High Court of Chhattisgarh · 2025
Case Details
Page 1 of 28 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR Reserved on 04-07-2025 Delivered on 21-07-2025 MCRC No. 3775 of 2025 Manoj Kumar Dwivedi S/o Sh. R.L. Dwivedi Aged About 52 Years R/o D-2, Rohinipuram, Raipur (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO), ACB, EOW Raipur. versus --- Applicant --- Respondent MCRC No. 4717 of 2025 Radheshyam Mirjha S/o Late Shri Bisahu Ram Aged About 55 Years R/o Gali No. 1, Sai Nagar, Uslapur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ---Applicant. Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station – E.O.W./A.C.B., District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent MCRC No. 4701 of 2025 Bharosa Ram Thakur S/o Late Shri Munshi Thakur Aged About 58 Years R/o House No. F-01, Block New Housing Board Colony Lachanpur, Pathariya, District Mungeli, CG. Versus ---Applicant State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station E.O.W./ A.C.B., District Raipur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent MCRC No. 4699 of 2025 Page 2 of 28 Virendra Rathor S/o Late Shri Horil Prasad Rathor Aged About 60 Years R/o Mangalam Vihar, Kosabadi Chowk, District Korba (C.G.) ---Applicant. Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station E.O.W./ A.C.B., District Raipur (C.G.). --- Respondent MCRC No. 4687 of 2025 Bhuvneshwar Singh Raj S/o Shri Samar Singh Aged About 63 Years R/o House No. 10, Swastik City, Khamtarai, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Versus ---Applicant State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station E.O.W./A.C.B. District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For applicant in MCRC No. 3775 of 2025 : Mr. Aman Saxena, Advocate. For applicants in MCRC Nos. 4687 of 2025, 4699 of 2025 & 4701 of 2025 : Mr. Galib Dwivedi, Advocate. For applicant in MCRC No. 4717 of 2025 For State : Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, Advocate. : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV ORDER 1. Since all the bail applications arise out of same crime number, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order but the role played by each of the applicant will be considered separately. 2.
Facts
MCRC No. 3775 of 2025 is first bail application filed by the applicant- Manoj Kumar Dwivedi under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Page 3 of 28 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail who has been arrested on 12.03.2025 in connection with Crime No. 02/2024 registered at Police Station- Anti Corruption Bureau/ Economic Offence Wing Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC. 3. MCRC No. 4687 of 2025, MCRC No. 4699 of 2025 & MCRC No. 4701 of 2025 are first bail applications filed by applicants Bhuvneshwar Singh Raj, Virendra Rathor & Bharosa Ram Thakur respectively under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail who have been arrested on 09.05.2025 in connection with Crime No. 02/2024 registered at Police Station- Anti Corruption Bureau/ Economic Offence Wing Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections Section 7, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC. 4. MCRC No. 4717 of 2025 is first bail application filed by the applicant- Radheshyam Mirjha under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail who has been arrested on 09.05.2025 in connection with Crime No. 02/2024 registered at Police Station- Anti Corruption Bureau/Economic Offence Wing Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. 5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:- (A) The complainant Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW/ACB had received letter number F. No. ECIR/RPZO/02/2023/802 from the Page 4 of 28 Enforcement Directorate wherein Sharing of ECIR/RPZO/02/2023, dated 11/01/2024 has been done under Section 66 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, “PMLA 2002”) with regard to corruption in the use of funds from the District Mineral Fund, District, Korba, Chhattisgarh. DMF is a trust funded by miners that have been set up in all districts of Chhattisgarh with an aim to work for the benefits of those affected mining related projects and activities; investigation by the Enforcement Directorate revealed that upto 40% of the total tender amount was being paid as commission to officers and officials. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is suspected that the financial irregularities and corruption have occurred in DMF in all districts of Chhattisgarh and exchequer money has been siphoned off. (B) The present applicants were posted as Director of the NGO, Udgam Seva Samiti, Chief Executive Officers, Janpad Panchayat, Podi, Tribal Welfare Development Department, District Korba, Janpad Panchayat, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Joint Collector and Nodal officer of DMF, Korba respectively who have actively misused their official position and administrative influence to facilitate and received illegal commission in relation to DMF tenders floated in Korba District. The applicants were key beneficiaries in a well orchestrated criminal conspiracy. (C) During investigation of the case, it was found that the said commission has been collected by the present applicants with assistance of Roshan Singh, Nikhil Chandrakar and others. A specific instance has come to light involving Nikul Bhai Patel alias Jignesh Patel, proprietor of Kisan Agrotech who was introduced to the then Page 5 of 28
