[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Devendra Dadsena vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 March, 2026
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Page 1 of 15
2026:CGHC:14779
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 868 of 2026
Reserved on : 20.03.2026
Delivered on : 30.03.2026
Devendra Dadsena s/o Shri Dashrath Prasad Dadsena, aged about 54
years, resident of Avanti Vihar, A-17, Basant Corner, Sector-2, Raipur, District
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Anti Corruption Bureau (Economic Offfences
Wing), near Jai Jawan Petrol Pump, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate.
For State : Dr. Sourbh Kumar Pande, Dy. Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
CAV ORDER
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the
applicant who has been arrested on 18-7-2025 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 384, 420, 120-B,
467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Sections 7, 7-A, 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
Page 2 of 15
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.01.2024, complainant
one Mr. Sandeep Ahuja, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement,
Raipur 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, 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 Chaurasiya, Director, Geology & Mining Department with the
backing of some political executives, managed to make deliberate
policy changes. As part of the well-planned conspiracy, the applicant
with the active support of the politicians and some of the senior State
Page 3 of 15
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 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's 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 in the coal rich areas of the State
like Raigarh, Korba, Surajpur, District Mineral Officers made illegal
recovery of Rs.25/- per tonne from coal transporters on the basis of
the above manual, DO and permit related orders were issued from the
Mineral Directorate. Investigation of the Enforcement Directorate that
information received from sources revealed that illegal levy of
approximately Rs.540/- crores have been collected by the above
syndicate between July, 2020 and June 2022. On the basis of the
Page 4 of 15
report received from the Enforcement Directorate, its confidential
verification and source information in relation to above incident was
done in the Bureau and Crime No.03/2004 for commission of offence
under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of IPC read with Sections 7, 7A & 12
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018 (for
short "the PC Act") was registered against the applicant.
5. From the case diary and the material so collected by the ACB/EOW,
the role of present applicant is that the accused-Devendra Dadsena
served as an accountant with the Chhattisgarh Pradesh Congress
Committee (PCC) from 2000 to 2023 and later on became personal
assistant to accused Ramgopal Agrawal, Treasurer of Chhattisgarh
Pradesh Congress Committee and was working directly under his
supervision and control. As per the prosecution case, the applicant was
not only handing the accounts but also engaged in political and illegal
financial activities. It is also case of the prosecution that from 2019,
Ramgopal Agrawal specifically assigned him the responsibility of
collecting money and introduced him to accused Suryakant Tiwari for
this purpose and from July 2020 to June 2022, the illegal coal levy
collected from coal-rich districts of Chhattisgarh State was collected by
Suryakant Tiwari's associates, Nikhil Chandrakar, Rajnikant Tiwari and
Roshan Singh, on applicant's instructions the extorted money was
handed over to Devendra Dadsena at Congress Bhawan, who
accepted it, knowing that the money was extorted from coal traders
and transporters. The said funds were then distributed for political
purposes and election expenses under Ramgopal Agrawal's
instructions.
Page 5 of 15
6. The investigation also revealed that handwritten diaries seized during
the Income Tax Department's search on 30th June, 2022, contained
entries titled "Bhavan" or "Congress Bhawan," which corroborated the
fact that the recovered funds were deposited at Congress Bhawan,
Raipur. Furthermore, witness statements have established that
Devendra Dadsena not only received this illegal money but was also
actively involved in its distribution and he was also involved in
collection of money received from liquor scam and paddy scam on the
instructions of Ramgopal Agarwal. He also collected these illegally
collected funds and handed over them to Congress Bhawan, Raipur.
The statements of witnesses Deepen Chavda and Pappu Bansal
confirm that Dadsena collected the money related to these scams and
handed it over directly to Ramgopal Agarwal.
7. In the present case, it was established that in June 2022, when the
Income Tax Department (IT) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED)
began raids related to the coal levy scam, accused Ramgopal Agarwal
instructed accused/Devendra Dadsena to switch off his mobile phone
and flee away from Chhattisgarh. This clearly indicates his involvement
and guilt in the crime in question. The case was established by entries
in diaries seized by the Income Tax Department, statements from
witnesses and analysis of financial flows, indicating that approximately
₹52 crore (approximately 520 million) of illegal funds were deposited at
Congress Bhawan, Raipu, and were directly managed and distributed
by Devendra Dadsena. Thus, his role was not only that of a collector of
illegal funds, but also that of a key operator and facilitator of this
organized crime network.
Page 6 of 15
8. The details of the entries in the diary are as follows:-
S. Diary Date Outgoing Exact wordings written
No named as amount in the diary
.
