Chattisgarh High Court
Niranjan Das vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11502
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ORDER RESERVED ON 18.02.2026
ORDER DELIVERED ON 10.03.2026
ORDER UPLOADED ON 10.03.2026
MCRC No. 10422 of 2025
1 - Niranjan Das S/o Late Shri Laxminarayan Das Aged About 63 Years
R/o House No. 61, Rama Greens, Near Las Vista Society, Amlidih, V I P
Road, Labhandih, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. , P.S.- E O W / A C B,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant (s) : Shri Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Advocate
through VC assisted by Shri Mayank Kumar,
Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Praveen Das, Addl. AG
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA)
C A V Order
The instant application constitutes the applicant's maiden quest
for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
2
Sanhita, 2023, arising from FIR No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024, lodged
at the behest of the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). The accusations therein--invoking
Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
conjointly with Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988--stem from purported irregularities in liquor procurement and
distribution within the State of Chhattisgarh.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The prosecution's narrative, succinctly stated, emanates from an investigation into an alleged large-scale "Liquor Scam" implicating irregularities in the procurement, sale and supply of liquor within the State. It is posited that certain officials and private entities forged a criminal conspiracy, occasioning undue pecuniary gain to favoured concerns and corresponding detriment to the State exchequer. The Applicant, a retired civil servant who superannuated on 31.01.2023 as Secretary, Excise Department, thereafter re-engaged on contract as Secretary, Electronics and Information Technology, with transient additional charge as Excise Commissioner stands implicated solely on the anvil of supervisory oversight and purported acquiescence in policy formulations.
3. Concededly, no allegation of direct involvement in transactional procurements or fiscal disbursals is levelled against the Applicant; inference of complicity is drawn inferentially from his positional stature during the material period. The FIR crystallized on 17.01.2024. The investigative process has yielded seven charge-sheets arraying 51 accused and over 1,100 witnesses, with further probe ostensibly afoot. 3 The Applicant, demonstrating unwavering rectitude, invoked this Court's jurisdiction qua quashing of the FIR, securing interim succour from coercive measures, renewed periodically. The quashing petition's dismissal prompted escalation to the Apex Court, where interim protection endured, conditioned on investigative cooperation, a mandate the Applicant scrupulously discharged, presenting before the agency inter alia on 25.09.2024, 26.09.2024, 07.03.2025, and 26.08.2025. Amidst these proceedings, investigative extensions were sought and granted. By order dated 16.09.2025, the Apex Court petition stood dismissed, vacating interim protection while conferring liberty to seek regular bail. In immediate sequel, the Applicant suffered arrest on 18.09.2025, enduring 11 days in police custody before remand to judicial custody--a situation persisting unbroken. The charge-sheet pertaining to the Applicant was tendered on 24.11.2025, culminating investigation qua him, albeit broader inquiries linger. A prior bail application before the learned Special Judge (PC Act), Raipur, met rejection on 06.12.2025, precipitating the instant revision.
4. Notably, myriad co-accused including Excise officials and purported conspiracy beneficiaries have secured regular or anticipatory bail from this Court or the Apex Court, factoring the colossal dimensions of the case, witness profusion and inexorable trial prolongation. A parallel departmental inquiry by the Commercial Tax (Excise) Department into the impugned transactions, as averred, absolved the Applicant of any malfeasance therein. Unblemished by prior conviction, the Applicant confronts ancillary proceedings in Uttar Pradesh and under the PMLA, predicated on this FIR yet sans conviction, with trials 4 pending. In essence, the tableau discloses a saga of alleged excise policy lapses; investigation from January 2024; exemplary cooperation by the Applicant under interim aegis; post-vacation arrest in September 2025; charge-sheet closure qua him; trial non-commencement and a labyrinth of accused/witnesses portending protracted adjudication. Aggrieved thereby, the Applicant has approached this Court.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT I. Investigation qua the Applicant is Complete - No Justification for Continued Custody
5. At the threshold, it is submitted that the investigation insofar as the present Applicant is concerned stands wholly concluded. Charge- sheet qua him was filed on 24.11.2025; no interrogation has occurred post 26.08.2025 well after police custody expiry. The very rationale for custodial remand thus evaporates (Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51). The charge-sheet has been filed on 24.11.2025 and the Applicant has not been interrogated even once after 29.09.2025, i.e., after expiry of police custody. Thus, the very substratum for custodial detention no longer survives.
6. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that once investigation qua an accused is complete and the prosecution does not seek further custodial interrogation, continued incarceration becomes punitive rather than preventive. Pre-trial detention cannot be converted into a measure of punishment. It has been repeatedly emphasized that arrest and detention cannot be used as a punitive tool. In Siddharth v. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676, the Apex Court held that merely because an offence is cognizable and non-bailable, arrest is not 5 mandatory once investigation is complete. In the present case, the prosecution does not require further custodial interrogation. Therefore, continued incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment, which is constitutionally impermissible.
7. The Applicant has already undergone substantial custody. The trial has not commenced and in view of the scale of the case, it is not likely to conclude in the foreseeable future. In such circumstances, detention would amount to pre-trial punishment, which is impermissible under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
II. Applicant Has Fully Cooperated - No Allegation of Non- Cooperation
8. The Applicant has cooperated with the investigation from the very inception. During the period of interim protection granted by constitutional courts, he appeared before the Investigating Agency on multiple occasions and joined investigation as and when called. There is not a whisper of allegation that the Applicant failed to appear, evaded summons, withheld documents, or attempted to obstruct the investigation. The protection granted earlier was expressly conditional upon cooperation, and the same was scrupulously adhered to. It is submitted that cooperation does not mean self-incrimination. Merely because the Applicant did not make statements favourable to the prosecution cannot be construed as non-cooperation. III. Principle of Parity - Co-Accused with Graver Allegations Already Enlarged on Bail 6
9. The doctrine of parity, a cornerstone of Article 14 equality, imperatively applies. A formidable array of co-accused encompassing senior-most Excise officials and alleged prime beneficiaries, have secured regular/anticipatory bail from this Court and the Apex Court, notwithstanding graver attributions. The Excise Minister, imputed with massive pecuniary gains was granted interim bail by the Apex Court. As many as 29 Excise officials have been granted anticipatory bail and in certain cases non-arrest charge-sheets have been filed. The multiple co-accused persons, including those alleged to have derived substantially higher pecuniary benefits and those occupying key operational roles, have been enlarged on bail. The Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22, held that parity is a relevant consideration and that similarly situated accused should receive similar treatment. The selective incarceration of the Applicant, when others with alleged graver roles stand released, militates against Article 14 of the Constitution.
10. The Applicant, who is alleged to have played a supervisory role without any direct handling of transactions, remains the solitary officer in custody. Such selective incarceration militates against the constitutional mandate of equality before law.
