of the applicant at this stage may enable him to influence witnesses or 24 obstruct further investigation.
57. Per contra, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated at a later stage, that no recovery has been effected from him, and that his alleged role is derivative and subordinate to that of principal accused persons who are already on bail. It is also contended that investigation qua the applicant stands completed and further incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment.
NATURE OF CONSIDERATION AT THE STAGE OF BAIL
58. At the stage of consideration of bail, the Court is not expected to conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence or record findings touching upon guilt or innocence of the accused. The Court is only required to examine whether continued custody is necessary having regard to the nature of accusations, stage of investigation, likelihood of misuse of liberty and the overall interests of justice.
59. The Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, has held that detention pending trial should not be used as a measure of punishment and that the object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at trial. Similarly, in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22, it has been reiterated that bail is the rule and jail an exception, and personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be curtailed unless compelling reasons exist.
STATUS OF INVESTIGATION AND MATERIAL AGAINST THE APPLICANT 25
60. It is not disputed that charge-sheet as well as supplementary charge-sheets have already been filed and investigation, so far as the applicant is concerned, stands substantially completed. Custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. Though the prosecution asserts continuation of investigation into wider aspects of the conspiracy and proceeds of crime, the material against the applicant now forms part of the charge-sheet and would be tested during trial. Significantly, no recovery of illegal cash or assets has been effected from the applicant. The allegations primarily relate to handling or facilitating delivery of cash allegedly at the behest of other accused persons. Whether such evidence ultimately establishes criminal liability is a matter to be examined during trial and cannot be conclusively determined at the stage of bail.
61. A crucial factor that weighs with this Court is the principle of parity. It is not disputed that principal accused persons against whom more serious allegations of planning and controlling the alleged syndicate have been attributed have already been granted bail by this Court. When persons alleged to have conceptualized and controlled the mechanism are already on bail, continued detention of an accused whose role is projected as operational or derivative requires careful scrutiny.
62. The Supreme Court in Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 1 SCC 684, has held that parity is a relevant consideration in bail matters, though not the sole determinant. However, when co-accused similarly or more seriously placed are already enlarged on bail, denial of 26 bail to another accused must be justified by distinguishing circumstances. In the present case, no such exceptional distinguishing circumstance has been demonstrated.
63. The applicant has been in custody for a considerable period. The prosecution proposes examination of a large number of witnesses and reliance on voluminous documentary and electronic evidence. Trial in such cases is unlikely to conclude within a short period. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, held that where trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, constitutional courts are justified in granting bail notwithstanding seriousness of allegations. Prolonged incarceration pending trial would offend the mandate of Article 21 guaranteeing personal liberty and speedy trial.
64. The State expresses apprehension that the applicant may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. However, most material evidence in the present case appears to be documentary and digital in nature and already stands seized by the investigating agency. Any apprehension of interference can be adequately addressed by imposing stringent bail conditions restricting contact with witnesses and ensuring availability of the applicant during trial.
65. It is true that the Supreme Court has repeatedly observed, including in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, and Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari, (2019) 9 SCC 165, that economic offences are serious in nature and affect public 27 interest. However, even in such cases, the Court must balance the seriousness of allegations with constitutional safeguards protecting individual liberty. Bail cannot be denied merely as a mark of disapproval of the alleged offence. The Court must ensure that custody does not become punitive in nature prior to adjudication of guilt.
66. It is not disputed that the applicant's name finds no mention in the original FIR. His implication emerged only subsequently during investigation, formalized solely through the supplementary charge- sheet. While subsequent implication does not ipso facto exonerate an accused, the conspicuous absence of the applicant's name from the FIR underscores that he was not perceived ab initio as a principal conspirator. This factor gains salience in evaluating the necessity of continued custody. Notwithstanding allegations of handling and ferrying substantial cash sums, no recovery of illicit cash, property, or incriminating articles has been effected from the applicant or his possession. The prosecution's case hinges predominantly on witness statements and digital material seized from co-accused. Strikingly, nothing incriminating has been recovered from the applicant establishing direct receipt, retention, or control of alleged proceeds. At the threshold bail stage, such abject absence of recovery assumes paramount significance in gauging the prima facie involvement warranting prolonged incarceration, tilting the balance towards liberty.
