Niranjan Das vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 246 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Niranjan Das vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 March, 2026

                                       1




                                                 2026:CGHC:11502
                                                              NAFR

          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                    ORDER RESERVED ON 18.02.2026
                 ORDER DELIVERED ON 10.03.2026
                    ORDER UPLOADED ON 10.03.2026

                        MCRC No. 10422 of 2025


1 - Niranjan Das S/o Late Shri Laxminarayan Das Aged About 63 Years
R/o House No. 61, Rama Greens, Near Las Vista Society, Amlidih, V I P
Road, Labhandih, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                   ... Applicant(s)


                                    versus


1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. , P.S.- E O W / A C B,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
                                                   ... Respondent(s)


For Applicant (s)         :   Shri Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Advocate
                              through VC assisted by Shri Mayank Kumar,
                              Advocate
For Respondent/State      :   Shri Praveen Das, Addl. AG


            (HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA)

                                  C A V Order

      The instant application constitutes the applicant's maiden quest

for regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
                                      2

Sanhita, 2023, arising from FIR No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024, lodged

at the behest of the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau,

Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). The accusations therein--invoking

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,

conjointly with Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988--stem from purported irregularities in liquor procurement and

distribution within the State of Chhattisgarh.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The prosecution's narrative, succinctly stated, emanates from an

investigation into an alleged large-scale "Liquor Scam" implicating

irregularities in the procurement, sale and supply of liquor within the

State. It is posited that certain officials and private entities forged a

criminal conspiracy, occasioning undue pecuniary gain to favoured

concerns and corresponding detriment to the State exchequer. The

Applicant, a retired civil servant who superannuated on 31.01.2023 as

Secretary, Excise Department, thereafter re-engaged on contract as

Secretary, Electronics and Information Technology, with transient

additional charge as Excise Commissioner stands implicated solely on

the anvil of supervisory oversight and purported acquiescence in policy

formulations.

3. Concededly, no allegation of direct involvement in transactional

procurements or fiscal disbursals is levelled against the Applicant;

inference of complicity is drawn inferentially from his positional stature

during the material period. The FIR crystallized on 17.01.2024. The

investigative process has yielded seven charge-sheets arraying 51

accused and over 1,100 witnesses, with further probe ostensibly afoot.

The Applicant, demonstrating unwavering rectitude, invoked this Court's

jurisdiction qua quashing of the FIR, securing interim succour from

coercive measures, renewed periodically. The quashing petition's

dismissal prompted escalation to the Apex Court, where interim

protection endured, conditioned on investigative cooperation, a

mandate the Applicant scrupulously discharged, presenting before the

agency inter alia on 25.09.2024, 26.09.2024, 07.03.2025, and

26.08.2025. Amidst these proceedings, investigative extensions were

sought and granted. By order dated 16.09.2025, the Apex Court petition

stood dismissed, vacating interim protection while conferring liberty to

seek regular bail. In immediate sequel, the Applicant suffered arrest on

18.09.2025, enduring 11 days in police custody before remand to

judicial custody--a situation persisting unbroken. The charge-sheet

pertaining to the Applicant was tendered on 24.11.2025, culminating

investigation qua him, albeit broader inquiries linger. A prior bail

application before the learned Special Judge (PC Act), Raipur, met

rejection on 06.12.2025, precipitating the instant revision.

4. Notably, myriad co-accused including Excise officials and

purported conspiracy beneficiaries have secured regular or anticipatory

bail from this Court or the Apex Court, factoring the colossal dimensions

of the case, witness profusion and inexorable trial prolongation. A

parallel departmental inquiry by the Commercial Tax (Excise)

Department into the impugned transactions, as averred, absolved the

Applicant of any malfeasance therein. Unblemished by prior conviction,

the Applicant confronts ancillary proceedings in Uttar Pradesh and

under the PMLA, predicated on this FIR yet sans conviction, with trials

pending. In essence, the tableau discloses a saga of alleged excise

policy lapses; investigation from January 2024; exemplary cooperation

by the Applicant under interim aegis; post-vacation arrest in September

2025; charge-sheet closure qua him; trial non-commencement and a

labyrinth of accused/witnesses portending protracted adjudication.

Aggrieved thereby, the Applicant has approached this Court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT

I.    Investigation   qua    the   Applicant    is   Complete     -   No
Justification for Continued Custody

5. At the threshold, it is submitted that the investigation insofar as

the present Applicant is concerned stands wholly concluded. Charge-

sheet qua him was filed on 24.11.2025; no interrogation has occurred

post 26.08.2025 well after police custody expiry. The very rationale for

custodial remand thus evaporates (Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI

(2022) 10 SCC 51). The charge-sheet has been filed on 24.11.2025

and the Applicant has not been interrogated even once after

29.09.2025, i.e., after expiry of police custody. Thus, the very

substratum for custodial detention no longer survives.

6. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that once

investigation qua an accused is complete and the prosecution does not

seek further custodial interrogation, continued incarceration becomes

punitive rather than preventive. Pre-trial detention cannot be converted

into a measure of punishment. It has been repeatedly emphasized that

arrest and detention cannot be used as a punitive tool. In Siddharth v.

State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676, the Apex Court held that merely

because an offence is cognizable and non-bailable, arrest is not

mandatory once investigation is complete. In the present case, the

prosecution does not require further custodial interrogation. Therefore,

continued incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment, which is

constitutionally impermissible.

7. The Applicant has already undergone substantial custody. The

trial has not commenced and in view of the scale of the case, it is not

likely to conclude in the foreseeable future. In such circumstances,

detention would amount to pre-trial punishment, which is impermissible

under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

II. Applicant Has Fully Cooperated - No Allegation of Non- Cooperation

8. The Applicant has cooperated with the investigation from the very

inception. During the period of interim protection granted by

constitutional courts, he appeared before the Investigating Agency on

multiple occasions and joined investigation as and when called. There

is not a whisper of allegation that the Applicant failed to appear, evaded

summons, withheld documents, or attempted to obstruct the

investigation. The protection granted earlier was expressly conditional

upon cooperation, and the same was scrupulously adhered to. It is

submitted that cooperation does not mean self-incrimination. Merely

because the Applicant did not make statements favourable to the

prosecution cannot be construed as non-cooperation.

III. Principle of Parity - Co-Accused with Graver Allegations Already Enlarged on Bail

9. The doctrine of parity, a cornerstone of Article 14 equality,

imperatively applies. A formidable array of co-accused encompassing

senior-most Excise officials and alleged prime beneficiaries, have

secured regular/anticipatory bail from this Court and the Apex Court,

notwithstanding graver attributions. The Excise Minister, imputed with

massive pecuniary gains was granted interim bail by the Apex Court. As

many as 29 Excise officials have been granted anticipatory bail and in

certain cases non-arrest charge-sheets have been filed. The multiple

co-accused persons, including those alleged to have derived

substantially higher pecuniary benefits and those occupying key

operational roles, have been enlarged on bail. The Apex Court in

Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22, held that parity is a

relevant consideration and that similarly situated accused should

receive similar treatment. The selective incarceration of the Applicant,

when others with alleged graver roles stand released, militates against

Article 14 of the Constitution.

10. The Applicant, who is alleged to have played a supervisory role

without any direct handling of transactions, remains the solitary officer

in custody. Such selective incarceration militates against the

constitutional mandate of equality before law.

IV. No Recovery - No Financial Trail - Allegations Rest on

Uncorroborated Statements

11. The allegation that the Applicant received Rs. 50 lakhs per month

for 32 months is wholly unsubstantiated. There is no bank transaction

reflecting such receipt, No cash trail, no recovery of unaccounted

money, no contemporaneous documentary evidence, no attachment of

any alleged proceeds of crime attributable to the Applicant. The

prosecution relies primarily on statements of co-accused persons. The

evidentiary value of such statements is a matter of trial. In Tofan Singh

v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1, the Apex Court cautioned

against over-reliance on confessional statements in criminal

prosecution. Even the alleged electronic chats were not recovered from

the Applicant and do not reveal any incriminating material on their face.

12. Despite multiple searches, no incriminating material, illegal liquor

stock, counterfeit hologram or unaccounted cash has been recovered

from the Applicant. The prosecution case, insofar as it concerns the

Applicant, is founded primarily on statements of co-accused persons.

The evidentiary value and admissibility of such statements are matters

to be tested during trial. Even the alleged chats relied upon by the

prosecution have not been recovered from the Applicant. Without

admitting admissibility, the contents do not reveal any incriminating

exchange, demand, or receipt of illegal gratification

V. No Role in Policy Formulation or Tender Approval

13. The Applicant was neither the sanctioning authority nor a member

of the tender committee for procurement of holograms. His role, if any,

was confined to forwarding files in the ordinary discharge of official

duties. The changes in excise policy and introduction of FL-10A

licenses were decisions approved by the Cabinet and legislative

processes. The Applicant was not the approving authority.

14. As per the prosecution's own case, other officials were

responsible for operational decisions and tender processes. Those

individuals have already been granted bail. There is no material

demonstrating that the Applicant derived any personal pecuniary benefit

from any policy decision.

VI. Allegations Regarding Property Acquisition Are Explained and

Documented

15. The prosecution has attempted to cast aspersions regarding

acquisition of properties by the Applicant and his family members.

However, Sources of funds were duly disclosed during investigation.

The aggregate value of properties is fully explained through lawful

loans, ancestral property sales, salary income, and retirement benefits.

The Applicant has complied with disclosure requirements before the

General Administration Department. The prosecution has not disputed

the documented sources reproduced in the charge-sheet itself. No

alleged proceeds of crime have been traced to any bank account of the

Applicant.

Thus, even on the prosecution's own showing, there is no

financial linkage between alleged proceeds of crime and the Applicant's

assets.

VII. Trial Is Likely to Take Considerable Time - Right to Speedy

Trial Engaged

16. The Respondent Agency itself asserts that further investigation is

ongoing. As long as supplementary investigation continues, charges

cannot meaningfully be crystallized against all accused. With more

than 50 accused persons, over 1,100 witnesses, and multiple charge-

sheets running into lakhs of pages, the trial is structurally incapable of

early conclusion. Even cognizance in respect of certain accused has

not been taken despite nearly two years of investigation. It is

inconceivable that such a trial would conclude within a reasonable time.

Continued incarceration for an indefinite period would violate the

Applicant's fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21. The

Supreme Court has repeatedly held that where trial is likely to take long

and investigation is complete, bail must ordinarily follow. Bail

jurisprudence does not permit indefinite incarceration pending an

uncertain and protracted trial.

17. The right to speedy trial is an integral part of Article 21. In

Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81, the Apex

Court declared speedy trial to be a fundamental right. Similarly, in

Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 291, it was held

that when there is no likelihood of early hearing, continued detention

becomes unjustified. Recently, in Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the

Supreme Court cautioned against prolonged incarceration where trial is

likely to take considerable time.

VIII. Applicant Satisfies the Triple Test

18. The Applicant has no criminal antecedents. He is a retired civil

servant, permanently residing in Raipur with his family and there is no

flight risk. The evidence is largely documentary and already seized.

There is no possibility of tampering. The Applicant holds no public office

or position of influence that could enable him to interfere with the trial.

The Applicant undertakes to abide by any condition imposed by this

Court.

IX. Bail Is the Rule; Jail Is the Exception

19. The object of bail is to secure presence at trial and not to punish

before conviction. Economic offences, though serious, do not create an

absolute embargo against grant of bail. Each case must be examined

on its own facts. Deprivation of liberty pending trial must satisfy the test

of necessity. In the absence of flight risk, tampering, or non-

cooperation, incarceration becomes disproportionate. The foundational

principle governing bail jurisprudence was authoritatively laid down in

State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308, wherein it was

held that "the basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail."

The Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab,

(1980) 2 SCC 565, held that deprivation of liberty must be considered a

punishment unless required to secure the presence of the accused at

trial.

20. Recently, in Manish Sisodia v. CBI, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1393,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that prolonged incarceration

pending trial violates Article 21 and that bail cannot be denied merely

on the gravity of allegations. It is submitted that gravity alone cannot

override constitutional safeguards, particularly when investigation

stands completed.

X. Economic Offence is Not an Absolute Bar to Bail

21. The prosecution seeks to portray the matter as a grave economic

offence. While the seriousness of allegations is not disputed, it is settled

law that gravity cannot operate as an automatic bar. In P.

Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791,

the Supreme Court held: that "The gravity of the offence cannot be the

sole ground to deny bail."

22. Even in cases involving serious financial allegations, the Court

has granted bail when the triple test is satisfied and investigation is

complete. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Supreme

Court observed that detention before conviction has a substantial

punitive content and must not be resorted to unless absolutely

necessary.

XI. Liberty Granted by the Apex Court - Its Purpose Cannot Be

Rendered Illusory

23. It is respectfully submitted that the Apex Court, while dismissing

the petition seeking quashing of the FIR, was conscious of the

prolonged nature of the investigation and the evolving procedural stage

of the matter. In that backdrop, the Apex Court expressly granted liberty

to the Applicant to approach the appropriate Court for grant of regular

bail after filing of the charge-sheet. Such liberty was neither ornamental

nor routine. It was granted after the Apex Court had the benefit of

perusing the allegations, the status of investigation, and the overall

factual matrix. The grant of liberty was thus a judicially considered

safeguard to ensure that the Applicant's right to seek regular bail at the

appropriate stage remains meaningful and effective.

