Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 McrC(A) No.741 of 2025 (Jitendra Kumar Sahu v State of Chhattisgarh) SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.05.22 17:35:11 +0530 2025:CGHC:22306 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 741 of 2025 1 - Jitendra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Bihari Lal Sahu Aged About 52 Years Shitla Para, Ward-11, Arang, Police Station And Tahsil Arang, District Raipur Chhattisgarh versus Petitioner(s) 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer P.S. Economic Offence Wing/ Anti Corruption Bureau (EOW/ACB), Raipur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Saurabh Pande, Dy. Adv. General Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 22/05/2025 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.30/2025 registered at Police Station– State Economic Offences Investigation and ACB, Raipur, Chhattisgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC and also under Section 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2 McrC(A) No.741 of 2025 (Jitendra Kumar Sahu v State of Chhattisgarh) 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the applicant/accused, who is Patwari of P.H. No. 49 (Nayakbandha), Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, is alleged to have misused his official position as public servant and entered into a criminal conspiracy with private individuals who had received compensation in respect of land acquired under the Bharat Mala Project, implemented by the National Highways Authority of India. It is further alleged that the applicant facilitated the sale of land, which had already been acquired by the Government, back to the government in connection with the proposed Economic Corridor project between Raipur-Visakhapatnam. Moreover, the prosecution claims that compensation was disbursed to persons other than the rightful landowners, and that compensation was fraudulently issued for private land ineligible for such payment. These acts are alleged to have caused wrongful hefty loss to the government exchequer amounting to several crores of rupees. Based on the said complaint, a notice for appearance was issued by the Authorities of the State Economic Offences Investigation and Anti-corruption Bureau, Raipur (C.G.) against the applicant under section 7(c) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 420, 120- B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the matter is currently under investigation. Hence, this anticipatory bail application. 3 McrC(A) No.741 of 2025 (Jitendra Kumar Sahu v State of Chhattisgarh) 3. (a) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is posted as a Patwari in the Revenue Department who acted in the course of his official duties strictly under the directions of his superior officer. As per the direction received under the subject reference, it was noted that a person namely, Nemu S/o Latelu, along with other residents of Village Nayakbandha, Tehsil Abhanpur, District Raipur, had submitted an objection application concerning the land acquisition process. The said report was duly submitted by the applicant in accordance with the instruction. Upon perusal of the report, it was found that the division of land among the applicants had already been effected by the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the Court of Tehsildar, Abhanpur in R.P.C. 32 A/27 for the year 2018-19. In pursuance of the said order, the applicant was directed to correct the land records accordingly and prepare a compliance report, along with a report detailing the area affected under the Bharatmala Project, and to submit the same within two days. The applicant had no independent discretion in the matter and was merely discharging his official duties as per the direction of the Tehsildar. (b) Learned counsel also submits that the entries made in the revenue records were administrative in nature, and there is no allegation that the applicant acted beyond the scope of his official duty. He had no knowledge that the entries were being misused 4 McrC(A) No.741 of 2025 (Jitendra Kumar Sahu v State of Chhattisgarh) or would be used to claim wrongful compensation. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that there is not even a remote allegation that the applicant demanded or accepted any form of illegal gratification for performing his official duties, which is a necessary condition under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Likewise, the offence under Section 420 of the IPC, which requires fraudulent or dishonest intention from the very outset, cannot be made out against the applicant in the absence of any personal gain, deception, or inducement caused by him. The accusation of conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC is also baseless, as there is no material showing that the applicant had prior agreement, meeting of minds, or active participation in any criminal design or common intention with co-accused persons or private individuals. He also submits that there is no allegation that he has attempted to tamper with evidence or influence any witness. His custodial interrogation is not necessary, as the facts in issue can be ascertained from the official records maintained by the Revenue Department and the applicant is a permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh, has deep roots in society, and has an unblemished service record with no prior criminal antecedents. He is willing to cooperate with the investigation, as and when required and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 5 McrC(A) No.741 of 2025 (Jitendra Kumar Sahu v State of Chhattisgarh) (c)
Legal Reasoning
democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti- corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption….” 29. In K.C. Sareen v. C.B.I., Chandigarh, (2001) 6 SCC 584, this Court observed thus:— “12. Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling even the institutions created for the protection of the republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and orderly functioning of the public offices, through strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public servants could even paralyse the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity….” 10 McrC(A) No.741 of 2025 (Jitendra Kumar Sahu v State of Chhattisgarh) 30. While approving the judgment of Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, (2014) 8 SCC 682, rendered by another Constitution Bench in Manoj Narula's case, a Constitution Bench of this Court, dealing with rampant corruption, observed as under:— “17 Recently, in Subramanian Swamy v. CBI (2014) 8 SCC 682, the Constitution Bench, speaking through R.M. Lodha, C.J., while declaring Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which wasinserted by Act 45 of 2003, as unconstitutional, has opined that : (SCC pp. 725-26, para 59) “59. It seems to us that classification which is made in Section 6-A on the basis of status in the government service is not permissible under Article 14 as it defeats the purpose of finding prima facie truth into the allegations of graft, which amount to an offence under the PC Act, 1988. Can there be sound differentiation between corrupt public servants based on their status? Surely not, because irrespective of their status or position, corrupt public servants are corrupters of public power. The corrupt public servants, whether high or low, are birds of the same feather and must be confronted with the process of investigation and inquiry equally. Based on the position or status in service, no distinction can be made between public servants against whom there are 11 McrC(A) No.741 of 2025 (Jitendra Kumar Sahu v State of Chhattisgarh) allegations amounting to an offence under the PC Act, 1988.” And thereafter, the larger Bench further said : (SCC p. 726, para 60) “60. Corruption is an enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the PC Act, 1988. It is difficult to justify the classification which has been made in Section 6-A because the goal of law in the PC Act 1988 is to meet corruption cases with a very strong hand and all public servants are warned through such a legislative measure that corrupt public servants have to face very serious consequences.” And again : (SCC pp. 730-31, paras 71-72) “71. Office of public power cannot be the workshop of personal gain. The probity in public life is of great importance. How can two public servants against whom there are allegations of corruption of graft or bribe- taking or criminal misconduct under the PC Act, 1988 can be made to be treated differently because one happens to be a junior officer and the other, a senior decision maker. 72. Corruption is an enemy of nation and tracking down corrupt public servant, howsoever high he may be, and punishing such person is a necessary mandate under the PC Act, 1988. The status or position 12 McrC(A) No.741 of 2025 (Jitendra Kumar Sahu v State of Chhattisgarh) of public servant does not qualify such public servant from exemption from equal treatment. The decision-making power does not segregate corrupt officers into two classes as they are common crime- doers and have to be tracked down by the same process of inquiry and investigation.” 18. From the aforesaid authorities, it is clear as noonday that corruption has the potentiality to destroy many a progressive aspect and it has acted as the formidable enemy of the nation.” 31. In Neera Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2017) 8 SCC 757, this Court observed thus: “59. Every country feels a constant longing for good governance, righteous use of power and transparency in administration. Corruption is no longer a moral issue as it is linked with the search of wholesome governance and the society's need for re-assurance that the system functions fairly, free from corruption and nepotism. Corruption has spread its tentacles almost on all the key areas of the State and it is an impediment to the growth of investment and development of the country. If the conduct of administrative authorities is righteous and duties are performed in good faith with the vigilance and awareness that they are public trustees of people's rights, the issue of lack of accountability would themselves fade into insignificance. 13 McrC(A) No.741 of 2025 (Jitendra Kumar Sahu v State of Chhattisgarh) 60. To state the ubiquity of corruption, we may refer to the oft-quoted words of Kautilya, which reads as under:— “Just as it is impossible not to taste the honey or the poison that finds itself at the tip of the tongue, so it is impossible for a government servant not to eat up, at least, a bit of the king's revenue. Just as fish moving under water cannot possibly be found out either as drinking or not drinking water, so government servants employed in the government work cannot be found out (while) taking money for themselves). It is possible to mark the movements of birds flying high up in the sky; but not so is it possible to ascertain the movement of government servants of hidden purpose.” [Ref: Kautilya's Arthasastra by R. Shamasastry, Second Edition, Page 77] As pointed out by Paul H. Douglas in his book on “Ethics of Government”, “corruption was rife in British public life till a hundred years ago and in USA till the beginning of this century. Nor can it be claimed that it has been altogether eliminated anywhere.” (Ref : Santhanam Committee Report, 1962 : Para 2.3). 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 14 McrC(A) No.741 of 2025 (Jitendra Kumar Sahu v State of Chhattisgarh) think of 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 introducing good and effective leadership at the helm of affairs; only then “Just as it is impossible not to taste the honey or the poison that finds itself at the tip of the tongue, so it is impossible for a government servant not to eat up, at least, a bit of the king's revenue. Just as fish moving under water cannot possibly be found out either as drinking or not drinking water, so government servants employed in the government work cannot be for found out themselves).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 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.” taking money (while) 7. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and a perusal of the material on record shows that the applicant being a Revenue Officer i.e. Patwari, is accused of playing an important role in manipulation in the revenue records to reflect temporary transfer of government land to private individuals with the object of facilitating wrongful claims of compensation under the Bharatmala Project. Thereby there is a whopping loss to the tune of Rs.350 crores (approx.) to the public exchequer. Further from bare persual of the 15 McrC(A) No.741 of 2025 (Jitendra Kumar Sahu v State of Chhattisgarh) enquiry report dated 11/9/2023 submitted by the Collector, Raipur, it is quite vivid that a detailed enquiry has been conducted and found several irregularities and illegalities committed by the accused persons after dividing the lands in a fradulent manner and disbursed the amount of compensation illegally. 8. From perusal of the FIR and the documents attached to the case diary, the nature of offence alleged against the applicant and the fact that matter is at the stage of investigation and in light of the observations made by the Apex Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal (supra), this Court is of the opinion that anticipatory bail applications should be accepted exceptionally in such cases in which prima facie involvement in the crime is not shown whereas in this case, the involvement of the applicant is prima facie visible. Also, no such exceptional circumstances are shown in the instant bail application on the basis of which the benefit of anticipatory bail should be given to the accused/applicant. As such, this Court does not find it befitting to grant the facility of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Therefore, the bail application is liable to be rejected. 9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the applicant – Jitendra Kumar Sahu filed under Section 482 of the BNSS in connection with Crime No.30/2025 registered at Police Station– 16 McrC(A) No.741 of 2025 (Jitendra Kumar Sahu v State of Chhattisgarh) State Economic Offences Investigation and Anti-corruption Bureau for the offence punishable under Sections 420,120-B, of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption is rejected. $ Bhilwar S d / - ( R a m e s h S i n h a ) C h i e f J u s t i c e
Arguments
Learned counsel would submit that prior to passing of the land acquisition award, the applicant handed over the charge of the concerned Halka and as such he has not played any role in the subsequent process including disbursement of compensation. He would submit that the allegations levelled against the applicant are general and omnibus in nature. The inquiry report dated 11/09/2023, submitted after thorough investigation, does not record any finding against the applicant. The land acquisition award was passed by the competent authorities under the provisions of the National High Ways Act and in the entire process, the applicant has no role and even he has no authority to interfere with the said proceeding. He would submit that the applicant is a Govt. servant and in the event of his arrest, his career would be ruined. His action, therefore, lack the essential element of mens rea or criminal intent required to attract the penal provisions. Therefore, he is entitled to the protection of anticipatory bail. (d) Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the applicant was working as a Patwari and was following the orders of his superiors and not even a single penny has been received by the present applicant. There is no role of the present applicant in the alleged manipulation in the revenue records. Hence, mere bald averments to the effect will not set criminal law in motion. As such, learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6 McrC(A) No.741 of 2025 (Jitendra Kumar Sahu v State of Chhattisgarh) 4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State opposes the bail application of the applicant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 6. The Apex Court, in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab reported in {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 has observed as under: “22. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncement in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (2013) 7 Scale 15, wherein this Court expressed thus: “28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there 7 McrC(A) No.741 of 2025 (Jitendra Kumar Sahu v State of Chhattisgarh) is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” 23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice. 24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant - accused of indulging in corruption. 25. Avarice is a common frailty of mankind and Robert Walpole's famous pronouncement that all men have their price, notwithstanding the unsavoury cynicism that it suggests, is not very far from truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned: “Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long”. In more recent years, Romain Rolland lamented that France fell because there was corruption without indignation. Corruption has, in it, very 8 McrC(A) No.741 of 2025 (Jitendra Kumar Sahu v State of Chhattisgarh) dangerous potentialities. Corruption, a word of wide connotation has, in respect of almost all the spheres of our day to day life, all the world over, the limited meaning of allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or wrongs of a case but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations. 26. If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magnitude of corruption to be true, then it would not be far removed from the truth, that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If one is asked to name one sole factor that effectively arrested the progress of our society to prosperity, undeniably it is corruption. If the society in a developing country faces a menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and order,then that is from the corrupt elements at the higher echelons of the Government and of the political parties. 27. In Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1, this Court held that corruption erodes the fundamental tenets of the rule of law and quoted with approval its judgment in Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642 & held as under:— “16……‘26. It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of 9 McrC(A) No.741 of 2025 (Jitendra Kumar Sahu v State of Chhattisgarh) a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance.” 28. In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64, this Court held as under:— “68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular