Chattisgarh High Court
Naveen Pratap Singh Tomar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 August, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:41621
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1126 of 2025
1 - Ashwani Kumar Anant S/o Late Shree Aasharam Anant Aged About
65 Years R/o 34/11 Infront Of Forest Basti, Pandri, Raipur District
Raipur C.G.
--- Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
A C B/ E O W, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.
--- Respondent(s)
MCRCA No. 1159 of 2025
1 - Iqbal Ahmed Khan S/o Late Shri M.I. Khan, Aged About 57 Years
R/o Yezdani Chowl. Near Chhattisgarh College, Byron Bazar, Raipur-
492001 Chhattisgarh
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO Police Station - Anti Corruption
Bureau/ EOW, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Jethu Ram Mandavi S/o Late Nandlal Mandavi Aged About 65 Years
R/o House No.1245, Bhatapara Charama, Uttar Bastar, Kanker District-
Kanker (C.G.)
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
ACB/EOW, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Gambhir Singh Nuruti S/o Dayaram Nuruti Aged About 63 Years R/o
Vasundhara Nagar, Sabha Road Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
House Officer, Police Station ACB/EOW, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Nitin Kumar Khanduja S/o Shri Ravindra Khanduja Aged About 51
Years R/o Raguvir Badi, Near Durga Tample, Bemetara, District-
Bemetara (C.G.)
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
ACB/EOW, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Vedram Lahare S/o Late Jagatram Lahare Aged About 66 Years R/o
Kushal Nagar, Barejbhatha, Sarangarh, Tehsil- Sarangarh, District
Sarangarh-Bilaigarh C.G.
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana- In-Charge, Thana- State
Economic Crime Investigation And Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur
District Raipur C.G.
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Nohar Singh Thakur S/o Shri Gautam Singh Thakur, Aged About 46
Years R/o Plot No. 01, Street No. 14, Ashish Nagar (W), Risali, Civic
Centre, Bhilai, Durg- 490006 Chhattisgarh
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho Police Station Anti Corruption
Bureau/EOW, Raipur Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Mrs. Neetu Notani Thakur W/o Shri Piyush Thakur, D/o Shri Mohan
Das Notani Aged About 46 Years R/o Flat No. 10 Wing-3 Capital Place,
Shankar Nagar Raipur 492007 Chhattisgarh
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O Police Station Anti Corruption
Bureau / EOW, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Dinker Wasnik S/o Shri Panna Lal Wasnik Aged About 43 Years R/o
Ward No. 16 Gali No. 4 Mamta Nagar Tulsipur Rajnandgaon 491441
Chhattisgarh.
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O Police Station Anti Corruption
Bureau / EOW, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Vikas Kumar Goswami S/o Shri Vinod Goswami Aged About 45
Years R/o B-16, Rama Life City, Bilaspur -495001 Chhattisgarh
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, Police Station Anti Corruption
Bureau/EOW, Raipur Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Naveen Pratap Singh Tomar S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh Tomar Aged
About 46 Years R/o House No. C-34, Krishnayan Colony (Chhuiya),
Malgujari, Baloda-Bazaar-493332 Chhattisgarh
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO Police Station - Anti Corruption
Bureau/ EOW, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Janardan Singh Kaurav S/o Shri Pancham Singh Verma Aged About
51 Years R/o 08, Srishti Garden, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, Raipur-
492006 Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O Police Station Anti Corruption
Bureau / EOW, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Arvind Kumar Patley S/o Shri Nawal Singh Patley Aged About 50
Years R/o House A-4, Street No. 06, Ashish Nagar (W), Risali, Civic
Centre, Bhilai, Durg - 490006 Chhattisgarh
---Applicant (s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho Police Station Anti Corruption
Bureau/ EOW, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Prakash Pal S/o Late Shri Sapan Kumar Pal Aged About 44 Years
Assistant Excise Commissioner, R/o House No. 169 Uni Home,
Bhatagaon, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh
2 - Alekh Ram Sidar S/o Shri Murlidhar Sidar Aged About 34 Years
Assistant Excise Commissioner, R/o Village Kanta Hardi, Dist. Raigarh
Chhattisgarh
3 - Ashish Kosam S/o Shri Brijlal Kosam Aged About 50 Years Assistant
Excise Commissioner, R/o House No. 50 Humming Coterie, Kachna,
Raipur Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh
4 - Rajesh Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Hariprasad Jaiswal Aged About 42
Years Assistant Excise Commissioner, R/o House No. C/02,
Dwarikapuri Colony, Borsi Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station ACB/ EOW Raipur,
District - Raipur Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Animesh Netam S/o Late Dr. Anand Netam Aged About 50 Years
R/o Near Shivam School, Satyam Vihar Colony Raipura, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
- ACB/EOW, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Garibpal Singh Dardi S/o Late Dilbag Singh Dardi Aged About 60
Years R/o 501- Sanskar Heights, Jagarnath Temple Road, Gaytri Nagar
Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
ACB/EOW, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Vijay Sen Sharma S/o P.C. Sen Sharma Aged About 48 Years R/o
Sen Sharma Niwas, Gali No. 02, Basera Colony, Bhartiya Nagar,
Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G.