Legal Reasoning
concealment of illegal commission. Thus, prima facie the investigation has collected the evidence which clearly establishes that the applicants are directly involved and knowingly party in the process connected with the proceeds of crime i.e. acquisition, possession, concealment, use and projection of such proceeds of crime as untainted and thus, committed the offence as afore-stated. Thus, on the basis of the complaint, FIR has been registered against the applicants for commission of offence under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 Page 6 of 28 and 120-B of IPC. 6. The record of the case would show that the applicants filed applications for grant of regular bail before the learned Special Judge (PMLA) First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) seeking enlargement on regular bail. Learned Special Judge vide order dated 16-04-2025, rejected the bail applications filed by the applicants. These orders are being assailed by the present applicants by filing these bail applications. 7. The role of applicant- Manoj Kumar Dwivedi in MCRC No. 3775 of 2025 is:- (A) The applicant is the Director of NGO Udgam Seva Samiti and his NGO received contracts worth a total of approximately Rs 25.29 crores for various projects in Korba District in the years 2021-22 and 2022-23 under DMF (District Mineral Foundation) Fund. However, the applicant turned it into a means of personal gain and bribery, by passing the real objectives of the NGO. Instead of doing real work, the NGO made fake transactions by showing only paper purchases, which generated cash and used it to bribe Government officials and for personal expenses. (B) The investigation also revealed that the NGO showed fake entries of about Rs. 14.98 сrоге through shell companies, which were completely illegal transactions. The applicant was not alone in this entire conspiracy, he committed this corruption in connivance with the then Collector Smt. Ranu Sahu (IAS officer), Smt. Maya Varier AC Page 7 of 28 Tribal Korba, CEO of Janpad Panchayat Podi-Uporda Bhuvaneshwar Singh Raj (B.S. Raj) and other officers posted in District Korba, such as V.K. Rathore, Radheshyam Nirjha and Bharosa Ram Thakur who were paid commission @ 42% which comes to about Rs.08 crores as a bribe for obtaining work order. The commission amount given by the applicant to the officers was upto 40 percent of the total amount of the contract, due to which most of the Government money was spent in corruption. This amount of bribe was sent directly from the accounts of NGO Udgam Seva Samiti to the accounts of the officers and their family members through bank transfer. (C) Apart from this, the applicant also gave commission to persons directly connected to the officers many times, such as Ranu Sahu's brother Piyush Sahu who was also paid directly in cash. Apart from this, the applicant also played an active role as commission collection agent of Ms. Ranu Sahu and collected illegal commission from the businessmen on her instructions, especially huge amount of illegal commission was collected from big contractors like Ashok Agarwal and Rishabh Soni. (D) It has also come to light that for collecting the bribe amount in cash, they used to make bank transfer to a vendor who used to issue fake bills without making any supply and return the cash amount. Besides this, they used to give 1-2% commission to the clerks who used to look after the work of releasing DMF fund. The applicant, apart from Smt. Ranu Sahu, also gave bribe to the officers Shri V.K. Rathore, Shri B.S. Raj, Shri Radheshyam Mirza, (E) The investigation has revealed that no actual purchases were made by the NGO. According to the statements of the applicant and Page 8 of 28 the available evidence, the NGO showed expenditure in the documents by resorting to fake bills and transactions. This process generated cash and used it for bribing government officials and for personal use. These fake entries were made through shell companies, whose transactions were shown on the basis of fake invoices and payment receipts. According to the investigation, fake affirmation entries of Rs 14.98 crore were made without any actual transactions. 8. The role of applicant- Bhuneshwar Singh Raj in MCRC No. 4687 of 2025 is:- (A) The applicant was posted as Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Podi Uparora, District Korba who misused his position and received huge illegal commission in lieu of approval of tender from DMF fund. As per the instructions of Mrs. Maya Variyar, he allotted tenders to desired vendors and in return took bribe directly and indirectly from Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Rakesh Shukla, Sanjay Shende and Toran Chandrakar. He illegally received huge commission amount from vendors under DMF scheme and when he was posted in Janpad Panchayat Doundi, District Balod, he approved works to contractors Manoj Dwivedi and Rakesh Shukla as per verbal instructions of the then Collector Mrs. Ranu Sahu and Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Department Mrs. Maya Variyar and took 2% commission in lieu of allotment of tender. (B) It is clear from the material collected against the applicant that during his posting in Korba District that as per the instructions of the then Collector Smt. Ranu Sahu and Smt. Maya Variyar, work under DMF schemes was given only to those persons/vendors who were ready to give illegal commission