IV. No Recovery - No Financial Trail - Allegations Rest on Uncorroborated Statements
11. The allegation that the Applicant received Rs. 50 lakhs per month for 32 months is wholly unsubstantiated. There is no bank transaction reflecting such receipt, No cash trail, no recovery of unaccounted 7 money, no contemporaneous documentary evidence, no attachment of any alleged proceeds of crime attributable to the Applicant. The prosecution relies primarily on statements of co-accused persons. The evidentiary value of such statements is a matter of trial. In Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, the Apex Court cautioned against over-reliance on confessional statements in criminal prosecution. Even the alleged electronic chats were not recovered from the Applicant and do not reveal any incriminating material on their face.
12. Despite multiple searches, no incriminating material, illegal liquor stock, counterfeit hologram or unaccounted cash has been recovered from the Applicant. The prosecution case, insofar as it concerns the Applicant, is founded primarily on statements of co-accused persons. The evidentiary value and admissibility of such statements are matters to be tested during trial. Even the alleged chats relied upon by the prosecution have not been recovered from the Applicant. Without admitting admissibility, the contents do not reveal any incriminating exchange, demand, or receipt of illegal gratification V. No Role in Policy Formulation or Tender Approval
13. The Applicant was neither the sanctioning authority nor a member of the tender committee for procurement of holograms. His role, if any, was confined to forwarding files in the ordinary discharge of official duties. The changes in excise policy and introduction of FL-10A licenses were decisions approved by the Cabinet and legislative processes. The Applicant was not the approving authority. 8
14. As per the prosecution's own case, other officials were responsible for operational decisions and tender processes. Those individuals have already been granted bail. There is no material demonstrating that the Applicant derived any personal pecuniary benefit from any policy decision.
VI. Allegations Regarding Property Acquisition Are Explained and Documented
15. The prosecution has attempted to cast aspersions regarding acquisition of properties by the Applicant and his family members. However, Sources of funds were duly disclosed during investigation. The aggregate value of properties is fully explained through lawful loans, ancestral property sales, salary income, and retirement benefits. The Applicant has complied with disclosure requirements before the General Administration Department. The prosecution has not disputed the documented sources reproduced in the charge-sheet itself. No alleged proceeds of crime have been traced to any bank account of the Applicant.
Thus, even on the prosecution's own showing, there is no financial linkage between alleged proceeds of crime and the Applicant's assets.
VII. Trial Is Likely to Take Considerable Time - Right to Speedy Trial Engaged
16. The Respondent Agency itself asserts that further investigation is ongoing. As long as supplementary investigation continues, charges cannot meaningfully be crystallized against all accused. With more 9 than 50 accused persons, over 1,100 witnesses, and multiple charge- sheets running into lakhs of pages, the trial is structurally incapable of early conclusion. Even cognizance in respect of certain accused has not been taken despite nearly two years of investigation. It is inconceivable that such a trial would conclude within a reasonable time. Continued incarceration for an indefinite period would violate the Applicant's fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that where trial is likely to take long and investigation is complete, bail must ordinarily follow. Bail jurisprudence does not permit indefinite incarceration pending an uncertain and protracted trial.
17. The right to speedy trial is an integral part of Article 21. In Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81, the Apex Court declared speedy trial to be a fundamental right. Similarly, in Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 291, it was held that when there is no likelihood of early hearing, continued detention becomes unjustified. Recently, in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Supreme Court cautioned against prolonged incarceration where trial is likely to take considerable time.
VIII. Applicant Satisfies the Triple Test
18. The Applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is a retired civil servant, permanently residing in Raipur with his family and there is no flight risk. The evidence is largely documentary and already seized. There is no possibility of tampering. The Applicant holds no public office or position of influence that could enable him to interfere with the trial. 10 The Applicant undertakes to abide by any condition imposed by this Court.
IX. Bail Is the Rule; Jail Is the Exception
19. The object of bail is to secure presence at trial and not to punish before conviction. Economic offences, though serious, do not create an absolute embargo against grant of bail. Each case must be examined on its own facts. Deprivation of liberty pending trial must satisfy the test of necessity. In the absence of flight risk, tampering, or non- cooperation, incarceration becomes disproportionate. The foundational principle governing bail jurisprudence was authoritatively laid down in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308, wherein it was held that "the basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail." The Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, held that deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless required to secure the presence of the accused at trial.
20. Recently, in Manish Sisodia v. CBI, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1393, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that prolonged incarceration pending trial violates Article 21 and that bail cannot be denied merely on the gravity of allegations. It is submitted that gravity alone cannot override constitutional safeguards, particularly when investigation stands completed.
X. Economic Offence is Not an Absolute Bar to Bail
21. The prosecution seeks to portray the matter as a grave economic offence. While the seriousness of allegations is not disputed, it is settled 11 law that gravity cannot operate as an automatic bar. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791, the Supreme Court held: that "The gravity of the offence cannot be the sole ground to deny bail."
22. Even in cases involving serious financial allegations, the Court has granted bail when the triple test is satisfied and investigation is complete. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Supreme Court observed that detention before conviction has a substantial punitive content and must not be resorted to unless absolutely necessary.
XI. Liberty Granted by the Apex Court - Its Purpose Cannot Be Rendered Illusory
23. It is respectfully submitted that the Apex Court, while dismissing the petition seeking quashing of the FIR, was conscious of the prolonged nature of the investigation and the evolving procedural stage of the matter. In that backdrop, the Apex Court expressly granted liberty to the Applicant to approach the appropriate Court for grant of regular bail after filing of the charge-sheet. Such liberty was neither ornamental nor routine. It was granted after the Apex Court had the benefit of perusing the allegations, the status of investigation, and the overall factual matrix. The grant of liberty was thus a judicially considered safeguard to ensure that the Applicant's right to seek regular bail at the appropriate stage remains meaningful and effective.
The filing of the charge-sheet on 24.11.2025 marked the crystallization of the prosecution case against the Applicant. The 12 investigation qua the Applicant stands complete. The stage contemplated by the Apex Court for seeking regular bail has thus arisen.
24. If, notwithstanding the completion of investigation and the liberty expressly granted by the Apex Court, the Applicant is to be continued in custody without demonstrable necessity, the very object of the said liberty would stand defeated. Judicial liberty cannot be reduced to a formality. It must operate in substance. It is settled that an order of the Apex Court granting liberty to approach the appropriate Court for bail necessarily implies that the application must be considered uninfluenced by the earlier dismissal of the quashing petition and strictly on parameters governing bail. Continued incarceration in such circumstances would amount to rendering the liberty otiose.
25. The Applicant has approached this Court in strict compliance with the liberty so granted. The consideration at this stage must therefore be guided by the settled principles governing post-charge-sheet bail, and not by the gravity of allegations in isolation.
XII. Pre-Trial Incarceration Must Satisfy the Constitutional Test of Necessity
26. Bail jurisprudence in India is constitutionally anchored in the presumption of innocence and the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, the Apex Court authoritatively observed that "Personal liberty is too precious a value of ou constitutional system recognized under Article 21." The Court further 13 underscored that deprivation of liberty must be justified by compelling reasons and not by reflexive or mechanical considerations.
27. Pre-trial detention is not to be employed as a measure of anticipatory punishment. It is permissible only where it is necessary to secure the presence of the accused at trial, prevent tampering of evidence, or obviate interference with the course of justice. The constitutional test, therefore, is one of necessity -- not symbolism, not severity of accusation, and not public sentiment.
28. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Apex Court held that "The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused at trial... Further Investigation Pending - Trial Not Likely to Commence in Near Futureeprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment unless it is required to ensure that the accused will stand trial."
29. Similarly, in Manish Sisodia v. CBI, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1393, the Apex Court reiterated that prolonged incarceration pending trial offends Article 21, particularly where investigation is complete and trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. The present case satisfies none of the parameters that justify continued detention:
• Investigation qua the Applicant is complete.
• No custodial interrogation is sought.
• The evidence is documentary and already in possession of the
prosecution.
14
• The Applicant is a retired civil servant with fixed roots and no
criminal antecedents
In these circumstances, incarceration would cease to be preventive and would assume a punitive character. The Constitution does not countenance punishment prior to conviction.
30. It is submitted that the seriousness of allegations, however grave, cannot substitute the requirement of necessity. Liberty cannot be curtailed to send a message or to satisfy a symbolic demand for custodial presence. The Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22, observed that the grant of bail is the general rule and that refusal is an exception to be justified by cogent reasons. Therefore, unless the prosecution demonstrates a real, imminent, and specific risk of abscondence, tampering, or obstruction, which it has not -- continued detention would be constitutionally disproportionate. XIII. Key Alleged Beneficiary Absconding - Inevitable Delay in Conclusion of Trial
31. As per the prosecution's own case, one Vikas Agarwal alias Subbu, allegedly the principal beneficiary with alleged gain exceeding Rs. 1000 crores -- is absconding and stated to be outside India. Without securing the presence of such alleged central conspirator, the trial cannot effectively proceed to its logical conclusion. The inevitable delay caused by the absence of a key accused cannot be a ground to continue incarceration of the Applicant, who has cooperated at every stage.
15XIV. Constitutional Duty of the Court - Prevent Violation of Fundamental Rights, Not Merely Remedy Them
32. Article 21 guarantees not only fair procedure but timely adjudication. The right to liberty cannot await the leisurely pace of prosecution. As held in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, personal liberty is a foundational constitutional value and its deprivation must pass the strict test of necessity. XV. Pick and Choose Investigation - Unequal Application of Law
33. The record reflects that several distillers, manpower agencies, cash-collection agencies and placement agencies, alleged to have played pivotal roles and allegedly involved in transactions exceeding hundreds of crores have not been arrested. Even individuals against whom non-bailable warrants were issued have not been taken into custody. Such selective action reveals a manifest "pick and choose"
approach. The Apex Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1 SCC 226 emphasized that investigation must be free from extraneous considerations and executive influence. Selective incarceration of the Applicant, while others remain untouched, is itself a ground for bail. XVI. Departmental Enquiry Exonerates - Criminal Prosecution Unsustainable on Same Material
34. A detailed Departmental Enquiry conducted by the Commercial Tax (Excise) Department examined identical allegations. The findings record Sale conducted strictly in accordance with rules; Monthly audits by Chartered Accountants; Supervision by the Comptroller and Auditor General;Track-and-Trace system through NIC portal; No discrepancy in 16 allotment of tender; No loss to State Exchequer; Revenue steadily increased. The revenue figures themselves show a steady and unprecedented increase in the year 2019-20: ₹ 4952.79 Crores, 2020- 21: ₹ 4636.90 Crores, 2021-22: ₹ 5110.15 Crores, 2022-23: ₹ 6783.61 Crores.
35. In Radheyshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal, (2011) 3 SCC 581, the Apex Court held that where adjudicatory/departmental proceedings exonerate on identical facts, criminal proceedings on same material cannot continue mechanically. At the very least, such exoneration substantially dilutes the case of prosecution at the stage of bail.
XVII. No Loss to Exchequer - Revenue Increased
36. The prosecution theory of "loss to State Exchequer" stands contradicted by official revenue data. Revenue increased year upon year, including unprecedented rise in 2022-23. In absence of demonstrable pecuniary loss, the theory of conspiracy for siphoning public funds becomes inherently improbable. The present case demonstrates absence of sanction; Further investigation pending; Protracted and uncertain trial; Absconding principal accused; Departmental exoneration; No recovery or financial trail; Weak reliance on co-accused statements; Policy decisions sought to be criminalized; Selective investigation; Parity strongly favouring bail; No demonstrable loss to exchequer. Continued incarceration in these circumstances would not serve the ends of justice; it would only convert presumption 17 of innocence into pre-trial punishment. The Applicant's detention no longer satisfies the constitutional test of necessity under Article 21. XVIII. Investigation Vitiated by Mala Fides and Selective Targeting
37. It is respectfully submitted that the manner in which the investigation has been conducted itself raises serious concerns regarding fairness and impartiality. The prosecution has proceeded in a demonstrably selective and "pick and choose" manner. Individuals who allegedly yielded to the demands of the investigating agencies and gave statements favourable to the prosecution narrative have been granted protection and spared arrest. Conversely, those who declined to toe the line have been subjected to coercive action. Such selective treatment strikes at the very root of the concept of fair investigation, which is now recognized as an integral component of Article 21.
38. The Apex Court in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254, has held that a fair investigation is a constitutional guarantee and any investigation tainted by mala fides or bias is liable to be viewed with suspicion.
XIX. Gravity of Allegations Cannot Override Constitutional Liberty
39. The prosecution may rely heavily upon the alleged "gravity" and "magnitude" of the offence. However, gravity alone cannot be decisive. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791, the Apex Court held that while economic offences are serious, the same does not mean bail must be denied in every such case. The Court reiterated that the triple test remains the governing principle. The 18 seriousness of allegations cannot eclipse the constitutional presumption of innocence.