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
ACB/EOW, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Ramkrishna Mishra S/o Shailendra Mishra Aged About 36 Years R/o
Ward No. 09, Brahminpara, Ambagarh Chowki District - Mohla Manpur
Ambagarh - Chowki (C.G.)
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
ACB/EOW, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Anant Kumar Singh S/o Late Akhileshwar Singh Aged About 63
Years R/o MIG - 400, Padmanabhpur, Durg (C.G.)
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
ACB/ \EOW, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Lakhan Lal Dhruw S/o Late Moti Singh Dhruw Aged About 68 Years
R/o Vidhyanak Niwas Nagri District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station
ACB/ EOW, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgrh.
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Pramod Kumar Netam, S/o Shyamlal, Aged About 61 Years R/o
Village Chhuri, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
- ACB/EOW, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Saurabh Buxy S/o Rajeev Buxy Aged About 41 Years R/o M 680,
Padamanabhpur, Durg District Durg C.G.
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
ACB/EOW, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Manjushri Kaser W/o Ramchandra Saras Aged About 47 Years R/o
Priyadarshani Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
ACB/ EOW, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Mohit Kumar Jaiswal S/o Ramlal Jaiswal Aged About 47 Years R/o
Village And Post - Khandsara, Thana- Bemetara, District Bemetara,
C.G.
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
ACB/EOW, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.
--- Respondent(s)
1 - Sonal Netam W/o Jasveer Singh Maravi Aged About 34 Years R/o
Village Barihapali, Post Bhukel, Block Basna District Mahasamund C.G.
---Applicant(s)
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station-
ACB/ EOW, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.
--- Respondent(s)
For Applicants (s) : Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Counsel
assisted by Shri Sourabh Sahu, Advocate,
Shri Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Counsel assisted by
Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate, Shri
Gautam Khetrapal assisted by Shri Gaurav
Singhal and Shri Rajendra Kumar Patel,
Advocates
For Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Sharma, Addl. Advocate General
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA)
Order on Board
18/08/2025
The above batch of applications under Section 482 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth 'the BNSS') have
been filed by the applicants apprehending their arrest in connection with
Crime No. 04/2024 registered at Police Station ACB/EOW, Raipur,
District Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467,
468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code,1860 and Sections 7 & 12 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
2. The facts, as projected in the instant case, in brief, are that the
applicants are working as Deputy Commissioners, Excise
Commissioners, District Excise Officers, Assistant Excise
Commissioners, District Excise officers (Retired) respectively. On
8.11.2024, notice were received by the applicants respectively from the
State Economic Offence Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau (hereinafter
referred as the 'EOW/ACB' for brevity) for questioning with respect to
the FIR bearing Crime No.04/2024 registered for the commission of the
offence punishable under the aforementioned Sections. In compliance
of the said notice, the applicants appeared before the ACB on
9.11.2024 and it was informed that the FIR bearing Crime No. 04/2024
was registered on the allegations that from the period of February 2019
to June 2022 there was illegal sale of liquor by the syndicate after
increasing the landing price and sale by duplicate holograms and that
the applicants being Excise Officials, had received the commission from
the sale of Part-B liquor.
