Chattisgarh High Court
Yash Purohit vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11110
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ORDER RESERVED ON 06.02.2026
ORDER DELIVERED ON 03.03.2026
ORDER UPLOADED ON 03.03.2026
MCRC No. 10536 of 2025
1 - Yash Purohit S/o Nitesh Purohit Aged About 31 Years R/o B-1, Mukta
Sadan, In Front Of Goyal Nursing Home, Samta Colony, District -
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Applicant (s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through ACB/ EOW, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant (s) : Shri Manoj Paranjape, Sr. Counsel
assisted by Shri Gagan Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Praveen Das, Dy. GA
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
C A V Order
The instant application has been preferred by the applicant under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking
2
the grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 04/2024,
registered at the Anti-Corruption Bureau/Economic Offences Wing,
Raipur, pertaining to offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 7 and 12
of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The applicant impugns the legality
and propriety of the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the learned
Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Raipur, whereby his bail
application was rejected, prompting the filing of the present first bail
application before this Hon'ble Court.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. In brief, the prosecution's case stems from search and seizure operations conducted by the Income Tax Department from 26.02.2020 to 01.03.2020 at multiple premises across the State of Chhattisgarh. During the ensuing inquiry, statements of several individuals were recorded, leading to allegations of an organized "liquor syndicate"
operating within the State. This syndicate is alleged to have illicitly collected funds through manipulation of the excise administration and unauthorized liquor sales. Consequently, on 18.11.2022, the Directorate of Enforcement registered an ECIR invoking scheduled offences. Following communication from the Enforcement Directorate dated 11.07.2023 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Economic Offences Wing, Raipur, registered FIR No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 against several accused, including the present applicant, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of 3 Corruption Act, 1988.The prosecution alleges the existence of a criminal syndicate involving public servants, private persons, and intermediaries, which purportedly generated illegal gains from the liquor trade through modalities such as commissions from suppliers, off-the-record sales via State-run outlets and annual payments for operational permits. These proceeds are claimed to have been laundered through layered channels, including associates and linked business establishments.
3. The present applicant's name figures in the FIR as one among several accused persons, albeit without attribution of any specific role in the initial registration. During the course of investigation, however, the prosecution asserts to have unearthed material ostensibly indicating that illicit funds emanating from the alleged syndicate's operations were channelized, managed, and dissimulated through entities and establishments associated with the applicant's family business. It is further alleged that the applicant played a facilitative role in the storage, transportation, and handling of such proceeds linked to the purported illegal activities.
4. The investigation into the matter has been protracted and multifaceted. The prosecution agency submitted its inaugural final report before the learned Special Court on 01.07.2024, arraigning a multitude of accused persons and proposing an extensive roster of witnesses. This was followed by successive supplementary final reports at varied intervals, incrementally broadening the ambit of the case by impleading additional accused, including excise officials and private individuals 4 purportedly complicit in the scheme, alongside an ever-expanding list of prosecution witnesses.
5. Notably, the process of filing supplementary charge-sheets persisted unabated, with further reports tendered on 27.06.2025, 30.06.2025, 07.07.2025, and as recently as 24.08.2025. These iterative filings have progressively amplified the scope of the prosecution narrative, incorporating fresh accused persons and witnesses, thereby underscoring the evolving and expansive nature of the investigation even at this advanced stage.
6. The applicant had earlier assailed the very registration of the FIR before this Court, wherein interim protection from coercive action was graciously granted vide order dated [Cr.M.P. No. 1286 of 2024 dated 20.05.2024]. Though the said petition was ultimately dismissed, the applicant thereafter approached the Apex Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos 14901-14904 of 2024, wherein interim protection was extended, safeguarding him from arrest during the pendency of those proceedings. The Apex Court, in its wisdom, dismissed the SLP while reserving liberty to the applicant to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law, explicitly directing that no prejudice shall be occasioned by any observations made in the earlier proceedings. This underscores the absence of any adverse finding against the applicant at the highest judicial forum, thereby reinforcing the prima facie tenability of his present plea. Pursuant to the directions emanating from these superior court proceedings, the applicant dutifully presented himself before the investigating agency in January 2025 and 5 extended full cooperation throughout the inquiry process. Subsequently, summons under Section 160 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 160 Cr.P.C.) were issued, mandating his appearance. In compliance therewith, the applicant appeared before the investigating officer on 19.09.2025, at which juncture he was abruptly taken into custody in connection with the instant crime, despite his unwavering cooperation and absence of any flight risk or tampering propensity.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
7. Shri Paranjape, learned Senior counsel appearing for the applicant, while assailing the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Raipur, submits that the rejection of bail suffers from non-consideration of settled principles governing grant of bail, particularly in cases involving prolonged investigation, voluminous charge-sheets and delayed commencement of trial. The submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant are summarized hereunder.
I. Prolonged Incarceration and Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution
8. It is submitted that the applicant was arrested on 19.09.2025, and has since remained in judicial custody. Investigation insofar as the present applicant is concerned stands completed, and the 6 th Supplementary Final Report dated 24.11.2025 has already been filed before the learned Special Court arraying him as an accused. 6
9. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the prosecution case now stands crystallized through one main final report and multiple supplementary final reports, involving 52 accused persons, reliance on nearly one thousand documents, and citation of more than eleven hundred witnesses. In such circumstances, commencement and conclusion of trial in the near future is practically inconceivable. It is emphasized that till date charges have not been framed, and proceedings remain at the stage of scrutiny of voluminous records. The delay in trial is wholly institutional and cannot be attributed to the present applicant. Therefore, continued incarceration of the applicant, without likelihood of early trial, amounts to punitive detention prior to conviction, offending the constitutional mandate of personal liberty under Article 21.
10. It is argued that the criminal justice system does not permit indefinite detention pending trial, particularly where investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for custodial interrogation. Reliance is placed upon judicial precedents wherein the Apex Court has consistently held that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial are relevant and weighty considerations for grant of bail, even in serious economic offences, once investigation is complete. II. Parity with Co-Accused Granted Bail
11. A substantial plank of the applicant's case rests on the doctrine of parity. He submits that a large number of co-accused persons, against whom allegations are either similar or substantially graver, have already been granted bail either by the Apex Court or by this Court. It is pointed 7 out that persons alleged to have played pivotal roles in the alleged syndicate operations, including those entrusted with collection, distribution and management of funds, as well as officials and private intermediaries allegedly instrumental in execution of the scheme, have already been enlarged on bail.
12. Illustratively, bail has been granted to several accused persons who were alleged to have been involved in collection of illegal commissions, transportation of liquor, procurement and distribution of duplicate holograms, financial routing of funds, and manipulation of licensing processes. Even persons described in the prosecution material as key actors or integral components of the alleged syndicate have been granted bail.
13. It is further submitted that in certain cases bail has been granted even where recovery of large sums or documentary material was allegedly linked to the accused persons, whereas in the present case, no such recovery is attributed to the applicant. He emphasizes that denial of bail to the present applicant, despite grant of bail to several co- accused having comparable or more serious allegations, results in unequal treatment and violates settled principles of parity applied in bail jurisprudence.
14. Learned senior counsel for the applicant further submits that the principle of parity squarely operates in favour of the present applicant inasmuch as a large number of co-accused persons, against whom 8 allegations are either identical or more serious in nature, have already been enlarged on bail by the Apex Court as well as by this Court.
15. It is submitted that when principal actors, intermediaries, and persons allegedly responsible for operational and financial aspects of the alleged syndicate have been granted bail, continued incarceration of the present applicant, against whom no recovery is attributed and whose role is comparatively limited, becomes legally unsustainable.
16. It is submitted that many of the above co-accused persons are alleged to have played central roles in collection of illegal proceeds, distribution operations, procurement logistics, financial routing, and licensing arrangements forming part of the prosecution narrative. Despite the gravity of allegations attributed to them, they have been granted bail by constitutional courts. In contrast, the present applicant is not alleged to have been a policy maker, financial controller, or beneficiary of the alleged proceeds, and no recovery has been made from him.
17. Thus, continued detention of the applicant, when similarly or more seriously implicated co-accused stand enlarged on bail, results in unequal treatment and violates settled principles governing bail on grounds of parity.
III. No Recovery or Direct Evidence Against the Applicant
18. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that no incriminating recovery whatsoever has been made from the applicant, nor has any property belonging to him been attached by the investigating agency. 9 According to the prosecution version, the applicant is alleged to have provided logistical assistance by allowing use of premises connected with his family business for storage or movement of funds allegedly generated through illegal activities. However, counsel submits that despite prolonged investigation, no money, documents or incriminating material has been seized from the applicant linking him directly with alleged illegal collections.
19. It is argued that the entire case against the applicant rests upon inferential assumptions and statements recorded during investigation, rather than direct evidence demonstrating personal involvement in any illegal act. He submits that continued incarceration in absence of recovery or concrete evidence directly connecting the applicant to commission of offences militates against settled principles that bail is the rule and jail an exception, particularly where investigation is already complete.