XX. Health Condition - Humanitarian Consideration
40. The Applicant suffers from serious coronary ailments and has undergone multiple cardiac interventions including stenting and angioplasty. He is also a diabetic patient requiring continuous medical supervision. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized that serious medical conditions are relevant considerations for grant of bail, particularly when trial is likely to be prolonged. Continued incarceration poses a real and substantial risk to his health. Lastly, he submits that he satisfies the triple test in letter and spirit, and that further detention would be contrary to settled principles of bail jurisprudence. REPLY/OBJECTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE I. A deep rooted criminal conspiracy affecting the State Exchequer
41. It is submitted by Shri Das, learned State counsel that the present matter does not involve a routine allegation of administrative irregularity. The investigation conducted by the Economic Offences Wing, based upon information received from the Enforcement Directorate and other intelligence inputs, has revealed the existence of a structured criminal syndicate operating within the excise framework of the State of Chhattisgarh.
42. The investigation discloses that the said syndicate comprised high ranking public officials, influential private individuals and intermediaries operating across different layers of the excise 19 administration. Through a coordinated manipulation of policy decisions, licensing mechanisms, tender procedures and enforcement structures, the said syndicate created an illegal parallel system within the State excise framework. The objective of this mechanism was to ensure systematic extraction of illegal commissions from distilleries and other stakeholders involved in a liquor trade across the State. Such illegal commissions were collected through a well-organized network involving field-level operatives, collection agents, transport intermediaries, and distribution channels. The proceeds of such illegal collections were thereafter channelled and distributed among members of the syndicate. The present applicant, while holding senior positions within the State excise administration, played a significant and facilitative role in enabling the functioning of this illegal structure. II. Nature and Magnitude of the Offence - Organized Criminal Conspiracy at the Highest Level
43. The present case does not pertain to an isolated irregularity but to a structured, well-orchestrated criminal syndicate that systematically subverted the State excise regime for unlawful enrichment. The investigation has revealed that the applicant, while occupying the office of Excise Commissioner/Secretary, Excise, and Managing Director of CSMCL, exercised decisive control over policy formulation, licensing, enforcement and operational mechanisms of the excise framework. The charge-sheet material demonstrates that the applicant was not a peripheral functionary but a pivotal decision-maker who enabled, structured and insulated the illegal mechanism. The financial magnitude of the offence is staggering. Based on consolidated computations and 20 documentary material placed on record, Illegal commission from country liquor operations of approx. ₹2,545.93 Crores, Illegal commission from foreign liquor operations of approx. ₹281.89 Crores, Direct revenue loss under FL-10A misuse of approx. ₹248.50 Crores Total of financial impact established so far to approx. ₹3,076 Crores. The Ongoing investigation indicates that the overall scam amount may exceed ₹4,000 Crores. The scale, sophistication and systemic penetration of the offence place it squarely within the category of grave economic offences affecting the financial integrity of the State. III. Position of the Applicant and His Control Over Excise Administration
44. The applicant is alleged to have facilitated operationalization of FL-10(A)/FL-10(B) mechanisms; Approved policy/tender changes that enabled seamless movement of Part-B (non-duty paid) liquor; Permitted structural alteration in transportation regime eliminating segregation safeguards; Played a decisive role in introduction of statutory amendments insulating institutional licensees; Facilitated procurement and use of duplicate holograms; Enabled appointment of pliable personnel at strategic posts.
45. It is submitted that during the relevant period, the applicant occupied several key positions within the State administration, including Excise Commissioner, Secretary, Excise Department, Managing Director, Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation Limited (CSBCL). These positions collectively placed the applicant at the highest 21 administrative level responsible for formulation, supervision and implementation of the State excise policy.
46. As Excise Commissioner and Secretary, the applicant exercised direct administrative control over licensing, regulation of liquor trade, policy implementation, and monitoring of departmental functioning. Simultaneously, in his capacity as Managing Director of CSBCL, the applicant exercised operational oversight over procurement, distribution and logistics relating to liquor supply within the State. The convergence of these responsibilities placed the applicant in a uniquely influential position where both policy-level decisions and operational implementation fell within his sphere of control. The investigation indicates that this concentration of authority was misused to facilitate and shield the illegal operations of the syndicate.
47. The statutory amendment manoeuvred during April 2020 materially diluted accountability and shifted liability away from institutional structures, thereby creating a legal shield for illicit operations. The drafting, approval and processing sequence reflects conscious facilitation at the highest administrative level.
48. The investigation has revealed that certain structural policy modifications were introduced during the relevant period that materially facilitated the functioning of the illegal liquor distribution network. One such crucial change pertained to the transportation mechanism governing movement of liquor from distilleries to retail outlets.
49. Prior to the said modification, the transportation process operated through two distinct stages transportation from distillery to warehouse; 22 and transportation from warehouse to retail shops. These stages were executed through separate tender mechanisms and independent transport operators, thereby ensuring institutional checks and operational transparency. However, a structural change was introduced whereby a single tenderer or distillery was permitted to undertake transportation both up to the warehouse and from the warehouse to retail shops.
50. This change effectively removed an important layer of institutional scrutiny. The investigation has revealed that such alteration significantly facilitated clandestine movement of non-duty-paid liquor (Part-B liquor) under the cover of lawful transportation. The said structural modification could not have been implemented without approval at the level of the applicant. The documentary material, including negotiation proceedings and policy records, reflects the applicant's involvement in processing and approving these policy-level changes.
IV. Corroborative Documentary and Digital Evidence - A Seamless Web of Proof
51. The case of the prosecution rests not on surmise or speculation, but on a robust edifice of irrefutable documentary and digital evidence, meticulously interwoven to dismantle any narrative of innocence. This corroborative matrix includes meticulous Financial Computations, Forensic audits revealing unexplained accretion in the applicant's accounts, synchronized precisely with the tender irregularities, underscoring a pattern of illicit enrichment. The bank Trails and Registry Records, Unassailable transaction ledgers and property registry entries 23 tracing the flow of tainted funds from fictitious entities to the applicant's orbit, leaving no room for doubt as to the nexus. WhatsApp Chats as Digital Confessions: Recovered communications timestamped and contextually irrefutable lay bare a clandestine symphony of coordination between the applicant and co-accused. These exchanges meticulously document deliberations on fund transfers, stratagems for neutralizing complaints, and directives for operational dominance, evincing a command structure where the applicant orchestrated from the apex. The testimonies from delivery chain operatives and insider informants, whose accounts align seamlessly with the digital footprint, providing human corroboration to the mechanical records. Official minutes exposing collusive bidding, backroom manipulations and the applicant's fingerprints in subverting procedural safeguards. A compendium of 47 annexures, including ledgers, invoices, and intercepted emails, each thread reinforcing the prosecution's tapestry. The recovered WhatsApp chats establish sustained communication between the applicant and co- accused reflecting coordination regarding transfers, complaint management,and operational control. Phrases such as "handle the audit quietly" and "route through the usual channel" illuminate not mere acquaintance, but a deliberate conspiracy. Critically, these records reveal a reflexive pattern: whenever departmental scrutiny loomed--be it through audits or whistleblower alerts--the applicant invoked high- level interventions to muzzle inquiries, neutralize threats, and shield the enterprise. This is no isolated lapse; it is the anatomy of systemic graft, corroborated across multiple vectors, rendering the applicant's denial untenable.