The filing of the charge-sheet on 24.11.2025 marked the

crystallization of the prosecution case against the Applicant. The

investigation qua the Applicant stands complete. The stage

contemplated by the Apex Court for seeking regular bail has thus

arisen.

24. If, notwithstanding the completion of investigation and the liberty

expressly granted by the Apex Court, the Applicant is to be continued in

custody without demonstrable necessity, the very object of the said

liberty would stand defeated. Judicial liberty cannot be reduced to a

formality. It must operate in substance. It is settled that an order of the

Apex Court granting liberty to approach the appropriate Court for bail

necessarily implies that the application must be considered

uninfluenced by the earlier dismissal of the quashing petition and strictly

on parameters governing bail. Continued incarceration in such

circumstances would amount to rendering the liberty otiose.

25. The Applicant has approached this Court in strict compliance with

the liberty so granted. The consideration at this stage must therefore be

guided by the settled principles governing post-charge-sheet bail, and

not by the gravity of allegations in isolation.

XII. Pre-Trial Incarceration Must Satisfy the Constitutional Test of Necessity

26. Bail jurisprudence in India is constitutionally anchored in the

presumption of innocence and the guarantee of personal liberty under

Article 21 of the Constitution. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public

Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, the Apex Court authoritatively

observed that "Personal liberty is too precious a value of ou

constitutional system recognized under Article 21." The Court further

underscored that deprivation of liberty must be justified by compelling

reasons and not by reflexive or mechanical considerations.

27. Pre-trial detention is not to be employed as a measure of

anticipatory punishment. It is permissible only where it is necessary to

secure the presence of the accused at trial, prevent tampering of

evidence, or obviate interference with the course of justice. The

constitutional test, therefore, is one of necessity -- not symbolism, not

severity of accusation, and not public sentiment.

28. In Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, the Apex Court

held that "The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused

at trial... Further Investigation Pending - Trial Not Likely to

Commence in Near Futureeprivation of liberty must be considered a

punishment unless it is required to ensure that the accused will stand

trial."

29. Similarly, in Manish Sisodia v. CBI, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1393,

the Apex Court reiterated that prolonged incarceration pending trial

offends Article 21, particularly where investigation is complete and trial

is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time. The present case

satisfies none of the parameters that justify continued detention:

    •     Investigation qua the Applicant is complete.

    •     No custodial interrogation is sought.

    •     The evidence is documentary and already in possession of the

          prosecution.


   •     The Applicant is a retired civil servant with fixed roots and no

         criminal antecedents

In these circumstances, incarceration would cease to be

preventive and would assume a punitive character. The Constitution

does not countenance punishment prior to conviction.

30. It is submitted that the seriousness of allegations, however grave,

cannot substitute the requirement of necessity. Liberty cannot be

curtailed to send a message or to satisfy a symbolic demand for

custodial presence. The Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.,

(2018) 3 SCC 22, observed that the grant of bail is the general rule and

that refusal is an exception to be justified by cogent reasons. Therefore,

unless the prosecution demonstrates a real, imminent, and specific risk

of abscondence, tampering, or obstruction, which it has not --

continued detention would be constitutionally disproportionate.

XIII. Key Alleged Beneficiary Absconding - Inevitable Delay in

Conclusion of Trial

31. As per the prosecution's own case, one Vikas Agarwal alias

Subbu, allegedly the principal beneficiary with alleged gain exceeding

Rs. 1000 crores -- is absconding and stated to be outside India.

Without securing the presence of such alleged central conspirator, the

trial cannot effectively proceed to its logical conclusion. The inevitable

delay caused by the absence of a key accused cannot be a ground to

continue incarceration of the Applicant, who has cooperated at every

stage.

XIV. Constitutional Duty of the Court - Prevent Violation of

Fundamental Rights, Not Merely Remedy Them

32. Article 21 guarantees not only fair procedure but timely

adjudication. The right to liberty cannot await the leisurely pace of

prosecution. As held in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor,

(1978) 1 SCC 240, personal liberty is a foundational constitutional value

and its deprivation must pass the strict test of necessity.

XV. Pick and Choose Investigation - Unequal Application of Law

33. The record reflects that several distillers, manpower agencies,

cash-collection agencies and placement agencies, alleged to have

played pivotal roles and allegedly involved in transactions exceeding

hundreds of crores have not been arrested. Even individuals against

whom non-bailable warrants were issued have not been taken into

custody. Such selective action reveals a manifest "pick and choose"

approach. The Apex Court in Vineet Narain v. Union of India, (1998) 1

SCC 226 emphasized that investigation must be free from extraneous

considerations and executive influence. Selective incarceration of the

Applicant, while others remain untouched, is itself a ground for bail.

XVI. Departmental Enquiry Exonerates - Criminal Prosecution

Unsustainable on Same Material

34. A detailed Departmental Enquiry conducted by the Commercial

Tax (Excise) Department examined identical allegations. The findings

record Sale conducted strictly in accordance with rules; Monthly audits

by Chartered Accountants; Supervision by the Comptroller and Auditor

General;Track-and-Trace system through NIC portal; No discrepancy in

allotment of tender; No loss to State Exchequer; Revenue steadily

increased. The revenue figures themselves show a steady and

unprecedented increase in the year 2019-20: ₹ 4952.79 Crores, 2020-

21: ₹ 4636.90 Crores, 2021-22: ₹ 5110.15 Crores, 2022-23: ₹ 6783.61

Crores.

35. In Radheyshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal, (2011) 3

SCC 581, the Apex Court held that where adjudicatory/departmental

proceedings exonerate on identical facts, criminal proceedings on same

material cannot continue mechanically. At the very least, such

exoneration substantially dilutes the case of prosecution at the stage of

bail.

XVII. No Loss to Exchequer - Revenue Increased

36. The prosecution theory of "loss to State Exchequer" stands

contradicted by official revenue data. Revenue increased year upon

year, including unprecedented rise in 2022-23. In absence of

demonstrable pecuniary loss, the theory of conspiracy for siphoning

public funds becomes inherently improbable. The present case

demonstrates absence of sanction; Further investigation pending;

Protracted and uncertain trial; Absconding principal accused;

Departmental exoneration; No recovery or financial trail; Weak reliance

on co-accused statements; Policy decisions sought to be criminalized;

Selective investigation; Parity strongly favouring bail; No demonstrable

loss to exchequer. Continued incarceration in these circumstances

would not serve the ends of justice; it would only convert presumption

of innocence into pre-trial punishment. The Applicant's detention no

longer satisfies the constitutional test of necessity under Article 21.

