Nafr High Court · 2025
Case Details
Page 1 of 13 2025:CGHC:43835 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR MCRC No. 5130 of 2025 Reserved on : 18-08-2025 Delivered on : 29-08-2025 Maya Varier, W/o. Shri Surendra Singh, aged about 48 years, r/o. RF-2 Officers Colony, Rampur Road, Korba (CG). Versus --- Applicant The State of Chhatisgarh through Station House Officer, EOW/ACB, Raipur (CG). --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Aman Saxena, Advocate. For Respondent : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV ORDER 1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested on 5-3-2025 in connection with Crime No. 02/2024 registered at Police Station- EOW/ACB, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that EOW, Raipur received a Page 2 of 13 letter/information from Enforcement Directorate dated 11.01.2024
Facts
urging the EOW to register an FIR under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act against the applicant along with other co-accused. On the basis of letter/ information, the FIR bearing Crime No. 02/2024 has been registered at Police Station- EOW/ACB, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for commission of offence under Sections 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the applicant mainly alleging that:- (A)District Mineral Fund Trust (for short “the DMFT”) is a trust constituted under the Mines and Minerals Act which has been set up in all districts of Chhattisgarh with the aim to extend benefits to the persons who are affected by mining related projects and activities. It is also case of the prosecution that the criminal conspiracy has hatched while allotting various types of tenders under DMF after receiving illegal benefit and thereby causing loss to Government by committing financial irregularities. It is alleged that the present applicant was Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department at District Balod and thereafter at Korba at the relevant time.
Legal Reasoning
which is economic offence is prima facie reflected. He would further submit that in view of well settled position of law that economic offence constitutes a separate class of offence and bail should not normally be granted in such cases. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2019) 9 SC 24, State of Gujarat vs. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and another, reported in 1987 AIR 1321 and Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement passed in SLP (Cri) No 9431 of 2023. 9. He would further submit that in a recent judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's plea for bail on the ground of parity with other co-accused who had been granted bail in a money laundering case. The Court emphatically stated that the principle of parity is not an absolute law but depends on individual circumstances and roles in the alleged offence. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that parity alone is not a ground for granting bail. The Court must examine the individual role of each accused before granting bail. He would further submit that in view of the grave nature of allegations, the significant of quantum misappropriated, public funds and the well-documented evidence including bank records and witness statements, it is clear that the accused was key conspirator in an organized and deliberate network of corruption. Granting bail at this stage would pose a serious risk of evidence tampering, witness intimidation, and obstruction of justice. Therefore, it is most respectfully submitted that the applicant/accused is not entitled to the discretionary relief of bail, and her bail application may be rejected in the larger interest of justice, fairness, and public accountability. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused case diary with utmost satisfaction. 11. From perusal of FIR and the material available in the case diary, Page 9 of 13 involvement of the applicant in commission of offence under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 120- B, 467, 468 471 of IPC, which is economic offence, is prima facie reflected as prosecution has collected prima facie material against the applicant that she has acquired the properties/cash details as mentioned above without disclosing the source of acquiring property/income, as such prima facie material is available against the applicant. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant has nowhere stated in the bail petition regarding source of income by which the properties mentioned in the final report have been acquired which clearly shows that the ACB/EOW has collected certain material against the applicant. Even otherwise the applicant is unable to deny the allegation made against the applicant regarding fake employment arrangement, access transfer and also vendor Sanjay Shende statement that Rs. 9,10,001/- has been routed through her sister by showing as a bogus employee, purchase of Innova Crysta worth Rs. 25,95,000/- in the name of brother-in-law and subsequently has been given to the applicant for his personal use, payment of commission Rs. 24,78,000/-, purchase of property a residential plot admeasuring 3375 sq.ft., purchase of 5.7 acre agriculture land in the name of her parents and various land purchase in Mahasamund District in the name of her sister. Thus, from perusal of FIR and the material available in the case diary, involvement of the applicant in commission of offence under Sections 7 & 12 of the Page 10 of 13 PC Act and Section 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of IPC, which is economic offence, is prima facie reflected, as such her custodial investigation is required in this case to verify the truthness of allegations. 13. Hon’ble the Supreme Court while considering the gravity of economic offence in case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, [(2019) 9 SCC 24] has held at paragraph 78 to 81 as under:- “78. Observing that economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to the community, in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and others (1987) 2 SCC 364, it was held as under:- “5. ….The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest…..” 79. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Supreme Court held as under:- “34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.” [underlining added] Page 11 of 13 80. Referring to Dukhishyam Benupani, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria (1998) 1 SCC 52, in Enforcement Officer, Ted, Bombay v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora and others (1999) 5 SCC 720, while hearing an appeal by the Enforcement Directorate against the order of the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent thereon, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Single Judge granting anticipatory bail. 81. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.” 14. Again Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) & another (2021) 6 SCC 230] has held in paragraph 23 as under :- 24. The principles governing the grant of bail were reiterated by a two judge Bench in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496: “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; Page 12 of 13 (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. “10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal...” 47. The considerations which must weigh with the Court in granting bail have been formulated in the decisions of this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh13 and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee14(noted earlier). These decisions as well as the decision in Sanjay Chandra (supra) were adverted to in a recent decision of a two judge Bench of this Court dated 19 March 2021 in The State of Kerala v. Mahesh where the Court observed: “22…All the relevant factors have to be weighed by the Court considering an application for bail, including the gravity of the offence, the evidence and material which prima facie show the involvement of applicant for bail in the offence alleged, the extent of involvement of the applicant for bail, in the offence alleged, possibility of the applicant accused absconding or otherwise defeating or delaying the course of justice, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being threatened or influenced or of evidence being tempered with, and danger to the safety of the victim (if alive), the complainant, their relatives, friends or other witnesses….” Similarly, the Court held that the grant of bail by the High Court can be set aside, consistent with the precedents we have discussed above, when such grant is based on non- application of mind or is innocent of the relevant factors for such grant. 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner in which the economic offence has been committed by the applicant and Page 13 of 13 also the FIR and other material placed on record, prima facie involvement of the applicant in crime in question is there. Thus, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case where the applicant should be granted regular bail. 16. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed by the present applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected. 17. The observation made by this Court is not bearing any effect on the trial of the case. The learned trial court will decide the criminal trial in accordance with evidence, material placed on record, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while deciding present bail application. RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.08.29 17:04:47 +0530 Raju Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge
Arguments
(B)Further case of the prosecution is that in connivance with Smt. Ranu Sahu, the then Collector of Districts Balod and Korba among others and being part of a syndicate, siphoned off public money and part of such money was paid as bribes to the Government officials. From the facts and evidence collected during the course of investigation, it has been found that accused/applicant who as working as Deputy Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, District Korba played an active role in serious irregularities and corruption while floating tenders issued under District Mineral Foundation Trust (D.M.F.T.) during her posting. (C) It is also case of the prosecution that on the instructions of the Page 3 of 13 then Collector, Smt. Ranu Sahu, the present applicant collected illegal commission upto 40 percent from the tender recipients in exchange for approving the contracts. A part of the illegal amount collected was given directly to Smt. Ranu Sahu and the remaining amount was delivered to various persons mentioned by her, on the instructions of Smt. Ranu Sahu. Present applicant Smt. Maya Varier was an active and trusted member of this entire corruption syndicate, who provided illegal benefits to herself and the entire syndicate in operating this network. The investigation has also revealed that as a senior officer of the Tribal Development Department, Smt. Maya Varier had complete control over the implementation of public welfare schemes being run in the notified tribal area of District Korba. She used to get the work allotted to the identified contractors and vendors only at the behest of Collector Ranu Sahu, by giving direct instructions to the Chief Executive Officers of the Janpad Panchayats. In return, she used to get illegal commission. (D) It is also case of the prosecution that the Applicant Mrs. Maya Varier was the closest and most trusted officer of Collector Mrs. Ranu Sahu. Earlier, both the officers were posted together in Balod district. Where Mrs. Maya Varier used to handle all the recovery and irregular works related to DMF. Within just two months of posting in Korba, Mrs. Ranu Sahu got Mrs. Maya Varier transferred to Korba. (E)The contractors were clearly instructed that in addition to the huge commission fixed for the Collector level, it is mandatory to pay 03 Page 4 of 13 percent separately to Mrs. Maya Varier. The entire mechanism of illegal collection was taken under control by Mrs. Maya Varier. From the facts and evidence collected during the investigation, it has been found that acting on the instructions of the then Collector, Smt. Ranu Sahu, she not only ensured allocation of contracts to per-identified vendors but also actively collected illegal commissions from them. She emerged as a trusted officer of Smt. Ranu Sahu in managing the recovery network and in turn created her own illicit income stream by imposing an additional commission of 3% on contractors for personal gains. 3. The record of the case would show that the applicant filed an application for grant of regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS before the learned Sessions Court at Raipur and the same was dismissed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Special (PC Act), Raipur vide its order dated 9-6-2025 on the ground that the applicant has failed to comply the triple test of bail as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. This order is being assailed by the applicant and has prayed for releasing her on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has not committed any offence, the present FIR is nothing but a malicious attempt by the ED officials to defame the accused in order to seek vendetta and for ulterior motives of the law enforcement agencies. He would further submit that the allegations as made in the FIR and Charge-sheet are completely false, bogus and made with mala fide intent to arm twist applicant into supporting the ulterior motives of Enforcement Directorate and EOW. He would further submit that the FIR has been lodged on 16.01.2024, which is after prolonged delay which clearly shows that the said FIR has been filed just to harass and humiliate the applicant and to pressure the accused into providing favourable testimony. 5. He would further submit that the applicant is an honest public servant Page 5 of 13 and neither she was part of any syndicate with Ms. Ranu Sahu, as alleged in the Charge-sheet, nor she has personal relationship with Ms. Ranu Sahu as applicant was working in Durg before being transferred to Balod in August 2018. Mrs Ranu Sahu was assigned the post of Collector at Balod in February 2019, and thereafter she was transferred to Raipur in June, 2020. The Applicant continued to work at Balod itself and it was only in August 2021 i.e. after completing 3 years tenure at Balod she was routinely transferred to Korba. Mrs. Ranu Sahu was independently transferred to Korba after her stint in Raipur in July, 2021. Therefore, so far as applicant is concerned, she had no syndicate with Mrs. Ranu Sahu but has only an official working relationship with her on account of her official position as District Collector. The applicant was not even the Nodal Officer for DMF in any of the districts. The entire statements adduced by law enforcement agencies are fabricated and inadmissible. 6. He would further submit that the applicant complies with the triple test for bail. The applicant has strong local ties, she is a Government servant, has family responsibilities with her husband and three children, and lack of criminal history negate flight risk. Further, charge- sheet has already been filed by ACB EOW Raipur on 26.05.2025 which makes the custodial requirement of the Applicant even more futile. He would further submit that the case of the present applicant is similar to that of other co-accused persons namely Mrs. Ranu Sahu, Saumya Chaurasiya, and Suryakant Tiwari and others who have already been Page 6 of 13 granted interim bail by Hon’ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 29.05.2025 and the same benefit may be extended to the present applicant on the ground of parity. He would further submit that the Applicant is in jail since 05.03.2025 which affects the discharge of her responsibilities as bread winner for the family. She has several responsibility towards his family including his children and due to false implication in present case she is unable to perform her duties towards her family. He would further submit that there are more than 85 witnesses who are mostly Government officers in the case and the trial will take sufficient time and even the investigation is not yet complete against 9 persons as per the Charge-sheet. Therefore, the present applicant ought to be extended the benefit of bail during the pendency of trial. He would further submit that the applicant is a permanent resident of captioned address, she is ready to furnish the adequate surety and abide by all the terms and conditions as directed by Hon'ble High Court including submission of passport and will cooperate with the Enforcement Directorate as per the directions of this Hon'ble Court. 7. Per contra, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State would submit that the applicant was working as Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Department, Balod from 2019 to 2021 and later she was posted as Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Department, Korba from August 2021 to March 2023 and she with intent of personal gain in connivance with other co-accused persons has siphoned off public money in form of DMF and utilized services of accommodation entry providers to generate cash on the strength of bogus/inflated purchase bills and part of such generated cash was paid Page 7 of 13 to the Government Officials as bribe for awarding them tender illegally and remaining part of the cash remained with her. The applicant has also collected bribe money from other vendors for benefit of Ms. Ranu Sahu, Thus, the applicant has actively and knowingly involved in acquisition, possession, concealment, use of proceed of crime and projected the same as untainted. He would further submit that applicant Maya Varier has not only collected illegal commission for Collector Smt. Ranu Sahu, but also set up a well-planned and organized illegal recovery mechanism for herself by making it mandatory to collect 03 percent commission from each contractor. He would further submit that the evidence so collected clearly demonstrates that applicant Maya Varrier received bribes through various clandestine methods, including fake employment arrangements and asset transfers. These transactions are corroborated by statements from Sanjay Shende, Ravi Jambhulkar, and Asha Varrier. Similarly, vendor Hrishabh Soni paid commissions amounting to ₹ 24,78,000/- through intermediaries such as Aman Kumar Ram and Ravi Jambhulkar, as confirmed by WhatsApp chats and recorded statements. 8. He would further submit that the learned Special Judge (PC Act) Raipur vide order dated 9-6.2025 while dismissing the bail application filed by the applicant has observed that there is involvement of the applicant in the crime in question which has not been rebutted by the applicant. He would further submit that the applicant is unable to comply the triple test of bail. He would further submit that from perusal of FIR and the material available in the case diary, involvement of the applicant in commission of offence under Section 7-C of the PC Act Page 8 of 13