24V. Proceeds of Crime and Benami Investments - Imperative for Custodial Safeguard Amid Ongoing Tracing
52. The investigation has pierced the veil of benami facades, unearthing a labyrinth of proceeds of crime channeled into immovable assets masquerading under the names of the applicant's proximate kin. Over 20 such properties--spanning urban plots, commercial complexes, and rural holdings--stand identified through rigorous source-of-funds dissection and banking telemetry (measurement), parallel financial probe, invoking the rigors of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, is actively unraveling layering mechanisms, beneficial ownership webs, and shell entities. Preliminary trails already link disbursement dates to tender windfalls, with discrepancies in declared incomes screaming disproportion. In this milieu--where dissipation remains a live peril, assets teeter on diversion, and further layering lurks custodial interrogation emerges as indispensable.
53. The Supreme Court Precedents such as Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan (1994) affirm that prolonged custody is warranted where financial trails are nascent, ensuring the integrity of attached properties and forestalling the alchemy of crime into legitimacy. To grant liberty now would embolden the very dissipation the law abhors, frustrating the ends of justice.
54. The recovered WhatsApp chats establish sustained communication between the applicant and co-accused reflecting coordination regarding transfers, complaint management and 25 operational control. The material demonstrates that whenever scrutiny arose, intervention at the applicant's level was invoked to "control" departmental exposure.
VI. Ongoing Multi-Layered Investigation
55. The investigation into this sprawling corruption syndicate transcends the static confines of filed charge-sheets, embodying a living, multi-pronged inquiry that continues to unfold with forensic precision. To date, eight charge-sheets have been meticulously laid before this Court, ensnaring 52 accused persons across layered conspiracies involving tender manipulations, kickback circuits, and benami layering. Yet, this is no terminal waypoint; the probe remains vibrantly dynamic, propelled by emergent leads and technological exhumations. Supplementary charge-sheets are not merely prospective
--they are inevitable corollaries to the ripening fruits of ongoing financial dissections. Current vectors include Advanced Property Linkage Analysis, Digital forensics and registry cross-verifications are mapping over 20 benami assets to the applicant's unexplained wealth, with geospatial and transactional overlays poised to forge unbreakable chains of provenance.
56. The Proceeds-of-Crime Tracing under PMLA protocols, banking consortia data and cryptocurrency trails are under scrutiny, revealing fresh layering conduits that implicate additional abettors and untraced launderings. The key forensic examinations (voice samples, call detail records or CDR matching, and external audits of fake vendor companies) are not yet complete. Their results are expected to trigger 26 additional charge-sheets. More importantly, these could prove the applicant is not just a minor participant (co-conspirator) but the central figure (linchpin) directing the corruption scheme
57. In the matters of such colossal magnitude--mirroring the systemic depredations in CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014) or P. Chidambaram v. ED (2020)--the mere filing of an initial charge-sheet signals neither culmination nor completeness. Section 173(8) CrPC expressly countenances supplementary filings, a statutory sinew repeatedly upheld by this Court to prevent investigative truncation. The Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) crystallized this:
"investigation is an elastic continuum, not a rigid endpoint, particularly where economic offences spawn tendrils into money-laundering."
58. Granting enlargement to the applicant at this embryonic juncture would not merely erode deterrence; it would fatally jeopardize the probe's sanctity. At large, the applicant possessed of influence, resources, and insider networks which could orchestrate asset dissipation, witness tampering, or digital purges, as evidenced in parallel probes where custodial voids enabled such sabotage. Custody, thus, is not punitive but preservative: a bulwark ensuring untrammelled truth-extraction and asset immobilization, aligning with the constitutional imperative under Article 21 to balance individual liberty against societal rectitude. Enlargement of the applicant at this stage would materially jeopardize the ongoing property-tracing and proceeds-of-crime investigation.
VII. Introduction and Misuse of FL-10A Licensing Mechanism 27
59. The investigation has further revealed that the introduction of the FL-10A licensing mechanism became a critical instrument through which the syndicate generated illegal financial gains. The said licensing framework enabled certain private entities to obtain preferential rights relating to distribution of premium foreign liquor. According to the prosecution case, these licenses were granted in a manner that enabled favoured entities to derive undue financial benefits.
60. In several instances, illegal commissions were collected from distilleries and license holders in exchange for operational advantages. The investigation suggests that the applicant played an instrumental role in facilitating and internationalizing the said licensing regime. The grant and supervision of such licenses fell within the administrative domain of the applicant during the relevant period.
VIII. Use of Duplicate Holograms and Sale of Non-Duty Paid Liquor
61. Another significant aspect of the investigation concerns the alleged use of duplicate holograms procured from a private vendor. These holograms were allegedly affixed on liquor bottles to enable sale of non-duty-paid liquor within the State. Through this mechanism, liquor was sold outside the official accounting system, resulting in substantial loss of revenue to the State exchequer. The investigation suggests that the applicant played a role in enabling procurement and use of such holograms as part of the larger conspiracy.
IX. Illegal Commission Collection Mechanism 28
62. The investigation has further uncovered a systematic collection mechanism for illegal commissions. Field-level operatives collected cash generated through sale of Part-B liquor from retail outlets across identified districts. The collected cash was transported to designated locations where it was counted and subsequently distributed. The statements of certain witnesses recorded during investigation indicate that a portion of such illegal collection was earmarked as a "departmental share".
63. It has been alleged that an amount of approximately Rs.50 lakhs per month was earmarked as part of the departmental share for the then Excise Commissioner. While the investigation regarding the precise flow of funds is ongoing, the statements of key witnesses and financial computations form part of the prosecution material.
X. Financial Magnitude of the Offence
64. Based on consolidated computations and documentary material gathered during investigation, the financial magnitude of the scam is extremely substantial. The investigation has indicated that illegal commission from country liquor operations is approximately ₹2,545 Crores; illegal commission from foreign liquor operations is approximately ₹281 Crores; revenue loss due to misuse of licensing mechanisms is approximately ₹248 Crores. Consequently, the total financial impact of the scam has been estimated at approximately ₹3,076 Crores. Further investigation is continuing, and the overall financial impact may exceed ₹4,000 Crores.
XI. Digital Evidence Linking the Applicant 29
65. The investigation has also yielded digital evidence in the form of WhatsApp chats between the applicant and co-accused persons. These communications indicate coordination regarding departmental transfers, complaint management and operational matters related to excise administration. The digital material forms part of the documentary evidence annexed with the charge-sheet.