XVIII. Investigation Vitiated by Mala Fides and Selective Targeting

37. It is respectfully submitted that the manner in which the

investigation has been conducted itself raises serious concerns

regarding fairness and impartiality. The prosecution has proceeded in a

demonstrably selective and "pick and choose" manner. Individuals who

allegedly yielded to the demands of the investigating agencies and

gave statements favourable to the prosecution narrative have been

granted protection and spared arrest. Conversely, those who declined

to toe the line have been subjected to coercive action. Such selective

treatment strikes at the very root of the concept of fair investigation,

which is now recognized as an integral component of Article 21.

38. The Apex Court in Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC

254, has held that a fair investigation is a constitutional guarantee and

any investigation tainted by mala fides or bias is liable to be viewed with

suspicion.

XIX. Gravity of Allegations Cannot Override Constitutional Liberty

39. The prosecution may rely heavily upon the alleged "gravity" and

"magnitude" of the offence. However, gravity alone cannot be decisive.

In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC

791, the Apex Court held that while economic offences are serious, the

same does not mean bail must be denied in every such case. The Court

reiterated that the triple test remains the governing principle. The

seriousness of allegations cannot eclipse the constitutional presumption

of innocence.

XX. Health Condition - Humanitarian Consideration

40. The Applicant suffers from serious coronary ailments and has

undergone multiple cardiac interventions including stenting and

angioplasty. He is also a diabetic patient requiring continuous medical

supervision. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized that

serious medical conditions are relevant considerations for grant of bail,

particularly when trial is likely to be prolonged. Continued incarceration

poses a real and substantial risk to his health. Lastly, he submits that he

satisfies the triple test in letter and spirit, and that further detention

would be contrary to settled principles of bail jurisprudence.

REPLY/OBJECTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE

I. A deep rooted criminal conspiracy affecting the State

Exchequer

41. It is submitted by Shri Das, learned State counsel that the present

matter does not involve a routine allegation of administrative irregularity.

The investigation conducted by the Economic Offences Wing, based

upon information received from the Enforcement Directorate and other

intelligence inputs, has revealed the existence of a structured criminal

syndicate operating within the excise framework of the State of

Chhattisgarh.

42. The investigation discloses that the said syndicate comprised

high ranking public officials, influential private individuals and

intermediaries operating across different layers of the excise

administration. Through a coordinated manipulation of policy decisions,

licensing mechanisms, tender procedures and enforcement structures,

the said syndicate created an illegal parallel system within the State

excise framework. The objective of this mechanism was to ensure

systematic extraction of illegal commissions from distilleries and other

stakeholders involved in a liquor trade across the State. Such illegal

commissions were collected through a well-organized network involving

field-level operatives, collection agents, transport intermediaries, and

distribution channels. The proceeds of such illegal collections were

thereafter channelled and distributed among members of the syndicate.

The present applicant, while holding senior positions within the State

excise administration, played a significant and facilitative role in

enabling the functioning of this illegal structure.

II. Nature and Magnitude of the Offence - Organized Criminal

Conspiracy at the Highest Level

43. The present case does not pertain to an isolated irregularity but

to a structured, well-orchestrated criminal syndicate that systematically

subverted the State excise regime for unlawful enrichment. The

investigation has revealed that the applicant, while occupying the office

of Excise Commissioner/Secretary, Excise, and Managing Director of

CSMCL, exercised decisive control over policy formulation, licensing,

enforcement and operational mechanisms of the excise framework. The

charge-sheet material demonstrates that the applicant was not a

peripheral functionary but a pivotal decision-maker who enabled,

structured and insulated the illegal mechanism. The financial magnitude

of the offence is staggering. Based on consolidated computations and

documentary material placed on record, Illegal commission from

country liquor operations of approx. ₹2,545.93 Crores, Illegal

commission from foreign liquor operations of approx. ₹281.89 Crores,

Direct revenue loss under FL-10A misuse of approx. ₹248.50 Crores

Total of financial impact established so far to approx. ₹3,076 Crores.

The Ongoing investigation indicates that the overall scam amount may

exceed ₹4,000 Crores. The scale, sophistication and systemic

penetration of the offence place it squarely within the category of grave

economic offences affecting the financial integrity of the State.

III. Position of the Applicant and His Control Over Excise

Administration

44. The applicant is alleged to have facilitated operationalization of

FL-10(A)/FL-10(B) mechanisms; Approved policy/tender changes that

enabled seamless movement of Part-B (non-duty paid) liquor; Permitted

structural alteration in transportation regime eliminating segregation

safeguards; Played a decisive role in introduction of statutory

amendments insulating institutional licensees; Facilitated procurement

and use of duplicate holograms; Enabled appointment of pliable

personnel at strategic posts.

45. It is submitted that during the relevant period, the applicant

occupied several key positions within the State administration, including

Excise Commissioner, Secretary, Excise Department, Managing

Director, Chhattisgarh State Beverages Corporation Limited (CSBCL).

These positions collectively placed the applicant at the highest

administrative level responsible for formulation, supervision and

implementation of the State excise policy.

46. As Excise Commissioner and Secretary, the applicant exercised

direct administrative control over licensing, regulation of liquor trade,

policy implementation, and monitoring of departmental functioning.

Simultaneously, in his capacity as Managing Director of CSBCL, the

applicant exercised operational oversight over procurement, distribution

and logistics relating to liquor supply within the State. The convergence

of these responsibilities placed the applicant in a uniquely influential

position where both policy-level decisions and operational

implementation fell within his sphere of control. The investigation

indicates that this concentration of authority was misused to facilitate

and shield the illegal operations of the syndicate.

47. The statutory amendment manoeuvred during April 2020

materially diluted accountability and shifted liability away from

institutional structures, thereby creating a legal shield for illicit

operations. The drafting, approval and processing sequence reflects

conscious facilitation at the highest administrative level.

48. The investigation has revealed that certain structural policy

modifications were introduced during the relevant period that materially

facilitated the functioning of the illegal liquor distribution network. One

such crucial change pertained to the transportation mechanism

governing movement of liquor from distilleries to retail outlets.

49. Prior to the said modification, the transportation process operated

through two distinct stages transportation from distillery to warehouse;

and transportation from warehouse to retail shops. These stages were

executed through separate tender mechanisms and independent

transport operators, thereby ensuring institutional checks and

operational transparency. However, a structural change was introduced

whereby a single tenderer or distillery was permitted to undertake

transportation both up to the warehouse and from the warehouse to

retail shops.

50. This change effectively removed an important layer of institutional

scrutiny. The investigation has revealed that such alteration significantly

facilitated clandestine movement of non-duty-paid liquor (Part-B liquor)

under the cover of lawful transportation. The said structural modification

could not have been implemented without approval at the level of the

applicant. The documentary material, including negotiation proceedings

and policy records, reflects the applicant's involvement in processing

and approving these policy-level changes.

