Chattisgarh High Court
Kawasi Lakhma vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:34179
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ORDER RESERVED ON 08.07.2025
ORDER DELIVERED ON 18.07.2025
MCRC No. 3392 of 2025
1 - Kawasi Lakhma S/o Lt. Mr. Hadma Kawasi Aged About 66 Years R/o
134, Officer's Colony, Dharampura, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001.
Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Economic Offences Wing
(EOW)/Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Headquarter, Opposite Jai
Jawan Petrol Pump, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Harshwardhan Parganiha, Advocate
For Respondent/State) : Shri Vivek Sharma, Addl. Advocate General
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
(CAV ORDER)
The applicant has filed the instant bail application before this
Court in terms of the provisions of Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ('BNSS' for short) for grant of bail in connection
with FIR No. 04/2024 registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, District
Raipur under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471,120-B IPC and Sections 7 &
12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE CASE
2. Facts of the case leading to the filing of the present applicant is
that the applicant was arrested on 02.04.2025 by the respondent/ACB
on the allegation which are as follows:
a. Out of the illegal money allegedly generated by
the syndicate, systematically engaged in the
manufacture and sale of illegal liquor through
licensed government shops between 2019 to
2022, a sum of INR 50,00,000/- per month was
given to the applicant when was then serving as
Excise Minister of the State of Chhattisgarh.
b. The operations of the syndicate have allegedly
resulted in generation of a huge amount of money
which has been distributed amongst the members
of the syndicate and used to bribe high political
and administrative functionaries.
b. The grounds of arrest supplied to the applicant
at the time of his arrest further alleges that the
applicant had played an important role in framing
policies that facilitated the alleged illegal operation
of the syndicate, posted desired Excise Officers at
desired locations and laid down terms and
conditions in the public procurement process that
demonstrates favoritism and biasness.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
3. Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the present
FIR No. 04 of 2024 constitutes a gross abuse of criminal justice
machinery. It is submitted that the present applicant at the time when
the alleged offence is said to have been committed, he was said to be
in the helm of affairs in the role of Excise Minister. The applicant was
arrested when he was judicial custody pursuant to his arrest in
connection with ECIR No.4. The need for custodial interrogation was
sought for by the respondent. After the registration of FIR, the applicant
was not even summoned once by the Investigating Agency. Counsel for
the applicant submits that the malafidee which has been committed
against the applicant as to how he was arrested. After the ECIR No.11
was registered by the Enforcement Directorate in the alleged liquor
scam, information was shared under Section 66(2) of the PMLA
relevant material along with statements under Section 50 were shared
by the prosecution agency. The said information was collected
pursuant to a patently illegal investigation being carried out in relation to
ECIR No. 11 of 2022. The charge sheet was filed against the applicant.
The material relied upon which can be relied from the statement of
Arunpati Tripathi which reads as under:
" v#.kifr f+=ikBh & izorZu funs'kky; ds
ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 esa fnukad 03-04-2023 dks v#.kifr
f=ikBh ds }kjk fn;s x;s c;ku esa Li"V rkSj ij ;g mYys[k gS
fd rRdkyhu vkcdkjh ea=h Jh doklh y[kek dks izfrekg 50
yk[k #i;sa ¼fixed½ vu ,dkmaVsM ch&ikVZ dh 'kjkc dh fcdzh jde
esa ls vkcdkjh foHkkx dks izkIr gksus okys 150 #i;s izfr isVh jde esa
ls izkIr gks jgs FksA blds vykok Jh doklh y[kek dks izfr ekg
vuoj <scj ds }kjk vjfoan flag ds ek/;e ls 1-5 djksM #i;s vyx
ls fn;s tk jgs FksA"
He submits that both the ECIR and statement came to be
quashed by the Apex Court. The material was with the Investigating
Agency and the timing of the arrest came when the applicant was
against the incumbent government and there was no need or necessity
of custodial interrogation. It was only a means to strong arm the
applicant and only of political rivalry, the applicant was put behind the
bars. The ED cannot and must not act as a complainant for the purpose
or registration of scheduled offences as the same is not contemplated
under the scheme of the PMLA. It is submitted that permitting the same
would amount to gross miscarriage of justice in as much as the ED
would then be at liberty to create its own scheduled offence, completely
rendering the concept of the scheduled offence nugatory.
4. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the FIR does
not attribute any specific role, overt act or participation by the applicant
in the commission of the alleged offence. It contains vague and general
allegations against multiple individuals without detailing the involvement
of the applicant. As per the allegations of the respondent is that there
were two parts of the commission which the applicant received ie.