XII. Discovery of Properties and Possible Proceeds of Crime
66. During investigation it has been discovered that several immovable properties have been acquired in the names of family members of the applicant. More than 20 such properties have been identified so far. The banking trail, source of funds and financial linkage relating to these properties are currently under analysis. This aspect of the investigation forms part of the ongoing financial probe concerning proceeds of crime.
XIII. Ongoing Investigation and Supplementary Charge-Sheets
67. It is submitted that the investigation in the present case is not yet complete. The case involves a complex multi-layered economic offence involving numerous participants and financial transactions. Several charge-sheets have already been filed against multiple accused persons. However, further investigation regarding financial trails, beneficiary chains and asset tracing is still underway. Supplementary charge-sheets are likely to be filed upon completion of such investigation.
XIV. Possibility of Witness Influence and Evidence Tampering 30
68. The applicant is a former senior public servant who held positions of substantial administrative authority within the excise department. A significant number of prosecution witnesses are departmental officials and individuals who were subordinate to the applicant during the relevant period. In view of his past authority and familiarity with departmental functioning, there exists a genuine apprehension that the applicant may influence or intimidate such witnesses if released on bail. There is also a possibility of interference with documentary and digital evidence relevant to the investigation.
XV. Gravity of Economic Offences and Judicial Approach
69. It is well settled that economic offences involving misuse of public office and large-scale financial impact constitute a distinct category of offences. Such offences undermine public trust and affect the economic stability of the State. The Courts have consistently recognized that economic offences require a stricter approach while considering bail. XVI. Balance Between Individual Liberty and Societal Interest
70. While the right to personal liberty is of paramount importance, the Court must also consider the societal interest in ensuring fair investigation and protection of public revenue. In offences involving large-scale economic fraud and abuse of public office, the societal interest assumes particular significance.
XVII. Applicant Occupied a Strategic Position Facilitating Continuity of the Illegal Syndicate
71. It is submitted that the material collected during investigation reveals that even after his superannuation, the applicant continued to 31 occupy influential positions within the Excise establishment on a contractual basis. Such post-retirement continuation in positions connected with excise administration was not routine but was facilitated through close association with co-accused persons, particularly co- accused Anil Tuteja, who is stated to be the batchmate and close associate of the present applicant.
72. The investigation indicates that such appointment ensured that the applicant remained strategically positioned within the excise administrative framework, thereby enabling the smooth implementation of decisions beneficial to the illegal liquor syndicate allegedly headed by co-accused Anwar Dhebar. The continued institutional presence of the applicant, even after superannuation, therefore constitutes a relevant circumstance indicating the degree of influence exercised by him within the administrative apparatus. Such influence also demonstrates the capacity of the applicant to affect witnesses and departmental officials who were working within the same administrative hierarchy. XVIII. Policy-Level Decisions Allegedly Engineered to Facilitate Illegal Financial Gains
73. The investigation has further revealed that the applicant, acting in concert with co-accused persons including Anil Tuteja, Arun Pati Tripathi and Anwar Dhebar, played a crucial role in the introduction and operationalization of the foreign liquor policy framework under FL- 10(A) and FL-10(B). The said licensing framework, which ostensibly governed distribution of premium foreign liquor within the State, was 32 allegedly misused as a mechanism for systematic generation and collection of illegal commissions from distilleries and distributors.
74. According to the prosecution material, the structure of these licenses created preferential commercial advantages for selected entities and enabled extraction of unlawful financial benefits by the syndicate. The involvement of the applicant in the policy-making and administrative approval process relating to these licenses is borne out from the documentary material forming part of the charge-sheet. XIX. Manipulation of the Transportation and Tender Mechanism
75. It is further submitted that the investigation has revealed manipulation in the transportation and tender mechanism governing supply of liquor during the period 2020-2021. Earlier, the system operated in two distinct stages:
• transportation from distillery to warehouse; and • transportation from warehouse to retail shops through separate empanelled transporters under CSBCL.
Such segregation ensured transparency and operational scrutiny in the movement of liquor consignments. However, a significant policy change was introduced whereby the same distillery or tenderer was permitted to transport liquor not only up to the warehouse but also from the warehouse to retail outlets within the designated supply area. This change is reflected in the negotiation proceedings dated 03.04.2020 and in the tender conditions applicable for the period 15.04.2020 to 31.03.2021. The said modification materially facilitated clandestine 33 movement of Part-B liquor (non-duty paid / duplicate-hologram liquor) under the cover of legitimate transportation.
76. Such a structural change in the transportation policy could not have been implemented without approval at the level of the Excise Commissioner/Secretary, thereby indicating the applicant's involvement in enabling the illegal supply chain. The investigation indicates that the drafting process of the said amendment originated from a committee chaired by co-accused Arun Pati Tripathi, and the draft prepared by the said committee was thereafter placed before the present applicant for approval. The sequence of drafting, approval and subsequent notification of the amendment reflects the applicant's involvement in facilitating the creation of a legal structure that allegedly protected the illegal operations of the syndicate. Such legislative manoeuvring, when viewed in conjunction with other evidence collected during investigation, constitutes a significant incriminating circumstance against the applicant.
XX. Manipulation of the Transportation and Tender Mechanism
77. It is further submitted that the investigation has revealed manipulation in the transportation and tender mechanism governing supply of liquor during the period 2020-2021. Earlier, the system operated in two distinct stages-transportation from distillery to warehouse; and transportation from warehouse to retail shops through separate empanelled transporters under CSBCL.
78. Such segregation ensured transparency and operational scrutiny in the movement of liquor consignments. However, a significant policy 34 change was introduced whereby the same distillery or tenderer was permitted to transport liquor not only up to the warehouse but also from the warehouse to retail outlets within the designated supply area. This change is reflected in the negotiation proceedings dated 03.04.2020 and in the tender conditions applicable for the period 15.04.2020 to 31.03.2021. The said modification materially facilitated clandestine movement of Part-B liquor (non-duty paid / duplicate-hologram liquor) under the cover of legitimate transportation.
79. The investigation has further revealed that cash generated from sale of Part-B liquor in 15 major non-tribal districts was systematically collected through operatives working under co-accused Vikas Agarwal. The collected cash was transported to identified locations in Raipur, where it was counted and subsequently distributed among members of the syndicate on the directions of co-accused Vikas Agarwal and Anwar Dhebar. From the per-box recovery of such sales, an amount of ₹150 per box was earmarked as a "departmental share".