upto 40%. After consent of the Page 9 of 28 vendors, 40% commission was taken for Mrs. Ranu Sahu and Mrs. Saumya Chaurasia and 2% commission for himself, large scale tenders were approved and tenders of Rs. 9,27,98,996/- to vendor Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Rs. 21,70,40,526/- to Rakesh Shukla and Rs. 5,12,59,200/- to Sanjay Shende were approved and illegal commission amounts of Rs. 3.60 crore, Rs. 08 crore and Rs. 01 crore respectively were received in lieu of work acceptance and payment clearance and the amount was passed on through Manoj Dwivedi as per the instructions of Mrs. Maya Warrior and Rs. 1,03,22,548/- from vendor Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Rs. 40,82,166/- from Rakesh Shukla and Rs. 10,82,166/- from Sanjay Shende were received at the rate of 2% for himself. It has been found that the illegal amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- from Rajpal Singh and Rs. 4,20,000/- from Toran Lal Chandrakar, totaling Rs. 1,64,24,714/- was received through his own and his family's bank accounts and the amount was spent for personal use and purchase of property. (C) During the investigation, it has also been prima facie established that 40% of illegal amount received from DMF schemes was delivered to the then Collector Smt. Ranu Sahu, which was handed over at Raipur through Smt. Maya Variyar. On interrogation, he has stated that the illegal amount was regularly delivered to influential coal businessman Suryakant Tiwari and the then senior officer Smt. Saumya Chaurasia at Raipur. This entire process was operated under a well-planned and organized corruption system, due to which the Government suffered a huge loss of crores of rupees and corruption was done on a large scale in public schemes. (D) The investigation further revealed that the applicant has played a Page 10 of 28 central role in the systematic collection of bribes from multiple vendors in exchange for clearing payments and approving work orders under DMF- funded projects. He received a total of 1,64,24,714/- in illegal ₹ commissions from various sources- 1,03,22,548/- from Manoj Kumar ₹ Dwivedi of Udgam Seva Samiti (7% of the project value), 40,82,166/- ₹ from Rakesh Shukla of Gyankosh Shikshan Samiti and Jamman Foundation, 16,00,000/-from Sanjay Shende, and 4,20,000/- from ₹ ₹ Toran Lal Chandrakar of M/s Dhairya Associates. These bribes were received partly in cash and partly through bank transfers routed to accounts held by him and his close family members, including his wife, children, son-in-law, and other relatives. Statements of bribe- givers and corroborating bank records confirm the illicit nature of these transactions, where money was transferred under the guise of business dealings. A total of 46,05,000/- has been specifically traced ₹ to family members' accounts, affirming the laundering of bribe proceeds and the use of familial networks to conceal the origin of illicit funds. 9. The role of applicant- Virendra Kumar Rathore in MCRC 4699 of 2025 is :- (A) The applicant is presently posted as Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Pathalgaon, District Jashpur and during his posting in Korba District, committed huge irregularities in the works of DMF fund, received illegal commission in exchange for tender allotment and payment approval and received huge amount of illegal commission from vendors under DMF scheme. During his posting as CEO in Janpad Panchayat Pali and Katghora, District Korba, on instruction of the then Collector, Smt. Ranu Sahu and Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Smt. Maya Variyar, no tender was approved to any person/vendor without their permission and work was given only to those vendors who agree to Page 11 of 28 give commission upto 40%. (B) The applicant was directed through WhatsApp call to give work under DMF fund to vendors Shri Sanjay Shende, Shri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi and Shri Rakesh Shukla, and in that order it was clearly told to the vendors that 40% commission will have to be given to the then Collector Smt. Ranu Sahu and Smt. Soumya Chaurasia and 2% commission will have to be given to the applicant, on which the vendor agreed, as per the instructions of Smt. Maya Variyar, vendor Sanjay Shende was given work under DMF fund and the commission amount received from Rakesh Shukla and Sanjay Shende was handed over to Manoj Kumar Dwivedi. (C) It has also been found against the applicant that in lieu of work approval and payment clearance, works worth Rs. 19,11,91,464/- were approved to vendor Manoj Kumar Dwivedi in Janpad Panchayat Pali and Rs.5,85,57,228/-in Katghora, works worth Rs.12,78,88,920/- in Pali and Rs.6,60,40,900/- in Katghora were approved to vendor Rakesh Shukla and works worth Rs.97,73,81,438/- in Pali and Rs.5,12,59,200/-in Katghora were approved to vendor Sanjay Shende. Thus, the applicant approved tenders worth about Rs. 150 crore and made payments. In lieu of accepting tenders and making payments, the accused received illegal amounts of about Rs. 5 Crore from vendor Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Rs. 4 Crore from Rakesh Shukla and Rs. 10 Crore from Sanjay Shende. The above amounts were found to have been handed over to Manoj Kumar Dwivedi on the Page 12 of 28 instructions of Maya Variyar and for himself Rs. 66,88,502/- (7%) from Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Rs. 7,66,770/- (2%) from Rakesh Shukla and Rs. 18,00,000/- from