Chattisgarh High Court
Suryakant Tiwari (In Judicial Custody) vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 27 January, 2025
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Page 1 of 21
2025:CGHC:4695
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 7636 of 2024
Reserved on : 06.01.2025
Delivered on : 27.01.2025
Suryakant Tiwari (In Judicial Custody), Aged About 51 Years, S/o Sh. Late
Sh. Shashibhushan Tiwari, R/o I-34, Anupam Nagar, Raipur, District- Raipur
Chhattisgarh
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The SHO PS- EOW & ACB Raipur, District
Raipur (C.G.)
--- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akshat
Gupta & Mr. Shashank Mishra, Advocates.
For Respondent : Dr. Sourbh Kumar Pande, Dy. Advocate General &
Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
CAV ORDER
1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant
who has been arrested on 30.05.2024 in connection with Crime No.
03/2024 registered at Police Station- Anti Corruption Bureau/ Economic
Offence Wing Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the
offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC and Section 7, 7-
A, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.01.2024, one Mr.
Sandeep Ahuja, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur
ARUN
KUMAR
DEWANGAN
through Mr. Farhan Qureshi, Deputy Superintendent of Police lodged a
complaint before the Director General of Police Anti Corruption Bureau
& Economic Offences Wing, Chhattisgarh pertaining to predicate
offence discovered during money laundering in investigation File No.
ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 was done under Section 66(2) of the Prevention
of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short "the PMLA"). Thereafter, an
offence bearing FIR No. 03/2024 has been registered on 17.01.2024 at
Police Station ACB/EOW Raipur (C.G.) against 35 accused persons
namely Smt. Saumya Chaurasiya, Sameer Bisnoi, Smt. Ranu Sahu,
Sandeep Kumar Nayak, Shivshankar Nag, Suryakant Tiwari, Manish
Upadhyay, Roshan Kumar Singh, Nikhil Chandrakar, Rahul Singh,
Parekh Kurre, Moinuddin Qureshi, Virendra Jaiswal, Rajnikant Tiwari,
Hemant Jaiswal, Joginder Singh, Nawneet Tiwari, Deepesh Taunk,
Devendra Dadsena, Rahul Mishra, Ramgopal Agrawal, Devendra
Singh Yadav, Shishupal Sori, Rampratap Singh, Vinod Tiwari, Amarjeet
Bhagat, Chandradeo Prasad Rai, Brashpat Singh, Idrish Gandhi,
Gulab Kamro, Shri U.D. Minj, Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Jai (friend of the
applicant), Chandraparakash Jaiswal, Laxmikant Tiwari & others.
3. Further case of the prosecution is that a syndicate comprised of private
individuals and other State Government functionaries like Smt.
Saumya Chaurasia, Director, Geology & Mining Department and with
the backing of some political executives, they managed to make
deliberate policy changes. As part of the well-planned conspiracy, the
applicant with the active support of the politicians & some of the senior
State Government functionaries, managed to influence the then
Director of Geology & Mining, and got issued a Government Order
dated 15.07.2020 which became the fountain head of this extortion
system by converting the online system of issuance of Transport
Permits into a manual system. They started a network of extortion to
collect Rs. 25 per on every ton of coal transported in the State of
Chhattisgarh. The investigation conducted by the Enforcement
Directorate revealed that other senior bureaucrats viz., Smt. Saumya
Chaurasia and Smt. Ranu Sahu, IAS were also involved in this
conspiracy and were providing assistance to the applicant in running
the extortion racket. Smt. Soumya Chourasiya while working as Deputy
Secretary in Chief Minister Office, had assisted the applicant and his
associates in collecting the extortion money by posting pliable officers
of mining department in the coal mining areas. Smt. Ranu Sahu IAS,
who worked as District Collector in coal rich Districts viz., Korba &
Raigarh, had close association with the applicant and helped his
associates in collecting extortion money from the coal transporters and
other businessmen.
4. It is also case of the prosecution that by this system of extortion, a
huge amount of cash started accumulating with the syndicate and with
this money, the applicant has purchased benami assets and a huge
amount of money was transferred to the applicant, spent on political
funding and transferred as per the instructions of higher powers. The
Enforcement Directorate investigation further established that Smt.
Ranu Sahu had aided and abetted the applicant in collection of illegal
levy amounts from the coal transporters. Smt. Ranu Sahu was in touch
through WhatsApp with Roshan Singh, associate of the applicant. The
WhatsApp chats happened between Smt. Ranu Sahu and Roshan
Singh, close associate of the applicant, revealed that Roshan Singh
was in regular touch with Ranu Sahu and she agreed to do work as
asked by Roshan Singh. The investigation carried out by the
Enforcement Directorate further revealed that the government servants
like Smt. Saumya Chaurasia, Sameer Vishnoi lAS, Smt. Ranu Sahu,
State Mining Officers etc. had received kickbacks from the applicant
and acquired benami properties disproportionate to their source of
income. It is also case of the prosecution that the applicant has
purchased property in the name of his family members and other
relatives to the tune of Rs. 1,08,18,79,656/- from receipt of extorted
money of coal. Therefore, the Enforcement Directorate requested the
Anti Corruption Bureau by filing complaint to identify all the assets
acquired by the various government servants who are accused of
participation in this extortion syndicate in various Districts. It is also
case of the Enforcement Directorate that various mining officers are
involved in this extortion. As such, it was requested by the Enforcement
Directorate to register an FIR and investigate the matter. In pursuance
of the complaint, the FIR was registered. It is also case of the
ACB/EOW that because of the instigation, Rs. 36 crores illegal extorted
money has been collected which has been utilized for purchase of
property in the name of applicant and other accused Saumya
Chaurasia and Ranu Sahu through their relatives or friends. Thus, on
the basis of the complaint, FIR has been registered against the
applicant for commission of offence under Sections 7, 7A & 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018 (for short "the
PC Act") read with Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC.
5. From the case diary and the material so collected by the ACB/EOW,
the role of present applicant is that the applicant is a political person
and coal businessman having close relations with politicians,
administrative and police officials as also the then Deputy Secretary,
Mrs. Saumya Chaurasia, Chief Minister's Secretariat. Taking
advantage of his relations good with politicians and administrative
officials and his experience in coal business, he formed a syndicate
with his associates to collect levy from coal transporters/coal
businessmen. During the investigation of the case, it was found that
the applicant, along with his coal business partner Hemant Jaiswal and
his associates Roshan Singh, Nikhil Chandrakar, had held meetings of
coal businessmen and transporters in June-July 2020 at NTPC guest
house in Korba, Jindal Steel and Power Limited and Hotel Shrestha in
Raigarh, office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Surajpur and at Hemant
Jaiswal's house in Bilaspur regarding collection of coal levy of Rs 25/-
per ton from coal businessmen and transporters on the delivery order
received from SECL. During meeting, the applicant and his associates
had also threatened the businessmen and transporters that in case of
not paying the coal levy, their work would be stopped and action would
be taken against them through various agencies of the State
Government. The meeting held by the applicant is confirmed by the
information of those staying in the guest house received through the
letter dated 19.06.2024 of General Manager Jindal Steel Raigarh.
According to the information received, Hemant Jaiswal and the
applicant stayed in room No. 115, 102 of the guest house of Jindal
Steel and Power Limited, Raigarh from 23.06.2020 to 25.06.2020 and
in room No. 118 and 121 on 06-07.07.2020 in the name of CM House
and according to the information received from NTPC in Korba District
through a letter dated 25th June 2024, the applicant, Hemant Jaiswal
and their syndicate members Roshan Singh, Nikhil Chandrakar,
Moinuddin Qureshi, Navneet Tiwari stayed in the guest house of NTPC
from 17th June 2020 to 24th July 2020 in the name of CM House. The
statements of Anup Basal Transporter, a witness of the case, confirmed
the meeting held at Hotel Shrestha, Raigarh.
6. In the investigation of the case, it has also been found that even after
the meeting of coal traders/transporters held by the applicant, some
coal traders refused to the demand of Rs. 25/-. When they were not
ready to pay the levy per tonne of coal, the applicant conspired with Mr.
Sameer Vishnoi, Director, Directorate of Geology and Mining, to issue
an order dated 15.07.2020 with the aim of pressurizing them and
recovering amount from them. In a page of a handwritten diary seized
by the Income Tax Department from applicant's Flat No. 301 VIP,
Karishma, Block D-2 Khamhardih, Raipur, it is mentioned that
"Collector of Transit Pass DO should be issued by the Mining Officer in
offline or it should be manually removed (remove it online) citing server
error as the reason", which proves that the said order dated
15.07.2020 was conspired by the applicant with the help of Mr. Sameer
Vishnoi. After issuance of the order dated 15.07.2020, the applicant
appointed members of his syndicate namely Roshan Kumar Singh,
Nikhil Chandrakar, Moinuddin Qureshi, Parekh Kumar Kurrey, Chandra
Prakash Jaiswal, Navnit Tiwari, Rahul Singh, Montu @ Virendra
Jaiswal for Districts namely Raipur, Raipur, Krba, Korba,
Korba/Bilaspur, Raigarh, Surajpur & Surajpur to collect coal levy of Rs.
25/- per tonne. The members of the said syndicate with the help of
mining officers namely Shri Shivshankar Nag and Shri Sandeep Nayak,
started collecting illegal coal levy of Rs. 25/- per ton from coal traders
and coal transporters and those coal traders who were not paying coal
levy, their online permit/NOC issued by the mining office for coal
transportation on the basis of DO issued by SECL was stopped, due to
which the coal traders were afraid that they would suffer financial loss if
the DO issued by SECL lapsed. The validity of DO issued by SECL is
45 days, therefore, the coal transporters and businessmen were forced
to agree to pay illegal coal levy to the members of applicant's
syndicate. In this way, the applicant and his syndicate members
collected illegal coal levy in cash worth crores of rupees from coal
traders and coal transporters, which was confirmed by the witnesses of
the case. The applicant has purchased property in the name of his
family members and other relatives to the tune of Rs. 1,08,18,79,656/-
from receipt of extorted money of coal.
7. During the investigation of the case, it was found that the illegal cash
collected by the members of applicant's syndicate was deposited with
applicant's brother Rajnikant Tiwari at his residence at I-34 Anupam
Nagar, Raipur through Roshan Singh and Nikhil Chandrakar and
syndicate members Moinuddin Qureshi, Parekh Kurre, Navneet Tiwari,
Rahul Singh and Montu Jaiswal, who were collecting money in the
coal-rich Districts of Korba, Raigarh and Surajpur. During the search
and seizure operation conducted by the Income Tax Department on
30.06.2022, several diaries were seized from the residence of
applicant's brother Rajnikant Tiwari and his employees. The diaries
contained the account of illegal cash earned from illegal coal levy
collection and its use. The said seized diaries were written by Rajnikant
Tiwari and Roshan Singh on the instructions of the applicant which is
confirmed by the seized diaries and the statements of the syndicate
members. Parallel to the coal levy collection, the applicant started
levying Rs. 100/- per ton on iron pellets from January 2022. Roshan
Singh, the authorized person of the applicant used to threat the traders
that if the levy is not paid, the supply of raw material will be stopped. In
this way, illegal levy of crores of rupees was collected by threatening
which is confirmed by statements of S.K. Goyal and Sandeep Goyal,
Directors of Bajrang Steel and Power.
8. The applicant used to keep a part of the cash collected from illegal levy
on coal and iron pellets for himself and distributed the remaining
amount to Mrs. Saumya Chaurasia, Mr. Sameer Vishnoi, Mrs. Ranu
Sahu and political patrons. Some amount of illegal coal levy was kept
safe by him with his uncle Laxmikant Tiwari through Nikhil Chandrakar
and Rajnikant Tiwari. A cash amount of Rs. 1.5 crore of coal levy of the
applicant was seized from Badal Makkad and as per the instructions of
the applicant in connivance with Laxmikant Tiwari, the said amount of
coal levy has been kept with Badal Makkad, fromwhere the said
amount was seized. The cash amount recovered by Income Tax
Department from residence of Laxmikant Tiwari on 30.06.2022 is Rs.
6,44,38,000/- and jewellery worth Rs. 3,24,61,655/- and Rs.
