Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CG:28365-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 347 of 2025 Anil Tuteja S/o Late Sh. H.L. Tuteja Aged About 62 Years R/o House No. 35/1396, Beside Farishta Nursing Home, Katora Talab, Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.) versus ... Petitioner 1 - Directorate of Enforcement Through Its Assistant Director, Raipur Zonal Office, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Anti-Corruption Bureau Through Superintendent of Police ACB/EOW, District Raipur, (C.G.) 3 - State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S. ACB/EOW, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Union of India Through Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue Through Its Initiating Officer, Deputy Director of Income Tax (INV.)-II, Raipur, Room No. 923, 9th Floor, Tower A, CBD Complex, Sector, 21, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Income Tax Department Through Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation). Unit-4(2), District New Delhi, Delhi 6 - Central Bureau of Investigation Through Addl. S.P. (I.O.), P.S. - C.B.I., AC-I, Disrict- New Delhi, Delhi (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sourabh Dangi, Mr. Harsh Shrivastava, Mr. Manohar Pratap Singh and Mr. Sajal K. Gupta, Advocates 2 For Respondents No.1 to 3 : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.4 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Vijay Chawla, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.06.2025 1 Heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sourabh Dangi, Mr. Harsh Shrivastava, Mr. Manohar Pratap Singh and Mr. Sajal K. Gupta, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for Respondents No.1 to 3, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for Respondent No.4, Mr. Vijay Chawla, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 and Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6. 2 The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following relief(s):- “I. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct supervision of all investigations against the Petitioner by this Hon’ble Court for the purpose of an impartial and fair investigation; and/or II. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be 3 pleased to direct the Respondent Agencies/Authorities to produce before this Hon’ble Court the alleged material on the basis of which the Petitioner is being accused of conceptualising/conspiring/ committing the offences in the following FIRs:- (a) ECIR/RPZO/04/2023 dated 14.10.2023 registered by ED (Rice Milling ECIR), (b) FIR No. 01/2024 dated 16.01.2024 registered at PS- ACB/EOW, Raipur (Rice Milling FIR), (c) ECIR/RPZO/02/2023 dated 20.03.2023 registered by ED (DMF ECIR), (d) FIR No. 02/2024 dated 16.01.2024 registered at PS- ACB/EOW, Raipur (DMF FIR), (e) ECIR/RPZO/9/2022 dated 29.09.2022 registered by ED (Coal ECIR), (f) FIR No. 03/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered at PS- ACB/EOW, Raipur (Coal FIR), (g) ECIR/RPZO/10/2022 dated 06.10.2022 registered by ED (Mahadev ECIR), (h) FIR No. 06/2024 dated 04.03.2024 registered at PS- ACB/EOW, Raipur (Mahadev FIR), (i) FIR No. 44/2024 dated 05.10.2024 registered at PS- ACB/EOW, Raipur (Manpower FIR), (j) FIR No. 36/2024 dated 07.09.2024 registered at PS- ACB/EOW, Raipur (Jharkhand FIR), (k) FIR No. 49/2024 dated 04.11.2024 registered at PS- ACB/EOW, Raipur (Chats FIR), (l) FIR No. RC 216 2025 A 0006 dated 16.04.2025 registered at PS- CBI/AC-1, New Delhi (Chats CBI FIR); 4 and/or III. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant protection to the Petitioner against any further arrests or coercive actions in connection with the following FIRs- (a) ECIR/RPZO/04/2023 dated 14.10.2023 registered by ED (Rice Milling ECIR), (b) FIR No. 01/2024 dated 16.01.2024 registered at PS- ACB/EOW, Raipur (Rice Milling FIR), (c) ECIR/RPZO/02/2023 dated 20.03.2023 registered by ED (DMF ECIR), (d) FIR No. 02/2024 dated 16.01.2024 registered at PS- ACB/EOW, Raipur (DMF FIR), (e) ECIR/RPZO/9/2022 dated 29.09.2022 registered by ED (Coal ECIR), (f) FIR No. 03/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered at PS- ACB/EOW, Raipur (Coal FIR), (g) ECIR/RPZO/10/2022 dated 06.10.2022 registered by ED (Mahadev ECIR), (h) FIR No. 06/2024 dated 04.03.2024 registered at PS- ACB/EOW, Raipur (Mahadev FIR), (i) FIR No. 44/2024 dated 05.10.2024 registered at PS- ACB/EOW, Raipur (Manpower FIR), (j) FIR No. 36/2024 dated 07.09.2024 registered at PS- ACB/EOW, Raipur (Jharkhand FIR), (k) FIR No. 49/2024 dated 04.11.2024 registered at PS- ACB/EOW, Raipur (Chats FIR), (l) FIR No. RC 216 2025 A 0006 dated 16.04.2025 registered at PS- CBI/AC-1, New Delhi (Chats CBI FIR), including any future cases stemming out from the alleged material which is already available with 5 any of the investigating agencies; and/or IV. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct that no new FIR or any other fresh proceeding be registered or initiated by any Respondent Agencies/Authorities based on the basis of material already in possession with any of the Respondent Agencies/Authorities without the permission of this Hon’ble Court; and/or V. That, this Hon’ble Court may grant any other relief in favour of the Petitioner, which it deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice.” 3
Facts
Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Petitioner, is a retired IAS officer who had served as a civil servant for over 34 years in the State of Chhattisgarh. At the relevant point of time, the Petitioner was posted as the Managing Director of Chhattisgarh Nagrik Apurti Nigam (‘NAN’)/State Civil Supplies Corporation at its headquarters in Raipur, Chhattisgarh from 29.05.2014 till 18.02.2015. As per the own statement of one Inspector R.K. Dubey, he was posted in the EOW on 06.12.2014, he apparently conducted verification of an anonymous complaint on 04.12.2014, even prior to being deputed to the EOW. It is evident that the verification of the alleged complaint was completely false and back-dated by one Inspector R.K. Dubey. He even back-dated an entry in the R. Complaint Register of the 6 EOW by overwriting/re-numbering and using whitener in the Register at Entry No. 348, which resulted in the registration of FIR No.06/2019 dated 07.02.2019 registered in respect of these acts of forgery and fabrication. However, it has come to the knowledge of the Petitioner from public domain that the State of Chhattisgarh has now conveniently filed a closure report immediately upon the incumbent Government coming into power. Thereafter, on 12.02.2015, the Anti-Corruption Bureau/Economic Offences Wing, Raipur (“ACB/EOW, Raipur”) registered FIR No.09/2015 against certain Government officials working at the headquarters of Nagrik Apurti Nigam in Raipur as well as governments officials working in various districts of Chhattisgarh under Sections 109 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code 1860 (“IPC”) and Section13(1)(d) and S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) (“NAN FIR”). The Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Pertinently the NAN FIR was registered after alleged verification of an anonymous complaint by Inspector R.K. Dubey 4 On 06.06.2015, the EOW/ACB filed Chargesheet No.26/2015 in the NAN FIR under Sections109, 120B, 409 and 420 of IPC and Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) and 11 of the PC Act without arraigning the Petitioner as an accused. Nevertheless, it was alleged in the chargesheet that the Petitioner was involved in taking his share from bribes. It was alleged that the Petitioner’s PA, Girish Sharma and other officials working in the headquarters of Nagrik Apurti Nigam were collecting the bribes and then delivering the cash to 7 inter alia the Petitioner and his son. This was done to make the Petitioner the scape-goat and protect the actual culprits of the alleged scam, i.e. the officers, politicians and members of the then ruling dispensation. 5 The sum and substance of the allegations made in the NAN case is that the field officers of NAN, during the Kharif Years of June 2014 – February 2015, were taking bribes from rice millers to approve and procure sub-standard rice produced by the millers. The allegations against inter alia the Petitioner are:- (a) Procurement of huge quantities of sub-standard rice and its distribution in the State by field officers of NAN (b) Causing loss of Rs. 5.18 crores on account of unnecessary transportation of rice and salt etc. (c) The Petitioner is alleged to have received around 2 crores from the alleged scam. 6 That contrary to the allegations made by the ACB, the Petitioner is in fact a whistle blower who had brought to light the corruption racket being run in NAN prior to his appointment and had exposed individuals at the highest levels of the State Government, Bureaucracy and investigating agencies. It is for this reason that the Petitioner has become the scapegoat. The fictitious nature of the case against the Petitioner is evident from the following – A. In 2014-15, Ministers of the then ruling party in the 8 State of Chhattisgarh, i.e. the Bhartiya Janta Party, themselves had unequivocally stated that no complaint regarding procurement of any sub-standard rice or taking bribes in NAN during the relevant period had been made. B. In a reply filed by the State of Chhattisgarh before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in WP (PIL) No. 44/2015 it has been unequivocally stated on affidavit that the PDS system functioning in the State of Chhattisgarh during the relevant time, including the time when the Petitioner was the MD at NAN, was extremely efficient and was even praised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Notably, the said response was filed by the State of Chhattisgarh in 2016, i.e. while the BJP Government was in power. C. The Petitioner was deputed at NAN only for a period of 8 months. It is impossible for him to run the alleged scam as alleged of otherwise within a period of 8 months which allegedly involved hundreds of stakeholders, including rice millers, multiple corporations and organizations spread across the State of Chhattisgarh. D. In response dated 06.06.2016 to an RTI filed by the Petitioner, it was informed by the then ruling dispensation that there has been no loss in the procurement, transportation and distribution of food grains in the FY 9 2014-15. E. Even in terms of the audit report for the year 2014-15 submitted before the Vidhan Sabha, NAN had gained a profit of Rs. 3.18 Crores, which is the highest in the history of NAN. F. While allegations of a multi-crore organized crime running in NAN has been made against inter alia the Petitioner, till date neither has there been any recovery from the Petitioner nor has any undisclosed assets/disproportionate property been traced to him. G. Not even a show-cause notice has been issued, let alone a departmental enquiry being initiated against him till date. H. Not a single rupee worth of alleged proceeds of crime has either been traced back to the Petitioner or attached till date by any agency in relation to the NAN case. 7 The case against the Petitioner in the chargesheet was premised only on the statements of certain persons whose complicity was found in the commission of the alleged scam and/or from whom recovery of cash amount was made. As the Petitioner refused to be the ‘scape-goat’ for the crimes committed by members of the then ruling dispensation and refused to be the ‘fall-guy’, the agencies (working at the behest of the then ruling dispensation) started fabricating and creating false incriminating material 10 against the Petitioner. The Agencies have abused and misused every faction of the state machinery to implicate the Petitioner in different cases. Since not a single rupee of tainted money/unaccounted cash has been recovered from the Petitioner and no incriminating material was found, the modus operandi adopted by the agencies is to either make persons who have actually committed offences approvers/protect them as a quid pro quo to them falsely implicating the Petitioner or adopt coercive measures by threatening the persons and/or family members and even their children to give false statements. Till date, despite passage of over 10 years, there has been no other material against the Petitioner apart from coerced and false statements of co-accused persons/persons who ought to have been made co- accused in the NAN case. It is clear that these persons who had given incriminating statements against the Petitioner had done so in exchange for saving their own skin and to deflect the blame onto the Petitioner for their alleged illegal acts – these persons were not named as accused in the chargesheet. The investigating officers of ACB/EOW, Raipur got the Petitioner implicated as a part of a larger political conspiracy which will become apparent from the facts that follow. 