Sanjay Shende, totaling Rs. 92,55,272/- was received as illegal bribe and this amount was deposited in his own and his family members' bank accounts and used in various investments and other works through banking channel to give it a legitimate form. 10. The role of applicant- Bharosha Ram Thakur in MCRC No. 4701 of 2025 is :- (A) The applicant was posted as Joint Collector and Nodal Officer of DMF Korba who misused his position and received illegal commission from vendors working under DMF fund. The applicant is presently working as Joint Collector, District- Mungeli and is misusing his official position and receiving illegal commission regularly from vendors under DMF scheme. The tenders were approved to vendors or contractors and tenders only when vendors agreed to pay upto 40% commission and officials of implementing agencies and District level officers were regularly giving commission by vendors. It is also case of the prosecution that Jignesh Patel (official name Nikul Kumar Manubhai Patel) of Raipur, who is a vendor of agriculture related works, was allotted works worth about Rs. 10 crore under DMF schemes on special instructions of Mrs. Ranu Sahu. (B) It has also been found that the said vendor had close relations with Suryakant Tiwari and Saumya Chaurasia. Under the DMF scheme, works worth about Rs 12.50 crore were allotted to the firms of Rishabh Soni as per the instructions of Mrs. Maya Variyar during her charge of Sports and Youth Welfare Department, in return for which Rishabh Soni gave 20% of the supply price, about Rs. 5 crore, as commission to Collector Ranu Sahu. Rishabh Soni also had direct Page 13 of 28 relations with Suryakant Tiwari. (C) From the documentary, digital and WhatsApp chat evidence obtained during the investigation, it is also clear that under the DMF scheme, the applicant received illegal bribe of Rs. 46.97 lakhs at the rate of 3% from vendors Rishabh Soni, Manoj Kumar Dwivedi on a regular basis and deposited the bribe amount in his own and his family members' bank accounts and used the money for purchasing jewellery, investing in stock market, mutual funds and insurance schemes. On interrogation, the applicant has admitted that a large part of the illegal commission received from DMF was sent by the then Collector Mrs. Ranu Sahu to Suryakant Tiwari and Saumya Chaurasia at Raipur through Nikhil Chandrakar. (D) Based on the investigation and material evidence, it is clearly established that the applicant was in possession and actively utilized proceeds of crime derived from illegal commissions related to DMF works. Cash amounting to 16.15 lakh was seized from his residence ₹ during a search by the Enforcement Directorate, which he himself admitted as bribe money. Substantial cash deposits were traced to his and his family members' bank accounts including 6.30 lakh in his ₹ SBI account, 1.70 lakh in his wife's account, 7.11 lakh in his son ₹ ₹ Jayant Thakur's account, and 1.38 lakh in son Mayank Thakur's ₹ account. Furthermore, receipts of high-value jewelry purchases and yearly investments worth 1.69 lakh in insurance and mutual funds- ₹ mostly through cash-corroborate the laundering of illegal income. Witness statements from officials and vendors, including Assistant Aman Kumar Ram and contractors Rishabh Soni and Manoj Dwivedi, further confirm bribe transactions totaling nearly 147 lakh. These facts establish a clear trail of criminal proceeds being earned, laundered, Page 14 of 28 and integrated into personal and family assets. 11. The role of applicant- Radheshyam Mirjha in MCRC No. 4717 of 2025 is :- (A) The applicant while his posting as Chief Executive Officer, Tribal Development Department, District Korba (C.G.) took illegal commission from vendors in works related to DMF funds and tenders were given to vendors Sanjay Shende, Manoj Dwivedi and Rakesh Shukla on the instructions of the then Collector Mrs. Ranu Sahu and Assistant Commissioner Mrs. Maya Variyar. The commission of the Collector was 40% and that of the District CEO was 2-3%, which the applicant himself has also accepted and received illegal income of Rs. 24,21,163 from Manoj Dwivedi, Rs 13,24,406 from Rakesh Shukla and Rs 20 lakh from Sanjay Shende, a total amount of Rs. 57, 45,569 as bribe. During the investigation, it is prima facie established that in addition to the above commission, Rs. 2,50,000/- cash was recovered from the applicant at Vaikunthpur Vishram Griha, which was a part of the illegal income. The bank accounts of his sons and daughters were misused to give a sham form to the illegal income earned. (B) It has also been found that the money earned by the applicant through corruption has been invested in the purchase of land. Evidence of collusion with the accused officers and vendors has been found and he has provided undue benefits to the vendors by following the instructions of Ranu Sahu and Assistant Commissioner Maya Variyar. Page 15 of 28 (C) The investigation has brought to light a well-orchestrated pattern of financial manipulation by Radheshyam Mirjha, who illicitly received Rs. 57,45,569/- in bribe money from vendors including Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Rakesh Shukla, and Sanjay Shende. To conceal the source of this illegal income, the applicant deliberately routed large sums into the bank accounts of his immediate family members- 35.96 lakh into ₹ ₹ his son Namit Mirjha's account, 5.45 lakh into daughter Sakshi Mirjha's account, and 9.01 lakh into daughter Sameeksha Mirjha's ₹ account-through a mix of cash deposits, UPI transfers, and fixed deposits. These transactions were devoid of any legitimate explanation and reflect a calculated attempt to mask the origin and movement of bribe proceeds. Furthermore, a substantial portion of this illicit income was diverted into real estate, including the purchase of 2520 sq. ft. land parcel in Takhatpur, Bilaspur (Khasra No. 246/21), with a current value of 91.55 lakh. Although the registered sale value ₹ was 17.76 lakh, investigation reveals that approximately 54.95 lakh- originating from bribes-was invested in this asset, exposing the applicant’s systematic efforts to convert illegal income into property through deceptive means. 