IV. Allegations Based on WhatsApp Chats are Inadmissible
20. Learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant further submits that the prosecution seeks to rely upon certain WhatsApp communications allegedly exchanged between co-accused persons, including the applicant's father and other individuals. However, there is no direct communication involving the present applicant in those chats. It is contended that such electronic records have neither been properly seized nor accompanied by certification compliant with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, nor has the chain of custody or forensic verification been established.
10
21. It is submitted that the alleged chats are incomplete, selectively extracted, and taken out of context, and even otherwise do not disclose any specific criminal act attributable to the applicant. Thus, the prosecution material presently relied upon lacks evidentiary reliability and cannot justify continued detention of the applicant. V. Applicant Has Cooperated with Investigation
22. It is contended that the applicant has throughout cooperated with investigative proceedings. Pursuant to directions issued in earlier proceedings before constitutional courts, he appeared before the investigating agency on multiple occasions and participated in inquiry. Even at the stage when summons were issued, the applicant presented himself before the investigating agency, whereupon he was taken into custody. There is no allegation of non-cooperation, evasion, or attempt to abscond. The applicant has no criminal antecedents, has deep roots in society, and is not a flight risk. It is therefore submitted that continued detention is unnecessary for purposes of investigation or trial. VI. Nature of Allegations and Role Attributed
23. It is contended that the applicant's name appears at a later stage in the investigation and that initially no specific role was attributed to him in the FIR. His implication has emerged subsequently on the basis of statements and alleged financial linkages connected with family business operations. He submits that the allegations at best suggest peripheral involvement in transactions without demonstrating that the applicant was part of any decision-making or operational mechanism of 11 the alleged syndicate. Given the magnitude of the case involving numerous accused persons and complex financial allegations, the applicant cannot be singled out for prolonged incarceration where investigation has concluded and trial is yet to begin. VII. Bail not to be denied as Pre-trial punishment
24. It is argued that criminal law presumes innocence until guilt is established through trial. Pre-trial detention cannot assume the character of punishment. In economic offences involving voluminous evidence and large number of accused persons, trial invariably takes considerable time. Therefore, courts have consistently balanced societal interest with persona liberty by granting bail subject to conditions ensuring presence of accused and fairness of trial. VIII. Prosecution reliance on whatsapp chats is legally unsustainable
25. It is submitted that the prosecution seeks to build its case substantially on certain Whatsapp chat that communications allegedly exchanged between co-accused persons, particularly involving the applicant's father and other accused individuals. However, it is emphasized that no chats directly involving the present applicant have been recovered or produced.. He submits that the investigating agency has neither seized nor examined the mobile phone or electronic device of the applicant from which any such communication could be shown to have originated. Even the device of the applicant's father, from whom communications are alleged, was not seized by the investigating agency.
12
26. As per the prosecution's own case, the alleged chat data was obtained from a mobile phone seized by the Income Tax Department belonging to a co-accused person. Thus, the alleged chats are not recovered from the applicant or any device under his control. It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of custody of electronic data, the method of extraction, preservation protocols, forensic verification or authenticity of the alleged communications.
27. No forensic laboratory report certifying integrity or originality of data has been filed. There exists an unexplained break in custody regarding transfer of electronic material from the Income Tax Department to the present investigating agency.
28. In absence of proof of lawful seizure and secure custody, the electronic material is susceptible to tampering, thereby rendering it unreliable. Further, mandatory compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has not been satisfied. No valid certificate authenticating electronic records 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, wherein it has been authoritatively held that electronic evidence is admissible only upon strict compliance with Section 65B requirements. In absence of such certification, electronic records cannot be relied upon. Thus, reliance upon such inadmissible material cannot justify denial of bail.
13IX. No Prima Facie Offence Made Out Against the Applicant at Bail Stage
29. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution against the applicant is weak and inferential in nature. No direct material establishes participation of the applicant in any alleged criminal conspiracy or illegal transaction. It is submitted that detailed examination of evidence and documentary material is a matter for trial and ought not to be undertaken at the stage of bail consideration. Reliance is placed on the principle reiterated by the Apex Court in Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote (1980) 2 SCC 559, wherein it has been held that detailed appreciation of evidence is not required while deciding bail applications. Further reliance is placed upon P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2020) 13 SCC 337, wherein the Apex Court held that at bail stage, courts are not to conduct meticulous examination of evidence and that liberty cannot be curtailed solely on seriousness of allegations when investigation is complete. Hence, counsel submits that elaborate scrutiny of merits at this stage would amount to pre-judging issues reserved for trial. X. Absence of Mens Rea or Meeting of Minds
30. It is further submitted that even assuming prosecution allegations at their face value, there is no material demonstrating conscious participation or meeting of minds on the part of the applicant with other accused persons. He submits that the applicant is sought to be implicated merely on account of business associations or familial connections, which cannot substitute proof of criminal intent. Reliance 14 is placed upon judicial precedents emphasizing that criminal conspiracy requires proof of agreement or intentional participation, and mere association is insufficient Reference is made to decisions including Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement (2018) 11 SCC 46, where the Apex Court stressed the necessity of establishing deliberate involvement for sustaining prosecution. Thus, absence of demonstrable mens rea further weakens the prosecution case against the applicant at this stage.