1. BS 01 30.03.2022 50000000 Gave it in the Bhawan.
2. BS 02 06.05.2022 80000000 Bhawan Mai Kikhil RKT
Dwara
3. BS 02 07.06.2022 87000000 Bhawan C
4. BS 05 29.12.2022 5500000 C Party Ko.
5. BS 05 20.01.2021 35000 C Party Kam Tha
6. BS 05 08.02.2021 10000000 C Party Bhawan Mai.
7. BS 05 01.03.2021 22000000 Bhawan Mai Jama Rajni
Nikhil
8. BS 08 27.09.2021 40000000 Bhhawan Mai Diye+1 Cr
Company 4+1(Total
Bhawan Mai Jama).
9. BS 09 27.01.2021 20000000 Bhawan Mai Jama
10 BS 09 27.01.2022 60000000 LKT se Laya Sham ko
Bhawan Mai Diya.
11. BS 09 27.01.2022 20000000 SKT se Diya Bhawan
Mai.
12. BS 14 17.07.2021 1950000 Bhawan Aur Company ka
Jama Nikhil.
13. BS 14 17.07.2021 20500000 Bhawan Mai Surya Ka
Jama.
14 BS 25 10.06.2021 20000000 Bhawan/Nikhil/Roshan
15 BS 25 10.06.2021 10000000 Bhawan Mai Diye.
16. BS 30 29.12.2020 19200000 C Party.
17 BS 30 20.01.2021 35000 C Party Ka tha
18. BS 41 02.03.2022 40000000 Bhawan May Diya
19. BS 41 02.03.2022 20000000 Bhawan May Jama
TOTAL 52,62,20,000/-
9. The material collected during investigation, including seized
handwritten diaries, corroborative witness statements and connected
disclosures, clearly indicates that the quantum involved is extremely
high and runs into crores and the role attributed to the applicant is
serious in nature. In such serious economic offences involving
organized conspiracy and huge cash movement, grant of bail at this
stage would defeat the ends of justice, especially when the applicant is
shown to be an essential link in the chain of receipt, custody and
further transmission of the illegally collected funds.
10. Learned 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 arrest of the applicant is illegal and mala fide.
The only allegation leveled against the applicant is that the applicant
being Personal Assistant of Shri Ram Gopal Agrawal, was allegedly
money to be given to Shri Agrawal. This is the only allegation leveled
against the applicant by the prosecution based on the statement of the
co-accused person. He would further submit that the applicant has
been falsely implicated in this case only to pressurize him. There is
neither any participation on part of the applicant in the alleged crime
nor is the applicant alleged to have participated by way of any covert
act on his part. The applicant has been falsely implicated only on the
strength of the statement given by the co-accused and there is no
corroborating material demonstrating against the applicant to indicate
the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. The applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated for no reason.
11. He would further submit that the applicant had never collected any
money relating to any alleged scam on behalf of Shri Ram Gopal
Agrawal nor given any money to any other person on the instructions
of Shri Ram Gopal Agrawal. The applicant never had any relationship
with any of the accused persons in the past nor did the applicant have
any financial relationship with them in any manner. The applicant had
never received any money from any person at any place. The applicant
is being made a scapegoat.
12. He would further submit that despite a long drawn investigation for over
more than 3 years, there is no incriminating material collected against
the applicant except for the alleged statement of the co-accused, which
is otherwise inadmissible in law. There has not been any recovery of
any amount from the applicant. There is no cogent material having
reference to the involvement of the applicant except for the
inadmissible statement of the co-accused, and on the basis of such an
inadmissible material, the applicant has been arrested on 18.07.2025
as such he remained incarceration for more than 6 months. He would
further submit that the statement of a co-accused is inadmissible in law
and this is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh v.
State of Madhya Pradesh (1952) 1 SCC 275; Haricharan Kurmi v.
State of Bihar 1964 SCC OnLine SC 28; Somasundaram v. State
(2020) 7 SCC 722. The statement of the co-accused cannot be made
the foundation for implicating the applicant.
13. He would further submit that it is evident that the number of witnesses
in the list of witnesses presented by the prosecution is large in number
and therefore, the possibility of inordinate delay in completion of the
trial cannot be ruled out. It shall also be pertinent to mention that the
other co-accused persons have already been released on interim bail
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the alleged crime. He would further
submit that there are no other criminal antecedents against the present
applicant and this is the first F.I.R. registered against the applicant. No
criminal case at any point of time was registered against the present
applicant or is pending before any court. The Applicant has been
languishing in jail since 18.07.2025 and he is the only bread earner of
the family. Due to his, incarceration, the family of the applicant is
finding it difficult to earn a livelihood for the family. The applicant is a
permanent resident of above-mentioned address and as such there is
no chance of him absconding.