67. A compelling factor tilting in the applicant's favour is the doctrine of parity. Admittedly, four co-accused against whom graver allegations of masterminding, controlling, and profiting from the alleged syndicate 28 have been arrayed stand enlarged on bail by this Court. When principal or managerial architects of the conspiracy have been deemed fit for release, denying parity to the applicant whose role is merely portrayed as operational or peripheral renders continued detention manifestly arbitrary and unjustifiable. The Apex Court, in Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 1 SCC 684 and Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. (2018) 3 SCC 22, has emphatically recognized parity as a pivotal consideration in bail adjudication, absent distinguishing features rendering role of the accused demonstrably more culpable.
68. The prosecution has failed to articulate any such material differentiator warranting disparate treatment. The investigation stands substantially concluded, with the principal charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheets duly filed, incorporating all material against the applicant. Custodial interrogation yields no further necessity. Any residual probe, if at all, targets broader conspiracy strands and proceeds-tracing, unconnected to prospective recovery from the applicant, thereby obviating the rationale for his continued incarceration.
69. The prosecution's case rests on voluminous documentary and digital evidence, necessitating examination of a plethora of witnesses. In such complex matters, trial commencement and conclusion are destined to consume considerable time. The Apex Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713 has authoritatively held that prolonged pre-trial incarceration offends guarantee of personal liberty under Article
21. Thus the Constitutional Courts are empowered to grant bail where trial fruition within a reasonable horizon remains improbable. 29
70. The State's apprehension of witness influence stands adequately mitigating through stringent bail conditions, such as prohibiting contact with witnesses/prosecution personnel, mandatory reporting to the trial Court, and electronic monitoring if deemed necessary. Crucially, all documentary and digital evidence lies seized and securely forms part of the record, insulating it from prospective tampering.
71. While the Apex Court has repeatedly underscored the gravity of economic offences-observing as in Y.S.Jaganmohan Reddy Vs. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439 and Serious Fraud Investigation Officer Vs. Nitin Johari (2019) 9 SCC 165 that they strike at the heart of public interest- judicial discretion demands a vigilant balance. The seriousness of allegations must never eclipse the constitutional bulwarks safeguarding individual liberty. Bail cannot be withheld as mere censure for the alleged conduct; to do so risks transforming pre-trial custody into impermissible punishment before guilt is adjudged.
72. In cumulative consideration of the applicant's non-inclusion in the FIR, total absence of recovery from him, grant of bail to four co- accused, substantial completion of investigation qua him, and the inexorable prolongation of trial, his continued detention manifests as unwarranted pre-trial punishment, devoid of compelling necessity. Needless to observe, this Court expresses no opinion on the merits of the prosecution case, reserved exclusively for trial adjudication. Deeming the instant matter fit, the applicant deserves enlargement on bail.
73. In light of the following compelling circumstances, the 30 investigation against the applicant stands complete; the charge sheet and supplementary reports have been duly filed; no recoveries emanate from the applicant; bail has been granted to the principal co-accused; the trial is likely to be protracted and stringent conditions can effectively curb any misuse of liberty, therefore this Court holds that the applicant's continued detention is neither necessary nor justified at this juncture. Without venturing any view of the merits, reserved wholly for trial, the applicant merits enlargement on bail.
74. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed. The applicant is directed to be released forthwith on regular bail in Crime No. 01/2024 of Police Station EOW/ACB, Raipur, upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) along with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:
(i) he shall surrender his passport, if any, before the Trial Court;
(b) the applicant must cooperate with the investigation and the trial proceedings;
(c) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case;
(d) he shall commit no offence whatsoever during the period he is on bail; and
(e) in case of change of residential address and/or mobile number, the same shall be intimated to the Court concerned by way of 31 an affidavit.
(f) any stringent conditions as may be imposed by the trial court.
Any breach of these conditions shall empower the prosecution to move for bail cancellation. These observations are strictly limited to the bail adjudication and shall have no bearing on the trial on merits.
75. The application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. All observations herein are expressly limited to the bail determination and shall not impinge upon the trial proceedings.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY DUBEY Date:
2026.03.03 17:29:05 +0530