50,00,000/- and 1.5 crores. In both the instances, one part is said to be
delivered by the excise officials which was collected by them from point
B, come to the bungalow of the applicant and handover the same to the
OSD ie. Jayant Dewangan. He is the person who received the cash
and had admitted the fact. The arrest of the applicant has been
effectuated in a hasty manner with an ulterior motive to frustrate the
application of the applicant seeking grant of anticipatory bail in
connection with the present FIR which was pending consideration
before this Court. Next contention is that there was absolutely no
material with the non-applicant necessitating the arrest of the applicant
in the present case. It is settled law that there is a distinction between
the power to arrest and justification for the exercise of such powers.
5. It is next submitted that the arrest of the applicant reeks of
malafides. Despite the fact that present FIR was registered in the
month of January 2024 and the EOW/ACB has filed 3 charge sheets
(ie. on 29.06.2024, 26.09.2024 and 17.11.2024) arraigning a total
number of 11 accused persons, not a single summon was issued to the
applicant for the investigation. He has relied upon the decision of Apex
Court in the matter of Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Directorate of
Enforcement, 2024 Scc OnLine SC1703.
6. The private person who was involved in transfer of such funds to
the applicant ie. Prakash Sharma used to work with Vikas Agrawal @
Subbu who has been absconding since, has been entrusted the task of
delivering the amount on the instructions of Amit Singh and Arvind
Singh to the residence of the applicant. Both these persons have
negated the fact that they knew Prakash Sharma and has stated while
in judicial custody when confronted with the applicant. The applicant
has come from a naxalite effected area and therefore he has been
provided Z+ security and no person or car could have entered his
residential premises without there being any entry or exit record
thereof. Merely reliance has been made on the statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is a government residential bungalow where the
entry and exit register are maintained and records are also secured in
the electronic form. There has never been any instances and in charge
sheet such material is absent.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the
custodial detention of the applicant is no longer necessary because the
applicant has been sufficiently interrogated while being in police
custody from 02.04.2025 to 11.04.2025. There is no evidence which
forms part of the charge sheet reflecting that his vehicle or he himself
had by any stretch of imagination, come to this particular place where
he has admitted the he frequently come to. There are two major
individuals who had stated about the transfer of money to his bungalow
is by the cook, guard and PSO who have stated that some bags used
to come however they have not identified that there used to be money
in it though they did not identified the person who brought the bags.
8. Counsel for the applicant submits that there is absence of
approval under Section 17A of the PC Act, 1988 because admittedly, at
the time of commission of the alleged offence, he was discharging his
duties as a public servant and the very investigation suffers from
procedural defects that goes to the root of the nature. There is no direct
or circumstantial evidence establishing that the applicant made any
demand for illegal gratification or accepted any amount from the alleged
syndicate. It is a settled position of law that in order to constitute an
offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 there must be cogent
evidence providing both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
Mere allegation without any substantive evidence cannot form the
basis of prosecution. He has referred to the decision of the Apex Court
in the matter of Soundarajan Vs. State Represented by the
Inspector of Police Vigilance Anti corruption Dindigul, 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 424.
9. It is submitted that there is no cogent evidence showing any
physical manifestation of agreement between the applicant and other
co-accused for committing the alleged crime for making out a case of
criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. It is well settled that there
must be cogent evidence to show that the co-accused persons are
acting as per common agreement. He has referred to the decision of
the Apex Court in the matter of Ram Sharan Chaturvedi Vs. State of
MP (2022) 16 SC 166. The offence under Section 420 IPC is also not
made out for the reason that the fraudulent or dishonest intention to
cheat is altogether absent.
10. It has been argued that on meticulous examination of the
evidence at the stage of bail is not required. The statements of 41
individuals recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, 1973 cannot be relied
upon at this stage as they are to be tested during trial which is yet to
commence. Even under the Special Acts wherein the accused has to
meet a higher threshold for grant of bail, the Apex Court has held that at
the stage of considering bail application, the court is not required to
enter into the merits or delve into the statements of the witnesses and
conduct a mini trial. He further contends that it is not a case of
investigation of money laundering. It is a case wherein a criminal
conspiracy is brought on record to show the involvement of the
applicant with the liquor scam and his active role. As per the charge
sheet, the applicant is a signatory to the FL-10A licensee in which the
applicant was also involved. He submits that there were other co-
accused who were also involved mainly the Excise Commissioner and
other authorities but till date they have not been arrested nor custodial
interrogation has been done. In so far as transfer of Excise Officers is
concerned, it is stated that the applicant has passed the directive that
until and unless the Minister concerned will not approve the transfer
shall not take place and that any raids made by the flying squad, if at
all, has to be approved by the Commissioner. To this, he submits that
the flying squad who are government officials that is stated to have
assisted in the alleged liquor scam they received 50 lacs per month
from the alleged scam and they have stated that they worked under the
dictate of the Commissioner but they have not been arrested nor the
Commissioner has been arrested and the applicant is arrested. He
submits that the other persons who were also involved in the scam,
they would have also been interrogated.
