Vijay Kumar Jain S/o Late Ratan Chand Jain Aged About 62 Years R/o D v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station, E.O.W, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.07.18 17:54:49 +0530 2025:CGHC:33823 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 4823 of 2025 Vijay Kumar Jain S/o Late Ratan Chand Jain Aged About 62 Years R/o D- 11, P.N.T. Colony, Tagore Nagar, Kotwali, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station, E.O.W, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pandey, Dy. A.G. MCRC No. 4994 of 2025 Harmeet Singh Khanuja S/o Shri Jashpal Singh Khanuja Aged About 40 Years R/o Las Vista 118, Amlidih, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ---Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer C.G. ACB/ EOW Raipur, Tehsil- Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pandey, Dy. A.G. 2 MCRC No. 5419 of 2025 Kedar Tiwari S/o Sh. Laxminarayan Tiwari Aged About 54 Years R/o Banstal, Bandhawatalab, Shankar Chowk, Raipur, C.G. ---Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through SHO, ACB/ EOW Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s)
Legal Reasoning
prima facie reflected. Reliance is placed upon the judgmetn passed by the 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. It is further
Arguments
: Ms. Sameeksha Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pandey, Dy. A.G. MCRC No. 5280 of 2025 Uma Tiwari W/o Shri Kedar Tiwari Aged About 45 Years R/o Baastaal, Near Bandhwa Talab, Shankar Chowk, Raipura, Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur (C.G.) ---Applicant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer C.G. ACB/EOW Raipur, Tehsil- Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe and Mr. Surfaraj Khan, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pandey, Dy. A.G. 3 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 17.07.2025 1. The applicants have preferred this First Bail Application under Section 483 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for grant of regular bail, as they has been arrested in connection with Crime No. 30/2025, registered at Police Station C.G. ACB/E.O.W, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B of the IPC and Section 7(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that a preliminary inquiry was made regarding financial irregularities while paying compensation worth crores of rupees for the land acquired for the Nayakbandha reservoir in Abhanpur tehsil. The details of the case are as follows that, for the construction of the reservoir in Nayakbandha village, the government had acquired pre-settlement Khasra numbers-461, 460, 459, current Khasra numbers-1592, 1588, 1589, measuring 0.27 hectare, 0.13 hectare, 0.25 hectare of land respectively in the year 1959-60. Before determining the compensation, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) and Competent Authority Land Acquisition Abhanpur ordered Revenue Inspector Shri Roshan Lal Verma and Shri Dinesh Patel Patwari for village Nayakbandha to submit a report. After examining the proposal received from the Central Ministry of 4 Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, regarding land acquisition for Raipur-Visakhapatnam National Highway widening under Bharatmala Project, by order No. 718 dated 14.05.2020 of the office of Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer Abhanpur, in compliance with which the report has been submitted by the Revenue Inspector and Patwari. In this report, Shri Roshan Lal Verma Revenue Inspector and Patwari Shri Dinesh Patel have not given information regarding land acquisition. Whereas a letter has been sent by the Tehsildar Abhanpur to Halka Patwari 23 village Nayakbandha for information about correcting the records regarding the land acquired for Nayakbandha tank. In this way, the then Halka Patwari Shri Dinesh Patel and Revenue Inspector Shri Roshal Lal Verma did not submit the report despite knowing about the land acquisition. Since the record in the name of the reservoir was not corrected/mutated, the acquired land was resold and compensation was obtained. As the said land falls under the Raipur, Vishakhapatnam proposed Economic Corridor under the National Highway Bharatmala Project announced by the Government of India, the then Land Acquisition Officer and Sub- Divisional Officer (R.) Abhanpur Nirbhay Kumar Sahu, Revenue Inspector Roshan Lal Verma, the then Halka Patwari Dinesh Patel, Village Kotwar Yashwant Kumar in connivance with Kamal Narayan Chaturvedani, Lalit Chaturvedani, Mukesh Chaturvedani father Shri Santram Chaturvedani, Lalit Baghel, Meena Bai, Usha 5 Chaturvedani, Meghraj Chaturvedani, Jharnan Chaturvedani father Shri Rekhram Chaturvedani, the previously acquired land, presently Khasra No. 1592, area 0.1300 hectare has committed the crime. The government has been deliberately cheated by paying compensation of Rs 69,89,840/- to Tikamchand Rathi, Purushottam father Jhumarlal, Dinesh Tawari, Nandkishore Tawari, Sawan Tawari, Hemant Tawari father Shri Bal Kishan Tawari, Laldevi Dawari wife Balkishan Tawari for Khasra No. 1588/1,2,3,4 for a total of Rs 1,04,82,762/- and Rs. 59,97,200/- to Paras Kumar Chopra S/o. Shri Sahasmal Chopra for Khasra No. 1589 area 250 Sq. Mt. The FIR has been registered against the accused persons namely Nirbhay Sahu the then Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Abhanpur; Dinesh Patel, Halka Patwari; Roshan Lal Verma, Revenue Inspector; Sashikant Kurre, the then Tahsildar Abhanpur; Jitendra Sahu, the then Halka Patwari No. 49, Nayakbandha; Basanti Ghritlahre, Lakheshwar Prasad Kiran, the then Naib Tahsildar Gobra Nawapara, Lekhram Dewangan, Patwari Village No. 24 Tokro and other private persons who have fraudulently obtained compensation. 