8 That abuse of process at behest of the agencies is also evident from the following chronology of events and facts in relation to the NAN case– 11 a. The ACB/EOW, Raipur received sanction of the Central Government under S.197, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) to prosecute the Petitioner on 18.07.2015. b. The prosecution sanction of the State Government under S.19(1), PC Act was received on 29.07.2016. This was despite the fact that according to its own stance before the Hon’ble High Court and Legislative Assembly there was no loss caused to exchequer during the period when the Petitioner was deputed at NAN. To keep the prosecution pot boiling and the Petitioner on tenterhooks, the ACB/EOW, Raipur investigation qua Petitioner was left open. c. Only on 05.12.2018, barely a week before results for the 2018 Chhattisgarh Assembly elections were declared, that the ACB/EOW, Raipur filed a supplementary Chargesheet No. 26A/2015 in the NAN FIR under S.109, S.120B, S.409 and S.420, IPC and S.13(1)(d), S.13(2) and S.11, PC Act naming the Petitioner as an accused. Identical allegations as those in the original charge-sheet were made showing that no incriminating material was found by the ACB despite 3 years of investigation. d. Petitioner became aware that various incriminating material was recovered during the course of the initial 12 search carried out by the ACB which implicated individuals at the highest levels of the State Government and Bureaucracy during the then ruling dispensation between 2013-18. However, the same was suppressed and even destroyed to protect such powerful persons. Given the illegality and impropriety in the ACB/EOW, Raipur’s investigation in connection with the NAN FIR, the Petitioner consistently made representations to the Government and filed petitions before courts seeking further investigation in the period prior to him being appointed as MD NAN. e. On 07.01.2019, the State Government constituted a Special Investigation Team (“SIT”) to further investigate the period between 2011-14 in relation to the NAN FIR on a representation made by the Petitioner. In the order constituting the SIT, it was, inter alia, noted that there are concerns regarding ACB/EOW, Raipur producing selective evidence in Court, withholding crucial evidence and not investigating several persons against whom evidence was found (including those from whom cash was recovered). It is relevant to note that the SIT was constituted to investigate the period prior to the Petitioner becoming part of the NAN. f. On 09.01.2019, after 4 years of the registration of the 13 NAN FIR but merely 2 days after the constitution of the SIT, the Enforcement Directorate (“ED”), Raipur registered ECIR/RPSZO/01/2019 (“NAN ECIR”) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) against the Petitioner and two other senior officers of NAN based on the NAN FIR and chargesheet. It is apparent that powerful persons in the ruling dispensation between 2013-2018 became concerned with the constitution of the SIT and therefore resorted to the ED to take create obstacles/deviate the investigation and to make sure nothing incriminating surfaces against them. g. Conveniently, only the main accused, the Petitioner and another senior IAS officer (who is also being targeted) were named as suspects. None of the other government servants, including those from whom cash and other unexplainable immoveable properties were actually recovered as per the case of the agencies, were named as suspects. This primarily included persons who had given incriminating statements against the Petitioner. It is apparent that this was a quid pro quo for those persons to make the Petitioner a scape-goat and get exonerated themselves. h. The NAN ECIR was registered to trap the Petitioner in yet another round of criminal investigation and punish him 14 through the process while at the same time protecting the political bosses who were in control of the ED. It is reiterated that till date, no proceeds of crime have been identified by the ED in relation to the instant case despite a passage of nearly 6 years from the registration of the NAN ECIR and nearly 10 years from the registration of the NAN FIR, which factum has also been taken note of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as has been recorded in the Order dated 09.07.2024 in SLP (Crl.) 6323-6324/2020. 9 On 29.04.2019, this Court in MCRCA No. 1679/2018, granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C./482 of BNSS to the Petitioner in the NAN FIR on the ground that there was “no direct evidence” against the Petitioner. That given the absolute lack of evidence against the Petitioner in the NAN FIR and NAN ECIR, as part of a conspiracy against the Petitioner, a plan was hatched to plant evidence against the Petitioner. It is pertinent to reiterate that this targeting of the Petitioner had been undertaken by the Agencies first to make him a scape-goat to protect higher functionaries of the then ruling dispensation and subsequently to subdue the Petitioner in his efforts to uncover the real scam and the real culprits, who formed part of the then ruling dispensation, by causing the constitution of the SIT and making representations. The Petitioner is being continually targeted and harassed to ensure that he is not able to bring to light the illegal acts of certain persons and as a counterblast to the efforts made by him 15 previously and accordingly, from 27.02.2020 to 01.03.2020, the Income Tax Department (“IT Department”), conducted search and seizure at the beauty salon owned and operated by the Petitioner’s son and wife. The IT Department seized, inter alia, Rs.10,00,000/-, some loose pages and several electronic devices belonging to the Petitioner and his son. Rs.10,00,000/- are accounted for in the Petitioner’s wife and son’s books of account of their business and the same was later returned by the Income Tax Department after the assessment process. In fact, the Income Tax Department itself has issued Silver Certificates to the Petitioner’s family members and their businesses showing that there is absolutely nothing incriminating and all income and assets of the Petitioner and his family members are accounted for. No steps were taken to preserve the contents and integrity of the electronic devices and maintain an untampered chain of custody. From the seizure Panchnama dated 01.03.2020, it is clear that the devices were not sealed at the time of seizure nor was their hash value or IMEI number recorded. Further, devices of the Petitioner were seized even though the warrant of search was against only the Petitioner’s wife and son and their beauty salon. Moreover, the devices were shown to have been copied on a hard disk on 28.02.2020 by the IT Department, even though the devices were seized by them on 29.09.2020, i.e. in a procedure completely unknown to law, the copying was done prior to the seizure leaving complete scope for tampering the record of the devices. This also 16 explains why the CBI Manual or the Income Tax Digital Evidence Manual were not followed and no effort was made to secure the sanctity of the devices and their content. 10 Thereafter, when the data from the Petitioner’s phone was allegedly extracted by the IT Department (on 11 occasions from 10.08.2020 to 16.01.2021), as per the Mazharnamas, the data was stated to be extracted from the Petitioner’s Apple iPhone 11 Pro, whereas, as per the Panchnama, what was seized was the Petitioner’s iPhone 11. Thus, whatever was extracted was evidently not from the Petitioner’s phone and it is for that reason neither hash values were recorded at the time nor any measure taken to ensure the sanctity of the extraction proceedings. The Petitioner was never informed about these extraction proceedings. The said charade was played in order to fabricate and plant certain incriminating WhatsApp chats on the Petitioner regarding acceptance of bribes in various government activities and other allegedly incriminating material, and as explained hereinafter, 3 years later, these chats were used to initiate new criminal proceedings against the Petitioner when the conspirators realised that the Petitioner is being given protection against their bogus investigations by various Courts. The Petitioner has addressed a letter dated 22.12.2023 to the ED highlighting various legal infirmities and serious legal defects in the manner in which the raids were conducted by the IT Department, the digital devices were seized and the alleged material/WhatsApp chats, 17 which were being relied upon by ED, were recovered. No response to the same has been received by the Petitioner from the ED. On 18.03.2020, the Petitioner was granted interim protection from arrest in an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C./482 of BNSS filed by the Petitioner before this Court. Soon after the search and seizure by the IT Department, from March 2020 to June 2020, the ED started issuing summons for appearance to the Petitioner in connection with the NAN ECIR. The summons were issued with the sole purpose of harassing and ultimately arresting the Petitioner which is evident from the following facts – A. The summons were issued more than one year after the registration of the NAN ECIR; B. The summons were issued by the Delhi office of ED and required the Petitioner to travel to Delhi even though the ECIR was registered by the Sub-zonal office in Raipur; and C. The Petitioner was required to be physically present before the ED even though this was peak Covid-19 time and a nationwide lockdown was in effect. 11 Nevertheless, the Petitioner complied with the summons. He provided all necessary documents to the ED as well as appeared physically before the ED, during which he was extensively questioned for consecutive dates. Subsequently, on 14.08.2020, 18 this Court, in MCRCA No. 469/2020, granted anticipatory bail to the Petitioner in connection with the NAN ECIR as well pursuant to a detailed Order which took into account the applicable law and relevant factual matrix. 12 Thereafter, to further prejudice the Petitioner, on 07.11.2020, the ED filed a Special Leave Petition, being SLP(Crl) 6323-24/2020,
Legal Reasoning