11. It is next contended that the applicant satisfies the triple test for
grant of bail viz. Flight risk, influencing witnesses and tampering
evidence as laid down by the decision of the High Court of Delhi
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Del. 3622, Preeti Chandra Vs.
Directorate of Enforcement and upheld by the Apex Court in SLP
(Crl.) No.7409/2023 and as such the applicant is entitled for bail.
It is now a settled position of law that apprehension of
influencing the witnesses and tampering of evidence is required to be
based on tangible evidence and mere allegation cannot be taken at
face value on the asking of the investigating agency. The learned
Special Court has rejected the bail application of the applicant solely on
the basis of prima facie involvement of the applicant and the
circumstance of the case which by any stretch of imagination cannot
amount to a conclusive determination of guilt and such findings are not
sufficient to deny grant of bail, especially in absence of compelling
reasons such as the likelihood of absconding, tampering with evidence
or influencing witnesses. In the matter of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI,
2012 (1) SCC 40, it has been held that seriousness of the charge,
though a relevant condition, is no only factor that needs to be
considered while granting bail and the object of bail is not punitive but
to secure the presence of the accused for trial. Int he matter of P.
Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC 791
has observed that the parameters of bail do not change in economic
offences and held that "it is not a rule that bail (with appropriate
conditions) cannot be granted in cases of such offences."
12. The Apex Court has held in plethora of cases Manoranjan Sinha
Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2017) 5 SCC 218, where it has
been held that denial of bail ought not be used as a punitive device. It is
well settled that bail is the rule and its denial is exception. The denial of
bail in the present case would act as a completely disproportionate
restriction on the personal liberty of the applicant guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
13. Three charge sheets have been filed arraigning total of 11
accused persons and citing more than 300 witnesses and 300 plus
documents and that charge sheet against the applicant is yet to be
filed. The Apex Court in the matter of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693,
while considering the bail application of an accused prosecuted under
UAPA,1967 observed thus:
"19. If the State or any prosecuting agency
including the court concerned has no
wherewithal to provide or protect the
fundamental right of an accused to have a
speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of
the Constitution then the State or any other
prosecuting agency should not oppose the
plea for bail on the ground that the crime
committed is serious. Article 21 of the
Constitution applies irrespective of the nature
of the crime."
14. In catena of decisions, the Apex Court while considering the
period spent in the custody and there being no likelihood of conclusion
of trial within a short span has been pleased to enlarge the accused on
bail. He has referred to the decisions reported in SLP (Crl.) No.
3205/2024 Ramkripal Meena Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and
SLP (Crl.) No. 8781/2024 Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of
Enforcement.
15. The applicant has already undergone pre-trial incarceration of
over more than 3 months in the money laundering case which is based
on the same set of transactions and almost three weeks in the present
FIR. The extension of custody of the applicant in such circumstances
would militate against the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as held by the
Apex Court in the the matter of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb (2012)
3 SCC 713 and Criminal Appeal No. 4011/2024, V. Senthil Balaji Vs.
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement.
16. Counsel for the applicant contended that the co-accused in the
present FIR have been either given interim protection or released on
regular bail by the Apex Court. Subsequent to the filing of the present
bail application, the co-accused persons have been granted interim
protection way of the writ petitions and is continuing till date, they are
participating in the investigation and therefore the applicant is seeking
for grant of bail on the ground of parity. So far as the ground of parity is
concerned, the object for consideration would be the manner of
investigation, mere possibility of the investigating culminating into full
fledged trial and no likelihood of trial to be commencing in the near
future. He submits that the trial is yet to commence and that the charge
sheet against the applicant has been filed on 30.06.2025 wherein total
of 47 witnesses have been cited and documents running to more than
1000 pages have been relied upon. He has referred to the decision of
the Apex Court in the matter of Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya & Others
Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, (2019) 17 SCC 1. Lastly, it has
been argued that the applicant is a 67 year old person, sitting MLA and
has been in incarceration for about 6 months (arrested on 14 th January
2025), the charges have not yet been framed, allegations based on 161
Cr.P.C. statements, 164 Cr.P.C statements of the co-accused persons,
the premises of the applicant have been raided and it is on record,
therefore, the applicant may be granted bail.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/STATE
17. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent submits
that the petitioner is a key conspirator whose role in the Chhattisgarh
Liquor Scam is omnipresent through out various stages of
conceptualization and implementation of the scam, whereby loss of
about 2100 crores has been inflicted on the State exchequer. It is
submitted that on 11.07.2023, respondent/EOW received a
communication from the ED and after due verification, on being
satisfied, prima facie cognizable offence was committed and therefore
FIR No. 04/2024 came to be registered under Sections 7 & 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act and 420,467,471 and 120-B IPC against
71 accused persons. The name of the present applicant as accused is
mentioned in the supplementary charge sheet dated 17.01.2024. It is
revealed that applicant Kawasi Lakhma along with Anwar Dhebar was
the head of the criminal syndicate comprising of high level State
government officials, private persons and political executives of the
State of Chhattisgarh and other persons namely Trilok Singh Dhillon,
Arunpati Tripathi and Niranjan Das. The syndicate used to collect illegal
money in three different ways from the sale of liquor which is classified
by the syndicate itself into three parts:
Part A- illegal commission charged from liquor
supplier for official sale of liquor in the State of
Chhattisgarh.