3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent person and have not committed any offence and the applicants are made a scapegoat of prosecution Agency. The F. I. R. No. 30/2025 does not reveal any implication or accusation specifically against the applicants herein and the applicants have been falsely roped in the instant F.I.R. Perhaps, 6 there exist orders and the award passed in favor of the accused Uma Tiwari and without resorting to test the orders in the Higher Court, the instant FIR is lodged, which is completely arbitrary and illegal by surpassing the orders an award passed by the Quasi- Judicial Court. Even this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Rajkumar Tamboli V/s State of C.G. & Another had dealt the issue regarding the testing of orders before the Higher Court (Para no. 31), vide order dated 29.04.2024, in Cr.M.P. No. 1461/2023. Also, a review of the record concerned points out that the action intended to be taken against the applicants is malafide or tainted and liberty of the applicants is required to be safeguarded in doing justice by preventing their harassment and unjustified detention at the instance of such report registered at Police Station - ACB / EOW, by the Police on mere suspicion against the applicants. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that even assuming the case of the prosecution, по offence like sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C & Section 7 (C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are made out as leveled against the present applicants because the entire transaction is a litigation journey ranging of accused Uma Tiwari (whose identity is questioned by the complainants and the prosecution agency) from the Court of Tehsildar to C.G. Board of Revenue and in all the forums, the accused Uma Tiwari has won the case and the award dated 12.05.2023 has remained intact. Even this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Dr. Yasmin Khan V/s. Shailendra Singh & Another, Cr.M.P. No. 802/2016, vide order dated 11.09.2023 (Paragraph 7 No. 16) has dealt the issue regarding the adjudication at two forums. The allegation whatsoever recorded in F.I.R. in registering the offence against the applicants cannot constitute the ingredients of the offence. Also, against the award dated 12.05.2023, any person being aggrieved has the remedy to file an application before the Arbitrator appointed by the Central Government under Section 3 G (5) of The National Highways Act, 1956. "[3G. Determination of amount payable as compensation (1) Where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority. (2) Where the right of user or any right in the nature of an easement on, any land is acquired under this act, there shall be paid an amount to the owner and any other person whose right of enjoyment In that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such acquisition an amount calculated at ten per cent, of the amount determined under sub-section (1), for that land. (3) Before proceeding to determine the amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the competent authority shall give a public notice published in two local newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language Inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired. (4) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land and shall required all persons interested in such land to appear in person or by an agent or by a legal practitioner referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 3C, before the competent authority, at a time and place and to state the nature of their respective interest in such land. 8 (5) If the amount determined by the competent authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) is not acceptable to either of the parties, the amount shall, on an application either of the parties, be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. (6) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996) shall apply to every arbitration under this Act. (7) The competent authority or the arbitrator while determining the amount under sub-section (1) or sub- section (5), as the case may be, shall take into consideration :- a) The market value of the land on the date of publication of the notification under Section 3A; (b) The damage, if any, sustained by the person Interested at the time of taking possession of the land, by reason of the serving of such land from other land; (c) The damage, if any, sustained by the person interested at the time of taking possession of land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other immovable property in any manner, or his earnings; (d) if, in consequences of the acquisition of the land, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses if any, incidental to such change.] 5. Learned counsel for the appellants also argued that the right to fair trial and investigation is a facet of the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Right can be taken away by procedure established by law, which procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable. The person being arrested ought to be informed and furnished (in writing) the grounds on the basis 9 of which his arrest has been effected by the Investigating Agency in terms of Section 47 BNSS (corresponding to Section 50 Cr.P.C.). Non-supply of the grounds of arrest would render the arrest illegal and the accused person would be entitled to be released on bail. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prabir Purkayastha vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 and in the matter of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4702. In the instant case, no grounds of arrest were provided either to the applicants or to any of his relatives/ friends or other nominated persons, thereby violating the Petitioner's fundamental right under Article 22 of the Constitution as well as statutory rights under Section 47 BNSS (corresponding to Section 50 Cr.P.C.) and Section 48 BNSS (corresponding to Section 50-A Cr.P.C.) and rendering their arrest illegal. In fact, till date, no grounds of arrest have been furnished to the Applicants. It is submitted that the non-supply of the Grounds of Arrest itself entitles the Applicants to be released on bail forthwith in the instant case. The Applicants have not even been named as an accused person or even a suspect in the subject FIR. The Applicants were suddenly arrested even though there are no allegations of commission of any offence against the Applicants. In such circumstances, there is an even greater requirement to communicate the particulars of the offence for which they are being arrested and the grounds for their arrest. Learned counsels for the applicants also argued that a person cannot be arrested and 10 deprived of his freedom simply on the basis of mere suspicions. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants lastly submit that even otherwise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted interim relief to a co-accused, namely, Dinesh Patel, who was a Patwari by stating that no coercive action shall be taken against him in SLP (Crl.) No.9127/2025 on 23.06.2025. Further, in light of the said interim relief granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, co-accused, namely, Shashikant Kurre, Lekh Ram Dewangan and Lakheshwar Prasad Kiran who are public servants have also been granted ad-interim relief by this Court staying their arrest in MCRCA No. 1021/2025, MCRCA No. 946/2025 and MCRCA No. 976/2025 vide order dated 14.07.2025, 01.07.2025 and 14.07.2025 respectively. They lastly submit that the applicants are languishing in jail since 26.04.2025 and have no previous criminal antecedents registered against them and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence they pray for grant of bail to the applicants. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State opposes the bail applications and submissions made by learned counsels for the applicants and submits that during the investigation of the case, it was found that the accused Uma Tiwari was born on 15.08.1980 and her full name is Omkareshwari @ Urvashi Tiwari @ Uma Tiwari, whose primary education has been received from class 1st to 5th and class 6th to 7th from District Primary School Kanjheta, 11 Development Block Pandariya, District Bilaspur and Government High School Village Kanjheta Tehsil Pandariya District Bilaspur. This was verified from the school admission register and other documents as well as the statements given by the father, brother, Head Master of the School and the identification parade of the accused. Accused Mrs. Uma Tiwari was married to Shri Kedar Tiwari of village Ruse, District Bilaspur in the year 1995-96. After living in different places for a few years, his permanent address is Banstal Raipura, Raipur. Kedar Tiwari, husband of accused Mrs. Uma Tiwari, after coming in contact with other accused Vijay Jain and Harmeet Singh Khanuja, an application was presented before Naib Tehsildar Gobra Navapara on 24.11.2018, in which it was mentioned by the accused/Uma Tiwari that she was adopted daughter of Late Vishwanath Pandey and is only heir. In the name of Thakur Ramchandra Swami Temple Jaitusav Math, Village Ugetara, Pahanam land bearing Khasra no. 142, 759, 760 registered in the revenue records of Tehsil Gobra Navapara area admeasuring 6.100 hectares. Khasra No. 940, area 3.35 hectares, Khasra No. 241 Area 0.08 Ha., Khasra No. 195 area is 0.09. Total area is 9.26 Hectares. An application was submitted to transfer the land registered in the name of Temple Trust in the name of accused Uma Tiwari by claiming that the said land was in her possession being the legal heir of Late Vishwanath Pandey. The documents attached with the application have also been signed by co-accused Kedar Tiwari and Vijay Jain as identifiers of Uma Tiwari. 8. He further submits that in the investigation of the case, it was found 12 that the accused Mrs. Uma Tiwari and accused Kedar Tiwari, Vijay Kumar Jain and Harmeet Singh Khanuja committed the crime in a planned manner. Conspiratorially sansodhan panji (register) maintained by the revenue authorities of year 1985- 86, Village Ugetara, Patwari Halka No. 142 in page number 88 of the revenue records of district Raipur. A forged document was prepared by claiming that Late Vishwanath Pandey's adopted daughter Uma Tiwari's W/o. Kedar Tiwari. Using this forged document, the case was presented in various courts and orders were obtained in its favour. In the investigation of the case, it was found that the accused Uma Tiwari W/o Kedar Tiwari, has submitted forged documents of two different dates of birth viz 15.08.1970 and 15.08.1980, in the Aadhaar card number 2492 3444 7831 of the Unique Identification Authority of India, Government of India, for the purpose of obtaining benefits in various trial courts and other places. It is noteworthy that if accused Uma Tiwari W/o. Kedar Tiwari was born on 15.08.1980, then her age at that time would have been 06 years and if her date of birth is considered to be 15.08.1970, then her age would be around 16 years. Thus, if the entry of transfer of name was made in the sansodhan panji (revenue records) for the year 1985-86 at that time, then minor Uma Tiwari should have been registered, whereas in the entry in the sansodhan panji, Uma Tiwari's husband name Kedar Tiwari has been mentioned. It is clear that the entry in the sansodhan panji is fraudulent. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent further argued that financial 13 scrutiny further established that substantial portions misappropriated compensation were funneled through accounts linked to accused persons herein. The diversion of funds into both his business and personal accounts signifies his role as a principal beneficiary of the fraudulent scheme. It has also come to light that Vijay Jain assisted in creating and validating forged documents used in multiple revenue and judicial forums to secure illegal ownership of the land. The actions of the accused, in collusion with public servants and private individuals, were central to executing the conspiracy, which caused severe monetary losses to the Shri Thakur Ramchandra Swami Temple Trust and the government exchequer. Accused have been arrested for the said crime after following the legal provisions regarding arrest. Presently the accused are in judicial custody. Thus, from perusal of FIR and the material available in the case diary, involvement of the applicants in commission of offence under Sections 7C of the PC Act, which is economic offence, is
Decision
submitted that in view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, the grounds so urged by the applicants are not available to the applicants as the same are false and frivolous and also the applicants are not entitled for the relief as prayed by them 14 and the instant applications is liable to be dismissed as the same are devoid of merit and substance. 10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of allegation levelled against the applicants and the fact that there is an award passed by the Land Acquisition OfÏcer and the amount of compensation has been disbursed accordingly under the National Highway Act to the land losers as such, unless and until the award passed by the Land Acquisition OfÏcer is not set aside by the Arbitrator as per Section 3(G)(5) of the National Highway Act, 1956, the award cannot be said to be passed illegally and arbitrarily, further also considering the fact that the land loser specifically Uma Tiwari who has fought the litigation in revenue proceedings right from the court of Tehsildar, SDO, Commissioner, Board of Revenue and also the enquiry conducted under the command of Collector, Raipur by the team of Revenue OfÏcers wherein in the enquiry report, it has been concluded that the award passed by the Land Acquisition OfÏcer can at the most be challenged before the Arbitrator and the enquiry concluded by the Collector Raipur, nowhere shows that the FIR has to be registered and it also mentioned in the concluding paragraph that the civil suit is already pending between the parties and also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted interim relief to a co-accused, namely, Dinesh Patel, who was a Patwari by stating that no coercive action shall be taken against him in SLP (Crl.) No.9127/2025 on 23.06.2025 and further, in light of the said interim relief granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, co-accused, namely, 15 Shashikant Kurre, Lekh Ram Dewangan and Lakheshwar Prasad Kiran, who are public servants also been granted ad-interim relief by this Court staying their arrest in MCRCA No. 1021/2025, MCRCA No. 946/2025 and MCRCA No. 976/2025 vide order dated 14.07.2025, 01.07.2025 and 14.07.2025 respectively and further, the applicants are languishing in jail since 26.04.2025 and have no previous criminal antecedents registered against them and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take some time, hence for all these reasons, this Court is of the view that the applicants are liable to be enlarged on bail. 11. Accordingly, applicants- Vijay Kumar Jain, Harmeet Singh Khanuja, Uma Tiwari and Kedar Tiwari involved in Crime No. 30/2025, registered at Police Station C.G. ACB/E.O.W, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 120B of the IPC and Section 7(C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties (each) in the like sum to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants shall file an undertaking to the effect that they shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicants shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without 16 sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 269 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iii) In case, the applicants misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 84 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section Section 209 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. (iv) The applicants shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 351 of BNSS. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicants are deliberate or without sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 12. OfÏce is directed to provide a certified copy of this order to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Manpreet