14. He would further submit that there is delay in trial coupled with long
period of pre-trial incarceration as the applicant was illegally arrested
on 18.07.2025 and has already undergone more than 6 months and
there is no likelihood of the trial concluding any time soon and in as
much the investigation in the alleged offence is still ongoing qua other
accused persons. He would further submit that the proceedings are
going on at a snail's pace and is still at the stage of further
investigation, even after a passage of over six months since the
registration of the said FIR.
15. He would further submit that the co-accused namely Ranu Sahu,
Suryakant Tiwari, Sameer Vishnoi and Saumya Chaurasiya have
already been granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order
dated 29-5-2025 passed in SLP (Cri) No. 15941 of 2024, therefore, the
present applicant may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. He
would further submit that the applicant is ready and willing to furnish
adequate surety and shall abide by all the directions which may be
imposed by this Court and would pray for releasing the applicant on
bail.
16. Per contra, 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 distribution of fund which has been received by him.
He would further submit that the learned Special Judge (Prevention of
Corruption Act), Raipur while dismissing the bail application filed by the
applicant has observed that the applicant has been charged for
receiving the illegal extorted money from coal transporters and also
played active role in distribution of the same, thus, prima facie
involvement of the applicant is reflected in the crime in question and
the same has not been rebutted by the applicant while making this
submission before this Court. He would further submit that there is a
strong prima facie case against the present applicant and the matter is
under further investigation with the department and the Police will file
the supplementary charge-sheet after collection of fresh evidences
against other co-accused persons involved in the crime at a later stage
and looking to the conspiracy and crime committed by the applicant in
connivance with the other co-accused, the instant bail application
deserves to be rejected.
17. He would further submit that the offences in the present case are
economic offences involving systematic illegal collection and routing of
funds which have serious impact on public confidence, governance,
and integrity of public administration and from the record and material
collected by the prosecution, it is quite vivid that the applicant has
played active role in handling the illegal cash proceeds. He would
further submit that in view of the gravity of offence, magnitude of illegal
funds, strong prima facie evidence including seized diaries and
corroborative statements, active and crucial role of the applicant,
likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses, risk of
absconding and the requirement of continued investigation into the
complete money trail and beneficiaries, the applicant is not entitled to
be released on bail and the present bail application deserves to be
dismissed.
18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary
with utmost circumspection.
19. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the trial will
take longer time for disposal, therefore, the case of the applicant may
be considered for grant of bail. This submission is opposed by learned
counsel for the respondent/State by contending that not only the
applicant but the other co-accused persons have adopted delay tactics
by moving various applications causing delay in conclusion of trial,
therefore, it cannot be said that only the prosecution is contributed in
delay disposal of trial. As such, he would pray for rejection of the bail
application on the count that the trial may take longer time for its
conclusion. The submission made by learned counsel for the applicant
for releasing the applicant on bail on the count of delayed trial,
deserves to be rejected as the applicant has not placed any material
on record to demonstrate that the trial has been delayed because of
the prosecution only.
20. The further submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant was arrested illegally as there is no direct evidence against
the applicant. This submission cannot be considered at this stage as it
is the defence of the accused to declare the arrest as illegal which can
be determined during the trial. It is pertinent to mention here that the
applicant has nowhere stated in the bail petition regarding source of
income which has been shown in the final report and distributed the
same by him which clearly shows that the ACB/EOW has collected
certain material against the applicant which cannot rule out prima facie
involvement of the applicant. As such, from perusal of FIR and the
material available in the case diary, involvement of the applicant in
commission of offence under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of IPC read
with Sections 7, 7A & 12 of the PC Act in economic offence, is prima
facie reflected.
21. It is well settled position of law as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court
in various judgment that economic offence is committed with deliberate
design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to
the community. It is also well settled position of law that the entire
community will be 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. It is also well settled position of law that 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.
22. Considering the law that 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.
23. Thus, considering the law and material collected by the prosecution, it
is quite vivid that 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.
24. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of P. Chidambaram Vs.
Directorate of Enforcement [(2019) 9 SCC 24] and Ramesh Bhavan
Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) & another [(2021)
6 SCC 230] has held that economic offence constitutes a class apart
and need to be visited with a different approach. Hon'ble the Supreme
Court has also held that while releasing the applicant on bail, this Court
has to see whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the offence; nature and gravity
of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
likelihood of the offence being repeated; reasonable apprehension of
the witnesses being influenced; and danger, of course, of justice being
thwarted by grant of bail, which is not available in the present case,
therefore, the bail application is liable to be rejected.
25. The applicant cannot claim parity with other accused persons who
remained in the custody for about two years and have been granted
bail by Hon'ble the Supreme Court as the applicant has been recently
arrested on 18.07.2025. Considering the FIR and other material placed
on record which 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.
26. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section 483 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is liable to be and is hereby
rejected.
27. 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
Raju
RAVVA
SATYANARAYANA
RAJU