XI. Investigation Completed -- Continued Custody Serves No Purpose
31. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that investigation insofar as the present applicant is concerned stands concluded and the supplementary charge-sheet has already been filed. The applicant is no longer required for custodial interrogation. The prosecution has not shown as to how continued incarceration would advance the investigation or trial. It is submitted that the Apex Court has consistently reiterated that detention after completion of investigation must be justified by compelling reasons. Reliance is placed upon Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (1978) 1 SCC 118, wherein it has been observed that bail is the rule and jail an exception, particularly when investigation is complete. Thus, continued custody becomes punitive rather than preventive.
XII. Applicant Fully Satisfies the Triple Test for Bail
32. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant satisfies the well-settled triple test governing grant of bail: 15
• No flight risk -- The applicant is a permanent resident with deep roots in society and business interests within the jurisdiction of the Court.
• No possibility of tampering with evidence -- Investigation is complete and evidence already stands collected by the agency. • No likelihood of influencing witnesses -- No specific allegation of interference has been made.
33. It is further submitted that mere apprehension, unsupported by material, cannot justify continued detention. Reliance is again placed upon P. Chidambaram v. CBI (2020) 13 SCC 337, wherein the Apex Court emphasized that denial of bail must be based on concrete reasons relating to the triple test. The applicant undertakes to abide by any stringent condition imposed by this Court.
XIII. Applicant's Conduct Demonstrates Cooperation with Investigation
34. Counsel further submits that allegations regarding non- appearance before investigating authorities are factually incorrect. Replies to summons were duly furnished and the agency was informed regarding medical condition of the applicant's father. Subsequently, pursuant to directions issued in proceedings before constitutional courts, the applicant appeared before the investigating agency on several dates in January 2025. After dismissal of earlier proceedings by the Apex Court with liberty to seek regular bail, the applicant again complied with summons dated 17.09.2025 and appeared before the investigating 16 authority on 19.09.2025, whereupon he was arrested. These facts establish consistent cooperation rather than evasion. XIV. Earlier Proceedings Cannot Prejudice Present Bail Consideration
35. It is further contended that the Apex Court, while dismissing earlier proceedings, specifically granted liberty to the applicant to seek regular bail and directed that such applications be considered independently on their own merits. Therefore, prior observations or orders cannot influence present bail adjudication. Thus, reliance upon dismissal of earlier petitions to oppose bail is legally impermissible. XV. Large Majority of Accused Already Enlarged on Bail
36. Learned counsel submits that out of the large number of accused persons arrayed in the case, a substantial majority have already been granted bail either by the Apex Court or this Hon'ble Court. Persons alleged to be key actors, intermediaries, officials and beneficiaries of alleged illegal transactions are already on bail. Denial of bail to the present applicant, alleged to have played a lesser role and against whom no recovery is made, results in discriminatory treatment. Parity principle, therefore, squarely operates in favour of the applicant. XVI. Cumulative Effect of Circumstances Favors Bail
37. It is submitted that cumulative factors, namely, completion of investigation, absence of recovery, weak evidentiary basis, inadmissibility of electronic material, grant of bail to co-accused, cooperation of applicant, absence of flight risk and delay in trial, 17 collectively justify grant of bail. It is therefore contended that the applicant is entitled to the concession of regular bail on the principle of parity alone, wholly apart from the manifold other grounds advanced hereinabove.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
38. On behalf of the State/Non-Applicant, the present bail application is strongly opposed. He submits that the applicant seeks enlargement on bail in connection with Crime No. 04/2024 registered by Economic Offences Wing/ACB, Raipur, concerning offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He therefore submits as under:
I. Case Reveals a Deep-Rooted and Organized Criminal Conspiracy
39. The investigation conducted so far discloses existence of a well- structured criminal syndicate operating within the State machinery relating to liquor policy and distribution, involving influential private individuals, government functionaries, transporters, suppliers, and intermediaries. The conspiracy was not an isolated act but a systematic manipulation of the State liquor distribution system, resulting in illegal enrichment through:
• Collection of illegal commissions from distilleries and suppliers, • Sale of unaccounted liquor through State-run outlets, • Use of fake holograms and manipulated distribution channels, • Forced illegal gratification from suppliers and transporters, • Systematic routing and distribution of proceeds of crime. 18 • The investigation shows that proceeds of crime were collected, stored, moved and distributed through trusted associates and controlled premises forming part of a coordinated criminal mechanism.
40. The applicant is not a peripheral participant but a trusted operative entrusted with custody and operational handling of tainted cash, thereby becoming a crucial link in execution of the conspiracy. II. Applicant's Active Role in Custody and Movement of Illegal Cash
41. Investigation reveals that large amounts of cash were brought and stored in premises connected with the applicant and his family network, including hotel premises where tainted money was stored and subsequently distributed as per instructions of principal conspirators. The material collected during investigation shows that the cash collected by associates was brought in bags and stored in hotel premises, the applicant and his family members facilitated storage of money, movement and delivery of cash to beneficiaries were undertaken through this controlled mechanism and the applicant acted under direct instructions of principal accused persons and played an operational role in cash distribution.
Thus, the applicant acted not merely as an observer but as a custodian and facilitator in movement and concealment of illegal proceeds.
III. Digital Evidence Establishes Applicant's Direct Involvement
42. A consolidated technical analysis of WhatsApp communications 19 exchanged between principal accused persons and the applicant during the relevant period discloses a structured mechanism for illegal cash distribution. The Chats include coded instructions and ledger-like entries correlating with movement of large sums of money. These entries contain references to coded persons and locations corresponding to beneficiaries and distribution points. The chats and correlated digital analysis demonstrate:
• Structured distribution of illegal funds, • Use of coded references to conceal identity, • Repeated instructions corresponding with actual cash movements, • Entries indicating payment scheduling and distribution channels. • The extracted material establishes a continuous digital trail showing the applicant's involvement in operational aspects of illegal cash handling.
Thus, the prosecution case is not based on mere suspicion but supported by digital and circumstantial evidence forming a cogent chain linking the applicant with proceeds of crime. IV. Massive Financial Impact on State Revenue
43. Investigation conducted so far reveals a massive financial impact upon State revenue, demonstrating seriousness of the offence. The investigation has established:
• Illegal commission collected from distilleries approximates ₹319.32 Crores.
• Sale of unaccounted country liquor resulted in revenue loss 20 approximating ₹2,174.60 Crores.
• Additional illegal collections under various supply heads approximate ₹52 Crores.
Thus, from country liquor operations alone, illegal proceeds amount to approximately ₹2,545.93 Crores. Further investigation in foreign liquor segment reveals:
• Illegal commission from FL/IMFL and beer approximating ₹88.69 Crores, • Additional illegal collections of about ₹21.56 Crores,Further illegal gains approximating ₹171.64 Crores traced through license arrangements.
• Collectively, illegal commission from foreign liquor operations amounts to approximately ₹281.89 Crores.
44. Thus, overall illegal commission traced so far approximates ₹2,827.82 Crores. Additionally, misuse of licensing policy resulted in undue profits of approximately ₹248.50 Crores, directly constituting loss to State revenue. Consequently, cumulative financial impact identified during investigation approximates ₹3,076 Crores, with strong likelihood of total impact exceeding ₹4,000 Crores, as investigation into additional layers continues. The magnitude of economic impact itself demonstrates the seriousness of the offence and the need for strict judicial scrutiny while considering bail.
V. Investigation is Continuing and Further Layers Are Being Uncovered
45. Learned State counsel submits that the investigation is still 21 ongoing due to the multi-layered nature of the conspiracy. Though charge-sheets have been filed against multiple accused persons, supplementary investigations continue to uncover:
• Additional money trails, • Beneficiary chains, • Further intermediaries, • Additional illegal revenue streams.
• Eight charge-sheets have already been filed and investigation continues in respect of additional accused persons and financial transactions.
Thus, mere filing of charge-sheet does not conclude investigation, and custodial presence of key operatives remains necessary to prevent obstruction and tampering.
VI. Applicant's Capacity to Influence Witnesses and Evidence
46. The applicant, being part of a network handling distribution channels and custodial operations, is connected with multiple witnesses and operational persons involved in the conspiracy. If released on bail, there exists a real and substantial likelihood that:
• Witnesses may be influenced, • Evidence chains may be disrupted, • Financial trails may be obstructed, • Further investigation may be hampered.
Given the applicant's operational role and influence within the network, release on bail at this stage poses serious risk to fair trial and investigation.22
VII. Economic Offences Require Strict Approach in Bail Matters
47. It is respectfully submitted that economic offences involving organized corruption and massive public revenue loss stand on a different footing than ordinary offences. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and causing serious loss to public funds require a strict approach in bail matters, as such offences affect the entire economic fabric of society. Given the magnitude and organized nature of the present offence, the applicant does not deserve discretionary relief of bail. VIII. Parity Not Applicable in Present Case
48. The applicant seeks bail on parity with co-accused. However, parity is not automatic and must depend upon role and material against each accused. In the present case, investigation shows applicant's direct operational involvement in custody and distribution of proceeds of crime. His role is distinct and significant. Therefore, bail granted to other accused persons cannot automatically entitle the present applicant to bail.
IX. Real and Grave Possibility of Influencing Witnesses and Tampering with Evidence
49. It is respectfully submitted that the investigation has disclosed that the applicant occupied a position of operational trust within the illegal cash collection and distribution mechanism. Several material witnesses, including departmental officials, transport intermediaries, hotel staff, and persons connected with custody and delivery of illegal cash, are directly or indirectly connected with the applicant. If enlarged on bail at this 23 stage, there exists a grave and real likelihood of the applicant influencing or intimidating key witnesses, particularly those connected with cash handling operations and distribution channels.
50. There is also a serious apprehension that the applicant may interfere with documentary and digital evidence forming part of the banking trail, registry records and annexure-linked material, or may facilitate alteration or destruction of records necessary for effective investigation. Further, the applicant is in a position to obstruct ongoing investigation by shifting assets, creating benami layers, or otherwise frustrating tracing and attachment proceedings relating to proceeds of crime. Thus, continued custody is necessary to ensure a fair and uninfluenced investigation and trial.
X. Parity Plea is Misconceived and Inapplicable
51. The applicant seeks to claim parity with certain co-accused persons who may have been granted bail. However, it is respectfully submitted that parity cannot be claimed mechanically. The role attributed to the present applicant is distinct and graver in nature. He was not a peripheral participant but was entrusted with custody, supervision and delivery of tainted cash and functioned as an operational link between principal conspirators and end beneficiaries. Parity must necessarily be role-based and cannot be determined merely on the basis of filing of charge-sheet or duration of custody. Consequently, no benefit of parity accrues to the present applicant.
XI. Absence of Recovery Does Not Dilute Prosecution Case
52. The defence seeks to rely upon absence of direct recovery from 24 the applicant at the time of arrest. It is submitted that in organized economic offences involving conspiracy and money-trail management, culpability is not established solely on physical recovery. In the present case, involvement of the applicant stands supported by digital evidence, WhatsApp communications, ledger-like "hisab-sheet" entries, coordinated conduct of accused persons, and corroborative witness statements forming part of the charge-sheet. Therefore, absence of recovery from physical possession of the applicant does not dilute the prosecution case.
XII. Findings of Hon'ble Division Bench Have Persuasive Value
53. It is submitted that the Division Bench of this Court, while considering connected matters involving several co-accused persons including the present applicant, has already recorded categorical observations regarding organized nature of the crime and involvement of accused persons. The Court has observed that the matter pertains to organized criminal activity involving persons occupying influential positions and that there exists real likelihood of influencing witnesses and tampering with evidence. These findings, though rendered in connected proceedings, carry strong persuasive value and are directly relevant to the present bail consideration.
XIII. Enormity of Financial Impact Justifies Continued Custody
54. The Court has earlier recorded that the nature of offences has resulted in massive loss to the State exchequer, with proceeds of crime then estimated at approximately ₹2,161 Crores. Subsequent investigation and consolidation of financial material have further 25 expanded the quantification, and updated computations incorporated in continuing investigation and supplementary charge-sheets reveal that the total financial impact, including illegal commission and revenue loss, now approximates ₹3,076 Crores.
55. Thus, the updated figure does not contradict but supplements earlier estimates as investigation has uncovered additional layers and streams of illegal gain. The magnitude of economic loss reinforces seriousness of offence and justifies cautious judicial approach in bail matters.
XIV. Applicant's Proximity to Principal Conspirators
56. Investigation further shows that the applicant functioned within a trusted inner circle of the syndicate and maintained operational proximity with principal conspirators. By virtue of familiarity with operational details, custody arrangements and persons connected with transportation and storage of illegal cash, the applicant possesses capacity to influence witnesses or coordinate alteration of narratives, thereby posing serious threat to fairness of investigation and trial.
