Bharat Singh S/o Shri Khuman Singh Aged About 41 Years Presently R/o House No v. Union Of India Through Superintendent Of A.C.B/ C.B.I, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Non
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22222 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2981 of 2025 Bharat Singh S/o Shri Khuman Singh Aged About 41 Years Presently R/o House No. A-232, Uni-Homes Bhatagao, Raipur (C.G.) And Permanent R/o Near Kisan Rice Mill, Neora, Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant versus Union Of India Through Superintendent Of A.C.B/ C.B.I, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Non-applicant MCRC No. 3345 of 2025 Vinay Rai S/o Shri Akhilesh Rai Aged About 33 Years R/o Room No. 07, Block No. 06, Road No. 15b, Sector 02, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---Applicant Versus Union Of India Through Superintendent Of A.C.B. / C.B.I., Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Non-applicant 2 For Applicants : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Non-applicants : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Standing Counsel Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20/05/2025 1. Since both the bail applications arise out of one and the same crime number, they have been clubbed together, heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. These are the first bail applications filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with Crime No.RC1242025A0002 registered at Anti Corruption Branch, C.B.I., District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS, 2023”) as well as Sections 7 and 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, “P.C. Act”). 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.01.2025, one Lalchand Athwani filed a written complaint alleging that he is the proprietor of ‘M/s. The World of Beauty’ and on 28.01.2025, applicant Bharat Singh, who was holding the post of 3 Superintendent, Central Goods and Services Tax, conducted a raid at his shop alongwith his team and in criminal conspiracy
Legal Reasoning
with co-accused Vinay Rai and one Mr. Mishra (absconding) who has been identified as Anil Gupta, asked the complainant to settle the case and demanded a bribe of Rs.34,00,000/-, however, when the complainant pleaded for negotiation, the appellants/accused persons reduced the bribe amount to Rs.10,00,000/-. Since the complainant was not willing to pay the said amount, he lodged the complaint and the aforesaid offence was registered against the appellants/accused persons. During investigation, applicant/accused Vinay Rai was caught red- handed while he was receiving bribe amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant and thereafter, the applicants herein were arrested and detained on 01.02.2025. 4. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants submits that applicant Bharat Singh is the Superintendent of Central Goods and Excise Tax and there is no evidence against him to connect him with the present crime. He further submits that there is absolutely no evidence to connect the present applicants with the alleged offence as from perusal of the FIR, it would disclose that complaint was made against officer of CGST and it was alleged that the applicant was an officer who conducted the raid at the premises of the complainant, which is not true, but the true fact is that it was one Shri Subrato Pal who had conducted the raid and applicants were only an assisting- 4 officer/one and only the punch witnesses. It has been contended that as per the complaint of the complainant, the demand was made by the co-accused Mishra who is absconding, and the bribe money was handed over to the co-accused Vinay Rai on the instruction of Mishra. There was no telephonic-conversation took place between the complainant and the applicants and there is no evidence collected by the investigating agency to demonstrate to the fact whether any telephonic conversation had taken place between the co-accused Vinay Rai and the applicants to array them as accused. It has been further contended that after the raid was conducted, the applicants were summoned by the CBI officer, to which the applicants obediently followed and reported before the CBI officer at CGST office and thereby they had cooperated with the investigation, which shows the bonfide of the applicants. The applicants had also cooperated with the search and seizure which was carried out by the CBI officers in the office premises as well at the house of the applicants and no seizure has been made from the house of the applicants and if any, seizure has been made from the office premises then same was also not in possession of the applicants. 