52,35,000/- seized from bank locker and cash seized from the
residence of Rajnikant Tiwari and Navneet Tiwari. The jewellery
belonged to the applicant which is confirmed by the seizure memo, the
statement of Nikhil Chandrakar and the admission made by Laxmikant
Tiwari during interrogation. The applicant had established many firms
in the name of his relatives. He was a partner with Rajnikant Tiwari in a
firm named M/s Ganga Construction, with Jogendra Singh in Jai Ambe
Road Lines and with Hemant Jaiswal in Mangalam Minerals Movers.
During investigation, it was also found that the applicant along with his
business partners Hemat Jaiswal, Ishwar Sidar and Anup Bansal, had
purchased two coal washeries named Satya Power and Indus Udyog
for Rs. 96 crores through the firm Maa Madwarani Coal Beneficiation
Limited from the amount of illegal coal levy. Ishwar Singh Sidar was an
employee of the applicant. He was made a Director in M/s Maa
Madwarani Coal Beneficiation Private Limited because he was tribal
and some tribal lands were such that only tribals could buy them.
Ishwar Singh Sidar was made Director in M/s Madwarani Coal
Beneficiation Private Limited. By making him a director, he had
purchased 22 acres of tribal land adjacent to the coal washery in Korba
in the name of Ishwar Singh Sidar. This was confirmed by witness
Ashish Kumar. This is according to the statement of Agarwal coal
businessman, Ishwar Singh Sidar. The money obtained by the
applicant from illegal levy of coal and iron pellets was used to get
unsecured loans for his relatives through several of his close
acquaintances, which were used to invest crores of rupees in
immovable properties in the name of his family and other relatives. The
immovable properties purchased by the applicant in his name and his
relatives' names were sold to Shri Sunil Agarwal's Idramni Group after
the Income Tax Department's raid so that the money earned from
illegal coal levy collection could be secured and saved from ED
seizure. The amount collected as illegal coal levy by the applicant for
Smt. Saumya Chaurasia was sent through his relative Manish
Upadhyay, his driver Narayan Sahu and Ishwar Sidar, which is
confirmed by the diaries seized by the Income Tax Department from
the residence of the applicant and the statements of Manish Upadhyay
and Ishwar Sidar. On the instructions of the applicant, several
WhatsApp groups of the members of the coal levy syndicate were
created, through which they used to record the details of the amount of
illegal coal levy collection. This was done in the form of code words like
Gitti, Sand, Murum, which means crores, lakhs and thousands of
rupees respectively. This is confirmed by the statements of syndicate
members Nikhil Chandrakar and Roshan Singh. In this case, on the
basis of information received from Income Tax and Enforcement
Directorate, during the search operations carried out by the Income Tax
Department at about 100 locations of the applicant and his associates
Laxmikant Tiwari, Nikhil Chandrakar and others and on the basis of
study of handwritten diaries, loose papers and digital devices such as
mobile phones, laptops etc. seized on the basis of investigation being
done by the Bureau, the applicant has been found to have made
transactions worth crores of rupees through the members of his
syndicate.
9. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, learned senior counsel for the applicant would
submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in
the crime in question. He would further submit that the right to fair trial
and investigation is a facet of the Right to Life and Liberty under Article
21 of the Constitution of the India. This right can be taken away by
procedure established by law which procedure must be just fair and
reasoned as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Babubhai
Vs. State of Gujarat & others [(2010) 12 SCC 254] and Gangadhar
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2020) 9 SCC 202]. He would further
submit that the accused must necessarily be given a notice under
Section 41-A Cr.P.C. prior to effecting his arrest as per the law laid
down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Arnesh Kumar Vs.
State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273] & Satender Kumar Antil [(2022)
10 SCC 51] whereas in the present case, no mandatory notice has
been given to the applicant prior to his arrest. He would further submit
that the memorandum of arrest prepared was neither attested by any
witness nor counter signed by the applicant whereas the same has
been intimated to Mr. Chandresh Mishra, Advocate who is not family
member or friend of the applicant. Thus, the safeguard provided under
Section 41-B of the Cr.P.C. has not been complied with by the arresting
officer while arresting the applicant. He would further submit that the
applicant was not provided with the grounds of arrest on the basis of
which his arrest had been affected by the investigating agency, which
is purely in violation of Section 50(1) of the Cr.P.C., therefore, non-
supply of grounds of arrest would render illegal and the applicant is
entitled for grant of bail as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case
of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [2023 SCC
OnLine SC 1244] & Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
[2024 SCC OnLine SC 934]. He would further submit that the manner
and timing of the arrest of the applicant itself makes it evident that the
same is an insurance arrest made with intent to ensure a prolonged
incarceration of the applicant. The arrest of the applicant in this case
was effected by the ACB/EOW only after some co-accused were
granted bail by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the said ECIR and over 5
months of registration of FIR and after 13 days of grating bail by
Hon'ble the Supreme in the said ECIR, the investigating agency
arrested the applicant.