57. The offence under investigation is not an isolated criminal act but represents systematic subversion of public revenue mechanisms and institutional processes. Such offences erode public confidence in governance and rule of law. Grant of bail at a stage when investigation continues and substantial material indicates involvement of the applicant would send an adverse signal and undermine public interest, particularly in matters involving large-scale economic offences and organized 26 corruption.
XV. Possibility of Obstruction in Tracing Proceeds of Crime
58. The conspiracy under investigation is continuing in nature, with proceeds of crime layered and concealed through complex financial structures. Release of the applicant at this stage may facilitate concealment or obstruction in tracing and securing proceeds of crime and in identifying ultimate beneficiaries. Thus, custodial restraint remains necessary for effective continuation of investigation. XVI. Bail Application Deserves Rejection
59. Considering the organized nature of offence, magnitude of financial impact, operational role of applicant, existence of digital and documentary evidence, ongoing investigation, and possibility of interference with evidence and witnesses, the present bail application is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal.
60. Thus, the applicant's operational role in handling illegal proceeds, existence of digital and documentary evidence, magnitude of economic loss exceeding ₹3,000 Crores, ongoing investigation, risk of influencing witnesses and obstruction, seriousness and organized nature of offence, the prosecution respectfully submits that no case for grant of bail is made out.
FINDINGS:
61. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Case diary, charge-sheets filed, documents placed on record and rival submissions have been carefully examined.
27
62. The present application concerns Crime No. 04/2024 registered by the Economic Offences Wing alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC along with provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution case pertains to alleged manipulation in liquor trade operations resulting in generation and circulation of illegal proceeds, presently forming subject matter of a large-scale economic offence investigation.
63. While the seriousness of the allegations cannot be understated, the scope of consideration at the stage of bail is limited and does not involve a detailed appreciation of evidence which is the domain of trial. I. Principles Governing Grant of Bail
64. The law governing bail is well settled. The Apex Court has consistently held that grant or refusal of bail must be governed by judicial discretion exercised on settled parameters balancing individual liberty with societal interest. In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308, the Apex Court laid down the foundational principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception." This principle was reiterated and elaborated in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1978) 1 SCC 240, wherein the Court emphasized that deprivation of liberty pending trial must be justified by compelling reasons and cannot be mechanical.
65. Similarly, in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, dealing with economic offences involving large financial implications, the 28 Supreme Court observed that seriousness of allegation alone cannot justify prolonged pre-trial incarceration, particularly when investigation is complete and trial is likely to take considerable time.
66. The Court observed that detention pending trial should not assume punitive character. Further, in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 3 SCC 22, it was reiterated that grant of bail is a general rule and refusal an exception, and presumption of innocence continues until conviction.
67. Likewise, in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC 791, the Apex Court held that gravity of offence is an important factor, but it cannot be the sole ground to deny bail when the triple test -- flight risk, possibility of tampering with evidence and likelihood of influencing witnesses is satisfied. Thus, judicial approach must balance societal interest and personal liberty without pre-judging guilt.
II. Completion of Investigation and Evidentiary Nature of Material
68. In the present matter, investigation has substantially progressed and charge-sheets have been filed. The prosecution case largely rests upon documentary, digital and financial records which already stand collected and preserved. Custodial interrogation of the applicant is not shown to be presently required. Once evidence is documentary in nature and already secured, continued custody does not materially advance investigation. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra (supra) observed that when prosecution relies upon documentary evidence 29 already in possession of investigating agency, prolonged detention loses justification.
III. Parity with Co-Accused
69. A significant factor pressed into service by the applicant is that several co-accused persons, including those alleged to be principal actors or beneficiaries of the conspiracy, have already been granted bail by competent courts. Though parity cannot be mechanically applied, consistency in judicial approach is necessary to avoid discriminatory treatment among similarly placed accused.
70. It is also significant to note that a large number of co-accused persons, including those alleged to have played principal or more dominant roles in the alleged conspiracy, have already been enlarged on bail either by this Court or by the Supreme Court. Illustratively, Sanjay Mishra and Manish Mishra were granted bail by this Court in MCRC No. 7093 of 2025 (order dated 23.09.2025); Vijay Bhatia in MCRC No. 5601 of 2025 (order dated 25.09.2025); Sunil Dutt in MCRC No. 188 of 2025 (order dated 12.03.2025); Abhishek Singh in MCRC No. 7790 of 2025 (order dated 11.11.2025); Chaitanya Baghel in MCRC No. 8224 of 2025; Atul Singh in MCRC No. 8857 of 2025 (order dated 13.01.2026); and Mukesh Manchanda in MCRC No. 8849 of 2025 (order dated 23.09.2025). Similarly, the Apex Court has granted bail to co-accused Arvind Singh (SLP (Crl.) No. 2608 of 2025, order dated 19.05.2025), Amit Singh (SLP (Crl.) No. 2545 of 2025, order dated 19.05.2025), Deepak Duary (SLP (Crl.) No. 298 of 2025, order dated 07.03.2025), Anurag Dwivedi (SLP (Crl.) No. 18386 of 30 2024, order dated 07.03.2025) and Arunpati Tripathi (SLP (Crl.) No. 14466 of 2024, order dated 07.03.2025).
71. In view of the aforesaid orders, continued detention of the present applicant, whose role is not shown to be graver than those already released, would be inconsistent with the principle of parity governing bail jurisprudence.
72. In Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan (2010) 1 SCC 684, the Apex Court held that when co-accused with similar or graver allegations have been granted bail, denial of bail to another accused without distinguishing circumstances would be unjustified.
73. From the material on record, it emerges that co-accused occupying more dominant roles in the alleged conspiracy have already been granted bail. The role ascribed to the present applicant remains primarily operational--confined to the alleged handling and facilitation of funds, rather than policy formulation or financial decision-making. In such circumstances, the applicant's continued incarceration demands compelling justification, which remains wholly unforthcoming. IV. Absence of name in FIR and lack of Direct Recovery
74. The applicant's name admittedly does not figure in the original FIR, emerging solely during investigation. Though this circumstance alone does not negate culpability, it constitutes a material factor in evaluating prima facie involvement at the bail stage. Further no Direct Recovery has been effected from the applicant. The prosecution's case rests primarily on digital communications and investigative statements-- 31 evidence documentary in nature, secure against tampering irrespective of the applicant's custody. In Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, (1980) 2 SCC 559, the Apex Court held that detailed evidence evaluation is impermissible at the bailstage; courts must confine themselves to broad probabilities, eschewing a mini-trial. V. Length of Custody and Delay in Trial
75. The applicant has remained in custody for a considerable period. Considering the volume of documentary evidence, multiplicity of accused persons and complexity of financial transactions, the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future. In Sanjay Chandra (supra), the Apex Court held that detention pending trial should not become punishment before conviction, particularly when trial is likely to take substantial time. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution mandates that pre-trial detention should not be unnecessarily prolonged.
VI. Triple Test Consideration
76. The prosecution apprehends that release of the applicant may result in influencing witnesses or obstruction of investigation. However, no specific instance of such conduct is pointed out. Conditions can adequately safeguard investigation and trial interests. The Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram (supra) emphasized that bail conditions can address concerns relating to tampering or non-cooperation. There is no material to indicate that the applicant is a flight risk or would evade trial. Appropriate restrictions can ensure his presence and cooperation. 32 VII. Balance Between Gravity and Liberty
77. Undoubtedly, economic offences involving public revenue are serious in nature. However, seriousness alone cannot eclipse constitutional mandate of personal liberty. In Sanjay Chandra (supra), it was clearly held that even in economic offences, detention must be justified by necessity, not by moral indignation or gravity alone. Thus, balancing seriousness of allegations with factors such as completion of investigation, parity, absence of recovery, and prolonged custody, continued detention of the applicant does not appear necessary.
78. In view of the totality of circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the Investigation qua the applicant stands substantially concluded; Prosecution evidence is predominantly documentary, amenable to preservation; Several co-accused in more dominant roles have already secured enlargement on bail; The applicant's name does not figure in the original FIR; No recovery stands effected from or attributed to him; Detention has endured for a considerable duration; Trial commencement and conclusion appear appreciably distant; and apprehended risks to prosecution can be adequately circumscribed through stringent conditions.
79. Accordingly, continued incarceration of the applicant is rendered untenable at this juncture. Without venturing any opinion on merits reserved exclusively for trial adjudication, the applicant is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, besides complying with the following conditions:
33
(i) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, tamper with evidence or contact prosecution witnesses;
(ii) The applicant shall regularly attend court proceedings and mark presence as directed;
(iii) The applicant shall not, in any manner, threaten or influence any person connected with the case; and
(iv) Violation of any condition shall entail immediate cancellation of bail.
80. The application stands allowed in the above terms. The observations made herein are confined to adjudication of bail and shall not influence trial proceedings.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Digitally signed SUGUNA by SUGUNA DUBEY DUBEY Date: 2026.03.03 17:30:26 +0530