3. Contention of Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Sr. Counsel for
the applicants in M.Cr.C.A Nos.1126/2025, 1128/2025, 1129/2025,
1130/2025, 1131/2025, 132/2025, 1133/2025, 1134/2025, 1135/2025,
1136/2025, 1137/2025, 1138/2025, 1139/2025, 1140/2025 & 1141/2025,
submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the offence
and there is no iota of evidence against them. During questioning/query
by the ACB./EOW, the applicants had replied as sought for and in the
present case, charge sheets have been filed against the applicants
after issuance of notices under Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. It is
contended that during the investigation, investigation agency did not
deem it proper to arrest the applicants and now after the charge sheets
have been filed, notices were issued.
4. Contention of Shri Shrivastava, learned Sr. Counsel is that at the
time of filing of charge sheet against the applicants, the prosecution has
specifically mentioned in the charge sheet that the applicants had
cooperated with the prosecution and after issuance of notices, there is
no requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicants. He
contended that for consideration of Section 170 Cr.P.C. it does not
impose an obligation on the officer in charge to arrest each and every
accused at the time of filing of the charge sheet. He has placed his
reliance in the matter of Siddharth Vs. State of UP (2022) 1 SCC 676,
wherein it has been held as under:
"We re in agreement with the aforesaid view of
the High Courts and would like to give our
imprimatur to the said judicial view. It has
rightly been observed on consideration of
Section 170 Cr.P.C. that it does not impose an
obligation on the officer-in-chargee to arrest
each and every accused at the time of filing of
the charge sheet. We have, in fact, come
across cases where the accused has
cooperated with the investigation throughout
and yet on the charge sheet being filed non-
bailable warrants have been issued for his
production premised on the requirement that
there is an obligation to arrest the accused and
produce him before the court. We are of the
view that if the Investigating Officer does not
believe that the accused will abscond or
disobey summons he/she is not required to be
produced in custody. The word "custody"
appearing in Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does
not contemplate either police or judicial custody
but it merely connotes the presentation of the
accused by the Investigating Officer before the
court while filing the charge sheet. We may
note that personal liberty is an important
aspect of our constitutional mandate. The
occasion to arrest an accused during
investigation arises when custodial
investigation becomes necessary or it is a
heinous crime or where there is a possibility of
influencing the witnesses or accused may
abscond. Merely because an arrest can be
made because it is lawful does not mandate
that arrest must be made. A distinction must be
made between the existence of the power to
arrest and the justification for exercise of it.4 If
arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable
harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a
person. If the Investigating Officer has no
reason to believe that the accused will abscond
or disobey summons and has, in fact,
throughout cooperated with the investigation
we fail to appreciate why there should be a
compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.
5. It has been further contended that the applicants satisfy the triple
test necessary for grant of bail as described in the matter of Satender
Kumar Antil Vs. CBI, (20220 10 SCC 51, wherein the Apex court has
emphasized on the importance of personal liberty as the same is one of
the cherished objects of the Indian Constitution and deprivation of the
same can only be in accordance with law and inconformity with the
provisions thereof as stipulated under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and it was held that :
"43. The scope and ambit of Section 170 has
already been dealt with this Court in Siddarth Vs.
State of UP (2022) 1 SCC 676:(2022) 1 SCC (Cri)
423]. This is a power which is to be exercised by
the court after the completion of investigation by
the agency concerned. Therefore, this is a
procedural compliance from the point of view of
the court alone and thus the investigating agency
has got a limited role to play. In a case where the
prosecution does not require custody of the
accused, there is o need for an arrest when a case
is sent to the Magistrate under Section 170 of the
code. There is not even a need for filing a bail
application, as the accused is merely forwarded to
the court for the framing of charges and issuance
of process for trial. If the court is of the view that
there is no need for any remand, then the court
can fall back upon Section 88 of the code and
complete the formalities required to secure the
presence of the accused for the commencement
of the trial. Of course there may be a situation
where a remand may be required, it is only in such
cases that the accused will have to be heard.
Therefore, in such a situation, an opportunity will
have to be given to the accused persons, if the
court is of the prima facie view that the remand
would be requited. We make it clear that we have
not said anything on the cases in which the
accused persons re already in custody for which,
the bail application has to be decided on its own
merits. Suffice it to state that for due compliance of
Section 170 of the Code, there is no need for filing
of a bail application."
6. He contended that the case of the applicants are squarely
covered by the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Aman Preet
Singh Vs. CBI (2022) 13 SCC 764, wherein it has been held as under:
"The said paragraph deals with directions issued
to the criminal Courts and we would like to extract
the portion of the same as under:
"26. Arrest of a person for less serious or such
kinds of offence or offences those can be
investigated without arrest by the police cannot
be brooked by any civilized society. Directions for
Criminal Courts :
(i) Whenever officer-in-charge of police
station or Investigating Agency like CBI
files a charge-sheet without arresting
the accused during investigation and
does not produce the accused in
custody as referred in Section 170,
Cr.P.C. the Magistrate or the Court
empowered to take cognizance or try
the accused shall accept the charge-
sheet forthwith and proceed according
to the procedure laid down in Section
173, Cr.P.C. and exercise the options
available to it as discussed in this
judgment. In such a case the Magistrate
or Court shall invariably issue a process
of summons and not warrant of arrest.
(ii) In case the Court or Magistrate
exercises the discretion of issuing
warrant of arrest at any stage including
the stage while taking cognizance of the
charge-sheet, he or it shall have to
record the reasons in writing as
contemplated under Section 87, Cr.P.C.
that the accused has either been
absconding or shall not obey the
summons or has refused to appear
despite proof of due service of
summons upon him.
(iii) Rejection of an application for exemption from
personal appearance on any date of hearing or
even at first instance does not amount to non-
appearance despite service of summons or
absconding or failure to obey summons and the
Court in such a case shall not issue warrant of
arrest and may either give direction to the
accused to appear or issue process of summons.
(iv) That the Court shall on appearance of an
accused in a bailable offence release him
forthwith on his furnishing a personal bond with or
without sureties as per the mandatory provisions
of Section 436, Cr.P.C.
(v) The Court shall on appearance of an accused
in non-bailable offence who has neither been
arrested by the police/Investigating Agency during
investigation nor produced in custody as
envisaged in Section 170, Cr.P.C. call upon the
accused to move a bail application if the accused
does not move it on his own and release him on
bail as the circumstance of his having not been
arrested during investigation or not being
produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle
him to be released on bail. Reason is simple. If a
person has been at large and free for several
years and has not been even arrested during
investigation, to send him to jail by refusing bail
suddenly, merely because charge-sheet has been
filed is against the basic principles governing
grant or refusal of bail."
7. It is further contended that the applicants are permanent
residents of the State of Chhattisgarh and there is no possibility of the
applicants fleeing away from justice and moreover they are government
servants. The trial is likely to take long time and since they were not
arrested during investigation, therefore keeping the applicants in
custody after filing of the charge sheets would only amount to pre-trial
punishment. The personal liberty is most sacrosanct right and liberty of
a person may not be curtailed unless there are compelling reasons and
circumstances justifying the same. He has placed his reliance upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 and Bhadresh
Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat, (2016) 1 SCC 152.
8. Contention of Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel on
behalf of applicants in M.Cr.C. A. Nos. 1154/2025, 1155/2025,
1156/2025, 1157/2025, 1158/2025, 1159/2025, 1160/2025 & 1161/2025
submits that the applicants are apprehending their arrest as the charge
sheet has been filed under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.,1973 before
the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Raipur,
District Raipur, CG and the learned Special Judge has issued summons
for appearance of the applicants on 20.08.2025. It is contended that the
allegations in the charge sheet against the applicants are
unsubstantiated by any admissible piece of evidence. Neither the illicit
liquor nor any amount from its sale thereafter, has been recovered from
the present applicants which may substantiate the allegations of the
prosecution and connect the applicants with the alleged crime. He
submits that the allegations are yet to be proved against the applicants
and it is the prosecution case itself that the applicants have duly
participated and cooperated with the investigating agency throughout
the investigation and therefore their custody is not required as they
were not arrested during the course of investigation. He contended that
the prosecution has cited more than 225 witnesses in the present
charge sheet against the applicants and the documents are voluminous
which would definitely result in a long trial and therefore seeks
protection from being taken in custody during trial. Further contention of
the counsel for the applicants is that the Special Judge after filing
charge sheet against the applicants had issued summons and fixed the
case on 20.08.2025 for their appearance. There is no recovery from the
possession of the applicants of any unaccounted liquor or the amount
alleged to be received from its sale by the investigating agency. It is
contended that the applicants have cooperated with the investigation
and there is no chance of their fleeing away and tampering with the