Part B - Sale of unaccounted illicit countrymade
liquor from State run shops done with the
involvement of distillers, hologram manufacturers,
bottle makers, transporters, man power
management and District Excise Officials.
Part C - Annual Commission from distillers for
allowing them to operate a syndicate and divide
the market share amongst themselves.
18. The liquor was divided into two categories namely Country liquor
(CL) and Indian Manufactured Foreign Liquor (IMFL). Country liquor is
produced in Chhattisgarh only through three distilleries ie. M/.
Chhattisgarh Distilleries Ltd., M/s. Bhatia Wines and Merchants Pvt.
Ltd. and M/s. Welcome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. It has been revealed in the
investigation that since it was difficult to extract bribes for foreign liquor
makers in respect of IMFL & FL and there was strong demand for good
quality foreign brands in April 2020 the syndicate introduced a 4 th type
of mechanism to extort bribes from FL makers also by introducing the
concept of FL-10A licenses. These licenses were again given to three
chosen associates of Anwar Dhebar who act as the 'collectors' or
intermediary and buy the foreign liquor and sell it to the Chhattisgarh
government warehouses and generated commission of around 10% on
it.
19. On the top of this commission, the licenses were given with a
promise that 50-60% of the final profit amount of the FL-10A licensee
be paid to the syndicate. The multinational companies were already
briefed about this mechanism by Arunpathi Tripathi who was appointed
by Anil Tuteja. The FL-10A liens was given only to three people who
were ready to hike prices in the middle and thus ensure payment of
cash bribes ie. Sanjay Mishra (M/s. Nexgen Power Engitech Private
Limited), Atul Kumar Singh & Mukesh Manchanda (M/s. Om Sai
Beverages Pvt. Ltd.) and Asheesh Saurabh Kedia (M/d. Dishita
Ventures Private Ltd.). The present applicant being the Minister of
Excise Department has played a crucial role in approving the FL-10A
License policy and received illegal gains from the syndicate for the said
purpose. The syndicate has made a total earning of Rs.
1660,41,00,056/- from the financial year 2019-20 to 2022-23 which is
nothing but loss caused to the State exchequer from the offence of
conspiracy by criminal syndicate.
20. He submits that from the investigation till date, it is clear that
massive corruption had taken place in the Excise Department of the
State of Chhattisgarh since 2019. The excise departments were setup
to regulate the supply of liquor, ensure quality liquor to user to prevent
hooch tragedies and to earn revenue for the State which has been
misused by the criminal syndicate by systematically altering the liquor
policy and extorted maximum personal benefit for themselves with the
help of co-conspirators-Arunpati Tripathi and Trilok Singh Dhillon and
the present applicant provided shelter to them for running their
operation being Excise Minister.
21. Further contention of Shri Sharma, is that the applicant is one of
the master mind of the liquor scam and he used his position as Minister
of Excise to provide shelter to the persons involved in the illegal sale of
liquor and received financial gain for the same. The FL-10A policy was
framed to enable commission extortion through intermediaries. The
applicant while holding the office of Excise Minister through the
intermediary entities had procured the foreign liquor from manufacturing
companies. After multinational liquor companies refused to pay
commission in cash the syndicates faced difficulty in collecting illegal
payments and to overcome this, the FL-10A policy was deliberately
introduced to insert intermediaries-handpicked firms with no legitimate
infomercial necessity who would purchase liquor from the
manufacturers and then resell it to CSMCL at inflated rates adding an
artificial 10% margin. This structure has been created to ensure
continuous and concealed channel for generating illegal commissions
due to which the State suffered a financial loss exceeding Rs. 220
crores. These intermediaries functioned primarily as a commission
collection fronts on behalf of the political and administrative syndicate
headed by the applicant.
22. It is submitted that with regard to the receipt of Rs. 72 crores from
Corrupt proceeds of FL-10A and illegal liquor sales (Part-B) - from the
investigation, it is established that the present applicant received
approximately 64 crores over a period of 3 years as illegal commission
rom two major corrupt channels ie. through the FL-10A licensing
scheme involving intermediaries and second through the illegal sale of
unaccounted, duty evaded country liquor (referred to as Part-B stock)
via government run liquor shops. This Part-B stock operated as a
parallel black market system and generated substantial off-the book
cash revenue. The statements of the witnesses including those of
departmental insiders and his own OSD, confirm that regular cash
payments of Rs. 2 crores per month was delivered to his residence.
These illegal proceeds were directly linked to the benefits extended
under the policy level decisions and administrative protection. The
above facts clearly demonstrate that the applicant used his ministerial
position and had procured benefit from the network of corruption.
23. It is the contention on behalf of the State counsel that these
illegal cash was utilized in the construction of immovable properties
and out of the 64 crores which was acquired by him, cash amounting to
approximately 4.60 crores has been directly traced from the
construction of Congress Bhawan at Sukma, the residential house of
his son Harish Lakhma and a building which was constructed by the
applicant himself. The valuation reports, witness testimonies and
registers seized from the contractor Jagannath Sahu confirm that the
actual expenditures far exceeded the declared amounts thereby
establishing the use of unaccounted cash. Additionally a portion of this
money was used to fund private travel expenses of the accused
associates. These actions reflect a systematic effort to conceal the
origin of illicit funds and integrate them into physical assets. The
remaining portion of the 64 crores received is currently under
investigation to determine the full extent of its deployment and possible
involvement of other entities and individuals.
24. It is submitted that during investigation, the ACB has recorded the
statement of one Prakash Sharma @ Chhotu who has categorically
stated that he used to deliver cash amounting ot Rs. 50 lacs and 1.5
crores per month in two installments to one Jayant Dewangan who was
the OSD of the present applicant. This fact was corroborated from the
statements of Khem Lal Bhuarya, Mukesh Kumar Sukhdev, Ramesh
Kumar Nag, Satish Kumar Singh, Sheikh Saket. The Excise Officials
and Prakash Sharma used to visit the official resident of the applicant
every month and handed over the money to Jayant Dewangan.
25. Prakash Sharma has further stated that till March-April 2020 he
used ot hand over the money to one Inderdeep Singh Gill and from the
year 2021, he handedover to Kamlesh Nahata, close aide of present
applicant. From the statement of Kanhaiya Lal Kurrey and Vikas Singh
Thakur recorded by the EOW, they are the employees of Excise
Department, have stated that on the instructions of co-accused
Janardhan Gaurav and Arunpathi Tripathi, they used to deliver Rs. 50
lacs per month to the residence of the present applicant. Jayant
Dewangan has admitted this fact that Kanhaiya Lal Kurrey used to
deliver Rs. 50 lacs per month and Prakash Sharma @ Chotu delivered
Rs. 1.5 crores per month in the resident of the present applicant.
26. In the statements of Sandeep Beg, Mukesh Vaishnav, Harsh
Verma, Chamanlal Dehari and Ashok Kumar Yadav who are the
employees in the residence of the applicant, have admitted the fact that
Kanhaiya Lal Kurrey used to deliver cash to OSD Jayant Dewangan
every month and Prakash Sharma used to deliver once or twice in a
month to Jayant Dewangan. Indradeep Singh Gill and Kamlesh Nahata
have also admitted in their statements that they used to receive money
on behalf of the applicant.
27. It is submitted that the applicant used to make cash payment for
construction of his house and it has been admitted by Jagannath Sahu
and Sangram Pandey. He submits that the applicant being a Member of
Legislative Assembly, is a highly influential person and if he is granted
bail, he can influence the investigation. Therefore keeping in view the
gravity of the crime and circumstances, it will be detrimental to the
ongoing investigation and the grounds so urged by the applicant are not
available to him as the same are false and frivolous, the instant
application for grant of bail is liable to be dismissed.
28. So far as the legal grounds are concerned, the findings of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of UP Vs. Amarmani Tripathi
(2005) 8 SCC 21 would be applicable to the present case. The Apex
Court inter alia has held that the relevant facts for considering 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
charge (iii) severity of punishment in the event of conviction (iv) danger
of accused absconding or fleeing if released on bail; (v) character,
behavior, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of
the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with and (viii) danger, of course, of justice
being thwarted by grant of bail. Moreover it is also held that mere fact
that the accused had been incarcerated for a certain period of time is
also not a factor for granting bail.
Reliance is next placed on Dolat Ram and others
vs. State of Haryana 1995 (1) SCC 349, wherein
the distinction between the factors relevant for
rejecting bail in a non-bailable case and
cancellation of bail already granted, was brought
out :
"Rejection of bail in a non-bailable
case at the initial stage and the
cancellation of bail so granted, have to
be considered and dealt with on
different basis. Very cogent and
overwhelming circumstances are
necessary for an order directing the
cancellation of the bail, already
granted. Generally speaking, the
grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly
(illustrative and not exhaustive) are:
interference or attempt to interfere with
the due course of administration of
justice or evasion or attempt to evade
the due course of justice or abuse of
the concession granted to the accused
in any manner. The satisfaction of the
court, on the basis of material placed
on the record of the possibility of the
accused absconding is yet another
reason justifying the cancellation of
bail. However, bail once granted
should not be cancelled in a
mechanical manner without
considering whether any supervening
circumstances have rendered it no
longer conducive to a fair trial to allow
the accused to retain his freedom by
enjoying the concession of bail during
the trial."
They also relied on the decision in S.N.
Bhattacharjee vs. State of West Bengal 2004
(11) SCC 165 where the above principle is
reiterated. The decisions in Dolat Ram and
Bhattacharjee cases (supra) relate to
applications for cancellation of bail and not
appeals against orders granting bail. In an
application for cancellation, conduct subsequent
to release on bail and the supervening
circumstances alone are relevant. But in an
appeal against grant of bail, all aspects that were
relevant under Section 439 read with Section
437, continue to be relevant. We, however, agree
that while considering and deciding appeals
against grant of bail, where the accused has
been at large for a considerable time, the post
bail conduct and supervening circumstances will
also have to be taken note of. But they are not
the only factors to be considered as in the case
of applications for cancellation of bail.
It is well settled that the matters to be considered
in 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 charge;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of
conviction; (iv) danger of 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 tampered with; and (viii) danger,
of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of
bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi
2001 (4) SCC 280 and Gurcharan Singh vs.
State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179).
While a vague allegation that accused may
tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not
be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of
such character that his mere presence at large
would intimidate the witnesses or if there is
material to show that he will use his liberty to
subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then
bail will be refused. We may also refer to the
following principles relating to grant or refusal of
bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh
Ranjan, 2004 (7) SCC 528:
"The law in regard to grant or refusal of
bail is very well settled. The court
granting bail should exercise its
discretion in a judicious manner and
not as a matter of course. Though at
the stage of granting bail a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate
documentation of the merit of the case
need not be undertaken, there is a
need to indicate in such orders
reasons for prima facie concluding why
bail was being granted particularly
where the accused is charged of
having committed a serious offence.
Any order devoid of such reasons
would suffer from non- application of
mind. It is also necessary for the court
granting bail to consider among other
circumstances, the following factors
also before granting bail; they are:
a. The nature of accusation and the
severity of punishment in case of
conviction and the nature of supporting
evidence.
b. Reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the witness or
apprehension of threat to the
complainant.
c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court
in support of the charge. (see Ram
Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan
Singh, 2002 (3) SCC 598 and Puran
vs. Ram Bilas 2001 (6) SCC 338."
This Court also in specific terms held that:
"the condition laid down under section
437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting
bail even under section 439 of the
Code. In the impugned order it is
noticed that the High Court has given
the period of incarceration already
undergone by the accused and the
unlikelihood of trial concluding in the
near future as grounds sufficient to
enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of
the fact that the accused stands
charged of offences punishable with
life imprisonment or even death
penalty. In such cases, in our opinion,
the mere fact that the accused has
undergone certain period of
incarceration (three years in this case)
by itself would not entitle the accused
to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact
that the trial is not likely to be
concluded in the near future either by
itself or coupled with the period of
incarceration would be sufficient for
enlarging the appellant on bail when
the gravity of the offence alleged is
severe and there are allegations of
tampering with the witnesses by the
accused during the period he was on
bail."
In Panchanan Mishra vs. Digambar Mishra, 2005
(3) SCC 143, this Court observed :
"The object underlying the cancellation
of bail is to protect the fair trial and
secure justice being done to the
society by preventing the accused who
is set at liberty by the bail order from
tampering with the evidence in the
heinous crime..... It hardly requires to
be stated that once a person is
released on bail in serious criminal
cases where the punishment is quite
stringent and deterrent, the accused in
order to get away from the clutches of
the same indulge in various activities
like tampering with the prosecution
witnesses, threatening the family
members of the deceased victim and
also create problems of law and order
situation."
Therefore, the general rule that this Court
will not ordinarily interfere in matters relating to
bail, is subject to exceptions where there are
special circumstances and when the basic
requirements for grant of bail are completely
ignored by the High Court. (see Pawan vs. Ram
Prakash Pandey 2002 (9) SCC 166; Ram
Pratap Yadav vs. Mitra Sen Yadav 2003 (1) SCC
15 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh
Ranjan 2004 (7) SCC 528.
"The law in regard to grant or refusal of
bail is very well settled. The court
granting bail should exercise its
discretion in a judicious manner and
not as a matter of course. Though at
the stage of granting bail a detailed
examination of evidence and elaborate
documentation of the merit of the case
need not be undertaken, there is a
need to indicate in such orders
reasons for prima facie concluding why
bail was being granted particularly
where the accused is charged of
having committed a serious offence.
Any order devoid of such reasons
would suffer from non- application of
mind. It is also necessary for the court
granting bail to consider among other
circumstances, the following factors
also before granting bail; they are:
a. The nature of accusation and the
severity of punishment in case of
conviction and the nature of supporting
evidence.
b. Reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the witness or
apprehension of threat to the
complainant.
c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court
in support of the charge. (see Ram
Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan
Singh, 2002 (3) SCC 598 and Puran
vs. Ram Bilas 2001 (6) SCC 338."
This Court also in specific terms held that:
"the condition laid down under section
437(1)(i) is sine qua non for granting
bail even under section 439 of the
Code. In the impugned order it is
noticed that the High Court has given
the period of incarceration already
undergone by the accused and the
unlikelihood of trial concluding in the
near future as grounds sufficient to
enlarge the accused on bail, in spite of
the fact that the accused stands
charged of offences punishable with
life imprisonment or even death
penalty. In such cases, in our opinion,
the mere fact that the accused has
undergone certain period of
incarceration (three years in this case)
by itself would not entitle the accused
to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact
that the trial is not likely to be
concluded in the near future either by
itself or coupled with the period of
incarceration would be sufficient for
enlarging the appellant on bail when
the gravity of the offence alleged is
severe and there are allegations of
tampering with the witnesses by the
accused during the period he was on
bail."
Therefore, the general rule that this Court
will not ordinarily interfere in matters relating to
bail, is subject to exceptions where there are
special circumstances and when the basic
requirements for grant of bail are completely
ignored by the High Court...."
29. Hon'ble Apex Court in Gulabrao Babukar Deokar Vs. State of
Maharashtra (2013) 16 SCC 190 has held in para 28 of its judgment
that the nature and seriousness of an economic offence and its impact
on the society are always important considerations in such a case and
they must squarely be dealt with by the Court while passing an order on
bail application. The instant case pertains to a large scale economic
offence perpetrated by the applicant causing a huge loss to the State
exchequer of at least 1600 plus crores.
30. Further in the matter of Mahipal V. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC
118, it has been held that it is necessary to consider the relevant factors
while granting bail and if those relevant factors as enumerated in
Amarmani Tripathi (supra) have not been taken into consideration while
considering the application of bail, founded on irrelevant considerations,
indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant
of bail. Further in the matter of Indresh Kumar Vs. State of UP in
Criminal Appeal No. 938 of 2022, it has been held that statements
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. may not be admissible in evidence, but
are relevant in considering the prima facie case against an accused in
an application for grant of bail in case of grave offence.
CONSIDERATION OF THE BAIL APPLICATION
31. In this case, a configured crime has been allegedly committed by
the applicant and other co-accused some of whom are holding high
posts ie. comprising of high level State government officials, private
persons and political executives. In the instant case, after receiving
communication from the Enforcement Directorate, the EOW has filed
prima facie cognizable offence for commission of the above offences
and FIR has been registered in FIR No. 04/2024 against the applicant
who is in incarceration from 02.04.2025 for the offence punishable
under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
Sections 420,467,468,471,120-B of IPC.
32. It is the case of prosecution that a criminal syndicate comprising
of high level State Government officials, private persons and political
executives of the State Government were operating in the State of
Chhattisgarh and collecting illegal bribe from the State Departments
and State Public Sector undertakings by sale of liquor which is one of
the major source of their illegal earning. In the initial investigation, it has
come into account that there was massive corruption in the Excise
Department of Chhattisgarh since the year 2019. The Excise
department was set up to regulate the supply of liquor, ensure quality
liquor to users to prevent hooch tragedies and to earn revenue for the
State but the criminal syndicate have altered the policy as per their
whims and facies and extorted maximum personal benefit for
themselves and total earning of Rs. 1660,41,00,056/- was made by the
syndicate from the financial year 2019-20 to financial year 2022-23 to
the State exchequer. Therefore, it cannot be said that no prima facie
ofence whatsoever is made against the applicant. After carefully
analyzing the material available on record which goes to show that
there is involvement of the applicant in the crime in question and the
charge sheet has been filed.
33. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the
some of the co-accused persons (Anil Tuteja, Trilok Singh Dhillon,
Arvind Singh) have been granted interim protection way of the writ
petitions and is continuing till date, they are participating in the
investigation and the present applicant also stands on the same footing
therefore on the ground of parity, he may be granted bail. To this
contention, it appears that from the statements of the witnesses
including those of departmental insiders and his own OSD, Cook,
Driver and Helper, confirms that regular cash payments of Rs. 2 crores
per month was delivered to the residence of the applicant. This illegal
proceeds were directly linked to the benefits extended under the policy
level decisions and administrative protection. The above facts clearly
demonstrate that the applicant used his ministerial position and had
procured benefit from the network of corruption and therefore, he
cannot claim for grant of bail on the ground of parity. The gravity of the
offence and its impact on public confidence in government services
cannot be overlooked.