12. Mr. Aman Saxena learned counsel for the applicant - Manoj Kumar Dwivedi in MCRC No. 3775 of 2025 would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He would further submit that the arrest of the applicant is completely illegal and the right to fair trial and investigation is a facet of the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He would further submit that even if the allegation is grave of economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case and Page 16 of 28 consideration has to be made on case to case basis on the facts. He would further submit that the present FIR is nothing but a malicious attempt by the ED officials to frame the accused in order to reek political vendetta. The applicant is a mere tool for the ends of the investigating agency. 13. He would further submit that the allegations made in the FIR are completely false, bogus and made with mala fide intent to arm twist applicant into supporting the politically motivated case of Enforcement Directorate and EOW. The entire ground for the FIR is false, incorrect and bogus allegation made to harass and browbeat the applicant and other accused. The FIR has been lodged on 16.01.2024, which is after prolonged delay which clearly shows that the said FIR has been registered just to harass and humiliate the applicant and to pressure the accused into providing favourable testimony. He would further submit that the applicant complies with the triple test for bail. The applicant has strong local ties, family responsibilities for his wife, children, and lack of criminal history negate flight risk. All evidence is documentary (bank records, property deeds) and already attached by ED, rendering tampering impossible. 14. He would further submit that the applicant is in jail since 12.03.2025 which affects the discharge of his responsibilities as bread winner for the family. It is submitted that the applicant has children who are dependent on him for their livelihood and would be greatly affected if the applicant is not released on bail. He would further submit that neither any amount has been specified nor any date or mode of collection has been mentioned. He would further submit that it is alleged that the applicant does not satisfy the triple-test for grant of Page 17 of 28 bail i.e. the applicant is a flight risk or would influence any witness or would tamper with any evidence. In any event, there is no material on record to suggest that the applicant does not satisfy the triple-test. He would further submit that there is no allegation that the applicant would either tamper with any evidence or influence any witness, if bail is granted. He would further submit that Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is not applicable in this case and the co- accused namely Ranu Sahu, Suryakant Tiwarii, Sameer Vishnoi and Saumya Chaurasiya have already been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29-5-2025 passed in SLP (Cri) No. 15941 of 2024, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. He would further submit that the applicant is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the conditions which may be imposed by this Court. He would further submit that now the challan of the case has been presented before the trial Court and no investigation is pending, the accused is in custody since 12-3-2025 and trial of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the present applicant. 15. Mr. Galib Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants in MCRC No.4687 of 2025, MCRC No. 4699 of 2025 & MCRC No.4701 of 2025 would submit that the allegations leveled against the present applicants are that the applicants committed irregularities in the work of DMFT fund and received illegal commission of Rs. 1,64,24.7424, Rs.52,55,272 and Rs. 46,97,000/- in exchange for approval of payment by allocating tenders which are false and incorrect. He would further submit that FIR was registered on 16-1-2024 against 11 Page 18 of 28 persons in which the present applicants were not named. He would further submit that present applicants were arrested on 9-5-2025 almost one and half years after the FIR was registered. He would further submit that the applicants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this instant case. He would further submit that no case is made out against the present applicants under the alleged offences as essential ingredients have not been fulfilled. He would further submit that there is no legal material or evidence available on record constituting the alleged offence against the present applicants. He would further submit that the present applicants are in jail since 09-05- 2025 and the co- accused namely Ranu Sahu, Suryakant Tiwarii, Sameer Vishnoi and Saumya Chaurasiya have already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29-5-2025 passed in SLP (Cri) No. 15941 of 2024, therefore, the present applicants may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. He would further submit that the applicants are ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the directions which may be imposed by this Court. He would further submit that now the challan of the case has been presented before the trial Court and no investigation is pending, the accused are in custody since 09-05-2025 and trial of the case will take sufficient time to be concluded, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the present applicants. 16. Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant in MCRC 4717 of 2025 would submit that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He would further submit that allegations leveled against the present applicant is that in the work of DMFT fund he received illegal commission in exchange for approval Page 19 of 28 of payment by allocating tenders which are false and incorrect. He would further submit that neither the present applicant has received any illegal commission from any office nor the same has been transferred to the accounts of his family members and would adopt further submission made by the counsel and would for granting bail to the applicant. To substantiate his submission, he would rely upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the matter of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 791. 17. On the other hand, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General for the ACB/EOW opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and referring to the FIR and the case diary would submit that the applicants are involved in the economil offence which is not only heinous offence but also against the economy of the Nation. The custodial interrogation of the applicants is required as the applicants have not disclosed the source of income from where these properties have been acquired which have been detailed in the final report and if the accused remained the custody, the sources of purchased of property can be traced out. He would further submit that the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Raipur vide order dated 16-4-2025 and 30-05-2025 while dismissing the bail applications filed by the applicants has observed that there is involvement of the applicants in the crime in question, which has not been rebutted by the applicants while making this submission before this Court and would pray for rejection of bail applications of the applicants. He would further submit that in a recent judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's plea Page 20 of 28 for bail on the grounds of parity with other co-accused who had been granted bail in a money laundering case. The Court emphatically stated that the principle of parity is not an absolute law but depends on individual circumstances and roles in the alleged offence. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that parity alone is not a ground for granting bail. The court must examine the individual role of each accused before granting bail. 18. He would further submit that in view of the grave nature of allegations, the significant of quantum misappropriated, public funds and the well- documented evidence including bank records and witness statements, it is clear that the accused were key conspirators in an organized and deliberate network of corruption. Granting bail at this stage would pose a serious risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and obstruction of justice. Therefore, it is most respectfully submitted that the applicants/accused are not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail, and their bail applications may kindly be rejected in the larger interest of justice, fairness, and public accountability. 19. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost satisfaction, considered the material so collected by the ACB/EOW as well as the role played by each of the applicants. 20. From the case diary, the property/cash find out by the Economic Wing from each of the applicants are as under:- (A) Manoj Kuamr Dwivedi in MCRC No. 3775 of 2025- From Analysis of the bank accounts of Udgam Seva Samiti, it is revealed that about Rs 17.78 crore was transferred to shell companies to generate illegal cash, which was used for paying bribes and for personal use. The NGO run by the applicant has spent very minimal amount in the implementation of DMF schemes and the applicant has received a total payment of Rs. 19.11 crores for the work and out of Page 21 of 28 which Rs. 8 crores was given towards bribe to the officials. (B) Bhuneshwar Singh Raj in MCRC No. 4687 of 2025- The tenders were approved in favour of Manoj Kumar Dwivedi to the tune of Rs. 9,27,98,996/-, tender of Rs. 21,70,40,526/- in favour of Rakesh Shukla and Rs. 5,12,59,200/- in favour of Sanjay Shende and illegal commission for various Government official to the tune of Rs. 3.60 crore, Rs. 08 crore and Rs. 01 crore respectively for acceptance of work and payment clearance were received. Out of which, an amount of Rs. 1,64,24,714/- was used by the applicant for personal use and purchase of property. It is also case of the prosecution that the bribes were received partly in cash and partly through bank transfers routed to accounts held by him and his close family members, including