80. Out of this amount, approximately ₹50 lakhs per month was allegedly earmarked for the then Excise Commissioner, i.e., the present applicant. These facts stand corroborated by statements of witnesses including Iqbal Khan and Kanhaiyalal Kurre, who have described the process of collection and delivery of such monthly payments. On the basis of the said computation, the proceeds attributable to the applicant under this head alone have been assessed at approximately ₹16 Crores for a period of 32 months. XXI. Digital Evidence Establishing Nexus with co-accused 35
81. Digital evidence recovered during investigation, particularly WhatsApp chats, further establishes the nexus between the applicant and co-accused persons. The chats exchanged between the applicant and co-accused Anwar Dhebar reveal continuous communication during the relevant period. These communications include discussions relating to transfers and postings of departmental officials, monitoring of liquor shops, management of complaints and scrutiny relating to illegal sales. The said chats indicate that whenever there was apprehension of departmental scrutiny regarding Part-B sales or cash collections,intervention through the applicant's position and departmental influence was sought to "control" the situation. The digital evidence therefore constitutes a significant corroborative circumstance demonstrating the applicant's role as a facilitator of the illegal excise syndicate.
XXII. Investment of Proceeds of Crime in Immovable Properties
82. Investigation has further revealed that the applicant invested proceeds of crime in acquisition of immovable properties standing in the names of his wife and sons. More than ten such properties have been identified so far and the relevant purchase documents and banking trail are presently under examination. The financial investigation is continuing to trace additional properties and investments connected with the proceeds of crime.
XXIV. Ongoing Investigation and Likelihood of Further Charge- Sheets 36
83. It is submitted that although charge-sheets have been filed in the present case, the investigation is far from complete. Due to the multi- layered nature of the scam, charge-sheets are being filed in a phased manner. So far, charge-sheets have been filed against 52 accused persons and investigation continues to identify additional intermediaries, financial channels and beneficiary chains. Further supplementary charge-sheets relating to illegal income and benami assets are likely to be filed upon completion of the ongoing financial investigation. The applicant is a former senior public servant possessing extensive knowledge of departmental functioning and the identity of key witnesses. Several witnesses in the present case are departmental officials and individuals connected with the cash collection mechanism.
84. In the event of his release on bail, there exists a grave and real possibility that the applicant may influence or intimidate material witnesses, interfere with documentary or digital evidence, obstruct ongoing financial investigation by creating additional benami layers. Such apprehension is not speculative but arises from the applicant's prior position of authority and influence within the excise administration.
85. In view of the foregoing circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that the allegations against the applicant disclose a deep-rooted criminal conspiracy involving large-scale economic offences and abuse of public office. Therefore, looking to the magnitude of the offence, the ongoing investigation into financial trails and proceeds of crime, and the likelihood of interference with witnesses and evidence, the applicant does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail. The present bail application therefore deserves to be rejected.
37FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
86. Heard learned appearing for the applicant and learned Advocate General/Additional Advocate General appearing for the State at considerable length. I have also perused the case diary, the charge- sheet material placed on record, and the documents relied upon by both sides.
87. The principal submission on behalf of the applicant is that he is a retired civil servant, that the allegations arise out of policy decisions taken in the course of official duties, that the investigation qua the applicant stands completed upon filing of the charge-sheet, and that continued incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment. It is further contended that the case is primarily based upon documentary evidence already in possession of the prosecution and that the applicant satisfies the well-settled triple test governing grant of bail.
88. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail contending that the present case discloses a deep-rooted criminal conspiracy involving large-scale manipulation of the State's excise policy, resulting in enormous illegal financial gains and loss to the State exchequer. It is submitted that the applicant, while occupying the offices of Excise Commissioner, Secretary (Excise) and Managing Director of the State Beverages Corporation, exercised decisive control over the policy framework and operational mechanisms governing the liquor trade within the State.
89. According to the prosecution, the applicant has played a pivotal role in facilitating the functioning of an organized liquor syndicate 38 allegedly headed by co-accused persons including Anwar Dhebar and other co-accused persons. The material placed on record indicates that the applicant was not merely a passive functionary but was instrumental in introducing and operationalizing policy changes such as the FL-10(A) licensing mechanism and structural modifications in the transportation and tender system governing supply of liquor.
90. The investigation further indicates that such policy-level changes materially facilitated clandestine movement and sale of non-duty-paid liquor and enabled extraction of illegal commissions from distilleries and distributors. The prosecution has also relied upon documentary material including policy records, negotiation proceedings, and digital evidence in the form of WhatsApp communications allegedly exchanged between the applicant and other co-accused persons. From the material collected during investigation, the prosecution has sought to demonstrate that the applicant maintained continuous coordination with key members of the alleged syndicate and exercised influence over departmental functioning, including postings and monitoring of liquor shops. The said digital material, at this stage, constitutes a prima facie circumstance indicating nexus between the applicant and other accused persons involved in the alleged illegal operations.
91. The financial magnitude of the alleged scam, as reflected from the charge-sheet and computation placed on record, is also of considerable significance. According to the prosecution material, illegal commissions arising from country liquor operations alone are estimated to be approximately ₹2,545 crores, while illegal gains from foreign liquor operations are estimated at approximately ₹281 crores. In 39 addition thereto, misuse of the FL-10(A) licensing policy is stated to have resulted in undue profits of approximately ₹248 crores to certain licensees.
92. Thus, the total financial impact of the alleged illegal operations, as presently assessed, is stated to exceed ₹3,000 crores, with investigation still continuing regarding additional financial trails and proceeds of crime. The investigation further indicates existence of a systematic mechanism for collection and distribution of illegal proceeds generated from sale of non-duty-paid liquor across multiple districts. Witness statements recorded during investigation suggest that a fixed amount from such collections was earmarked as departmental share out of which an amount of approximately ₹50 lakhs per month was allegedly earmarked for the then Excise Commissioner.
93. At this stage of consideration of bail, the Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or record findings on the merits of the prosecution case. However, the material collected during investigation does disclose prima facie circumstances indicating the applicant's involvement in the alleged conspiracy. The record also indicates that the investigation in the present case has not yet reached its logical culmination. The prosecution has stated that although several charge-sheets have already been filed, further investigation regarding tracing of proceeds of crime, financial trails and benami properties is still in progress.
94. The material placed before this Court further indicates that as many as 20 immovable properties, standing either in the name of the 40 present applicant or in the names of his family members, have been identified during the course of investigation for the period 2020-2023. The banking trail pertaining to the acquisition of these properties is presently under scrutiny by the investigating agency. This circumstance assumes significance when viewed in the backdrop of the applicant's position at the relevant time. It has also been brought on record that the banking trail and present price of purchased property relating to these transactions is presently under scrutiny by the investigating agency in order to ascertain the source of funds utilized for acquisition of the said properties. The identification of such properties and the ongoing financial scrutiny constitute relevant circumstances which, at this stage, lend support to the prosecution's assertion that the alleged proceeds of crime may have been channelled into acquisition of immovable assets. It is no mere coincidence that, during his tenure as Excise Commissioner and head of the State Excise Department, the applicant acquired 20 immovable properties not only in his own name but also in those of his family members precisely amid the alleged liquor scam.