CONCLUSION
34. The case pertains to the serious allegations of corruption and
criminal misconduct against a sitting Minister, who stands charged
under Sections 420,467,468, 471 and 120-B IPC, 1860 relating to the
offences of cheating, forgery as well as Sections 7 and 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, involving offences of public
misconduct. These charges, if proven, represent a gross abuse of
public office for personal gain and direct violation of the principles of
integrity and accountability expected of a public servant. The matter
underscores the necessity of upholding the rule of law, ensuring due
process and reinforcing the foundational values of transparency and
ethical governance.
35. There is allegation against the applicant that he received illegal
unaccounted money from the Excise officials of Rs. 50 lacs and 1.5
crores per month. The applicant who was the then Excise Minister, an
elected member entrusted with specific responsibilities, has been
involved in causing significant financial loss to the government through
illegal collection of unaccounted money. The entire summary of facts
that transpired during investigation discloses glaring illegalities ie. the
applicant is the key conspirator and head of the syndicate who had
illegal obtained money causing a huge loss for the state government,
impacting public finances and potentially affecting the public exchequer.
36. The Apex Court has, in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs.
Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC 791, held that precedent
of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of
bail though it may have bearing on principle and the consideration will
have to be on case-to-case basis on facts involved therein and securing
the presence of the accused to stand trial. As it has been held thus:
"from cumulative perusal of the judgments cited on
either side including the one rendered by the
Constitution Bench of this Court it could be deduced
that the basic jurisprudence relating to bail remains
the same inasmuch as the grant of bail is the rule
and refusal is the exception so as to ensure that the
accused has the opportunity of securing fair trial.
However, while considering the same the gravity of
the offence is an aspect which is required to be kept
in view by the Court. The gravity for the said
purpose will have to be gathered from the facts and
circumstances arising in each case. Keeping in view
the consequences that would befall on the society in
cases of financial irregularities, it has been held that
even economic offences would fall under the
category of "grave offence" and in such
circumstance while considering the application for
bail in such matters, the Court will have to deal with
the same, being sensitive to the nature of allegation
made against the accused. One of the
circumstances to consider the gravity of the offence
is also the term of sentence that is prescribed for the
offence the accused is alleged to have committed.
Such consideration with regard to the gravity of
offence is a factor which is in addition to the triple
test or the tripod test that would be normally applied.
In that regard what is also to be kept in perspective
is that even if the allegation is one of grave
economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be
denied in every case since there is no such bar
created in the relevant enactment passed by the
legislature nor does the bail jurisprudence provide
so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that
irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the
precedent of another case alone will not be the
basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may
have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the
consideration will have to be on case-to-case basis
on the facts involved therein and securing the
presence of the accused to stand trial."
37. When those entrusted with power betray that trust, it shakes the
very foundation of our democracy. The charges brought against a
serving Minister under the aforesaid Sections are not just legal
indictments, they are moral indictment as well. These grave allegations
serve as a clarion call for transparency, accountability and reform in
public life. The applicant as the Principal conspirator possess the
authority and means to prevent the operations and despite that he
deliberately refrained from doing so. Therefore the role of the applicant
is distinct and not at par with that of the co-accused persons, he is the
principal architect of the conspiracy and had played a pivotal role in the
commission of the offence, he cannot claim the benefit of parity for the
purpose of seeking bail.
38. Instead of serving the pupil and prioritizing the welfare of the
State-as is his duty-the Minister stands accused of corruption, proving
once again how power is being misused at the cost of public interest. A
minister, being head of the department is entrusted with the
responsibility to work for the welfare of the state. However, in the
present case, he is allegedly involved in corruption which is a serious
betrayal of public trust and duty. This Court is not satisfied that the
applicant, if released on bail at this stage, would not attempt to
influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, therefore, considering the
totality of circumstances, the serious nature of the allegations against
the applicant, the potential impact on witnesses during the course of
investigation, prima facie his involvement in the offences under
Sections 7 & 12 of PC Act is established. Though economic offences
require stringent consideration due to their deliberate nature and
national impact, citing precedent that bail in such cases could impede
effective investigation. Given the gravity of offense and unexplained
assets, this court found applicant unsuitable for grant of regular bail.
39. Accordingly, the bail application hereby stands rejected.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
SUGUNA DUBEY
Date:
DUBEY 2025.07.21
14:14:00
+0530