his wife, children, son-in-law, and other relatives. Statements of bribe- givers and corroborating bank records confirm the illicit nature of these transactions, where money was transferred under the guise of business dealings. A total of 46,05,000/- has been specifically traced ₹ to family members' accounts, affirming the laundering of bribe proceeds and the use of familial networks to conceal the origin of illicit funds. (C) Virenedra Kumar Rathore in MCRC No. 4699 of 2025- The applicant in lieu of accepting tenders and making payments, has received illegal amounts of about Rs. 5 Crore from vendor Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Rs. 4 Crore from Rakesh Shukla and Rs. 10 Crore from Sanjay Shende. Out of which, he has received Rs. 92,55,272/- as illegal bribe and this amount was deposited in his own and his Page 22 of 28 family members' bank accounts and used in various investments and other works through banking channel to give it a legitimate form. (D) Bharosa Ram Thakur in MCRC No. 4701 of 2025 – The applicant has received illegal bribe of Rs. 46.97 lakhs from vendors Rishabh Soni, Manoj Kumar Dwivedi on a regular basis and deposited the bribe amount in his own and his family members' bank accounts and used the money for purchasing jewelry, investing in stock market, mutual funds and insurance schemes. Based on the investigation and material evidence, it is clearly established cash amounting to 16.15 ₹ lakh was seized from his residence during a search by the Enforcement Directorate, which he himself admitted as bribe money. Substantial cash deposits were traced to his and his family members' bank accounts including 6.30 lakh in his SBI account, 1.70 lakh in ₹ ₹ his wife's account, 7.11 lakh in his son Jayant Thakur's account, and ₹ ₹ 1.38 lakh in son Mayank Thakur's account. Furthermore, receipts of high-value jewelry purchases and yearly investments worth 1.69 lakh ₹ in insurance and mutual funds-mostly through cash-corroborate the laundering of illegal income. Witness statements from officials and vendors, including Assistant Aman Kumar Ram and contractors Rishabh Soni and Manoj Dwivedi, further confirm bribe transactions totaling nearly 47 lakh. ₹ (E) Radheshyam Mirjha in MCRC No. 4717 of 2025 – The applicant has accepted receiving illegal income of Rs 24,21,163 from Manoj Dwivedi, Rs 13,24,406 from Rakesh Shukla and Rs 20 lakh from Sanjay Shende, a total amount of Rs. 57, 45,569 as bribe. During the investigation, it is clearly established from the evidence collected against the applicant that in addition to the above commission, Rs. Page 23 of 28 2,50,000/- cash was recovered from the accused at Vaikunthpur Vishram Griha, which was a part of the illegal income. The bank accounts of his sons and daughters were misused to give a sham form to the illegal income earned. The investigation has brought to light a well-orchestrated pattern of financial manipulation by Radheshyam Mirjha, who illicitly received 57,45,569/- in bribe money from vendors including Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Rakesh Shukla, and Sanjay Shende. To conceal the source of this illegal income, the accused deliberately routed large sums into the bank accounts of his immediate family members- 35.96 lakh into his son Namit Mirjha's ₹ account, 5.45 lakh into daughter Sakshi Mirjha's account, and 9.01 ₹ ₹ lakh into daughter Sameeksha Mirjha's account-through a mix of cash deposits, UPI transfers, and fixed deposits. These transactions were devoid of any legitimate explanation and reflect a calculated attempt to mask the origin and movement of bribe proceeds. Furthermore, a substantial portion of this illicit income was diverted into real estate, including the purchase of a 2520 sq. ft. land parcel in Takhatpur, Bilaspur (Khasra No. 246/21), with a current value of 91.55 lakh. ₹ Although the registered sale value was 17.76 lakh, investigation ₹ reveals that approximately 54.95 lakh-originating from bribes-was ₹ invested in this asset. 21. Thus, from perusal of FIR and the material available in the case diary, involvement of the applicants in commission of offence under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of IPC, which is economic offence, is prima facie reflected as prosecution has collected prima facie material against the applicants that they have acquired the properties/cash details as mentioned above without disclosing the source of acquiring property/income, as such prima facie material is available against the Page 24 of 28 applicants. 22. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicants have nowhere stated in the bail petitions regarding source of income by which the properties mentioned in the final report have been acquired which clearly shows that the ACB/EOW has collected certain material against the applicants. Thus, from perusal of FIR and the material available in the case diary, involvement of the applicants in commission of offence under Sections 7 & 12 of the PC Act and Section 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of IPC, which is economic offence, is prima facie reflected. The case diary further reflects that without such administrative or political patronage, it would not have been possible for anyone to independently receive, manage, and conceal bribes of such high quantum over a sustained period. Therefore, their custodial investigation is required. 