IV. Corroborative Documentary and Digital Evidence - A

Seamless Web of Proof

51. The case of the prosecution rests not on surmise or speculation,

but on a robust edifice of irrefutable documentary and digital evidence,

meticulously interwoven to dismantle any narrative of innocence. This

corroborative matrix includes meticulous Financial Computations,

Forensic audits revealing unexplained accretion in the applicant's

accounts, synchronized precisely with the tender irregularities,

underscoring a pattern of illicit enrichment. The bank Trails and Registry

Records, Unassailable transaction ledgers and property registry entries

tracing the flow of tainted funds from fictitious entities to the applicant's

orbit, leaving no room for doubt as to the nexus. WhatsApp Chats as

Digital Confessions: Recovered communications timestamped and

contextually irrefutable lay bare a clandestine symphony of coordination

between the applicant and co-accused. These exchanges meticulously

document deliberations on fund transfers, stratagems for neutralizing

complaints, and directives for operational dominance, evincing a

command structure where the applicant orchestrated from the apex.

The testimonies from delivery chain operatives and insider informants,

whose accounts align seamlessly with the digital footprint, providing

human corroboration to the mechanical records. Official minutes

exposing collusive bidding, backroom manipulations and the applicant's

fingerprints in subverting procedural safeguards. A compendium of 47

annexures, including ledgers, invoices, and intercepted emails, each

thread reinforcing the prosecution's tapestry. The recovered WhatsApp

chats establish sustained communication between the applicant and co-

accused reflecting coordination regarding transfers, complaint

management,and operational control. Phrases such as "handle the

audit quietly" and "route through the usual channel" illuminate not mere

acquaintance, but a deliberate conspiracy. Critically, these records

reveal a reflexive pattern: whenever departmental scrutiny loomed--be

it through audits or whistleblower alerts--the applicant invoked high-

level interventions to muzzle inquiries, neutralize threats, and shield the

enterprise. This is no isolated lapse; it is the anatomy of systemic graft,

corroborated across multiple vectors, rendering the applicant's denial

untenable.

V. Proceeds of Crime and Benami Investments - Imperative for

Custodial Safeguard Amid Ongoing Tracing

52. The investigation has pierced the veil of benami facades,

unearthing a labyrinth of proceeds of crime channeled into immovable

assets masquerading under the names of the applicant's proximate kin.

Over 20 such properties--spanning urban plots, commercial

complexes, and rural holdings--stand identified through rigorous

source-of-funds dissection and banking telemetry (measurement),

parallel financial probe, invoking the rigors of the Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, 2002, and Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988,

is actively unraveling layering mechanisms, beneficial ownership webs,

and shell entities. Preliminary trails already link disbursement dates to

tender windfalls, with discrepancies in declared incomes screaming

disproportion. In this milieu--where dissipation remains a live peril,

assets teeter on diversion, and further layering lurks custodial

interrogation emerges as indispensable.

53. The Supreme Court Precedents such as Directorate of

Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan (1994) affirm that prolonged custody

is warranted where financial trails are nascent, ensuring the integrity of

attached properties and forestalling the alchemy of crime into

legitimacy. To grant liberty now would embolden the very dissipation the

law abhors, frustrating the ends of justice.

54. The recovered WhatsApp chats establish sustained

communication between the applicant and co-accused reflecting

coordination regarding transfers, complaint management and

operational control. The material demonstrates that whenever scrutiny

arose, intervention at the applicant's level was invoked to "control"

departmental exposure.

VI. Ongoing Multi-Layered Investigation

55. The investigation into this sprawling corruption syndicate

transcends the static confines of filed charge-sheets, embodying a

living, multi-pronged inquiry that continues to unfold with forensic

precision. To date, eight charge-sheets have been meticulously laid

before this Court, ensnaring 52 accused persons across layered

conspiracies involving tender manipulations, kickback circuits, and

benami layering. Yet, this is no terminal waypoint; the probe remains

vibrantly dynamic, propelled by emergent leads and technological

exhumations. Supplementary charge-sheets are not merely prospective

--they are inevitable corollaries to the ripening fruits of ongoing

financial dissections. Current vectors include Advanced Property

Linkage Analysis, Digital forensics and registry cross-verifications are

mapping over 20 benami assets to the applicant's unexplained wealth,

with geospatial and transactional overlays poised to forge unbreakable

chains of provenance.

56. The Proceeds-of-Crime Tracing under PMLA protocols, banking

consortia data and cryptocurrency trails are under scrutiny, revealing

fresh layering conduits that implicate additional abettors and untraced

launderings. The key forensic examinations (voice samples, call detail

records or CDR matching, and external audits of fake vendor

companies) are not yet complete. Their results are expected to trigger

additional charge-sheets. More importantly, these could prove the

applicant is not just a minor participant (co-conspirator) but the central

figure (linchpin) directing the corruption scheme

57. In the matters of such colossal magnitude--mirroring the

systemic depredations in CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal (2014) or P.

Chidambaram v. ED (2020)--the mere filing of an initial charge-sheet

signals neither culmination nor completeness. Section 173(8) CrPC

expressly countenances supplementary filings, a statutory sinew

repeatedly upheld by this Court to prevent investigative truncation. The

Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) crystallized this:

"investigation is an elastic continuum, not a rigid endpoint, particularly

where economic offences spawn tendrils into money-laundering."

58. Granting enlargement to the applicant at this embryonic juncture

would not merely erode deterrence; it would fatally jeopardize the

probe's sanctity. At large, the applicant possessed of influence,

resources, and insider networks which could orchestrate asset

dissipation, witness tampering, or digital purges, as evidenced in

parallel probes where custodial voids enabled such sabotage. Custody,

thus, is not punitive but preservative: a bulwark ensuring untrammelled

truth-extraction and asset immobilization, aligning with the constitutional

imperative under Article 21 to balance individual liberty against societal

rectitude. Enlargement of the applicant at this stage would materially

jeopardize the ongoing property-tracing and proceeds-of-crime

investigation.

VII. Introduction and Misuse of FL-10A Licensing Mechanism

59. The investigation has further revealed that the introduction of the

FL-10A licensing mechanism became a critical instrument through

which the syndicate generated illegal financial gains. The said licensing

framework enabled certain private entities to obtain preferential rights

relating to distribution of premium foreign liquor. According to the

prosecution case, these licenses were granted in a manner that

enabled favoured entities to derive undue financial benefits.

60. In several instances, illegal commissions were collected from

distilleries and license holders in exchange for operational advantages.

The investigation suggests that the applicant played an instrumental

role in facilitating and internationalizing the said licensing regime. The

grant and supervision of such licenses fell within the administrative

domain of the applicant during the relevant period.

VIII. Use of Duplicate Holograms and Sale of Non-Duty Paid

Liquor

61. Another significant aspect of the investigation concerns the

alleged use of duplicate holograms procured from a private vendor.