10. He would further submit that the pre-trial custody and the trial has not
yet commenced and the trial is likely to take time for its final
conclusion, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.
He would further submit that the right to speedy trial is a facet of the
Fundamental Right of life of an accused under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of
Manish Sisodia Vs. CBI & ED [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1393],
Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2022)
10 SCC 51], Surinder Singh alias Shingara Singh Vs. State of
Punjab [(2005) 7 SCC 387], Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Punjab
[(1977) 4 SCC 291], Manish Sisodia Vs. ED & CBI [(2024) SCC
OnLine SC 920], Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of
Maharashtra [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693].
11. He would further submit that the right to bail in case of delay, coupled
with long incarceration period should be read into Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. as the constitutional mandate is the higher law and it is the
basic right of the person charged of an offence and not convicted, that
he be given a speedy trial. When the trial is not proceeding for reasons
not attributable to the accused, the court, unless there are good
reasons, may well be guided to exercise the power to grant bail. He
would further submit that if the trial gets protected and it is clear that
the case will not be decided within a foreseeable time, the accused
person is entitled to get bail. Hon'ble Supreme Court in so many cases
on the ground of delay in trial coupled with long pre-trial incarceration
period, has granted bail to the applicant.
12. He would further submit that it is well settled position of law that the
object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative and the primary
purpose of bail in a criminal case is to ensure that the accused will
submit to the jurisdiction of the court and be in attendance whenever
his presence is required. Deprivation of liberty must be considered
punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused
person will stand trial when called upon Punishment can only begin
after conviction and necessity is the operative test. He would further
submit that even if the allegation is grave of economic offence, it is not
a rule that bail should be denied in every case and consideration has to
be made on case to case basis on the facts. The primary object is to
secure the presence of the accused to attend trial as held by Hon'ble
the Supreme Court in case of P. Chidambaram Vs. ED [(2020) 13
SCC 791].
13. He would further submit that the applicant shall be severely prejudiced
and pre-judged if he is continually remanded to custody and the same
is imperative for the proper and effective defence of the applicant and
as a step to ensure the fair trial of the applicant that he be on bail
unless there are overwhelming considerations otherwise the applicant
cannot effectively instruct counsel in the captioned matter having
peculiar facts and circumstances, including complex and technical
matters and financial transactions, and as such, the denial of bail shall
cause grave prejudice to the applicant as held by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, [(1980)
2 SCC 565]. He would further submit that the applicant has already
undergone custody of a total period of more than 22 months including
106 days in the said FIR. He would further submit that both the
investigation i.e. ACB/EOW and the Enforcement Directorate are being
conducted in relation to the same alleged transaction and occurrence
and material, witnesses and the documents are mostly same, thus, the
total custody suffered by the applicant has already exceeded over 22
months, the trial Court is likely to take some more time, therefore, the
applicant may kindly be granted bail. He would further submit that the
investigation against the applicant is complete, charge-sheet has been
filed and there is no apprehension of violation of the triple test by the
applicant, therefore, the applicant is entitled to grant of bail as held by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Bibhav Kumar Vs. State of
NCT of Delhi [SLP (Crl.) No. 9817 of 2024, decided on 02.09 2024],
Kalvakunta Kavitha vs. ED [SLP (Crl.) No. 10778 of 2024, decided
on 27.08 2024], Krishnan Subramanian v. State NCT of Delhi [2022
SCC OnLine Del 1384].
14. He would further submit that the custody of an accused is required
primarily for the purpose of investigation. In the instant case, the
applicant has already undergone a period of 106 days. The applicant
has co-operated with the ED during the course of its investigation. No
further investigation is continuing as against the applicant in the instant
case. He would further submit that the applicant is not involved in any
extortion racket and has neither demanded nor received any unlawful
amount from any person as alleged levy for transportation of coal out
of the coal mine fields. The applicant has also not indulged in any
activity relating to the alleged proceeds of crime and the applicant has
neither given any money to any politician or any state functionary nor
caused any obstruction in the discharge of duties by a public servant.
He would further submit that allegations have been levelled against the
applicant on the basis of statements made by other co-accused person
apart from the inadmissible diary entries but the statement under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. are not admissible in law and the statement
recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 50 of the PMLA,
2002. He would further submit that there is no material to corroborate
these false statements of the co-accused persons. It is well settled
position of law that the statement of a co-accused person is an
extremely weak piece of evidence and cannot be treated as
substantive evidence as against the other co-accused person as held
by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Prem Prakash vs. ED [SLP
(Crl.) No 5416 of 2024 decided on 28.08.2024], Haricharan Kurmi
Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1184], Sanjay Jain Vs. ED [2024
SCC OnLine SC 656].
15. He would further submit that it is settled law that mere diary entries
cannot be read into evidence and the same are inadmissible in law
especially without independent evidence of their trustworthiness and
the same cannot be relied upon as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court
in case of CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla [(1998) 3 SCC 410], L.K. Advani Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation [Criminal Revision Petition No.
265 of 1996], Common Cause Vs. Union of India. He would further
submit that it is alleged that the applicant does not satisfy the triple-test
for grant of bail i.e. the applicant is a flight risk or would influence any
witness or would tamper with any evidence. In any event, there is no
material on record to suggest that the applicant does not satisfy the
triple-test. He would further submit that there is no allegation that the
applicant would either tamper with any evidence or influence any
witness, if granted bail. Learned trial Court has erroneously observed
that there is an apprehension that if the applicant is released on bail,
he may Influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, it is well settled
law that mere apprehensions of influencing witnesses or tampering
with evidence can never be a ground to decline bail to any accused,
unless there is cogent supporting material as held by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in case of P. Chidambaram Vs. CBI [2020 13 SCC
337]. He would further submit that the applicant is suffering from
various serious medical conditions, however, he has not been provided
proper medical treatment by the authorities in jail and in absence of
providing medical treatment to the applicant, he has undergone severe
weight loss and has become extremely weak during the duration of his
custody. He would further submit that the applicant is ready and willing
to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the directions and
conditions which may be imposed by this Court and would pray for
releasing he applicant on bail.
16. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment
rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Vijay Nair Vs. ED
[SLP (Crl.) Dy. No. 22137 of 2024, decided on 02.09.2024], Neeraj
Singal vs. ED [ SLP (Crl) No. 8439 of 2024, decided on 06.09.2024],
Kalvakunta Kavitha Vs. ED [SLP (Crl) No 10778 of 2024, decided
on 27.08 2024], Prem Prakash Vs. ED [SLP (Crl.) No 5416 of 2024
decided on 28.08.2024], Ramkripal Meena Vs. ED [SLP (Crl.) No.
3205 of 2024 decided on 30.07.2024], Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh
Vs. State of Maharashtra [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693], Jainam
Rathod v. State of Haryana [2022 OnLine SC 1506], Sujay U. Desai
vs. SFIO [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1507], Gudikanti Narasimhulu Vs.
Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [(1978) 1 SCC
240], Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC
565], Kalvakunta Kavitha Vs. ED [SLP (Crl.) No. 10778 of 2024,
decided on 27.08 2024], Krishnan Subramanian Vs. State NCT of
Delhi [2022 SCC OnLine Del 1384] & Niranjan Singh & another Vs.
Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & others [(1980) 2 SCC 559].
17. Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General for the
ACB/EOW opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the
applicant and referring to the FIR and the case diary would submit that
the applicant is involved in the economical offence which is not only
heinous offence but also against the economy of the nation. The
custodial interrogation of the applicant is required as the applicant has
not disclosed the source of income from where these properties which
have been detailed in the final report and if the accused remained the
custody, the sources of purchased of property can be traced out. He
would further submit that the learned Special Judge (Prevention of
Corruption Act), Raipur vide order dated 19.09.2024 while dismissing
the bail application filed by the applicant has observed that there is
involvement of the applicant in the crime in question, which has not
been rebutted by the applicant while making this submission before
this Court and would pray for rejection of bail petition as such would
pray for rejection of the bail application of the applicant.
18. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and the respondents as
well as considered the case diary.
19. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant has nowhere stated in
the bail petition regarding source of income by which he has purchased
the properties to the tune of Rs. 1,08,18,79,656/- in the name of his
family members and the relatives as available in the case diary which
clearly shows that the ACB/EOW has collected certain material against
the applicant. The prosecution has collected the material against the
applicant that he has purchased properties in the name of his family
members and relatives by utilizing the extorted money, which has been
collected from coal transporters. Thus, from perusal of FIR and the
material available in the case diary, involvement of the applicant in
commission of offence under Section 7, 7A & 12 of the PC Act, which is
economic offence, is prima facie reflected. Hon'ble the Supreme Court
while considering the gravity of economic offence in case of P.
Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, [(2019) 9 SCC 24]
has held at paragraph 78 to 81 as under:-
"78. Observing that economic offence is committed with
deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the
consequence to the community, in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal
Jitamalji Porwal and others (1987) 2 SCC 364, it was held as
under:-
"5. ....The entire community is aggrieved if the economic
offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to
book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon
passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with
cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal
profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A
disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested
only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community
in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner
without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar
crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to
the national economy and national interest....."
79. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart
and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of
bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, the
Supreme Court held as under:-
"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be
visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The
economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and
involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously
and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the
country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the
financial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature
of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the
severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to
the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of
the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the
public/State and other similar considerations." [underlining
added]
80. Referring to Dukhishyam Benupani, Assistant Director,
Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria (1998) 1
SCC 52, in Enforcement Officer, Ted, Bombay v. Bher Chand
Tikaji Bora and others (1999) 5 SCC 720, while hearing an
appeal by the Enforcement Directorate against the order of the
Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granting anticipatory bail
to the respondent thereon, the Supreme Court set aside the
order of the Single Judge granting anticipatory bail.
81. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may
frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused
and in collecting the useful information and also the materials
which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation
would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the
order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in
economic offences would definitely hamper the effective
investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been
collected by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate and
considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that
it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail."
20. Again Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod
Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) & another [(2021) 6 SCC
230] has held in paragraph 23 as under :-
24. The principles governing the grant of bail were reiterated by
a two judge Bench in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis
Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496:
"9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with
an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to
the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High
Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly
in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of
decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among
other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while
considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on
bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the
accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced;
and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
"10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these
relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said
order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind,
rendering it to be illegal..."
47. The considerations which must weigh with the Court in
granting bail have been formulated in the decisions of this Court
in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh13 and Prasanta
Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee14(noted earlier). These
decisions as well as the decision in Sanjay Chandra (supra)
were adverted to in a recent decision of a two judge Bench of
this Court dated 19 March 2021 in The State of Kerala v.
Mahesh where the Court observed:
"22...All the relevant factors have to be weighed by the Court
considering an application for bail, including the gravity of the
offence, the evidence and material which prima facie show the
involvement of applicant for bail in the offence alleged, the
extent of involvement of the applicant for bail, in the offence
alleged, possibility of the applicant accused absconding or
otherwise defeating or delaying the course of justice,
reasonable apprehension of witnesses being threatened or
influenced or of evidence being tempered with, and danger to
the safety of the victim (if alive), the complainant, their relatives,
friends or other witnesses...." Similarly, the Court held that the
grant of bail by the High Court can be set aside, consistent with
the precedents we have discussed above, when such grant is
based on non-application of mind or is innocent of the relevant
factors for such grant.
21. Considering the FIR and other material placed on record, it prima facie
shows involvement of the applicant in crime in question. As such, I am
of the view that it is not a fit case where the applicant should be
granted regular bail.
22. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section 483 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is liable to be and is hereby
rejected.
23. The observation made by this Court is not bearing any effect on the
trial of the case. The learned trial court will decide the criminal trial in
accordance with evidence, material placed on record, without being
influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while
deciding present bail application.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Arun