95. In cases involving large-scale economic offences of such magnitude, the Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the Court must adopt a cautious approach while considering the grant of bail. Economic offences involving misuse of public office and large- scale diversion of public revenue stand on a different footing owing to their serious impact upon the financial health of the State and public confidence in governance. The position held by the applicant during the relevant period is also a factor of considerable significance. The applicant occupied the highest administrative office in the excise 41 hierarchy and exercised substantial authority over departmental functioning. A significant number of prosecution witnesses in the present case are departmental officials who were either subordinate to the applicant or worked within the same administrative structure.
96. In such circumstances, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding the possibility of influence over witnesses or interference with the ongoing investigation cannot be said to be unfounded. The magnitude of the alleged financial irregularities, the organized nature of the alleged conspiracy, the applicant's position of authority within the excise administration, and the ongoing investigation regarding financial trails collectively persuade this Court that the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage.
97. Though the presumption of innocence remains a fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence, the Court must also balance the same against the societal interest in ensuring a fair and uninfluenced investigation in offences involving grave economic consequences. As per the allegations of the prosecution agency, five principal persons have been identified as the core architects of the said illegal arrangement (syndicate), namely Anwar Dhebar, Anil Tuteja, Arun Pati Tripathi, Arvind Singh and the present applicant Niranjan Das. These individuals are alleged to have acted as the principal conspirators (decision makers) who conceived, structured and operationalized the illegal excise syndicate.
98. From the material placed before this Court, including the charge- sheet and documents collected during investigation, it prima facie 42 appears that the above persons operated in concert with each other and formed a coordinated syndicate which allegedly involved several other co-accused persons functioning at different levels of the excise administration and liquor distribution network.
99. The role attributed to the present applicant assumes particular significance in view of the position held by him during the relevant period. It is not disputed that the applicant was functioning as the Excise Commissioner of the State, which is the highest administrative authority responsible for supervision, regulation and enforcement of the State's excise policy. In such capacity, the applicant was duty bound to ensure strict compliance with statutory provisions governing manufacture, distribution and sale of liquor within the State, and to safeguard the financial interests of the State exchequer.
100. However, the material collected during investigation, as reflected in the charge-sheet, prima facie suggests that instead of discharging his statutory responsibilities in furtherance of public interest and protect the interest of the State exchequer, the applicant allegedly permitted and facilitated the functioning of the illegal liquor syndicate. The prosecution case indicates that several subordinate excise officials and field-level officers allegedly acted under the administrative control and directions of the applicant and were instrumental in implementing the operational aspects of the alleged scam.
100. The planning and overall management of the illegal operations are stated to have been carried out by the principal conspirators including Anwar Dhebar, Anil Tuteja, Arvind Singh and Arun Pati 43 Tripathi and the present applicant, while the administrative machinery of the excise department was allegedly utilized to ensure the smooth functioning of the illegal scheme. The prosecution has further alleged that the present applicant, by virtue of his official position and administrative authority, enabled such activities to be carried out through subordinate officers and departmental mechanisms. At this stage, the material on record prima facie indicates that the applicant cannot be viewed merely as a passive or peripheral participant. Rather, the allegations suggest that he occupied a position central to the functioning of the alleged syndicate.
101. The Court also takes note of the fact that the prosecution has described the above five individuals, including the present applicant, as the principal "kingpins" of the alleged excise scam, who allegedly exercised decisive influence over the policy framework, operational mechanisms and financial structure through which the illegal activities were carried out.
102. In view of the nature of allegations and the material collected during investigation, the role attributed to the applicant appears to be of considerable significance within the overall conspiracy. It is true that certain co-accused persons in the present case have been enlarged on bail either by this Court or by the Supreme Court. However, the orders granting bail to such co-accused appear to have been passed primarily on the ground of prolonged incarceration and other individual circumstances. The role attributed to the present applicant, being one of the principal decision-makers and administrative heads during the relevant period, stands on a distinct footing.
44
103. Recently, this Court has enlarged co-accused Anwar Dhebar on bail (M.CR.C. No. 9514 of 2025 order dated 03.03.2026) principally on account of his 22 months' incarceration conjoined with inordinate trial delays and Anil Tuteja (in M.Cr.C. No.10421 of 2025 dated 03.03.2026) after 18 months' custody, predicated on protracted proceedings. The applicant's 05 months in custody falls woefully short of such benchmarks and bears no parity with the ordeal of these principal conspirators. Compounding this, the applicant's role stands graver than that of his co-accused, foreclosing any claim to equitable treatment.
104. The applicant's position as Excise Commissioner placed him at the helm of the regulatory structure governing the entire excise administration. Allegations of such magnitude against a person occupying such a high public office necessarily require careful consideration by the Court. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that offences of this nature, involving alleged abuse of public office and large-scale financial implications for the State exchequer, have far- reaching consequences on public administration and public confidence in governance.
105. In view of the foregoing discussion and upon a meticulous consideration of the rival submissions, the investigative material, and the pivotal role ascribed to the present applicant--who, as Excise Commissioner during the relevant period, is alleged to have brazenly misused his exalted office to orchestrate a syndicate, thereby inflicting massive losses upon the State exchequer, this Court declines to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in his favour. These grave 45 allegations disclose a large-scale economic offence wherein a senior public servant, duty-bound to serve with unwavering integrity and utmost sincerity, instead chose to subvert his position for illicit ends. The record at this juncture prima facie evinces the applicant's central involvement in the syndicate's nefarious operations. While the sacrosanct guarantees of personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution merit due weight, the Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that these must yield to the gravity of the offence, the accused's attributed role, and the proceedings' nascent stage. Thus, in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) and V. Senthil Balaji v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024), bail was granted chiefly due to protracted incarceration amid trial uncertainties and circumstances absent here, where the applicant's custody duration falls far short of such a threshold. The Supreme Court has also recently reiterated in Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement (2026) that bail may be justified where continued incarceration becomes disproportionate in the face of uncertain trial timelines and where the right to speedy trial under Article 21 is imperilled. Accordingly, in light of the allegations' severity, the compelling prima facie evidence of involvement, and the case's broader milieu, this Court discerns no warrant to grant bail at this stage.
106. Consequently, the bail application stands rejected. However, it is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not prejudice the trial on merits. The applicant shall be at liberty to renew his prayer for 46 bail at a later stage, particularly if the trial does not progress within a reasonable time.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY SUGUNA Date:
DUBEY 2026.03.10
17:45:37
+0530