These holograms were allegedly affixed on liquor bottles to enable sale

of non-duty-paid liquor within the State. Through this mechanism, liquor

was sold outside the official accounting system, resulting in substantial

loss of revenue to the State exchequer. The investigation suggests that

the applicant played a role in enabling procurement and use of such

holograms as part of the larger conspiracy.

IX. Illegal Commission Collection Mechanism

62. The investigation has further uncovered a systematic collection

mechanism for illegal commissions. Field-level operatives collected

cash generated through sale of Part-B liquor from retail outlets across

identified districts. The collected cash was transported to designated

locations where it was counted and subsequently distributed. The

statements of certain witnesses recorded during investigation indicate

that a portion of such illegal collection was earmarked as a

"departmental share".

63. It has been alleged that an amount of approximately Rs.50 lakhs

per month was earmarked as part of the departmental share for the

then Excise Commissioner. While the investigation regarding the

precise flow of funds is ongoing, the statements of key witnesses and

financial computations form part of the prosecution material.

X. Financial Magnitude of the Offence

64. Based on consolidated computations and documentary material

gathered during investigation, the financial magnitude of the scam is

extremely substantial. The investigation has indicated that illegal

commission from country liquor operations is approximately ₹2,545

Crores; illegal commission from foreign liquor operations is

approximately ₹281 Crores; revenue loss due to misuse of licensing

mechanisms is approximately ₹248 Crores. Consequently, the total

financial impact of the scam has been estimated at approximately

₹3,076 Crores. Further investigation is continuing, and the overall

financial impact may exceed ₹4,000 Crores.

XI. Digital Evidence Linking the Applicant

65. The investigation has also yielded digital evidence in the form of

WhatsApp chats between the applicant and co-accused persons. These

communications indicate coordination regarding departmental transfers,

complaint management and operational matters related to excise

administration. The digital material forms part of the documentary

evidence annexed with the charge-sheet.

XII. Discovery of Properties and Possible Proceeds of Crime

66. During investigation it has been discovered that several

immovable properties have been acquired in the names of family

members of the applicant. More than 20 such properties have been

identified so far. The banking trail, source of funds and financial linkage

relating to these properties are currently under analysis. This aspect of

the investigation forms part of the ongoing financial probe concerning

proceeds of crime.

XIII. Ongoing Investigation and Supplementary Charge-Sheets

67. It is submitted that the investigation in the present case is not yet

complete. The case involves a complex multi-layered economic offence

involving numerous participants and financial transactions. Several

charge-sheets have already been filed against multiple accused

persons. However, further investigation regarding financial trails,

beneficiary chains and asset tracing is still underway. Supplementary

charge-sheets are likely to be filed upon completion of such

investigation.

XIV. Possibility of Witness Influence and Evidence Tampering

68. The applicant is a former senior public servant who held positions

of substantial administrative authority within the excise department. A

significant number of prosecution witnesses are departmental officials

and individuals who were subordinate to the applicant during the

relevant period. In view of his past authority and familiarity with

departmental functioning, there exists a genuine apprehension that the

applicant may influence or intimidate such witnesses if released on bail.

There is also a possibility of interference with documentary and digital

evidence relevant to the investigation.

XV. Gravity of Economic Offences and Judicial Approach

69. It is well settled that economic offences involving misuse of public

office and large-scale financial impact constitute a distinct category of

offences. Such offences undermine public trust and affect the economic

stability of the State. The Courts have consistently recognized that

economic offences require a stricter approach while considering bail.

XVI. Balance Between Individual Liberty and Societal Interest

70. While the right to personal liberty is of paramount importance, the

Court must also consider the societal interest in ensuring fair

investigation and protection of public revenue. In offences involving

large-scale economic fraud and abuse of public office, the societal

interest assumes particular significance.

XVII. Applicant Occupied a Strategic Position Facilitating

Continuity of the Illegal Syndicate

71. It is submitted that the material collected during investigation

reveals that even after his superannuation, the applicant continued to

occupy influential positions within the Excise establishment on a

contractual basis. Such post-retirement continuation in positions

connected with excise administration was not routine but was facilitated

through close association with co-accused persons, particularly co-

accused Anil Tuteja, who is stated to be the batchmate and close

associate of the present applicant.

72. The investigation indicates that such appointment ensured that

the applicant remained strategically positioned within the excise

administrative framework, thereby enabling the smooth implementation

of decisions beneficial to the illegal liquor syndicate allegedly headed by

co-accused Anwar Dhebar. The continued institutional presence of the

applicant, even after superannuation, therefore constitutes a relevant

circumstance indicating the degree of influence exercised by him within

the administrative apparatus. Such influence also demonstrates the

capacity of the applicant to affect witnesses and departmental officials

who were working within the same administrative hierarchy.

XVIII. Policy-Level Decisions Allegedly Engineered to Facilitate

Illegal Financial Gains

73. The investigation has further revealed that the applicant, acting in

concert with co-accused persons including Anil Tuteja, Arun Pati

Tripathi and Anwar Dhebar, played a crucial role in the introduction

and operationalization of the foreign liquor policy framework under FL-

10(A) and FL-10(B). The said licensing framework, which ostensibly

governed distribution of premium foreign liquor within the State, was

allegedly misused as a mechanism for systematic generation and

collection of illegal commissions from distilleries and distributors.

74. According to the prosecution material, the structure of these

licenses created preferential commercial advantages for selected

entities and enabled extraction of unlawful financial benefits by the

syndicate. The involvement of the applicant in the policy-making and

administrative approval process relating to these licenses is borne out

from the documentary material forming part of the charge-sheet.

XIX. Manipulation of the Transportation and Tender Mechanism

75. It is further submitted that the investigation has revealed

manipulation in the transportation and tender mechanism governing

supply of liquor during the period 2020-2021. Earlier, the system

operated in two distinct stages:

• transportation from distillery to warehouse; and

• transportation from warehouse to retail shops through separate

empanelled transporters under CSBCL.

Such segregation ensured transparency and operational scrutiny

in the movement of liquor consignments. However, a significant policy

change was introduced whereby the same distillery or tenderer was

permitted to transport liquor not only up to the warehouse but also from

the warehouse to retail outlets within the designated supply area. This

change is reflected in the negotiation proceedings dated 03.04.2020

and in the tender conditions applicable for the period 15.04.2020 to

31.03.2021. The said modification materially facilitated clandestine

movement of Part-B liquor (non-duty paid / duplicate-hologram liquor)

under the cover of legitimate transportation.