5. It has been argued by Mr. Sinha that the CBI has completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet, but the sanction for prosecution is still awaited from the Department and there is no evidence to implicate the applicants for commission of offence under Section 61(2) of BNS, 2023 as well as Section 7 & 7A of 5 P.C. Act. It has been further argued that there is no evidence collected by the investigating agency to corroborate the role of applicants in alleged offence as well as to establish any relationship with the co-accused person i.e., Mishra @ Anil Kumar Gupta (absconding) for conspiracy. There is no evidence collected by the investigating agency to show that the applicants were the officer-in charge/leading-officers in the raid alleged to be conducted at the premise of the complainant. The applicants were completely unaware of the complainant's business or his case related to tax-invasion, it is only after they were summoned by the CBI, the applicants came to know about the demand of bribe by the other accused persons. It has been submitted that the applicants have been in judicial custody since 01.02.2025 and the charge-sheet has already been filed, hence, there is no possibility that the applicants would temper with the evidence or influence prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly and the conclusion of trial will take more time, therefore, the applicants be released on bail. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40 to buttress his submissions. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India/non-applicant opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners and submits that the case bearing Crime No.RC1242025A0002 has been 6 registered on 31.01.2024 on the basis of the written complaint dated 30.01.2025 of Shri Lal Chand Athwani, who owns M/s The World of Beauty. He further submits that on 28-29.01.2025, Shri Bharat Singh, Superintendent, CGST, Raipur, raided the shop of Shri Lal Chand Athwani and, in conspiracy with Shri Vinay and Shri Mishra, demanded Rs.34,00,000/- as bribe, which was later reduced to Rs.10,00,000/- and the complainant unwilling to pay, had filed a complaint with CBI on 30.01.2025. On the basis of verification of the complaint dated 30.01.2025, in the presence of independent witness Shri Khushal Baliram Landge, an FIR under Section 61(2) of BNS, 2023 as well as Sections 7, 7A of the P.C. Act was registered on 31.01.2025 and on the basis of the FIR, a trap was laid on 31.01.2025 at VIP Chowk, Raipur. The accused Shri Vinay Rai was caught red handed while accepting bribe amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from complainant in conspiracy with accused persons. While Vinay Rai was detained, one person came on a Scooter near Vinay and snatched his mobile phone and ran away. During trap proceedings, the tainted bribe amount was recovered by independent witness from the possession of Vinay Rai and the applicant/accused Bharat Singh was arrested from his office and presently in judicial custody. It has been contended that after investigation of the case, charge-sheet has been filed vide Special Case No.04/25 against the accused persons and further investigation is kept open under Section 193 (9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 7 “BNSS, 2023”). It has been further contended that the sanction order for prosecution against accused Bharat Singh, the then Superintendent, CGST, Raipur, was issued by the competent authority on 11.04.2025 to remove the accused from office has been received from the office of the Principal Commissioner, Central Tax (CGST and Central Excise). 7. It has been argued by Mr. Goverdhan that on 28.01.2025, a search was conducted by the CGST Raipur team of 08 members consisting of Shri Subrato Pal, Supdt. Shri Bharat Singh, Shri Yogesh Moria, Inspector Shri Suraj Rawat, Inspector Shri Arvind Kumar Sisodiya, Inspector Shri Nandini Rajput, Inspector Ms. Kirti Gajbhiye, TA, Shri Shivangi Singh, Hawaldar and led by Shri Subrato Pal, Superintendent at the official premises i.e. M/s The World of Beauty, of the complainant on the strength authorization for search issued by Shri Prabhat Dandotiyaa, Additional Commissioner vide No.GEXCOM/AE/INV/GST/353/2025-AE-O/o Principal Commissioner dated 28.01.2025 in presence of independent witness Shri Diggi Bhoi @ Durgesh Kumar Bhoi and Shri Bhagwat Sahu. The CGST team seized the two bill books vide order of seizure dated 28.01.2025 and drew the Panchnama dated 28.01.2025 for the search proceedings conducted by them. Thereafter, on 29.01.2025 when the complainant along with his brother returned from Prayagraj to his aforesaid shop, accused Bharat Singh, Superintendent who was one of the members of search team told the complainant that he should meet his senior 8 Shri Mishra for settling of his tax matter. The complainant along with his brother visited in the car of CGST to Starbucks situated at Currency Tower, near VIP chowk, Raipur and met one person who was introduced by Vinay Rai as Mishra Ji, Commissioner of CGST, Raipur. During discussion, such person namely Mishra Ji informed him about his tax liability towards GST and further informed that the liability of tax would by settled in Rs,11,00,000/-, he has to pay Rs.34,00,000/-. It has been further argued that on 28.01.2025, the accused Bharat Singh had removed the hard disk from the Digital Voice Recorder containing recording of the CCTV installed of the official premises of ‘The World of Beauty’ in presence of Mohit Athwani kept the same in the bag carried by him. He handed over the aforesaid hard disk of the CCTV footage installed at the search spot to Durgesh Kumar Bhoi @ Diggi Bhoi while the search team of CGST left the aforesaid search spot with instructions to keep the same in the hall at preventive branch of CGST office. The said hard disk was kept by him in the said hall on 29.01.2025. During the examination, Mr. Pal has stated that he was not aware whether any hard disk containing recordings of the CCTV installed in the official premise of ‘The World of Beauty’ was removed and taken by Bharat Singh. He had not instructed any of the search team members of the CGST to take the said hard disk. 8. It has been submitted by Mr. Goverdhan that one Vivek Dewangan was deputed for the cleaning work in the office of 9 Central Tax (CGST) from April 2024 to May 2024, he was deputed by M/s. Special Management Service and his name was not in the pay-roll of CGST Department Raipur. He was exclusively engaged by one Saurav Singhal and accused Bharat Singh on private basis and they used to provide him cash for the work done by him on monthly basis. Shri Dewangan had worked related to Data Entry with respect to DGARM cell in the computer assigned by the Superintendents including accused Bharat Singh and Saurav Singhal, who are the Superintendents. During post trap proceedings, Vinay has informed that the person who ran away with his phone is named as Vivek and he worked as private worker in CGST office and sometimes drives office vehicles. It has been further submitted that the CCTV footage dated 29.01.2025 of Starbucks was seized by the CBI and the accused Mishra was identified by Ms. Pragya Mishra an ex-employee of ARPEE Group as a person “Anil Kumar Gupta” vide CCTV identification memo dated 19.03.2025 in presence of independent witness Shri Akhilesh Roshan Gajbhiye. Ms. Pragya Mishra also identified the voice of accused Shri Mishra as a person Shri Anil Kumar Gupta vide voice identification memo dated 19.03.2025 from the IO copy of the conversations recorded by the CBI during verification and trap proceedings in presence of aforesaid independent witness. The accused Vinay Rai was identified by Shri Laxman Kumar Biswal vide identification memo dated 11.03.2025 in presence of independent witness Shri Roshan 10 Kumar Sahu as also from the voice identification from the IO copy of the conversations recorded by the CBI during verification and trap proceedings. It is further submitted that the accused Mishra was identified by Shri Anurag Gupta as well as Shri Kamlesh Kumar Sahu as the voice of person Shri Anil Kumar Gupta vide CCTV identification memo dated 08.03.2025. Similarly, the complainant and his brother Shri Naveen Kumar Athwani identified the accused Shri Mishra as well as accused Shri Vinay from the IO copy of the CCTV footage dated 29.01.2025. 9. Mr. Goverdhan submits that the investigation has revealed that the WhatsApp call, which was made on 30.01.2025 by complainant from Mobile No.9827181835 of his brother (Shri Naveen Kumar Athwani) on Mobile No.8305001283 of accused Shri Mishra and the screenshots of WhatsApp call log was voluntarily given by Shri Naveen Kumar Athwani in presence of independent witnesses vide mobile operation and data retrieval memo dated 08.03.2025. The above-stated facts disclosed that the accused Bharat Singh, the then superintendent (DGARM Cell) entered into criminal conspiracy with co-accused Vinay Rai and Mr. Mishra who has been identified as Anil Kumar Gupta have committed the offences punishable under Section 61(2) of BNS, 2023 as well as Section 7, 7A of P.C. Act (as amended in 2018) and Section 319 (2) and 204 of BNS, 2023. It has been lastly argued that the applicants are not entitled to be released on bail based on the gravity of the offence as well as on the strength 11 of the case of the prosecution as also the potential impact on ongoing legal proceedings/further investigation, as such, the instant bail applications filed by the applicants are liable to be rejected being devoid of merits. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 11. At this stage, it would be relevant to extract Section 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for easy reference:- “7. Offence relating to public servant being bribed.-Any public servant who,- (a) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty either by himself or by another public servant; or (b) obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain, an undue advantage from any person as a reward for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty or for forbearing to perform such duty either by himself or another public servant; or (c) performs or induces another public servant to perform improperly or dishonestly a public duty or to forbear performance of such duty in anticipation of or in consequence of accepting an undue advantage from any person, 12 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation 1. - For the purpose of this section, the obtaining, accepting, or the attempting to obtain an undue advantage shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper. Illustration. - A public servant, 'S' asks a person, 'P' to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card application on time. 'S' is guilty of an offence under this section. Explanation 2. - For the purpose of this section,- (i) the expressions "obtains" or "accepts" or "attempts to obtain" shall cover cases where a person being a public servant, obtains or "accepts" or attempts to obtain, any undue advantage for himself or for another person, by abusing his position as a public servant or by using his personal influence over another public servant; or by any other corrupt or illegal means; (ii) it shall be immaterial whether such person being a public servant obtains or accepts, or attempts to obtain the undue advantage directly or through a third party.]” “7A. Taking undue advantage to influence public servant by corrupt or illegal means 13 or by exercise of personal influence.-- Whoever accepts or obtains or attempts to obtain from another person for himself or for any other person any undue advantage as a motive or reward to induce a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of his personal influence to perform or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to forbear such public duty by such public servant or by another public servant, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.]” 12. Thus, in an offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, the points requiring proof are: (i) that, the accused at the time of the offence was, or expected to be, a public servant; (ii) that, he accepted or retained or agreed to accept, or attempted to obtain from some person a gratification; (iii) that, such gratification was not a legal remuneration due to him; (iv) that, he accepted such gratification as a motive or reward, proof of which is essential for (a) doing or forbearing to do an official act, or (b) showing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to someone in exercise of his official functions, or 14 (c) rendering or attempting to render any service, or disservice to someone, with the legislative or executive government, or with any public servant. 13. Further it is seen that, Section 7 of the P.C. Act speaks of the "attempt" to obtain a bribe as being in itself an offence. Mere demand or solicitation, therefore, by a public servant amounts to commission of an offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. The word "attempt" is to imply no more than a mere solicitation, which, again may be made as effectually in implicit or in explicit terms. 14. Actual exchange of a bribe is not an essential requirement to be prosecuted under this law. Further, those public servants, who do not take a bribe directly, but, through middlemen or touts, and those who take valuable things from a person with whom they have or are likely to have official dealings, are also punishable as per Sections 10 and 11 of the P.C. Act, respectively. 15. The Apex Court, in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab {Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3247/2025, decided on 03.03.2025} while dealing with a case relating to an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as considering the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 Scale 15, Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1, Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of 15 Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642, Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64, K.C. Sareen v. C.B.I., Chandigarh, (2001) 6 SCC 584, Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, (2014) 8 SCC 682, Neera Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2017) 8 SCC 757, has observed as follows:- “61. Tackling corruption is going to be a priority task for the Government. The Government has been making constant efforts to deal with the problem of corruption. However, the constant legislative reforms and strict judicial actions have still not been able to completely