HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH v. State of Chhattisgarh, Through State Anti Corruption Bureau/ Economic Offence Wing, Raipur

Judgment

1. Since all the bail applications have arisen out of same crime number, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order but the role played by each of the applicant will be considered separately.

2. MCRCA No. 918 of 2024 is first bail application filed by the applicant/Deepesh Taunk under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of anticipatory bail, who has apprehension of being arrested in connection with Crime No. 03/2024 registered at Police Station- Anti Corruption Bureau/ Economic Offence Wing Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) on 17.01.2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of IPC and Section 7, 7-A, 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

MCRC No. 5695 of 2024 & MCRC No. 6423 of 2024 are first bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicants- Smt. Ranu Sahu & Rahul Kumar Singh who have been arrested on

23.05.2024 & 18.06.2024 respectively in connection with Crime No. 03/2024 registered at Police Station- Anti Corruption Bureau/ Economic Offence Wing Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of IPC and Section 7, 7-A, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11.01.2024, one Mr. Sandeep Ahuja, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur through Mr. Farhan Qureshi, Deputy Superintendent of Police lodged a complaint before the Director General of Police Anti Corruption Bureau & Economic Offences Wing, Chhattisgarh pertaining to predicate offence discovered during the money laundering investigation File No. ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 was done under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “the PMLA”). Thereafter, an offence bearing FIR No. 03/2024 has been registered on 17.01.2024 at Police Station ACB/EOW Raipur (C.G.) against 35 accused persons namely Smt. Saumya Chaurasiya, Sameer Bisnoi, Smt. Ranu Sahu, Sandeep Kumar Nayak, Shivshankar Nag, Suryakant Tiwari, Manish Upadhyay, Roshan Kumar Singh, Nikhil Chandrakar, Rahul Singh, Parekh Kurre, Moinuddin Qureshi, Virendra Jaiswal, Rajnikant Tiwari, Hemant Jaiswal, Joginder Singh, Nawneet Tiwari, Deepesh Taunk, Devendra Dadsena, Rahul Mishra, Ramgopal Agrawal, Devendra Singh Yadav, Shishupal Sori, Rampratap Singh, Vinod Tiwari, Amarjeet Bhagat, Chandradeo Prasad Rai, Brashpat Singh, Idrish Gandhi, Gulab Kamro, Shri U.D. Minj, Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Jai (friend of Suryakant), Chandraparakash Jaiswal, Laxmikant Tiwari & others.

5. Further case of the prosecution is that a syndicate comprised of private individuals and other State Government functionaries like Smt. Saumya Chaurasia, Shri Sameer Vishnoi IAS, State Mining Officers and with the backing of some political executives, they managed to make deliberate policy changes. As part of the well- planned conspiracy, Suryakant Tiwari, with the active support of the politicians & some of the senior State Government functionaries, managed to influence Shri Sameer Vishnoi IAS, the then Director of Geology & Mining, and got issued a Government Order dated 15.07.2020 which became the fountain head of this extortion system by converting the online system of issuance of Transport Permits into a manual system. They started a network of extortion to collect Rs. 25 per on every tonne of coal transported in the State of Chhattisgarh. The investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate revealed that other senior bureaucrats viz., Smt. Saumya Chaurasia and Smt. Ranu Sahu, IAS were also involved in this conspiracy and were providing assistance to Suryakant Tiwari in running the extortion racket. Smt Saumya Chaurasia, Deputy Secretary and working in Chief Minister Office, had assisted Suryakant Tiwari and his associates in collecting the extortion money by posting pliable officers of mining department in the coal mining areas. Smt.. Ranu Sahu IAS, who worked as District Collector in coal rich Districts viz., Korba & Raigarh, had close association with Suryakant Tiwari and helped his associates in collecting extortion money from the coal transporters and other businessmen.

6. It is also case of the prosecution that by this system of extortion, a huge amount of cash started accumulating with the syndicate and with this money, Suryakant Tiwari has purchased benami assets and a huge amount of money was transferred to Saumya Chaurasia, spent on political funding and transferred as per the instructions of higher powers. The Enforcement Directorate investigation further established that Smt. Ranu Sahu had aided and abetted Suryakant Tiwari in collection of illegal levy amounts from the coal transporters. Smt. Ranu Sahu was in touch through WhatsApp with Roshan Singh, associate of Suryakant Tiwari. The WhatsApp chats happened between Smt. Ranu Sahu and Roshan Singh, close associate of Suryakant Tiwari, revealed that Roshan Singh was in regular touch with Ranu Sahu and she agreed to do work as asked by Roshan Singh. The investigation carried out by the Enforcement Directorate further revealed that the government servants like Smt. Saumya Chaurasia, Shri Sameer Vishnoi lAS and Smt. Ranu Sahu, State Mining Officers etc had received kickbacks from Suryakant Tiwari and acquired benami properties disproportionate to their source of income. The details of property so attached are given in the table format as under:- Sr. No. Name of the Public Servant

1. Sameer Vishnoi

2. Saumya Chaurasia

3. Ranu Sahu Value of attached properties Rs. 10,42,83,000/- Rs. 22,12,89,600/- Rs. 5,52,43,961/- No. of properties attached under PMLA Five Immovable property cash & jewellery Immovable 29 properties Immovable 36 properties

7. Therefore, the Enforcement Directorate requested the Anti Corruption Bureau by filing complaint to identify all the assets acquired by the various government servants who are accused of participation in this extortion syndicate in various Districts. It is also case of the Enforcement Directorate that various mining officers are involved in this extortion. As such, it was requested by the Enforcement Directorate to register an FIR and investigate the matter. In pursuance of the complaint, the FIR was registered. It is also case of the ACB/EOW that because of the instigation, Rs. 36 crores illegal extorted money has been collected which has been utilized for purchase of property in the name of Smt. Saumya Chaurasia through Deepesh Taunk for purchase of property in the name of her mother Smt. Shanti Devi Chaurasia and Anurag Chaurasia. Subsequently, Deepesh Taunk (applicant in MCRCA No. 918/2024) was working as Manager in the farm and he was involved in conversion of illegal money into legal money. Similarly against Smt. Ranu Sahu (applicant in MCRC No. 5695/2024), material has been collected regarding collection illegal money of Rs. 5.52 crores. Thus, on the basis of the complaint, FIR has been registered against the applicants for commission of offence under Sections 7, 7A & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018 (for short “the PC Act”) read with Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC.

8. From the case diary and the material so collected by the ACB/EOW, the role played by each of the applicants is given in brief separately.

9. The role of the applicant- Deepesh Taunk is that the land admeasuring 47.55 Acres which was recorded in the name of the applicant, named and styled as Om Agro Farm, Village Sewati, Potiya, Harri which was sold to the mother of accused Smt. Saumya Chaurasiya namely Smt. Shanti Devi Chaurasiya and her brother Anurag Chaurasiya for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,53,59,000/- in March, 2022 and the same fact has been accepted by him and apart from the sale consideration of Rs. 2,53,59,000/- he had not received any cash amount whereas prior to the sale of the land, few months ago the account of Deepesh Taunk and his family members an amount of Rs. 61,00,000/- cash was deposited on being enquiry, he informed that the said amount has been received from the sale proceeds of fruits and vegetables from his farm house. On further enquiry about the name, details and phone number of purchasers, he accepted that he has purchased from one Chandu Sinha and did not inform any other individual name. A notice was issued to Chandu Sinha informed that out of the said, some bills are correct and rest are forged and fabricated. Thus, the applicant directly or indirectly supported Smt. Saumya Chaurasiya by stating the amount was received from the sale of fruits and vegetables which was although the money collected by Smt. Saumya Chaurasiya from illegal coal levy. Further after selling the land by the applicant to mother of accused Smt. Saumya Chaurasiya, he also pressurized nearby farmers for selling their land to Shantidevi Chaurasiya stating that if they will not sell their land then there will be no access to their fields/lands for cultivation purposes etc. The bank accounts of Deepesh Taunk and his family members were analyzed wherein it has been found that huge cash deposits were made in the bank account of sellers just prior to the registry of the land parcel. The details of cash deposit were also accepted in the statement recorded by Deepesh Taunk. He has also admitted that all these buyers paid him only in cash and the purchaser Shri Chandrashekhar Sinha in his statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 by the Enforcement Directorate has stated that fruit bills were bogus. Thus, it is evident that applicant- Deepesh Taunk prepared bogus bills to accommodate the illegal cash obtained by him from Smt. Saumya Chaurasiya. The bank statements of Deepesh Taunk were analyzed by the Enforcement Directorate for previous years and it has been found that preceding 2-3 years, this much cash was deposited even for the entire year which he has claimed to have earned and deposited in a matter of 2 to 3 weeks corresponding to the sale of his lands. He has deposited to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs in the entire year prior to this year. Thus, it is clear that he has accepted cash in sale of his lands to Smt. Saumya Chaurasiya (mother & brother). The sources of the cash is nothing but the illegal levy on coal transportation done by the cartel of Suryakant Tiwari and delivered to the sellers for Smt. Saumya Chaurasiya through Manish Upadhyay. It is also case o the prosecution that Deepesh Taunk was also in direct touch with Manish Upadhyay and used to take cash from him in the name of farm development etc. Thus, it is clear that huge amount of money has been invested into the development of M/s Om Agro Farms and this amount is being sourced from the coal syndicate only. Thus, part of proceeds of crime has been regularly being accumulated by Deepesh Taunk in the name of farm development and he has knowingly assisted Smt. Saumya Chaurasiya.

10. The role of applicant- Ranu Sahu is that she was Collector of District- Korba during the period of this big scam and helped in the extortion of the illegal money by the accused Mr. Suryakant Tiwari and his associates from coal transporters and DMF contractors. Her brother namely Piyush Sahu deliberately managed to settle the illegal amount received by her. Properties were purchased by Piyush Sahu in his name and his family members with the said illegal amount. Smt. Ranu Sahu provided active support to Mr. Suryakant Tiwari as part of a conspiracy in running this coal syndicate. Mr. Roshan Singh, an active associate of Suryakant Tiwari in this syndicate, was in constant touch with Mr. Suryakant Tiwari and Smt. Ranu Sahu. The fact of their involvement and active cooperation in the said scam is reflected in the WhatsApp chat conversations of Smt. Ranu Sahu, Roshan Singh and Suryakant Tiwari. This kind of extortion racket would not have been possible without involvement of Smt. Ranu Sahu and other government officials/employees. The source of money paid for the immovable properties purchased by Smt. Ranu Sahu in the name of her family members has been stated as agricultural produce and unsecured loans from known people from whom they accepted unsecured loans, but the loans or interest was not reported to be refunded and cash was deposited in everyone's bank accounts before giving unsecured loan. Suryakant Tiwari, Smt. Soumya Chaurasia, Sameer Vishnoi, Smt. Ranu Sahu and other members of the syndicate, Roshan Singh, Nikhil Chandrakar, were involved in illegal coal levy collection from July 2020 to June 2022. Illegal immovable properties worth crores of rupees were purchased in the name of their family members and to purchase the said properties, all the accused were said to have taken unsecured loans from unknown people which shows how during the levy collection, the accused have purchased movable and immovable properties worth crores in the name of their family members (Benami-dars) with the illegal coal levy extortion money. Mrs. Ranu Sahu has purchased about 16 immovable properties worth about Rs. 7 crore in the name of her brother Piyush Sahu and family members between the year 2021 and 2022 during her posting as Korba/Raigarh Collector. It is also case of the prosecution that land broker namely Devendra Chandrakar, resident of Mahasamund, stated in his statement that 68 acres of land in the name of the family members of Mrs. Ranu Sahu is located in village Kalmidadar, Tehsil Bagbahra, District Mahasamund, which also includes 14- 15 acres of tribal land. Similarly, her brother Piyush Sahu purchased 2.15 acres of land from Shri Mitthu Ram Rampal, father of Rajuram Pal Village- Pateva, Abhanpur, Police Station Gobra Navapara, District- Raipur for Rs 2 crore, which at the time of registration was worth Rs 21 lakh. Payment was made by cheque and the remaining amount of Rs 1.79 crore was paid in cash. 50 dismil land situated at Mahasamund was purchased from Neha Sahu by her mother namely Mrs. Lakshmi Sahu, for which Rs. 3.98 lakh was paid by cheque and Rs. 11 lakh in cash. Smt. Ranu Sahu who had mutual relations between Suryakant Tiwari and his syndicate members through mobile and WhatsApp chatting, hatched a criminal conspiracy with Smt. Ranu Sahu, Smt. Soumya Chaurasia, Mr. Suryakant Tiwari and others had extorted coal levy from coal traders and transporters. Evidence has been found of her complete involvement in the conspiracy of illegal levy by helping in collecting illegal coal levy of Rs. 25 per tonne on transportation.

11. The role of applicant- Rahul Kumar Singh (in MCRC No. 6423/2024) is that he used to work for Suryakant Tiwari's partner Jogendra Singh, who was given the task of illegal coal levy collection in District- Surajpur by Suryakant Tiwari in collaboration with Motu alias Virendra Jaiswal. He was associated with Suryakant Tiwari from the beginning of coal levy collection in 2020 and he was also present in the meetings of coal transporters and traders held by Suryakant Tiwari and Hemant Jaiswal. Rahul Kumar Singh and Virendra Jaiswal together used to collect Rs. 25 per tonne from coal traders in District-Surajpur coal delivery order (DO). Before taking NOC from mining department and getting the delivery order cleared an OK message was sent to Mining Officer Sandeep Nayak. If the illegal coal levy money was not paid, the delivery order was kept on hold due to which traders were afraid of delivery order lapsing. Due to fear, coal transporters and traders used to pay the money. The illegal coal levy of Rs. 25 per tonne collected by Rahul Kumar Singh and Virendra Jaiswal alias Montu was deposited by Virendra Jaiswal or sometimes by himself taking it to Korba with Moinuddin Qureshi and Moinuddin Qureshi or Parekh Kurre used to deposit the same with Rajnikant Tiwari or Roshan Singh at Raipur once a week along with the account. Rahul Kumar Singh has played an important role in the illegal coal levy collection of Suryakant Tiwari.

12. Ms. Rajwant Kaur along with Mr. Sudeep Verma, counsel for the applicant- Deepesh Taunk in MCRCA No. 918/2024 would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. They would further submit that at the time of registration of the FIR, applicant was already behind the bar in connection with Compliant Nо. ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 dated 29.09.2022, registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to the similar set of facts allegedly made in the present crime also. She would further submit that the investigation authorities are working in a oppressive manner against the present applicant whereas no ingredients of the alleged offences have been made out against the present applicant in the instant case. None of the act or conduct of the applicant proves commission of the offence alleged or suggests any kind of involvement in the case and would pray for enlarging the applicant on anticipatory bail. To substantiate the submission, she would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Kailas Tiwari Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 11830/2023 (decided on 11.12.2023)], judgment passed this Hon’ble Court in case of Anil Tuteja Vs. The Director, Directorate of Enforcement [MCRCA No. 469/2020 (decided on

14.08.2020)], judgment passed High Court of Himachal Pradesh in case of Meena Kumari Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [CRMP (M) No. 1720/2019 (decided on 16.09.2019)]. Learned counsel for the applicant has also submitted the written synopsis reiterating the same facts mentioned hereinabove.

13. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Khushboo Dua, counsel for the applicant- Mrs. Ranu Sahu in MCRC No. 5695/2024 would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would further submit that after filing of chargesheet, there is no credible and trustworthy evidence to connect the present applicant with the allegations as framed against him or to suggest that the present applicant has received any amount as kickback to the conspiracy or by way of recovery. He would further submit that no sanction has been granted by the Government under the Prevention of Corruption Act, therefore, the trial cannot be initiated as such, trial will be delayed and the applicant is in jail since 23.05.2024. He would further submit that the applicant is being subjected to multiple prosecutions in respect of the same transactions by carrying out different cases which is prima facie illegal and violative of the constitutional and statutory rights and protection rendering the detention of the applicant in custody illegally. He would further submit that even after registration of FIR in the subject matter, there was no arrest till the application of the applicant was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court on 17.05.2024 and the bail was granted to the co-accused on

