Chattisgarh High Court
Chaitanya Baghel vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 September, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:47337
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1435 of 2025
1 - Chaitanya Baghel S/o Shri Bhupesh Baghel Aged About 38 Years
R/o 1/7, Mansarovar Parisar, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Presently
Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Raipur (C.G.)
... 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 N.Hariharan, Sr. Counsel through VC
assisted by Shri Harshwardhan Parganiha,
Shri Mayank Jain, Shri Madhur Jain, Shri
Arpit Goyal and Shri Deepak Jain,
Advocates
For Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Sharma, Addl. Adv. General
(Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
Order on Board
15/09/2025
The present bail application is being filed by the applicant under
Section 482 of the Bharitya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2025 ('BNSS')
seeking protection against his arrest in connection with FIR No.04 of
2024 dated 17.01.2024, registered at the instance of the Economic
Offences Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau, Chattiisgarh ('Non-applicant") for
alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections
420,,467,468,471 and 120-B of the IPC, 1860 and Sections 7 & 12 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("PC Act").
2. It is submitted that the applicant has directly approached this court
in view of the pressing need and urgency to safeguard his fundamental
right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, which is under imminent threat on account of the
apprehended arrest in the present case. It is humbly submitted that the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this court is being invoked in order to
prevent irreparable harm and miscarriage of justice that may ensure if
the applicant is subjected to unwarranted custodial deprivation. Notably,
this Court in Hare Ram Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2020 SCC
OnLine Chh. 639, has categorically held that an application seeking
grant of anticipatory bail can be filed directly before High Court if there
exist exceptional, rare or unusual circumstances. The instant case falls
squarely within such parameters, thereby warranting the indulgences of
this Court.
3. This is the first bail application filed by the applicant before this
Court. Neither any such application is pending nor has any application
of similar nature has been decided either by this Court or by the trial
court.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is apprehending his
arrest in connection with Crime No. 04 of 2024 dated 17.01.2024,
registered by the EOW/ACB, Chhattisgarh for the alleged commission of
offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
5. That as per the prosecution case, during the period 2019-2022, a
large scale syndicate was functioning in the State of Chhatisgarh which
was systematically engaged in the illegal manufacture and sale of liquor
through licensed government outlets thereby generating illicit gains.
The prosecution further alleges that the operations of the said syndicate
resulted in the accumulation of huge amounts of accounted money,
which was allegedly distributed amongst various members of the
syndicate and further utilized to bribe influential political and
administrative functionaries in order to perpetuate the unlawful activities.
6. Significantly, no direct of specific allegation has been attributed to
the present applicant in FIR No. 04/2024. however, the non-applicant
has sought permission from the jurisdictional court to interrogate the
applicant at Central Jail, Raipur in connection with the said FIR. This
action, despite the absence of any specific role assigned to the
applicant has given rise to a strong reasonable and bonafide
apprehension of his imminent arrest.
7. Shri N. Hariharan, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
applicant has argued the grounds of bail wherein he has emphasized as
under:
a. absence of direct allegations.
b. applicant is already in custody under PMLA (hence no chance
of absconding.
c. case is documentary in nature
d. custodial interrogation is unnecessary.
e. and then weave in Supreme Court precedents (Sibbia,
Siddaram Mehtre etc.)?
8. Learned Sr. Counsel submits that the FIR does not disclose any
direct role, overt act or specific allegation against him, and as such
custodial interrogation is neither necessary nor justified. He further
submits that the prosecution case is entirely based on documentary
evidence, which is already in possession of the investigating agency.
No recovery is to be effected from the applicant. Hence, his custodial
detention would serve no fruitful purpose. It is submitted that the
applicant is already in judicial custody in connection with another case
under the PMLA. Therefore, there exists no possibility of his
absconding, tampering with the evidence or influencing witnesses. The
Apex Court in the matter of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab
(1980) 2 SCC 565, has laid down that anticipatory bail is a means to
secure the liberty of individuals and cannot be refused on vague or
unfounded apprehensions. Similarly in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre
Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held that
personal liberty is of paramount importance and arrest should not be
resorted to as a punitive measure when the accused has demonstrated
willingness to cooperate with the investigation.
9. At the very outset, reliance has been placed by the counsel for the
applicant on Manjeet Singh Vs.State of UP (SLP) Crl. No. 11667 of
2025, decided on 07.08.2025 wherein the Apex Court held that both the
Sessions Court and the High Court exercise concurrent jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2025 for anticipatory bail. However, the
Apex Court has categorically emphasized that the High Court must
satisfy itself that the case involves "rare, exception or special
circumstances" before entertaining a direct application under Sections
482 BNSS bypassing the Sessions Court.
10. Opposing the submissions, learned State counsel submits that at
the very outset, the present application filed by the applicant under
Section 482 of the BNSS seeking anticipatory bail is wholly
misconceived, not maintainable and deserves to be rejected at the
threshold. He submits that the anticipatory bail is a special statutory
relief and the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked in
this case. The applicant, while already being in judicial custody in
connection with proceeding initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement
under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 cannot
simultaneously seek the protective umbrella of anticipatory bail in the
present case. Such a parallel relief is impermissible in law.