challenging the order dated 14.08.2020 passed by this Court in MCRCA No. 469/2020 granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. This SLP is still pending, and no stay of the operation of the Order dated 14.08.2020 has been granted to the ED despite passage of over 4.5 years since the filing of the said Petition. in the meanwhile, the trial in the NAN FIR was progressing and having realised that the Agency does not have enough material evident to substantiate their bogus allegations, the Agency devised ways to stall the trial. As the false case built against the Petitioner in the NAN FIR was unravelling, towards end of 2021, the ED filed a Writ Petition before this Court, being WP(Crl) 506/2021 seeking a transfer of the trial in the NAN FIR from Raipur to Delhi, a reinvestigation and a retrial. This was despite the fact that the ED did not have any locus whatsoever to seek such relief. This petition was filed with the sole aim of continuing the Petitioner’s harassment by getting a de-novo investigation and trial in a (then) 6 (six) year old matter. The frivolous petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.04.2025. 13 Subsequently, the ED filed certain documents in sealed cover to 19 sensationalise the matter. Message conversations allegedly recovered from the phone of the Petitioner by the IT Department were placed on record. It was alleged that the Petitioner and his son had allegedly been in touch with several senior functionaries within the Government as well as the High Court of Chhattisgarh. With the support of such functionaries, the Petitioner allegedly weakened the investigation by the ACB/EOW against him, influenced the witnesses in the case causing them to resile and obtained anticipatory bail in the NAN FIR on 16.10.2019. It is pertinent to note that these are the same alleged conversations which were fabricated and planted as part of the IT Department’s charade of search and seizure of the Petitioner’s phone enacted from 27.02.2020 to 01.03.2020. These conversations were fabricated and planted was also evident from the fact that despite having the conversations for more than one year, no investigative agency, including the ED, took any steps to verify the veracity of the conversations by seizing the phones of any of the other persons with whom the Petitioner was allegedly in touch or even summoning the concerned person to corroborate the allegations. In fact, allegations such as influencing a High Court Judge were levelled against the Petitioner, yet no criminal case was registered at the time. More than 2 (two) years after carrying out the search and seizure on the Petitioner’s wife’s and son’s beauty salon, the IT Department, on 11.05.2022, filed a complaint against the 20 Petitioner, his son and certain other persons, being Complaint Case No.1182/2022, under Sections 276(C)(1), 277, 278, 278E, Income Tax Act, 1961 and Sections 120B, 191, 199, 200 and 204, IPC, before the Learned ACMM, Tis Hazari Court (“Income Tax Complaint”). By placing reliance on certain tampered and fabricated chats, it was alleged that the Petitioner has indulged in taking bribes and movement of cash in the State of Chhattisgarh. Notably, even though the Income Tax Complaint alleges nexus of the Petitioner with several other individuals and government officials, none of their devices were seized and/or searched to verify the messages derived from the Petitioner’s phone nor their statements recorded by the IT Department to the best of Petitioner’s knowledge. The Income Tax Complaint was not only an attempt to multiply frivolous cases against the Petitioner, but also an attempt to increase the Petitioner’s harassment by forcing him to engage in criminal cases in multiple geographies with different agencies. It was filed with the sole purpose of creating a scheduled offence, though untenable in law, for the ED. 14 Based on the Income Tax Complaint, on 18.11.2022, ED Raipur registered ECIR No. RPZO/11/2022 (“Income Tax ECIR”) against the Petitioner, his son and other persons named in the Income Tax Complaint. Pertinently, the ECIR treated standalone Sec.120 B, IPC as the predicate offence (as other offences mentioned in the Income Tax Complaint are not scheduled offences in the PMLA). Notably, cognisance of Sec. 120-B, i.e. the alleged 21 scheduled offence was in fact rejected by the jurisdictional Court subsequently. In fact, the same has not been taken till date. Despite the same, the ED illegally attached properties belonging to the Petitioner, arrested various persons, repeatedly summoned him and his son in the illegal proceedings, coerced persons into giving false statements against inter alia the Petitioner, a number of which have since been retracted. This again shows the utter abuse of powers and State Machinery to target inter alia the Petitioner. Given the fact that the ED did not have jurisdiction, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to protect inter alia the Petitioner from any coercive action by the ED. 15 It is clear that the Income Tax ECIR was registered only with the aim of using the stringent procedure under the PMLA to continue the Petitioner’s harassment by misusing the processes of law and take coercive action against him. Despite making overarching allegations against the Petitioner in the Income Tax ECIR, he was not even named in the Prosecution Complaint filed under Section 44(1)(b) by the ED since he had been granted protection from coercive action by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and thus could not be arrested by the ED. The ED’s hands were subsequently stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Prosecution Complaint filed in relation to the Income Tax ECIR was ultimately quashed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for being without any ‘scheduled’ offence under the PMLA. In the meanwhile, having realised that the proceedings in relation to the Income Tax ECIR were illegal, 22 ED made various attempts to create its own jurisdiction to circumvent the protection Order dated 28.04.2023 and stay Order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The same are as follows- A. ED wrote a letter to ACB, Raipur on 11.07.2023 seeking registration of an FIR so as to create its own scheduled offence. B. ED wrote a letter to UP STF on 28.07.2023 seeking registration of another FIR on the same set of allegations and alleged transaction so as to create its own scheduled offence. C. ED also caused the Income Tax Department to file applications seeking stay of the Order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the Ld. ACMM, Tis Hazari in Order to circumvent the Order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. D. A petition was filed by Sh. Naresh Chandra Gupta, a member of the Bhartiya Janta Party before the High Court of Chhattisgarh seeking CBI investigation into the same allegations that were being investigated by the ED again to create a scheduled offence for the ED. Interestingly Sh. Naresh Gupta had also filed petitions in relation to the NAN case to derail the investigation being conducted by the SIT. 16 The ED was successful in causing the registration of one FIR 23 being FIR No. 196/2023 dt. 30.07.2023 (“UP FIR”) in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh (a State being governed by the Bhartiya Janta Party) and the second one being FIR No. 04/2024 dt. 17.01.2024 (“Chhattisgarh FIR”) in Raipur, Chhattisgarh (which by that time was being governed by the Bhartiya Janta Party). The allegations and basis in both the aforesaid FIRs was identical and the Petitioner has been made to suffer custody in relation to both at the hands of the agencies. Relevantly, upon quashing of the prosecution complaint in relation to the Income Tax ECIR, the ED went on to illegally register ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 (“second Liquor ECIR”) for the same alleged offence on 11.04.2024, using one of the FIRs i.e. FIR No. 04/2024 dt. 17.01.2024, that the ED itself had caused to be registered thus creating its own jurisdiction. Pursuant to the registration of the second Liquor ECIR that the harassment of the Petitioner increased exponentially. The Petitioner was first arrested by the ED on 21.04.2024 for in relation to an alleged Liquor Scam in an absolute abuse of state machinery. In a shocking turn of events, the Petitioner was summoned by the ACB, Raipur in relation to Chhattisgarh FIR (where he had protection from coercive action) and then arrested by the ED from the premises of the EOW immediately after his questioning got over before the ACB. The Petitioner was then served with post-dated summon and interrogated over-night finally arresting him at around 3 am in the morning of 21.04.2025. This 24 manner of arrest of the Petitioner by the ED has been seriously deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly evidencing the abuse of state machinery by the agencies to target the Petitioner. The Petitioner was then arrested by the UP Police in relation to the UP FIR and subsequently by the Chhattisgarh Police in relation to the Chhattisgarh FIR on the basis of the same underlying allegations and transaction. Further, it is relevant to note that the arrest of the Petitioner by the UP Police has been declared to be illegal and the Petitioner has been released in both the ED and the UP Case as on date. 17 On 07.09.2024, the ACB, Raipur registered yet, another FIR against, inter alia, the Petitioner being a FIR No. 36/2024 u/s 7 Prevention of Corruption Act and Sec. 420 r/w Sec. 120-B of the IPC (“Jharkhand Liquor FIR”). The FIR was purportedly registered on the basis of a complaint received from a resident of Jharkhand, alleging that the Petitioner conspired with certain officials of the Government of Jharkhand to alter the excise policy of Jharkhand which benefited certain private players causing a loss to the public exchequer. It is shocking to see the complete and brazen violation of one the basic structures of the Constitution, i.e. its federal nature, being done by the Agencies in such a manner. It is beyond any principles of law as to how the Chhattisgarh Police could register FIR for an alleged crime which was allegedly committed in the State of Jharkhand. The Petitioner is given to understand that the Jharkhand Liquor FIR has now been transferred to the 25 CBI. This is yet another attempt to circumvent the federal structure of the Constitution as the CBI per se does not have consent to investigate in the State of Jharkhand in terms of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. Nevertheless, till date, the Petitioner has not been interrogated in the Jharkhand Liquor FIR and to the best of the Petitioner’s knowledge there has been no investigation whatsoever in relation to the Jharkhand Liquor FIR. It is pertinent to submit in this regard that the Petitioner never went to Jharkhand, nor did the Petitioner meet any Excise Deputy Officer of Jharkhand, yet the Petitioner was arraigned in the Jharkhand Liquor FIR solely for ulterior motives. In the meantime, noting that no proceeds of crime were traced or prosecution complaint filed in 6 years of investigation by the ED, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the prima facie view that there was no reason to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the Petitioner in the NAN ECIR. With the sole intent of ensuring the continued harassment of the Petitioner and to ensure that the sword of the bail cancellation keeps hanging on the head of the Petitioner, it was submitted on behalf of the ED and the ACB, Raipur that they will place on record an affidavit in support of the contention that the facility of anticipatory bail was misused by the Petitioner. Subsequently, 3 affidavits were filed on behalf of the ED and the ACB, Raipur however no substantial material was placed on record to suggest any violation of bail conditions by the Petitioner. In its fourth bite at the cherry, the State of Chhattisgarh filed a 26 completely bogus Affidavit on 25.09.2024 (“Affidavit dated 25.09.2024”). In this affidavit, it was falsely claimed that the Petitioner has been involved in several scams in the State for which FIRs had been registered by the ACB/EOW, Raipur. It was alleged that the Petitioner was involved in (a) Rice Milling Scam, subject of FIR No.1/2024, dated 16.01.2024 (“Rice Milling FIR”); (b) District Mineral Fund Scam, subject of FIR No. 02/2024, dated 16.01.2024 (“DMF FIR”); (c) the Coal Levy Scam, subject of FIR No.03/2024, dated 17.01.2024 (“Coal FIR”); and (d) Mahadev Betting Scam, subject of FIR No. 06/2024, dated 04.03.2024 (“Mahadev FIR”). It was stated therein by the State of Chhattisgarh that the Petitioner has allegedly conceptualised, conspired and committed the various aforementioned scams presently under investigation, and that there allegedly exists ample prima facie material with relation to the alleged active role played by the Petitioner in each of the said scams. The Affidavit dated 25.09.2024 was filed with the sole intent of prejudice the Hon’ble Supreme Court and misguide it in an attempt to save the bogus Petition filed by the ED seeking cancellation of bail granted to the Petitioner in the NAN ECIR. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner has not been named as an accused in any of the FIRs mentioned in the Affidavit or the chargesheets filed in connection with any of these cases till date. Also, all these FIRs mentioned in the Affidavit have been registered at the instance of the ED, pursuant to the alleged information provided in connection with 27 pending ED cases. The Petitioner is not named in any of the ED cases either. While the allegation in the Affidavit is that the Petitioner had conceptualised all these scams and there was ample material against him, there is no explanation as to why he was not named as an accused in either the FIRs or the ED cases in relation to the same. In fact, the FIRs are stated to have been registered after conducting preliminary verification by the EOW, still there is not even a whisper of any role of the Petitioner showing the completely bogus nature of the allegations made in the Affidavit. There is no explanation as to what has become of the ‘ample evidence’ and why the same has not been relied upon by the Agencies till date despite passage of over 1.5 years since its alleged receipt. It is clear that the same was done to merely prejudice the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the Petitioner so as to illegally seek his bail cancellation. Pertinently, neither has the Petitioner even been summoned once nor has any document been sought from him in relation to any of the FIRs mentioned in the Affidavit clearly showing that he does not have any role therein. 18 There is not even a whisper of any criminality against the Petitioner in any of the aforesaid chargesheets/prosecution complaints except the chargesheet filed by the ACB in the Rice Scam and the prosecution complaint filed by the ED in the Rice Scam. These averments are completely bogus and suffer from inherent contradictions and suppressions. Similar to the modus 28 operandi adopted in the NAN case, since no incriminating material is available against the Petitioner, he is being sought to be implicated on the basis of false statements of certain persons, in particular Siddharth Singhania, who are either co-accused or ought to have been made co-accused of the Petitioner. They are being made approvers as quid pro quo for giving false statements against the Petitioner. He is being sought to be implicated falsely despite the fact that the Petitioner had no role whatsoever in the functioning of any department/activity related to the processing and milling of rice. Notably, while he is an accused in the second Liquor ECIR, Siddharth Singhania has been made an approver in the Chhattisgarh despite there being ample material and direct allegations of his involvement in the alleged liquor scam only as he agreed to given false statements against the Petitioner. Shri Singhania is an accused himself, through in an apparent understanding with the agencies made a witness and as such is unreliable. The statements of Shri Singhania are marked with glaring improvements and inconsistencies. In his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 19.06.2024 in connection with the Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR, he alleged that he gave Rs.20–22 crores to the Petitioner. Surprisingly, an almost identical statement was made by him under Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 29.01.2025 in the entirely distinct Rice Scam case, with further improvements. This raises serious doubts about the veracity and credibility of his version, as it is inconceivable that 29 the same specific allegation of having paid Rs. 20–22 crores to the Petitioner could legitimately form the basis of two unrelated cases. The modus operandi of the agencies has been to falsely create and fabricate material and extract coerced and false statements to implicate the Petitioner. In several cases, key witnesses have retracted their statements and several witnesses have complained that their statements were coerced by the ED/ACB/EOW. All of this shows the larger ploy of the agencies to any how implicate the Petitioner and prolong his pre-trial incarceration. 19 The ECIRs and FIRs were registered between September 2022 to January/March 2024, it is only in September 2024 that the ACB/EOW named the Petitioner in these FIRs to falsely implicate him and to prejudice the Hon’ble Supreme Court. During this time, not even once was the Petitioner asked to join the investigation or interrogated by any agency, even though he has been in custody since 21.04.2024. In fact, it is reiterated that even till date the Petitioner has not been summoned in relation to any of the aforesaid FIRs or the ED proceedings emanating from them. It is therefore clear that the Petitioner was sought to be implicated in these FIRs and ECIRs as part of a conspiracy to keep him entangled in criminal investigations, even though there is not even a single shred of evidence against the Petitioner. The implication of the Petitioner in these FIRs shows how fanciful all of the criminal cases against the Petitioner actually are. The Petitioner is 30 currently in custody only in relation to the Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR. The Petitioner has been implicated in these new FIRs only as an insurance – if the Petitioner gets relief in the Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR, then one of these new FIRs will be used to imprison him in the name of interrogation, and the cycle will continue so on and so forth. To continue the Petitioner’s harassment, the Superintendent of Central Jail, District Raipur (where the Petitioner was lodged in connection with the Liquor ECIR) was made to join the conspiracy against the Petitioner and an application dated 18.10.2024 was filed before the Special Court (PMLA), Raipur to transfer the Petitioner from Central Jail, District Raipur to a District Jail, Kanker at District Uttar Bastar, a jail in a remote Naxal infested location, on the specious and unsubstantiated ground that the Petitioner was creating ‘pressure’ on the Raipur Jail administration. This Application was erroneously allowed by the Special Court (PMLA), Raipur but the said decision was set aside by the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court. Despite knowing fully well that the aforesaid FIRs and cases were bogus and false and baseless and the Petitioner could be granted relief therein, the ACB/EOW registered yet another FIR No. 49/2024 on 04.11.2024 against the Petitioner and some other persons under S.7, S.7A, S.8, S.13(2), PC Act and S.182, S.211, S.193, S.195A, S.166A and S.120B, IPC (“Chats FIR”). This FIR was also registered at the instance of the ED, on the basis of their letter dated 02.04.2024. The subject matter of the Chats FIR were the false 31 and fabricated chats that were planted by the Agencies in the devices allegedly seized during the course of the search proceedings carried out by the Income Tax Department in 2020 and which were being used to seek cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the Petitioner in the NAN ECIR. Pertinently, information regarding registration of this FIR was provided by way of an application filed by the State of Chhattisgarh in WP (Crl) 506/2021 on 06.11.2024. Pertinently, after considering the merits of the case, the Advocate General of the State of Chhattisgarh, who is a co-accused of the Petitioner in the Chats FIR, has been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 20 The material forming the basis of the Chats FIR had been available with the investigative authorities since 2020 and the same allegations were made even in WP(Crl) 506/2021 filed in before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even as per the own case of the ACB, the information was received by it on 02.04.2024. However, interestingly, the same came to be registered only when the Hon’ble Supreme Court was inclined to dismiss the bail cancellation petition filed by the ED and the Petitioner’s bail in relation to the alleged Liquor scam was pending before the courts. There is no explanation of such an inordinate delay in registering the said FIR which leads to the inescapable conclusion that the same has been registered only with a view to pro-long the pre-trial incarceration of the Petitioner and to harass and prejudice him by 32 all means at the State’s disposal. It is clear that this FIR was deliberately timed in such a manner so as to prolong frivolous criminal investigations against the Petitioner and to create a perception that the Petitioner was a serial offender. On 28.01.2025, the State of Chhattisgarh filed its Counter-Affidavit in response to SLP(Crl) No. 17659/2024, i.e. the Petition seeking regular bail in the Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR. In the Counter- Affidavit, besides regurgitating unfounded allegations that the Petitioner was involved in various scams and implicated in several criminal cases, the State of Chhattisgarh now also alleged that the Petitioner was a conspirator in a scam relating to taking commissions from suppliers of manpower services, which was being investigated in FIR No. 44/2024, dated 05.10.2024, registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Economic Offences Wing, Raipur (“Manpower FIR”). Even this FIR does not name the Petitioner as an accused and was also registered based on a letter received from the ED. It is clear that the Petitioner was sought to be implicated in this new case only as an afterthought, with the objective of preventing the Petitioner from getting bail in the Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR, or, in case he did get bail, to embroil him in a new investigation and keep him behind bars without trial. The allegation in the Manpower FIR relates to taking of commission by officials of the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Ltd. (“CSMCL”) for clearing of invoices of manpower agencies. A perusal of the allegations made in the Manpower FIR 33 would show that this already forms part of the Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR and multiple FIRs are being registered solely to cause prejudice to the Petitioner. Siddharth Singhania has already made mention of the alleged process in his statement u/s 50 PMLA. Without admitting to the admissibility, validity or veracity of the said statement, it is clear that the Manpower FIR is a second FIR in relation to the same set of facts and allegations which is impermissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 21 On 26.03.2025, the CBI, Raipur conducted search and seizure at the Petitioner’s residence despite not having any material incriminating the Petitioner in connection with the Mahadev FIR. Again, no cash or incriminating material was recovered. Thus evidently as on date, there is no material incriminating the Petitioner even in the Mahadev FIR. On 08.04.2025, WP(Crl) 506/2021 filed by the ED was dismissed as withdrawn given that it was without any substance and its only purpose was to harass the Petitioner. Subsequently, on 15.04.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to allow SLP (Crl) 3148/2025 and grant the Petitioner regular bail in connection with the Liquor ECIR. On the very next day, i.e. on 16.04.2025, the Central Bureau of Investigation registered RC 216 2025 A 0006 under Sections 7, 7A, 8 and 13(2), PC Act and Sections 82, 211, 193, 195A, S.166A and 120B, and took over the investigation in the Chats FIR. Thereafter, on 18.04.2025, yet another raid, this time by the CBI, 34 was carried out at the residence of the Petitioner in relation to the Chats FIR. Again, no proceeds of crime or any incriminating material was recovered and till date, the ACB/EOW did not bother to undertake any investigation pursuant to the Chats FIR. It is clear that the transfer of FIR Chats FIR to the CBI was an abuse of powers and was done in order to multiply the agencies investigating the Petitioner. Moreover, in this manner, the investigation is being sought to be evergreened as each new investigating agency will gain the power carry out search and seizure and then arrest the Petitioner. The intention is not to investigate any wrongdoing by the Petitioner, the intention is to use the process of criminal law to keep hounding the Petitioner. As of date, the Petitioner has been subjected to over 14 (fourteen) criminal cases, by 5 (five) investigating agencies. While the Agencies have alleged and portrayed as if the Petitioner was an extremely powerful person in the State of Chhattisgarh who was handling and directing IAS/IPS officers, it is relevant to note that the Petitioner retired as the Joint Secretary while all his batchmates were promoted to higher positions. 22 The Petitioner is not even getting his pension and other retirement benefits for which the Petitioner has approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. It is submitted that if the Petitioner was an all-powerful officer as alleged by the agencies, then there was no reason for the Petitioner’s pension and benefits to have been curtailed and he would not have to fight for his rights 35 before the CAT. It is evident that the Petitioner has been harassed and victimised across governments and the allegations of the Respondent Agencies about the political clout of the Petitioner is completely bogus. In connection with the investigation in these criminal cases, the Petitioner has appeared before investigating agencies on 13 occasions prior to being arrested. His house and his wife’s and son’s premises have been raided on 5 (five) occasions for a total period of over 6 days. He has spent total of 423 days in judicial and policy custody and as on date and continues to remain in judicial custody in connection with the Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR. Including this Petition, the Petitioner has had to file and/or defend a total of 9 cases. Despite multiple searches and seizures, till date, no investigating agency has found any proceeds of crime in the possession of the Petitioner or his family. Till date, no Prosecution Complaint has been filed in the NAN ECIR, which was registered more than 6 (six) years back and no direct or indirect proceeds of crime has been recovered in relation to the Liquor Scam. There is not even an allegation in relation to the other cases that the Petitioner has received any proceed of crime whatsoever. A chart depicting the searches carried out at the premises of the Petitioner is as follows – S. No. Date 1. 27.02.2020 – 01.03.2020 Agency and Case Income Tax Authority Particulars of the Panchnama Some digital devices seized in complete violation of the guidelines even and procedure without 36 2. 3. 29.03.2023 – 30.03.2023 ED in Income Tax ECIR 25.02.2024 ACB, Raipur in Chhattisgarh Liquor Case 4. 26.03.2025 CBI in Mahadev Case 5. 18.04.2025 CBI in the Chats FIR establishing the chain of custody. Cash amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- seized which was later returned. Only cash amounting to Rs. 6,00,000/- seized. No incriminating The documents/material same has not been included as direct proceeds of crime. found. Only cash amounting to Rs. 72,000/- seized. No incriminating documents/material found. took account The ACB of furnishings and electronics etc. in the house as well since clearly nothing incriminating was found. No seizure of cash amount. No incriminating documents/material found. The CBI took account of furnishings and electronics etc. in the house as since clearly nothing well incriminating was found. No seizure of cash amount. No incriminating documents/material found. Shockingly, documents legal pertaining to pleadings filed by the Petitioner before various courts and his legal strategy were seized by the CBI. This is in utmost violation of the Petitioner’s right to legal defence and attorney client privilege in as much confidential legal documents were being sought to seized to understand the legal strategy of the Petitioner. 23 Furthermore, despite extensive investigation in the Rice Milling 37 FIR, DMF FIR, Mahadev FIR and Coal FIR, till date, the Petitioner has not been named as an accused in any of the Chargesheets filed in these FIRs. Pertinently, these FIRs were based on ED cases – the Petitioner is not named an accused in any of the ECIRs or Prosecutions Complaints in these ED cases. It is important to re-emphasise here that the Petitioner was not named in any of these FIRs to start with. The concern and apprehension of the Petitioner is not unfounded or illusionary. The Agencies have actually indulged in effective insurance arrests and evergreening of custody of various other persons in the State of Chhattisgarh itself. An illustration of the same is as follows – SAUMYA CHAURASIA - Total Custody – 910 days Date Particulars 02.12.2022 Arrested in Coal ECIR 23.05.2024 Arrested in Coal FIR after having spent over 15 months in custody already despite not having been questioned even once in custody before arrest. 25.09.2024 Granted interim bail in Coal ECIR which is continuing as on date 08.11.2024 Arrested in a disproportionate assets case after having already spent nearly 24 months in custody despite not having been questioned even once in custody before arrest. 06.01.2025 Granted bail in the disproportionate assets case 03.03.2025 Granted interim bail in the Coal FIR which is continuing as on date 03.03.2025 Despite having been granted interim bail in the Coal FIR and before she could be released from custody, she got arrested in DMF FIR thus evergreening her arrest despite not having been questioned even once in custody before arrest. 29.05.2025 Granted interim bail in the DMF FIR 38 SURYAKANT TIWARI - Total Custody – 962 days Date Particulars 29.10.2022 Arrested in Coal ECIR 30.05.2024 Arrested in Coal FIR after having spent over 17 months in custody despite not having been questioned even once in custody before arrest. 03.03.2025 Arrested in DMF FIR after having spent over 29 months in custody despite not having been questioned even once in custody before arrest. 29.05.2025 Granted interim bail in the Coal FIR by the Hon’ble Supreme Court which is continuing as on date RANU SAHU - Total Custody – 678 days Date Particulars 22.07.2023 Arrested in Coal ECIR 23.05.2024 Arrested in Coal FIR after having spent over 17 months in custody despite not having been questioned even once in custody before arrest. 07.08.2024 Granted regular bail in Coal ECIR 03.03.2025 Granted interim bail in the Coal FIR which is continuing as on date 03.03.2025 Despite having been granted interim bail in the Coal FIR and before she could be released from custody, she got arrested in DMF FIR thus evergreening her arrest despite not having been questioned even once in custody before arrest. 21.04.2024 Granted protection from the Hon’ble Supreme in relation to the disproportionate assets case 29.05.2025 Granted interim bail in the DMF FIR ARVIND SINGH - Total Custody – 708 days Date Particulars 12.06.2023 Arvind Singh arrested in Income Tax ECIR 02.04.2024 Granted bail in Income Tax ECIR despite complete 39 stay of investigation already having been granted on 18.07.2023. 03.04.2024 Released in Income Tax ECIR 03.04.2024 Immediately picked up by the ACB Raipur from outside the premises of the Raipur Central Jail in relation to the Chhattisgarh FIR thus evergreening his arrest despite not having been questioned even once in custody before arrest. This was despite the fact that 2 co-accused persons had been granted protection in relation to the Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR. 04.04.2024 Arrested in the Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR by ACB Raipur 01.07.2024 Arvind Singh is produced before Spl. Judge PMLA, Raipur pursuant to production warrants and arrested in the Second Liquor ECIR 13.05.2025 Arvind Singh granted bail in the second Liquor ECIR 19.05.2025 Arvind Singh granted bail in the Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR 24 It is the reasonable apprehension of the Petitioner that the manner in which the Petitioner has been collusively targeted and arrested successively by the Respondent Agencies in the alleged Liquor scam, one of which arrest has been strongly deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as being “disturbing” and “glaring” and the another one declared illegal, will continue. The Petitioner apprehends that he will be continually arrested one after the other in the various other cases that the agencies have lined up for him, as is evident from the Affidavit dated 25.09.2024 in utter abuse of process of law and State machinery. It is blatantly evident that the Petitioner is being targeted by the Respondent Agencies in a 40 vindictive manner for ulterior political motives. The conduct of the Respondent Agencies and the manner in which the Petitioner is being falsely implicating is nothing but a case of serious and egregious abuse of powers by the agencies aimed to persecute the Petitioner and arrest him in one false case after the other solely to harass the Petitioner. The Petitioner is being targeted and harassed since it is the belief of the ruling dispensation and officers of the Agencies that he was close to the erstwhile ruling dispensation and if the Petitioner is harassed and pressurized by carrying out illegal arrest or under the fear an illegal arrest, he will falsely name and implicate higher functionaries of the erstwhile dispensation in the false cases being sought to be fabricated by the agencies. It is under this belief that the agencies are targeting the Petitioner under instructions of their political masters. Further the fact that the arrest of the Petitioner is not needed or necessary for the purpose of investigation into the alleged FIRs and ECIRs is evident from the fact that despite being termed as the architect of the alleged scams, let alone seeking his custody, he has not even been questioned by the agencies despite passage of over 2.5 years to 8 months. This shows that the intent of the agencies is not investigate the multiple alleged cases but to only prolong the pre-trial incarceration of the Petitioner. The conduct of the agencies clearly show that they have created a havoc in the State of Chhattisgarh in complete disregard to the fundamental rights of persons in the State who are perceived close to the erstwhile dispensation in the State of Chhattisgarh. 41 25 A chart highlighting the number of chargesheets and prosecution complaints filed and the number of accused therein in relation to the FIRs registered in the Affidavit is as follows – Case Details S. No. Investigating Agency Directorate of Enforcement 1. ECIR/RPZO/ 04/2023 dated 14.10.2023 (Rice Milling ECIR) 2. FIR No. 01/2024 dated 16.01.2024 ACB/EOW Raipur (Rice Milling FIR) 3. ECIR/RPZO/ 02/2023 dated 20.03.2023 (DMF ECIR) Directorate of Enforcement 4. FIR No. 02/2024 dated 16.01.2024 ACB/EOW Raipur (DMF FIR) 5. FIR No. 129/2022 dated 12.07.2022 PS Kadugodi, Bengaluru 6. ECIR/RPZO/ 9/2022 dated 29.09.2022 (Coal ECIR) Directorate of Enforcement of Date Chargesheet/ Prosecution Complaint No. of Accuse d Period of Investi gation 28.06.2024 2 526 days 01.02.2025 2 519 days 01.12.2024 16 524 days 27.05.2025 9 519 days 08.06.2023 (closure report scheduled offences) qua 09.12.2022 30.01.2023 18.08.2023 29.03.2025 7 8 11 9 993 days 7. FIR No. 03/2024 dated 17.01.2024 ACB/EOW Raipur 42 Total 19.07.2024 10.10.2024 Total 35 15 2 17 518 days (Coal FIR) 8. ECIR/RPZO/ 11/2022 dated 18.11.2022 (First Liquor ECIR) Directorate of Enforcement 9. FIR No. 04.2024 dated 17.01.2024 ACB/EOW Raipur (Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR) 1 0. ECIR/RPZO/ 04/2024 dated 11.04.2024 Directorate of Enforcement (Second Liquor ECIR) 1 1. ECIR/RPZO/ 10/2022 dated 06.10.2022 Directorate of Enforcement (Mahadev ECIR) 1 2. No. FIR 06/2024 dated 04.03.2024 ACB/EOW Raipur (Mahadev FIR) 04.07.2023 7 244 days (stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 18.07.2023) on 01.07.2024 26.09.2024 18.11.2024 Total 19.06.2024 30.08.2024 05.10.2024 12.03.2025 Total 4 4 3 11 1 6 2 12 21 518 days 433 days 20.10.2023 14 986 days 01.01.2024 01.03.2024 30.04.2024 Total 19.07.2024 5 3 23 45 10 471 days 26 Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that Petitioner has been incarcerated since 21.04.2024 43 and continues to remain in custody due to the successive arrests at the instance of the Agencies working in tandem with each other. Both the Agencies are conducting overlapping and parallel investigations with the ED and ACB being common to all the cases alleged against the Petitioner. However, such investigating agencies, despite having parallel ongoing investigation in all cases, took no steps to interrogate the Petitioner while he was already in judicial custody in other cases. The Petitioner apprehends that the investigating agencies are timing the arrest of the Petitioner after over 1.5 years of registration of the cases and after over 9 months since having declared the Petitioner the master mind behind the cases, only when there is a chance of his release on bail in the case(s) he was incarcerated in. She further submits that the ED effected the arrest of the Petitioner on 21.04.2024 immediately after quashing of the prosecution complaint in the Income Tax ECIR on 08.04.2024 and registration of the second Liquor ECIR on 11.04.2024 without conducting any investigation therein. Then the UP Police effected the arrest of the Petitioner in an FIR where the Petitioner was not even summoned for nearly 1 year because he had protection and which FIR was registered in outright violation of the Orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Then the Chhattisgarh Police arrested the Petitioner for the second time in relation to the same allegations as the UP FIR on 20.08.2024, after 7 months of registration of the Chhattisgarh FIR. Apart from this, the Petitioner 44 is being falsely implicated in other cases as well, as mentioned in the Affidavit dated 25.09.2024 filed by the ACB, Raipur and apprehends that he will be arrested therein to ensure his pro- longed pre-trial incarceration. The Petitioner apprehends that the ACB will fabricate false material against the Petitioner and take false statements so as to create and fabricate material against the Petitioner for the purpose of optics and positioning as it has already made a false submission before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there is ample material to show that the Petitioner had conceptualised and conspired in various scams as alleged in the Affidavit dated 25.09.2024. It has been contended that without prejudice to the fact that the Petitioner has nothing to do with any of the alleged cases, it is submitted that the Petitioner has been lodged in Raipur Central Jail for over 14 months now. The Petitioner has not been questioned by any of the agencies even once in relation to the other cases. If the agencies actually had to conduct any investigation, there was no embargo upon them to investigate and question while in custody. Instead, the agencies are keeping the option of arresting the Petitioner in other cases open as their goal is not to investigate but to harass the Petitioner. It is submitted that the arrest of the Petitioner is not necessary since he is already in custody in another case. The timing of initiation of the criminal cases against the Petitioner and/or his implication in pending criminal cases, on the face of it, shows the abuse of investigative powers and the power of arrest available with the agencies:- 45 a. the Petitioner was implicated in new cases in order to frustrate relief granted / anticipated to be granted by Courts to the Petitioner in old cases – the objective has been to prevent the Petitioner from getting relief, or in case, he does get relief, to embroil him in a new investigation and keep him behind bars without trial; b. The series of cases have been filed to keep the possibility of an ‘insurance arrest’ alive in the event the Petitioner is released in the false cases wherein he is currently in custody. c. Such deliberate and targeted practices of the Agencies have been repeatedly deprecated by the Hon’ble Courts. d. The Petitioner was implicated in new cases in order to circumvent Court orders relating to old cases in violation of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uday Chand v. Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, Chief Minister J&K, (1983) 2 SCC 417; Arvind Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Crl. App. No. 3816/2024; e. the cases were strategically timed so as to prolong the criminal investigations against the Petitioner – except for the NAN FIR and NAN ECIR, all other cases are premised either on the fabricated messages allegedly recovered 46 from the Petitioner’s phone on 27.02.2020 to 01.03.2020, or on the basis of completely false, coerced and concocted statements of various individuals. However, these cases have been filed in a staggered manner over the course of 5 (five years). f. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to protect and/or grant bail to over 30 persons in the alleged scams that are being alleged against the Petitioner noting and/or orally observing the abuse of powers by the Agencies. The Supreme Court was of the view that persons cannot be kept in indefinite custody in such a manner arresting him another case as soon as he is released from custody in one. 27 It has been argued by Ms. Arora that there is not an iota of credible evidence against the Petitioner in any of the cases. The investigating agencies have not exercised their power to arrest in a bona fide manner, and have done so with the sole motive to sabotage Petitioner’s release. Despite there being different cases being investigated by different agencies, it is pertinent to note that out of the cases in which the Petitioner is being sought to be implicated, there is an overlap of agencies and gravamen of cases. All cases have both PMLA and PC Act/IPC proceedings which are being investigated by the ED and the ACB/CBI respectively. In fact, these investigating agencies have worked in 47 tandem with each other as all FIRs registered by ACB were registered at the instance of the ED. As such, both ED and ACB were aware about the investigation and arrests/incarceration of the Petitioner in the afore-stated matters. It has been further aruged that the NAN FIR – the entire case against the Petitioner was based on ‘confessions’ of perpetrators of the crime who were induced to implicate the Petitioner in return for immunity. These persons have subsequently retracted their statements against the Petitioner during the course of trial. To this effect, it is to be noted that the then BJP Government itself dismissed the theory of the alleged NAN Scam as evolved by the ACB. Consequently, the NAN ECIR is also without any substances as it is predicated on the NAN FIR. Even otherwise, the NAN ECIR was registered prior to the 2019 amendment in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) – it did not disclose that proceeds of crime had been projected or claimed to be untainted, which was a sine qua non, for the offence of money laundering under Section 3, PMLA to be made out (prior to the 2019 amendment). It has been submitted that various other cases are allegedly premised on the message conversations allegedly recovered from the Petitioner’s phone after the IT Departments search and seizure on 27.02.2020 to 01.03.2020. However, no steps were taken to preserve the contents and integrity of the phone and maintain an untampered chain of custody, and the entire process of seizure and then extraction was handled in such a manner so as to allow the investigating agencies to plant the message conversations on the 48 Petitioner:- a. From the seizure Panchnama dated 01.03.2020, it is clear that the devices were not sealed at the time of seizure nor was their hash value or IMEI number recorded. b. Further, devices of the Petitioner were seized even though the warrant of search was against only the Petitioner’s wife and son and their beauty salon. c. Moreover, the devices were shown to have been copied on a hard disk on 28.02.2020 by the IT Department, even though the devices were seized by them on 29.09.2020. d. Thereafter, when the data from the Petitioner’s phone was allegedly extracted by the IT Department (on 11 occasions from 10.08.2020 to 16.01.2021), as per the Mazharnamas, the data was stated to be extracted from the Petitioner’s Apple iPhone 11 Pro, whereas, as per the Panchnama, what was seized was the Petitioner’s iPhone 11. Thus, whatever was extracted was not from the Petitioner’s phone. e. Moreover, as per the Mazharnamas, the data was stated to be extracted in the presence of one Mr. Ankit, who was allegedly the Petitioner’s authorised representative. However, the Petitioner had not authorised 49 any such person to be present at the time of extraction of the data. 28 Ms. Arora has submitted that any case built on the foundation of these so called message conversations extracted from the Petitioner’s phone must fail at the threshold and further, no proceeds of crime have been found in the Liquor ECIR so what is essentially being prosecuted therein is the same act and offence as is being prosecuted in the Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR, which is FIR on which the ECIR is based. It is submitted if the Petitioner was in fact involved in scams of such magnitude as alleged, he would have been in possession of some proceeds of crime at least. However, despite not being able to trace a single Rupee of proceed of crime, despite over 10 years of investigation, the Agencies continue to harass and prejudice the Petitioner by different means. She has further argued that the Petitioner has not been named in the Rice Milling FIR, DMF Scam FIR, Coal Levy FIR, Mahadev FIR or the Manpower FIR and he has been implicated in these only through an affidavit filed by the State of Chhattisgarh before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is therefore clear that the Petitioner has been trapped in frivolous and vicious cycle of cases. New cases are being filed against the Petitioner not because of any incriminating evidence, rather to keep the investigative pot boiling so that that Petitioner is caught in an endless loop of criminal investigations wherein his liberty can be curtailed by new arrests and new raids in each new case. It has 50 been further argued that similar modus operandi has been adopted by the Agencies in respect of other persons in Chhattisgarh as well where they have been implicated and arrested in consecutive cases only when they were about to