evidence. The prosecution agency has not arrested the applicants
during investigation and not sought their custody and after completion
of investigation charge sheets have been filed without arresting the
applicants therefore there is no likelihood of absconding and the
evidence collected is documentary in nature and there is no possible to
tamper with the evidence or witnesses. It is contended that most of the
applicants are government employees therefore there is no likelihood
that they will not participate in trial or cause undue delay. He therefore
contended that while granting or refusing the anticipatory bail, the sole
consideration must be with a view to balance the two competing
interests viz. Protecting the liberty of the accused and the sovereign
power of the police to conduct a fair investigation. He has placed his
reliance in the matter of Aman Preet Singh Vs. State of CG, MCRCA
No. 328/2023 dated 31.03.2023, wherein this Court has been held
thus:
"20. Though, the term "anticipatory bail" has not
been defined in the Code, however, it means
"bail in anticipation of arrest". Anticipatory bail
can be applied for at pre-investigation stage as
well as post-investigation stage and after
exercising the discretion judiciously, the
Sessions Court or the High Court grants
"anticipatory bail" and that too after hearing the
prosecution in this regard. However, while
granting or refusing the anticipatory bail the sole
consideration must be with a view to balance the
two competing interests viz. protecting the liberty
of the accused and the sovereign power of the
police to conduct a fair investigation. The
discretion of the Sessions Court and the High
Court is absolute, and no limitations whatsoever
have been imposed by the legislature. The object
of bail is to secure the appearance of the
accused person at his trial; otherwise on his
failure to appear so, the sureties will be bound to
produce him before the court."
9. It has been further contended by Shri Sinha, learned counsel for
the applicants that in the matter of Dataram Singh Vs. State of UP and
Another (2018) 3 SCC 22, the Apex Court has held that :
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that
need to be considered is whether the accused
was arrested during investigations when that
person perhaps has the best opportunity to
tamper with the evidence or influence
witnesses. If the investigating officer does not
find it necessary to arrest an accused person
during investigations, a strong case should be
made out for placing that person in judicial
custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it
is important to ascertain whether the accused
was participating in the investigations to the
satisfaction of the investigating officer and was
not absconding or not appearing when required
by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused
is not hiding from the investigating officer or is
hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear
of being victimized, it would be a factor that a
judge would need to consider in an appropriate
case. It is also necessary for the judge to
consider whether the accused is a first-time
offender or has been accused of other offences
and if so, the nature of such offences and his or
her general conduct."
10. He has further placed reliance in the matter of Siddharth Vs.
State of UP (2021) SCC OnLine SC 615, wherein it has been held as
under:
"We may note that personal liberty is an
important aspect of our constitutional mandate.
The occasion to arrest an accused during
investigation arises when custodial
investigation becomes necessary or it is a
heinous crime or where there is a possibility of
influencing the witnesses or accused may
abscond. Merely because an arrest can be
made because it is lawful does not mandate
that arrest must be made. A distinction must be
made between the existence of the power to
arrest and the justification for exercise of it.4 If
arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable
harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a
person. If the Investigating Officer has no
reason to believe that the accused will abscond
or disobey summons and has, in fact,
throughout cooperated with the investigation
we fail to appreciate why there should be a
compulsion on the officer to arrest the
accused."
11. The principle laid down in Siddharth (supra) has been
subsequently followed in Amanpreet Singh Vs. Republic of India SLP
(Crl.) No. 5234/2021 wherein the Apex Court has held thus:
"Insofar as the present case is concerned and
the general principles under Section 170
Cr.P.C., the most apposite observations are in
sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the
context of an accused in a non-bailable offence
whose custody was not required during the
period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is
appropriate that the accused is released on bail
as the circumstances of his having not been
arrested during investigation or not being
produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle
him to be released on bail. The rationale has
been succinctly set out that if a person has
been enlarged and free for many years and has
not even been arrested during investigation, to
suddenly direct his arrest and to be
incarcerated merely because charge sheet has
been filed would be contrary to the governing
principles for grant of bail. We could not agree
more with this."
12. He next contended that the Apex Court while dealing with the
matters related to grant of anticipatory bail, has laid down the
parameters for consideration in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (1) SCC 694 which was
against reiterated in the matter of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs.