76. Such a structural change in the transportation policy could not

have been implemented without approval at the level of the Excise

Commissioner/Secretary, thereby indicating the applicant's involvement

in enabling the illegal supply chain. The investigation indicates that the

drafting process of the said amendment originated from a committee

chaired by co-accused Arun Pati Tripathi, and the draft prepared by

the said committee was thereafter placed before the present applicant

for approval. The sequence of drafting, approval and subsequent

notification of the amendment reflects the applicant's involvement in

facilitating the creation of a legal structure that allegedly protected the

illegal operations of the syndicate. Such legislative manoeuvring, when

viewed in conjunction with other evidence collected during investigation,

constitutes a significant incriminating circumstance against the

applicant.

XX. Manipulation of the Transportation and Tender Mechanism

77. It is further submitted that the investigation has revealed

manipulation in the transportation and tender mechanism governing

supply of liquor during the period 2020-2021. Earlier, the system

operated in two distinct stages-transportation from distillery to

warehouse; and transportation from warehouse to retail shops through

separate empanelled transporters under CSBCL.

78. Such segregation ensured transparency and operational scrutiny

in the movement of liquor consignments. However, a significant policy

change was introduced whereby the same distillery or tenderer was

permitted to transport liquor not only up to the warehouse but also from

the warehouse to retail outlets within the designated supply area. This

change is reflected in the negotiation proceedings dated 03.04.2020

and in the tender conditions applicable for the period 15.04.2020 to

31.03.2021. The said modification materially facilitated clandestine

movement of Part-B liquor (non-duty paid / duplicate-hologram liquor)

under the cover of legitimate transportation.

79. The investigation has further revealed that cash generated from

sale of Part-B liquor in 15 major non-tribal districts was systematically

collected through operatives working under co-accused Vikas

Agarwal. The collected cash was transported to identified locations in

Raipur, where it was counted and subsequently distributed among

members of the syndicate on the directions of co-accused Vikas

Agarwal and Anwar Dhebar. From the per-box recovery of such sales,

an amount of ₹150 per box was earmarked as a "departmental share".

80. Out of this amount, approximately ₹50 lakhs per month was

allegedly earmarked for the then Excise Commissioner, i.e., the

present applicant. These facts stand corroborated by statements of

witnesses including Iqbal Khan and Kanhaiyalal Kurre, who have

described the process of collection and delivery of such monthly

payments. On the basis of the said computation, the proceeds

attributable to the applicant under this head alone have been assessed

at approximately ₹16 Crores for a period of 32 months.

XXI. Digital Evidence Establishing Nexus with co-accused

81. Digital evidence recovered during investigation, particularly

WhatsApp chats, further establishes the nexus between the applicant

and co-accused persons. The chats exchanged between the applicant

and co-accused Anwar Dhebar reveal continuous communication

during the relevant period. These communications include discussions

relating to transfers and postings of departmental officials, monitoring of

liquor shops, management of complaints and scrutiny relating to illegal

sales. The said chats indicate that whenever there was apprehension of

departmental scrutiny regarding Part-B sales or cash

collections,intervention through the applicant's position and

departmental influence was sought to "control" the situation. The digital

evidence therefore constitutes a significant corroborative circumstance

demonstrating the applicant's role as a facilitator of the illegal excise

syndicate.

XXII. Investment of Proceeds of Crime in Immovable Properties

82. Investigation has further revealed that the applicant invested

proceeds of crime in acquisition of immovable properties standing in the

names of his wife and sons. More than ten such properties have been

identified so far and the relevant purchase documents and banking trail

are presently under examination. The financial investigation is

continuing to trace additional properties and investments connected

with the proceeds of crime.

XXIV. Ongoing Investigation and Likelihood of Further Charge-

Sheets

83. It is submitted that although charge-sheets have been filed in the

present case, the investigation is far from complete. Due to the multi-

layered nature of the scam, charge-sheets are being filed in a phased

manner. So far, charge-sheets have been filed against 52 accused

persons and investigation continues to identify additional

intermediaries, financial channels and beneficiary chains. Further

supplementary charge-sheets relating to illegal income and benami

assets are likely to be filed upon completion of the ongoing financial

investigation. The applicant is a former senior public servant possessing

extensive knowledge of departmental functioning and the identity of key

witnesses. Several witnesses in the present case are departmental

officials and individuals connected with the cash collection mechanism.

84. In the event of his release on bail, there exists a grave and real

possibility that the applicant may influence or intimidate material

witnesses, interfere with documentary or digital evidence, obstruct

ongoing financial investigation by creating additional benami layers.

Such apprehension is not speculative but arises from the applicant's

prior position of authority and influence within the excise administration.

85. In view of the foregoing circumstances, it is respectfully submitted

that the allegations against the applicant disclose a deep-rooted

criminal conspiracy involving large-scale economic offences and abuse

of public office. Therefore, looking to the magnitude of the offence, the

ongoing investigation into financial trails and proceeds of crime, and the

likelihood of interference with witnesses and evidence, the applicant

does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail. The present bail

application therefore deserves to be rejected.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

86. Heard learned appearing for the applicant and learned Advocate

General/Additional Advocate General appearing for the State at

considerable length. I have also perused the case diary, the charge-

sheet material placed on record, and the documents relied upon by

both sides.

87. The principal submission on behalf of the applicant is that he is a

retired civil servant, that the allegations arise out of policy decisions

taken in the course of official duties, that the investigation qua the

applicant stands completed upon filing of the charge-sheet, and that

continued incarceration would amount to pre-trial punishment. It is

further contended that the case is primarily based upon documentary

evidence already in possession of the prosecution and that the

applicant satisfies the well-settled triple test governing grant of bail.

88. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has

vehemently opposed the prayer for bail contending that the present

case discloses a deep-rooted criminal conspiracy involving large-scale

manipulation of the State's excise policy, resulting in enormous illegal

financial gains and loss to the State exchequer. It is submitted that the

applicant, while occupying the offices of Excise Commissioner,

Secretary (Excise) and Managing Director of the State Beverages

Corporation, exercised decisive control over the policy framework and

operational mechanisms governing the liquor trade within the State.

89. According to the prosecution, the applicant has played a pivotal

role in facilitating the functioning of an organized liquor syndicate

allegedly headed by co-accused persons including Anwar Dhebar and

other co-accused persons. The material placed on record indicates that

the applicant was not merely a passive functionary but was instrumental

in introducing and operationalizing policy changes such as the FL-10(A)

licensing mechanism and structural modifications in the transportation

and tender system governing supply of liquor.

90. The investigation further indicates that such policy-level changes

materially facilitated clandestine movement and sale of non-duty-paid

liquor and enabled extraction of illegal commissions from distilleries and

distributors. The prosecution has also relied upon documentary material

including policy records, negotiation proceedings, and digital evidence

in the form of WhatsApp communications allegedly exchanged between

the applicant and other co-accused persons. From the material

collected during investigation, the prosecution has sought to

demonstrate that the applicant maintained continuous coordination with

key members of the alleged syndicate and exercised influence over

departmental functioning, including postings and monitoring of liquor

shops. The said digital material, at this stage, constitutes a prima facie

circumstance indicating nexus between the applicant and other

accused persons involved in the alleged illegal operations.