uproot the deeply rooted evil of corruption. This is the area where the Government needs to be seen taking unrelenting, stern and uncompromising steps. Leaders should think of introducing good and effective leadership at the helm of affairs; only then benefits of liberalization and various programmes, welfare schemes and programmes would reach the masses. Lack of awareness and supine attitude of the public has all along been found to be to the advantage of the corrupt. Due to the uncontrolled spread of consumerism and fall in moral values, corruption has taken deep roots in the society. What is needed is a reawakening and recommitment to the basic values of tradition rooted in ancient and external wisdom. Unless people rise against bribery and corruption, society can never be 16 rid of this disease. The people can collectively put off this evil by resisting corruption by any person, howsoever high he or she may be.” 16. Considering the matter in its entirety as well as taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence and further considering the fact that Crime No.RC1242025A0002 has been registered on 31.01.2024 on the basis of the written complaint dated 30.01.2025 of Shri Lal Chand Athwani, who owns M/s The World of Beauty and on 28- 29.01.2025, Shri Bharat Singh, Superintendent, CGST, Raipur, raided the shop of Shri Lal Chand Athwani and, in conspiracy with Shri Vinay and Shri Mishra, demanded Rs.34,00,000/- as bribe, which was later reduced to Rs.10,00,000/- and the complainant unwilling to pay, had filed a complaint with CBI on 30.01.2025 as well as on the basis of verification of the complaint dated 30.01.2025, an FIR under Section 61(2) of BNS, 2023 as well as Sections 7, 7A of the P.C. Act was registered on 31.01.2025. It transpires from the record that after investigation of the case, charge-sheet has been filed vide Special Case No.04/25 against the accused persons and the sanction order for prosecution against accused Bharat Singh, the then Superintendent, CGST, Raipur, was issued by the competent authority on 11.04.2025 to remove the accused from office as well as a search was conducted by the CGST Raipur team of 08 members and the CGST team seized the two bill books vide order of seizure dated 17 28.01.2025 and drawn the Panchnama dated 28.01.2025 for the search proceedings. It also transpires that the accused Bharat Singh had removed the hard disk from the Digital Voice Recorder and the CCTV footage dated 29.01.2025 of Starbucks was seized by the CBI and the accused Mishra was identified by Ms. Pragya Mishra an ex-employee of ARPEE Group as a person “Anil Kumar Gupta” vide CCTV identification memo dated 19.03.2025 as well as by Shri Akhilesh Roshan Gajbhiye. The accused Vinay Rai was identified by Shri Laxman Kumar Biswal vide identification memo dated 11.03.2025 and accused Mishra was identified by Shri Anurag Gupta as well as Shri Kamlesh Kumar Sahu. It has been also reflected that applicant/accused Vinay Rai was caught red-handed while he was receiving bribe amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant. 17. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that there is an active participation of applicant Bharat Singh, who was instrumental in the commission of the present crime and further considering that applicant Vinay Rai has been caught red-handed while he was receiving bribe amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant and upon seizure of his mobile phone, voice recordings have also been found thereby substantiating the allegation of bribe demanded by him from the complainant along with applicant Bharat Singh for settling the tax liability of his business firm “M/s The World of Beauty” as well as in the light of the dictum rendered by Hon’ble 18 Apex Court in the matter of Devinder Kumar Bansal (supra), this Court is of the view that the accused Bharat Singh, the then superintendent (DGARM Cell) entered into criminal conspiracy with co-accused Vinay Rai and Mr. Mishra who has been identified as Anil Kumar Gupta have committed the offences punishable under Section 61(2) of BNS, 2023 as well as Section 7, 7A of P.C. Act (as amended in 2018) and as such, it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicants. 18. Accordingly, the instant bail application (MCRC Nos.2981/2025 and 3345/2025) filed by the applicants - Bharat Singh and Vinay Rai, who are involved in Crime No.RC1242025A0002 registered at Anti Corruption Branch, C.B.I, District Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Section 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 7 and 7A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 stands rejected. 19. Needless to say that the trial Court concerned is at liberty to proceed and conclude the trial expeditiously. 20. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Harneet / Anu