State of Gujarat, 2016(1) SCC 152 and observed as under:
While considering the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck
between two factors, namely, no prejudice
should be caused to free, fair and full
investigation, and there should be prevention
of harassment, humiliation and unjustified
detention of the accused;
The arrest should be the last option and it
should be restricted to those exceptional
cases where arresting the accused is
imperative in the facts and circumstances of
that case."
13. Lastly, he contended that the High Court of Uttarakhand in the
matter of Saubhagya Bhagat Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another
(ABA 76/2021, dated 05.07.2023) has clarified that application for
anticipatory bail is maintainable even after filing of charge sheet.
14. Contention of Shri Gautam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the
applicants in M.CR.C.A. Nos. 1152/2025 and 1186/2025 is that the
applicants are Excise Officers and they have only performed their duties
assigned to them. He contended that the essential ingredients of the
alleged offences are not attracted against the applicants. It is further
contended that the applicants have cooperated in the investigation and
it has also been specifically mentioned in the charge sheet that the
applicants had cooperated with the investigation. It is submitted that the
applicants are government servants and there is no requirement of
custodial interrogation of the applicants as charge sheet has already
been filed. He has placed his reliance in the matter of Siddharth Vs.
State of UP, (2022) 1 SCC 676, wherein it has been observed as
under:
" We are in agreement with the aforesaid view of
the High Courts and would like to give our
imprimatur to the said judicial view. It has rightly
been observed on consideration of Section 170
of the Cr.P.C. that it does not impose an
obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest each
and every accused at the time of filing of the
charge sheet. We have, in fact, come across
cases where the accused has cooperated with
the investigation throughout and yet on the
charge sheet being filed non-bailable warrants
have been issued for his production premised on
the requirement that there is an obligation to
arrest the accused and produce him before the
court. We are of the view that if the Investigating
Officer does not believe that the accused will
abscond or disobey summons he/she is not
required to be produced in custody. The word
"custody" appearing in Section 170 of the Cr.P.C.
does not contemplate either police or judicial
custody but it merely connotes the presentation
of the accused by the Investigating Officer before
the court while filing the charge sheet.
We may note that personal liberty is an important
aspect of our constitutional mandate. The
occasion to arrest an accused during
investigation arises when custodial investigation
becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or
where there is a possibility of influencing the
witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely
because an arrest can be made because it is
lawful does not mandate that arrest must be
made. A distinction must be made between the
existence of the power to arrest and the
justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made
routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the
reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the
Investigating Officer has no reason to believe
that the accused will abscond or disobey
summons and has, in fact, throughout
cooperated with the investigation we fail to
appreciate why there should be a compulsion on
the officer to arrest the accused."
15. It is contended that the applicants satisfy the triple test necessary
for grant of bail as described in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil Vs.
CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein the Apex Court emphasized on the
importance of personal liberty as the same is one of the cherished
objects of the Indian Constitution and deprivation of the same can only
be in accordance with law and in conformity with the provisions thereof
as stipulated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He has further
relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the matter of
Aman Preet singh (supra). Lastly, he submits that the applicants are
permanent residents of the State of Chhattisgarh and are government
servants, therefore there is no possibility of fleeing away from justice.
The investigation is underway, more than 400 witnesses have been
arrayed as witnesses, the applicants were not arrested during
investigation, therefore keeping the applicants in custody after filing of
the charge sheets would only amount to pre-trial punishment. The
personal liberty is the most sacrosanct right and the liberty of a person
may not be curtailed unless, there are compelling reasons and
circumstances justifying the same. Thus, learned counsels for the
applicants seek the indulgence of this Court seeking protection by way
of anticipatory bail to the applicants.
16. Per contra, Shri Vivek Sharma, learned State Counsel, submits
that after receiving communication from the Enforcement Directorate
dated 11.07.2023 and after due verification, prima facie cognizable
offence for commission of the offences under Sections 7 & 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 467,468, 471 & 120-B
of the IPC was made out and therefore FIR vide Crime No. 04/2024
was registered. As per the FIR, a criminal syndicate comprising of high
level State Government officials, private persons and political
executives of the State Government were operating in the State which
was making illegal bribe collections by controlling the high level
management of important State departments and State public sector
undertakings. It is submitted that a total of Rs. 3200 crores of earning
was made by the syndicate from the financial year 2019-20 to 2022-23
causing a loss to the State exchequer.
17. Contention of the learned State counsel is that after registration
of crime, charge sheets and four supplementary charge sheets have
been filed before the Court. The charge sheet 03/2024 has been
prepared against 4 accused on 29.06.2024 and presented before the
Special Court on 01.07.2024. Charge sheet 03(A)/2024 has been
prepared against 4 accused on 26.09.2024 and filed before the Special
Court (PC Act) on 27.09.2024. Charge sheet 03(B)/2024 was filed
against 2 accused persons and 1 absconded accused on 17.11.2024
and filed before the Special Court on 18.11.2024. Supplementary
charge sheet No. 03(C)/2025 dated 27.06.2025 was filed against one
accused and filed before the special Court on 30.06.2025.
Supplementary Charge sheet 03(D)/2025 was filed on 07.07.2025
against 29 Excise officers in the case before the Special Court.
18. It is submitted that in the State of Chhattisgarh, liquor shops were
managed by the State Excise Department and for control of liquor
shops in the districts, various District Excise Officers/Assistant
Commissioner Excise/Deputy Commissioner Excise were deputed who
used to manage the sale of the liquor and control the illegal sale of the
liquor in the State. In the instant case, the applicants are employees of
the Excise Department and posted at different capacity. However, in
connivance with the co-accused persons of the syndicate, instead of
performing their legal duties they involved themselves in the sale of
Part-B liquor through duplicate holograms and sold off the record from
government shops and the amount so collected by the agent was
handed over to the syndicate causing a huge financial loss to the State
Exchequer and in that process received huge financial gain for
themselves.
19. It is further contended that after investigation, the ACB has filed
the final report against 29 Excise Officers on 07.07.2025. In the final
report, there are details of allegations and the evidence collected
against the accused persons. The main ground urged by the learned
counsels for the applicants is that they had fully cooperated in the
investigation and the prosecution agency has not arrested the
applicants during the investigation, therefore they are entitled for
anticipatory bail. To this, it has been replied that the filing of final report
under Section 173 is also part of the investigation though the applicants
have initially cooperated in the investigation but at the time of filing of
final report they failed to appear before the Special Court despite of
receiving the notices. He submits that the presence of the applicants is
not only required for the purpose of investigation but for the purpose of
smooth trial. However, the the applicants failed to appear before the
Court without seeking any exemption from the Court therefore, the trial
court has rightly issued the summons for their appearance and the
matter has been fixed on 20.08.2025. He therefore submits that the
instant anticipatory bail application preferred on behalf of the the
applicants deserves to be dismissed.
20. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for the parties and duly perused the material on record.
21. It is admitted fact that during the course of investigation, the
investigating agency did not arrest the applicants on the ground that
they have cooperated with the investigation agency and in view thereof,
no occasion arose for their arrest. Now that the charge sheet has been
filed before the competent court, the applicants have filed applications
under Section 482 of the BNSS before the Special Court (PC ACT) and
the bail applications were rejected. The gravity of the offence is an
important factor to be taken into consideration while granting
anticipatory bail. In these batch of applications filed on behalf of the
applicants, total of Rs. 3200 crores illegal earning was made by the
syndicate from the financial year 2019-20 to 2022-23 causing immense
loss to the State exchequer. The applicants were associated with the
syndicate acting hand-in-gloves, indulging in extorting illegal money in
different ways from the sale of liquor by selling off the record
unaccounted country liquor from State run shops and each of the
applicant was given the commission of Rs.140 per box in the illegal sale
of Part-B liquor which is under investigation. Such activities not only
undermine the public order but also strike at the very root of the rule of
law. It is most important and well established Principle of Law that the
powers conferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 1973 or Section 482 of the
BNSS are extraordinary in nature hence it should be used in
exceptional circumstances of the case only and cannot be invoked
routinely. On the one hand, the Investigating Agency has not arrested
the applicants during investigation on the basis that initially they have
cooperated in the investigation and on the other hand, the State has
vehemently opposed the applications for grant of anticipatory bail for
the reasons best known to him. The applicants did not demonstrate any
such compelling reasons or exceptional circumstances in their cases
that would qualify as "exceptional" enough to justify granting
anticipatory bail. As a result, the applicants failed to meet the high
threshold of exceptional circumstances required for anticipatory bail
under Section 482 BNSS, hence, their applications are rejected.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
suguna