be released/protected in other cases. The modus operandi of effecting insurance arrest is not alien to the Agencies in the instant case and this practice has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well. 29 Ms. Arora submitted that it is apparent from the fact that even though the Petitioner has been in judicial custody since April 2024, no effort has been made to interrogate him in relation to the Rice Milling FIR, DMF Scam FIR, Coal Levy FIR, Mahadev FIR, the Manpower FIR, the NAN 2nd FIR or NAN CBI RC. The investigating agencies have parked these cases as insurance – whenever the Petitioner is released on bail in the Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR, these cases will be used one by one to keep the Petitioner endlessly behind bars. It is therefore clear that the investigations are not happening impartially, independently or in a bonafide manner. Except for the NAN FIR, all other cases against the Petitioner have been initiated and instigated by the ED and in such circumstances, the Petitioner’s right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being violated by various investigative agencies. It has been lastly contended that the Petitioner has no alternative but constrained to approach this 51 Court in view of the prolonged and continuous incarceration already suffered by him and looming possibility and apprehension of arrest in false cases by abusing its powers. As such, the petitioner is seeking protection in the following FIRs:- S. No. Particulars of FIR 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. ECIR/RPZO/04/2023 dated 14.10.2023 registered by ED (Rice Milling ECIR) FIR No. 01/2024 dated 16.01.2024 ACB/EOW, Raipur (Rice Milling FIR) registered at PS- ECIR/RPZO/02/2023 dated 20.03.2023 registered by ED (DMF ECIR) FIR No. 02/2024 dated 16.01.2024 registered at PS- ACB/EOW, Raipur (DMF FIR) ECIR/RPZO/9/2022 dated 29.09.2022 registered by ED (Coal ECIR) FIR No. 03/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered at PS- ACB/EOW, Raipur (Coal FIR) ECIR/RPZO/10/2022 dated 06.10.2022 registered by ED (Mahadev ECIR) FIR No. 06/2024 dated 04.03.2024 registered at PS- ACB/EOW, Raipur (Mahadev FIR) FIR No. 44/2024 dated 05.10.2024 registered at PS- ACB/EOW, Raipur (Manpower FIR) FIR No. 36/2024 dated 07.09.2024 registered at PS- ACB/EOW, Raipur (Jharkhand FIR) FIR No. 49/2024 dated 04.11.2024 registered at PS- ACB/EOW, Raipur (Chats FIR) FIR No. RC 216 2025 A 0006 dated 16.04.2025 registered at PS- CBI/AC-1, New Delhi (Chats CBI FIR) 30 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent authorities have opposed the submissions urged by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and submits that the petition itself is legally untenable and misconceived. It is 52 submitted that the petitioner has sought a blanket order directing the authorities for protection in 12 FIRs, which is impermissible under the settled principles of law. The Respondents have also asserted that there is no statutory provision protecting the accused in pursuant to the FIRs, as such a practice would amount to granting an undue advantage to persons accused of serious offences and would hinder the investigation process. Additionally, it was argued that the petitioner’s plea, if granted, would set a dangerous precedent wherein public servants accused of corruption or misconduct could claim immunity by demanding a pre-trial hearing. They have further contended that adequate legal safeguards are available to the petitioner under the existing legal framework, including the right to seek anticipatory bail. 31 Learned counsel for the respondents have further submitted that investigation is yet to be carried out in the matter. At this stage, it cannot be ascertained whether the authorities are filing a charge sheet against the petitioner or closure report is being submitted. Issuance of interim protection is also not permissible. It is submitted that the statutory provisions are available and the petitioner should adhere to the statutory provisions available to him under law and should have at least filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C./482 of BNSS Without even approaching the competent Courts for availing the remedy of anticipatory bail, he has directly filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are 53 statutory provisions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS for seeking for quashment of an FIR. Bypassing the abovenoted statutory provisions, this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking interim protection, which is not permissible under the law. As such, the grounds taken by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner are not sustainable in the eyes of law and petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 32 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties of the both the sides and perused the material available on record. 33 On a pointed query being made to Ms. Arora, learned Senior Counsel towards the prayer made in the present petition regarding its maintainability before this Court that the instant petition filed by the petitioner without there being prayer for quashing of the 12 FIRs/ECIRs registered for the aforementioned offences against the petitioner and others, how can an interim protection be granted and further the relief No.IV, under which provision of law, this Court can grant a blanket order not to register any fresh FIR etc. or any such proceeding against the petitioner in future by any of the respondents. 34 At this stage, Ms. Arora seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the relief No.IV, in which the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court that no new FIR or any other fresh proceeding 54 be registered or initiated by any Respondent Agencies/ Authorities based on the basis of material already in possession with any of the Respondent Agencies/Authorities without the permission of this Court. 35
Decision
In view of the above, this Court has permitted the petitioner to withdraw the prayer No.IV. 36 The petitioner in this petition has prayed for a direction to all supervision and monitoring of all investigations against the petitioner for the purupose of impartial and fair investigation. 37 In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sakiri Basu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409, has held in following terms :- “27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 55 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere. 29. In Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another 2003 (6) SCC 195 (vide para 13), it has been observed by this Court that a Magistrate cannot interfere with the investigation by the police. However, in our opinion, the ratio of this decision would only apply when a proper investigation is being done by the police. If the Magistrate on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is satisfied that proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the officer- in-charge of the concerned police station, he can certainly direct the officer in charge of the police station to make a proper investigation and can further monitor the same (though he should not himself investigate). 30. It may be further mentioned that in view of Section 36 Cr.P.C. if a person is 56 aggrieved that a proper investigation has not been made by the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station, such aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police or other police officer superior in rank to the officer-in- charge of the police station and such superior officer can, if he so wishes, do the investigation vide CBI vs. State of Rajasthan and another 2001 (3) SCC 333 (vide para 11), R.P. Kapur vs. S.P. Singh AIR 1961 SC 1117 etc. Also, the State Government is competent to direct the Inspector General, Vigilance to take over the investigation of a cognizable offence registered at a police station vide State of Bihar vs. A.C. Saldanna, (1980) 1 SCC 554.” 38 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2021) 19 SCC 401, while dealing with the similar issue has held in paragraph-10.6 as under :- “10.6 In the case of Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri v. State of A.P., (2007) 13 SCC 164, in paragraph 31, it is observed and held as under: “31. A careful reading of the abovenoted judgments makes it clear that the High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should not stall the 57 investigation and/or prosecution except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that FIR does not disclose commission of any offence or that the allegations contained in FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence or that the prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is convinced that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In dealing with such cases, the High Court has to bear in mind that judicial intervention at the threshold of the legal process initiated against a person accused of committing offence is highly detrimental to the larger public and societal interest. The people and the society have a legitimate expectation that those committing offences either against an individual or the society are expeditiously brought to trial and, if found guilty, adequately punished. Therefore, while deciding a petition filed for quashing FIR or complaint or restraining the competent authority from investigating the allegations contained in FIR or complaint or for stalling the trial of the case, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect. If the allegations contained in FIR or complaint disclose commission of some crime, then the High Court must keep its hands off and allow the investigating agency to complete the investigation without any fetter and also refrain from passing order which may impede the trial. The High Court should not go into the merits and demerits of the allegations 58 simply because the petitioner alleges malus animus against the author of FIR or the complainant. The High Court must also refrain from making imaginary journey in the realm of possible harassment which may be caused to the petitioner on account of investigation of FIR or complaint. Such a course will result in miscarriage of justice and would encourage those accused of committing crimes to repeat the same. However, if the High Court is satisfied that the complaint does not disclose commission of any offence or prosecution is barred by limitation or that the proceedings of criminal case would result in failure of justice, then it may exercise inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C..” * * * * * * 21. ….. Granting of such blanket order would not only adversely affect the investigation but would have far reaching implications for maintaining the Rule of Law. Where the investigation is stayed for a long time, even if the stay is ultimately vacated, the subsequent investigation may not be very fruitful for the simple reason that the evidence may no longer be available. Therefore, in case, the accused named in the FIR/complaint apprehends his arrest, he has a remedy 59 to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and on the conditions of grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C being satisfied, he may be released on anticipatory bail by the competent court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused is remediless. It cannot be disputed that the anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be granted on the conditions prescribed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are satisfied. At the same time, it is to be noted that arrest is not a must whenever an FIR of a cognizable offence is lodged. Still in case a person is apprehending his arrest in connection with an FIR disclosing cognizable offence, as observed hereinabove, he has a remedy to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 22. As observed by this Court in the case of Hema Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 4 SCC 453, though the High Courts have very wide powers under Article 226, the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law by the authorities indiscriminately making pre-arrest of the accused persons. It is further observed that in entertaining such a petition under Article 226, the High Court is supposed to 60 balance the two interests. On the one hand, the Court is to ensure that such a power under Article 226 is not to be exercised liberally so as to convert it into Section 438 Cr.P.C. proceedings. It is further observed that on the other hand whenever the High Court finds that in a given case if the protection against pre-arrest is not given, it would amount to gross miscarriage of justice and no case, at all, is made for arrest pending trial, the High Court would be free to grant the relief in the nature of anticipatory bail in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, keeping in mind that this power has to be exercised sparingly in those cases where it is absolutely warranted and justified. However, such a blanket interim order of not to arrest or “no coercive steps” cannot be passed mechanically and in a routine manner. 