11. At the very threshold, the present bail application deserves to be
rejected on the ground of non-maintainability as the applicant has
directly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the
BNSS, 2025 without first approaching the court of Sessions. He has
placed his reliance in the matter of Mohammaed Rasal and Another
Vs. State of Kerala and Another (2022) SC OnLine SC 1234, wherein
it has been held by the Apex Court that though the High Court and the
Sessions Court exercise concurrent jurisdiction under Section 438
Cr.P.C (Pari materia to Section 482 BNSS), a direct approach to the
High Court cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The court
emphasized that an application before the High Court is maintainable
only where the applicant demonstrates exceptional, rare or unusual
circumstances justifying the bypassing of the Sessions Court.
12. The Apex Court in the said judgment cautioned that entertaining
direct petitioners without special reasons would render the jurisdiction of
the Sessions Court nugatory and rete an impermissible forum shopping.
In the present case, no such "exceptional" or "special" circumstances
have been shown by the applicant. Thus, in the light of the above, the
present petition is not maintainable.
13. Reliance has also been placed in the judgment of this Court in the
matter of Hare Ram Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and
T.R.Kunjam V. State of Chhattisgarh in M. C Nos. 234 of 2020 362
of 2020 decided on 7.10.2020, wherein it has already laid down that
direct filing of anticipatory bail before this Court is permissible unless the
applicant makes out compelling grounds showing why the Sessions
Court cannot be approached. This binding precedent of this Court very
squarely governs the present case. The applicant has failed to
demonstrate any pressing or compelling circumstance justifying a direct
invocation of Section 482 jurisdiction.
14. Further reliance ha been placed on Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 (Constitution Bench), wherein it has
been dealt comprehensively with the nature and scope of anticipatory
bail. While it affirmed that the power is wide, it equally underscored that
the relief is extraordinary in nature and not to be granted mechanically.
Importantly, the Bench clarified that the grant of anticipatory bail must
always be preceded by a strict scrutiny of facts, circumstances and
stage of investigation. The burden lies squarely on the applicant to
establish a genuine apprehension of arrest in a case where the facts
disclose exceptional grounds.
15. In the present case, the applicant is already in judicial custody in
connection with another serious economic offence under PMLA. Thus,
the very foundation of an anticipatory bail plea - "apprehension of
arrest" - does not exist. Consequently by virtue of Sushila Aggarwal,
the present application is inherently non-maintainable.
16. He submits that a cumulative reading of Mohammed Rasal, Hare
Ram Sharma and Sushila Aggarwal makes it clear that:
a. concurrent jurisdiction does not imply unrestricted right to
approach the High Court.
b. Direct filing before this Court is permissible only in rare and
exceptional cases.
c. the applicant must demonstrate real apprehension of arrest
and compelling circumstances, which are conspicuously absent in the
present case.
Hence, he submits that the present application under Section 482
BNSS is not maintainable.
17. Having given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions
advanced on behalf of the applicant as well as the learned State
counsel and upon perusal of the material on record.
18. The applicant has directly invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Court without first approaching the Court of Sessions. The law on
this aspect is no longer res integra. In Mohammed Rasal and Another
Vs. State of Kerala and Another (2022) Sc OnLine SC1234, the Apex
Court has unequivocally held that while the High Court and Sessions
Court exercise concurrent jurisdiction in matters of anticipatory bail, a
direct approach to the High Court is permissible only upon showing
exceptional, rare or unusual circumstances. Entertaining direct petitions,
without such showing, would render nugatory the jurisdiction of the
Sessions Court and would encourage impermissible forum shopping.
19. Similarly, this Very Court in Hare Ram Sharma Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh, MCRCA No. 234 of 2020, decided on 07.10.2020, has
categorically rules that a direct application before the High Court is
maintainable only where the applicant demonstrates compelling reasons
as to why the Sessions Court could not be approached. No such
compelling reason is forthcoming in the present case.
20. Further the Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1, it has elucidated the extraordinary
nature of anticipatory bail jurisdiction. The Bench has clarified that the
relief of anticipatory bail is not to be granted mechanically and its
invocation must be preceded by a careful scrutiny of the facts and stage
of investigation. The present applicant, being already in judicial custody
in connection with another grave economic offence under the Prevention
of Money Laundering At, 2002 cannot even satisfy the foundational
requirement of "apprehension of arrest".
21. Thus, on a cumulative assessment of the above binding
authorities, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present
anticipatory bail application suffers from a jurisdictional defect of non-
maintainability. The applicant has failed to establish any special, rare or
exceptional circumstances justifying a direct approach to this Court.
22. Accordingly, the present bail application filed under Section 482 of
the BNSS 2025 stands dismissed as not maintainable. It is however,
open to the applicant to avail the remedy before the competent
Sessions Court, if so advised, in accordance with law.
However, while dismissing the present application, it is clarified
that the applicant shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application
under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2025 before the learned Sessions
Court/Special Judge having jurisdiction. In the event such application is
preferred, the learned Court shall consider and decide the same
expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits,
uninfluenced by any observations made herein.
23. It is made abundantly clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion on merits of the allegations levelled against the applicant and I
hope and trust the Sessions Court shall follow the procedure keeping in
mind that the applicant is already in custody. The respondent as well as
the Sessions Court are expected to ensure scrupulous adherence to the
prescribed procedure. If the applicant moves to the Sessions Court
tomorrow, his application shall be entertained in accordance with law
expeditiously preferbly within a period of seven days from the filing of
the application if there is no legal impediment.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
SUGUNA Date:
DUBEY 2025.09.15
21:15:36
+0530