91. The financial magnitude of the alleged scam, as reflected from

the charge-sheet and computation placed on record, is also of

considerable significance. According to the prosecution material, illegal

commissions arising from country liquor operations alone are estimated

to be approximately ₹2,545 crores, while illegal gains from foreign

liquor operations are estimated at approximately ₹281 crores. In

addition thereto, misuse of the FL-10(A) licensing policy is stated to

have resulted in undue profits of approximately ₹248 crores to certain

licensees.

92. Thus, the total financial impact of the alleged illegal operations,

as presently assessed, is stated to exceed ₹3,000 crores, with

investigation still continuing regarding additional financial trails and

proceeds of crime. The investigation further indicates existence of a

systematic mechanism for collection and distribution of illegal proceeds

generated from sale of non-duty-paid liquor across multiple districts.

Witness statements recorded during investigation suggest that a fixed

amount from such collections was earmarked as departmental share

out of which an amount of approximately ₹50 lakhs per month was

allegedly earmarked for the then Excise Commissioner.

93. At this stage of consideration of bail, the Court is not expected to

undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence or record findings on

the merits of the prosecution case. However, the material collected

during investigation does disclose prima facie circumstances indicating

the applicant's involvement in the alleged conspiracy. The record also

indicates that the investigation in the present case has not yet reached

its logical culmination. The prosecution has stated that although several

charge-sheets have already been filed, further investigation regarding

tracing of proceeds of crime, financial trails and benami properties is

still in progress.

94. The material placed before this Court further indicates that as

many as 20 immovable properties, standing either in the name of the

present applicant or in the names of his family members, have been

identified during the course of investigation for the period 2020-2023.

The banking trail pertaining to the acquisition of these properties is

presently under scrutiny by the investigating agency. This circumstance

assumes significance when viewed in the backdrop of the applicant's

position at the relevant time. It has also been brought on record that the

banking trail and present price of purchased property relating to these

transactions is presently under scrutiny by the investigating agency in

order to ascertain the source of funds utilized for acquisition of the said

properties. The identification of such properties and the ongoing

financial scrutiny constitute relevant circumstances which, at this stage,

lend support to the prosecution's assertion that the alleged proceeds of

crime may have been channelled into acquisition of immovable assets.

It is no mere coincidence that, during his tenure as Excise

Commissioner and head of the State Excise Department, the applicant

acquired 20 immovable properties not only in his own name but also in

those of his family members precisely amid the alleged liquor scam.

95. In cases involving large-scale economic offences of such

magnitude, the Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the

Court must adopt a cautious approach while considering the grant of

bail. Economic offences involving misuse of public office and large-

scale diversion of public revenue stand on a different footing owing to

their serious impact upon the financial health of the State and public

confidence in governance. The position held by the applicant during the

relevant period is also a factor of considerable significance. The

applicant occupied the highest administrative office in the excise

hierarchy and exercised substantial authority over departmental

functioning. A significant number of prosecution witnesses in the

present case are departmental officials who were either subordinate to

the applicant or worked within the same administrative structure.

96. In such circumstances, the apprehension expressed by the

prosecution regarding the possibility of influence over witnesses or

interference with the ongoing investigation cannot be said to be

unfounded. The magnitude of the alleged financial irregularities, the

organized nature of the alleged conspiracy, the applicant's position of

authority within the excise administration, and the ongoing investigation

regarding financial trails collectively persuade this Court that the

applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail at this stage.

97. Though the presumption of innocence remains a fundamental

principle of criminal jurisprudence, the Court must also balance the

same against the societal interest in ensuring a fair and uninfluenced

investigation in offences involving grave economic consequences. As

per the allegations of the prosecution agency, five principal persons

have been identified as the core architects of the said illegal

arrangement (syndicate), namely Anwar Dhebar, Anil Tuteja, Arun

Pati Tripathi, Arvind Singh and the present applicant Niranjan Das.

These individuals are alleged to have acted as the principal

conspirators (decision makers) who conceived, structured and

operationalized the illegal excise syndicate.

98. From the material placed before this Court, including the charge-

sheet and documents collected during investigation, it prima facie

appears that the above persons operated in concert with each other

and formed a coordinated syndicate which allegedly involved several

other co-accused persons functioning at different levels of the excise

administration and liquor distribution network.

99. The role attributed to the present applicant assumes particular

significance in view of the position held by him during the relevant

period. It is not disputed that the applicant was functioning as the

Excise Commissioner of the State, which is the highest administrative

authority responsible for supervision, regulation and enforcement of the

State's excise policy. In such capacity, the applicant was duty bound to

ensure strict compliance with statutory provisions governing

manufacture, distribution and sale of liquor within the State, and to

safeguard the financial interests of the State exchequer.

100. However, the material collected during investigation, as reflected

in the charge-sheet, prima facie suggests that instead of discharging his

statutory responsibilities in furtherance of public interest and protect the

interest of the State exchequer, the applicant allegedly permitted and

facilitated the functioning of the illegal liquor syndicate. The prosecution

case indicates that several subordinate excise officials and field-level

officers allegedly acted under the administrative control and directions

of the applicant and were instrumental in implementing the operational

aspects of the alleged scam.

100. The planning and overall management of the illegal operations

are stated to have been carried out by the principal conspirators

including Anwar Dhebar, Anil Tuteja, Arvind Singh and Arun Pati

Tripathi and the present applicant, while the administrative

machinery of the excise department was allegedly utilized to ensure the

smooth functioning of the illegal scheme. The prosecution has further

alleged that the present applicant, by virtue of his official position and

administrative authority, enabled such activities to be carried out

through subordinate officers and departmental mechanisms. At this

stage, the material on record prima facie indicates that the applicant

cannot be viewed merely as a passive or peripheral participant. Rather,

the allegations suggest that he occupied a position central to the

functioning of the alleged syndicate.

101. The Court also takes note of the fact that the prosecution has

described the above five individuals, including the present applicant, as

the principal "kingpins" of the alleged excise scam, who allegedly

exercised decisive influence over the policy framework, operational

mechanisms and financial structure through which the illegal activities

were carried out.

102. In view of the nature of allegations and the material collected

during investigation, the role attributed to the applicant appears to be of

considerable significance within the overall conspiracy. It is true that

certain co-accused persons in the present case have been enlarged on

bail either by this Court or by the Supreme Court. However, the orders

granting bail to such co-accused appear to have been passed primarily

on the ground of prolonged incarceration and other individual

circumstances. The role attributed to the present applicant, being one of

the principal decision-makers and administrative heads during the

relevant period, stands on a distinct footing.

DUBEY    2026.03.10
         17:45:37
         +0530