23. So far as the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” till the final report/chargesheet is filed and/or during the course of investigation or not to arrest till the investigation is completed, passed while dismissing the quashing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and having opined that no case is made out to quash the FIR/complaint is concerned, the same is wholly impermissible. 26. We are at pains to note that despite the 61 law laid down by this Court in the case of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779, deprecating such orders passed by the High Courts of not to arrest during the pendency of the investigation, even when the quashing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution of India are dismissed, even thereafter also, many High Courts are passing such orders. The law declared/laid down by this Court is binding on all the High Courts and not following the law laid down by this Court would have a very serious implications in the administration of justice. 27. In the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ravuri Krishna Murthyv. State of Telangana and others, (2021) 19 SCC 458, this bench set aside the similar order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court of granting a blanket order of protection from arrest, even after coming to the conclusion that no case for quashing was established. The High Court while disposing of the quashing petition and while refusing to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directed to complete the investigation into the crime without arresting the second petitioner – A2 and file a final report, if any, in accordance with law. The High Court also further passed an order that the second petitioner – A2 to appear before the investigating agency as and when required and cooperate with the investigating 62 agency. After considering the decision of this Court in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra), this Court set aside the order passed by the High Court restraining the investigating officer from arresting the second accused. 28. Thus, it has been found that despite absolute proposition of law laid down by this Court in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra) that such a blanket order of not to arrest till the investigation is completed and the final report is filed, passed while declining to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, as observed hereinabove, the High Courts have continued to pass such orders. Therefore, we again reiterate the law laid down by this Court in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra) and we direct all the High Courts to scrupulously follow the law laid down by this Court in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra) and the law laid down by this Court in the present case, which otherwise the High Courts are bound to follow. We caution the High Courts again against passing such orders of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be taken” till the investigation is completed and the final report is filed, while not entertaining quashing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 39 Further, in the matter of Ravuri Krishna Murthy v. State of Telangana and others, (2021) 19 SCC 458, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 63 “10 …. Such a direction by the High Court has the effect of impeding the course of the investigation and has no basis or justification in law. The petition under section 482 was for quashing the FIR. The High Court found no substance in the petition. The matter should have ended there. The order restraining arrest was not in aid of further proceedings. Indeed, the proceedings were at an end once the High Court declined to quash the FIR. A person in the position of the third respondent has remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure to protect his liberty by either seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 or applying for regular bail under Section 439. A blanket direction of the nature which has been issued by the High Court would completely dislocate the investigation and cause a serious obstruction in the enforcement of criminal justice. Such an order ought not to have been passed by the High Court. What compounds matters is that there is not a word in justification in the order of the High Court for issuing such a direction. The High Court has been oblivious to the serious nature of the allegations, involving the tampering of a judicial record. We disapprove of the course followed by the High Court. It has no foundation in law.” 40 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and having 64 heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the aforesaid dictum by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is apparently clear that no such orders for not arresting or not taking any coercive action can be passed in the pending investigation into the matter. The petitioner is having a remedy to approach the concerning Courts by filing an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of Cr. P.C./482 of BNSS and, thereafter, can take a recourse under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS wherein the High Court is having an inherent power for quashment of FIR etc., but in the present case without following the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking interim protection alleging that the petitioners are unnecessarily being harassed. 41 The issuance of such orders by High Court was taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra) and was again taken note of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited (supra), in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held in categorical terms that “it is absolutely inconceivable and unthinkable to pass an order directing the police not to arrest till the investigation is completed while declining to interfere or expressing opinion that it is not appropriate to stay the investigation”. It is further observed that this kind of order is really inappropriate and unseemly and it has no sanction in law. It is further observed that the courts should oust and obstruct 65 unscrupulous litigants from invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the drop of a hat to file an application for quashing of launching an FIR or investigation and then seek relief by an interim order. It is further observed that it is the obligation of the court to keep such unprincipled and unethical litigants at bay. 42 In the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ravuri Krishna Murthy (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the similar order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court of granting a blanket order of protection from arrest, even after coming to the conclusion that no case for quashing was established. 43 Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim protection and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 of BNSS before the competent Court. 44 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India, (2011) 14 SCC 337, has held that “where hierarchy of appeals was provided by the statute, a party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction for relief, but inspite of having alternative remedy the writ petition has been preferred seeking multiple reliefs, therefore, the petition was not entertained being devoid of merits is not maintainable and is dismissed”. 66 45 In the present case, without exhausting the remedy of seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C./482 of BNSS or approaching this Court by way of filing a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS petition seeking quashment of an FIR or a criminal proceedings, he has taken a recourse to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 46 Taking into account the facts of the case, it is apparent that granting of blanket order would not only adversely affect the investigation, but would have far reaching implications for maintaining the Rule of Law. Where the investigation is stayed for a long time, even if the stay is ultimately vacated, the subsequent investigation may not be very fruitful for the simple reason that the evidence may no longer be available. Therefore, in case, the accused named in the FIR/complaint apprehends his arrest, he has a remedy to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C./482 of BNSS and on the conditions of grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C/482 of BNSS being satisfied, he may be released on anticipatory bail by the competent Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused is remediless. It cannot be disputed that the anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNSS can be granted on the conditions prescribed under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 of BNSS are 67 satisfied. At the same time, it is to be noted that arrest is not a must whenever an FIR of a cognizable offence is lodged. Still in case a person is apprehending his arrest in connection with an FIR disclosing cognizable offence, as observed hereinabove, he has a remedy to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 of BNSS. 47 Additionally, Ms. Arora pressing upon the affidavits filed by respondents No.1 and 2 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP filed by the petitioner in peding petition showing the conduct of the some of the respodnents in illegal detention of the petitioner in the cases regulated against him, but this Court cannot taking into account and comment on the said affidavits as the said affidavits have been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court where the matter is pending. 48 Considering the matter in its entirety as well as appreciating the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the present case does not fall under the category of rarest of the rare cases, therefore, the relief praying for interim protection to the petitioner, without adhering to the statutory provisions of criminal jurisprudence, this Court refrains from entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 49 With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed as not maintainable as the writ Court cannot pass 68 a blanket order of interim protection without there being any prayer for quashing of the FIRs/ECIRs. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to law, if so advised. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Anu