23. Hon’ble the Supreme Court while considering the gravity of economic offence in case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, [(2019) 9 SCC 24] has held at paragraph 78 to 81 as under:- “78. Observing that economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to the community, in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and others (1987) 2 SCC 364, it was held as under:- “5. ….The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the Page 25 of 28 interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest…..” 79. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Supreme Court held as under:- “34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep- rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.” [underlining added] 80. Referring to Dukhishyam Benupani, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria (1998) 1 SCC 52, in Enforcement Officer, Ted, Bombay v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora and others (1999) 5 SCC 720, while hearing an appeal by the Enforcement Directorate against the order of the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent thereon, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Single Judge granting anticipatory bail. 81. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been the respondent-Enforcement collected by Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.” Page 26 of 28 24. Again Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) & another [(2021) 6 SCC 230] has held in paragraph 23 as under :- 24. The principles governing the grant of bail were reiterated by a two judge Bench in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496: “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. “10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal...” Page 27 of 28 47. The considerations which must weigh with the Court in granting bail have been formulated in the decisions of this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh13 and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee14(noted earlier). These decisions as well as the decision in Sanjay Chandra (supra) were adverted to in a recent decision of a two judge Bench of this Court dated 19 March 2021 in The State of Kerala v. Mahesh where the Court observed: “22…All the relevant factors have to be weighed by the Court considering an application for bail, including the gravity of the offence, the evidence and material which prima facie show the involvement of applicant for bail in the offence alleged, the extent of involvement of the applicant for bail, in the offence alleged, possibility of the applicant accused absconding or otherwise defeating or delaying the course of justice, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being threatened or influenced or of evidence being tempered with, and danger to the safety of the victim (if alive), the complainant, their relatives, friends or other witnesses….” Similarly, the Court held that the grant of bail by the High Court can be set aside, consistent with the precedents we have discussed above, when such grant is based on non-application of mind or is innocent of the relevant factors for such grant. 25. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the economic offence has been committed by each of the applicants and also the fact that FIR and other material placed on record, prima facie shows involvement of the applicants in crime in question, this Court is of the view that these are not fit cases where the applicants should be granted regular bail. 26. Accordingly, the instant bail applications filed by the present applicants under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are liable to be rejected and are hereby rejected. 27. The observation made by this Court is not bearing any effect on the Page 28 of 28 trial of the case. The learned trial court will decide the criminal trial in accordance with evidence, material placed on record, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU deciding present bail application. Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.07.21 14:33:14 +0530 Raju Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge
Arguments
Collector Ms. Ranu Sahu by the applicants. Upon allotment of tenders, the applicants received Rs. 3 crore cash from Nikul Bhai Patel which was delivered through Roshan Singh and later shared with the applicants. It was also found that Ms. Ranu Sahu consistently transferred portion of illegal commission generated from DMF contracts to the applicant and her associates through cash carriers including Roshan Singh and Nikhil Chandrakar. These transactions have been duly recorded in the handwritten diary of Rajnikant Tiwari which corroborates the role of the applicants in the illegal gratification chain. The applicants were beneficiaries and active participants in laundering the proceeds of crime. (D) It was also found that Ms. Ranu Sahu the then Collector of Korba collected illegal commission exceeding Rs. 55 crore solely from DMF related tenders in one District- Korba, Such an extensive accumulation of proceeds of crime could not have been possible without the active support, administrative backing and undue political influence exerted by the applicants who at the relevant time, served as Director of NGO, Chief Executive Officers and Joint Collector and Nodal Officer and exercised considerable influence over the State bureaucracy. Their position enabled them to direct and facilitate tender processes, protect key conspirators and ensure the smooth low and