17.05.2024. The instant FIR No. 03/2024 has been registered at Police Station- ACB & EOW, Raipur based on information in ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 dated 29.09.2022 and the applicant has been arrested by ACB/EOW on 23.05.2024, with malice intention after four months of registration of FIR anticipating release of the applicant on bail looking to the order passed in the matter of co- accused Sunil Agrawal by the Hon'ble Apex Court. He would further submit that the maximum sentence may be imposed upon the applicant for the aforesaid offence is 7 years, therefore, the applicant’s right is envisaged under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. whereas Section 267 of the Cr.P.C. provides that the arrest and continue incarceration of the applicant is not only malafide but also unnecessary.

14. He would further submit that no recovery has been made from the present applicant to connect her with the alleged offences during her period in the custodial interrogation, therefore, the present applicant is not required for investigation. He would further submit that in the material collected by the Income Tax Department, a diary has been found with certain alleged entries with reference to 'Ranu', 'R Mem' 'RS' but the same cannot be considered as evidence under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He would further submit that there are certain alleged WhatsApp chats between one Roshan Singh and the applicant and the applicant with Suryakant Tiwari and even if the whatsapp chats are considered to be true, there is nothing in those chats which make out any case of cheating/extortion under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He would further submit that if the charge-sheet is considered at its face value, the only allegation is that the applicant informed Roshan Singh about the law in relation to sale of land (which belong to Adivasis) which does not show any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018) against the applicant. He would further submit that the transaction of sale of Maa Mandwarani Coal Washery Limited was completed when she was not posted as District Collector, Korba.

15. He would further submit that the applicant had no role in issuance of such notification dated 15.07.2020 whereby a manual step of getting NOC against coal delivery orders from the mining officer was introduced in the erstwhile online process that purportedly enabled the illegal collection of Rs. 25/- per tonne of coal. In fact, the applicant was working as Commissioner, GST with the additional charge as Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Tourism Development Board during such a period. The applicant has neither named in the FIR No. 129/2022 at P.S. Kadugodi nor has been charge-sheeted in the same after investigation by Bengaluru Police as there is no connection of the applicant with the alleged extortion racket by way of collection of illegal levy on coal. He would further submit that there is no material or statement given by any private power producer or representative of any other industrial undertaking who has stated that he/she was ever asked let alone be forced by the applicant to pay the alleged coal levy and no allegation can be made out for the alleged meetings with Roshan Singh in relation to transactions related to Maa Mandwarani Coal Benefication Private Limited as there is nothing on record to show that any steps taken or decisions taken in relation to such transaction under the authority of the applicant is illegal or against the provision of law and would pray for grant of regular bail to the applicant.

16. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of State of U.P. through CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21, Harjit Singh Vs. Inderpreet Singh alias Inder & another reported in (2021) 19 SCC 355, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashish Chatterjee & another reported in (2010) 14 SCC 496, Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & another reported in (2018) 12 SCC 129, Bhagirathsinh S/o Mahipat Singh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1984) 1 SCC 284, State of Kerala Vs. Raneef reported in (2011) 1 SCC 784, Bibhav Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 9817/2024 (decided on 02.09.2024)], Ankur Chaudhary Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4648/2024 (decided on 28.05.2024)], Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, Ramkripal Meena Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3205/2024 (decided on 30.07.2024)], Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & another reported in (2021) 10 SCC 773, Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [decided on 09.08.2024], Kalvakuntla Kavitha Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [decided on 27.08.2024], Prem Prakash Vs. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement [decided on 28.08.2024], Vijay Nair Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Diary No. 22137/2024 (decided on 02.09.2024)], Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India [Criminal Appeal No. 3173/2024 (decided on

13.08.204)], Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [Criminal Appeal No. 3816/2024 (decided on

13.09.2024)], State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar & other reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770, judgment passed by this Court in case of Gurjinder Pal Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in 2022:CGHC:11189 & judgment passed by High Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh at Jammu in case of Davinder Sharma Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [Bail App. No. 186/2022 (decided on

16.06.2022)]. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has also submitted the written synopsis reiterating the same facts mentioned hereinabove.

17. Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, counsel for the applicant- Rahul Kumar Singh in MCRC No. 6423 of 2024 would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He would further submit that the applicant has no role to play in commission of the alleged offence and there is no evidence to connect the present applicant with the alleged offence. He would further submit that the applicant did not collect illegal money at the rate of Rs. 25/- per tonne from the coal transporters/coal dealers of Korba, Raigarh and Surajpur District in the name of coal levy and did not get the permission letters issued to the coal transporters/coal dealers through other accused in the case neither the said amount was collected by him. The applicant being a layman/employee working under the instructions of his employers, therefore, he has no role to play in passing of the order dated 15.07.2020 related to coal levy. He would further submit that the applicant has not named as accused in the case/investigation before the Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA and no document has been recovered from the applicant with respect to transaction of amount mentioned in the case. He would further submit that there is nothing on record which demonstrates direct involvement of the applicant in alleged offence as he is neither a government servant nor holds any post. He would further submit that the applicant is aged about 27 years and he was merely an employee under the other co-accused persons who have been been implicated in the alleged offence and no documents or money has been seized from custody of the present applicant. He would further submit that there are 136 prosecution witnesses and final disposal of the case is likely to take some more time and the applicant is in jail since 18.06.2024 as such he would pray for enlarging the applicant on bail.

18. Dr. Saurabh Pande, counsel for the ACB/EOW opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and referring to the FIR and the case diary would submit that all the applicants are involved in the economical offence which not only heinous offence but also against the economic of the nation. The custodial interrogation of the applicant- Smt. Ranu Sahu & Rahul Kumar Singh in MCRC No. 5695/2024 & MCRC No.6423/2023 respectively are required as the applicants have not disclosed the source of income from where these properties which have been detailed in the final report and if the accused remained the custody, the sources of purchased of property can be trace out. It has been further contended that from the list of property purchased by the applicant- Smt. Ranu Sahu or her family members, prima facie it is disproportionate to the source of income of the applicant, as such would pray for rejection of the bail of the applicant- Smt. Ranu Sahu. So far applicant- Deepesh Taunk & Rahul Kumar Singh is concerned, prima facie material is against them regarding commission of offence as aforestated. As such, he would pray for rejection of the bail applications filed by them.

19. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and the respondents as well as considered the case diary.

20. From perusal of FIR and the material available in the case diary, involvement of the applicants in commission of offence under Section 7, 7A & 12 of the PC Act, is prima facie reflected. Hon’ble the Supreme Court while considering the gravity of economic offence in case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (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]

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.”

21. The submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the applicant in MCRC No. 5695/2024 that the applicant-Smt. Ranu Sahu has been enlarged on bail by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Enforcement Directorate, therefore, she may also be granted bail in the present case, deserves to be rejected as in the bail matter, facts of each case and gravity of the offence, material so collected by the prosecution have to be independently considered. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicants have nowhere stated in the bail petitions regarding source of income by which the properties mentioned in the final report have been acquired which clearly shows that the ACB/EOW has collected certain material against the applicant- Smt. Ranu Sahu.

22. So far as applicant- Rahul Kumar Singh in MCRC No. 6423/2024 is concerned, the prosecution has collected the material that he has shown active participation in the syndicate and he was working as per direction of main accused Suryakant Tiwari and by extorted money has been utilized for purchased of properties, thus, prima facie involvement of the applicant-Rahul Kumar Singh in offence relates to economic offence is reflected. Therefore, the involvement and gravity of the offence, the applicant- Rahul Kumar Singh is not entitled to get bail.

23. Considering the FIR and other material placed on record, which prima facie shows involvement of the applicants- Smt. Ranu Sahu & Rahul Kumar Singh in crime in question. As such, I am of the view that it is not a fit case where the applicant- Smt. Ranu Sahu & Rahul Kumar Singh should be granted regular bail.

24. So far as 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-ACB/EOW and considering the stage of the investigation, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant- Deepesh Taunk.

25. Accordingly, the bail application bearing MCRCA No. 918/2024 filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. and the bail applications bearing MCRC No. 5695/2024 & MCRC No. 6423/2024 filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. are liable to be and are hereby rejected.

26. 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 the present bail applications. Arun Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge