1 - Arvind Singh S/o Lt. Sh. Gopal Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Acb/ Eow , Raipur Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:6842 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ORDER RESERVED ON 16.01.2025 ORDER DELIVERED ON 06.02.2025 MCRC No. 7526 of 2024 1 - Arvind Singh S/o Lt. Sh. Gopal Singh Aged About 50 Years R/o SA - 8, Metro Hexa Avanti Vihar Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Acb/ Eow , Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate assisted by Shri Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondent/State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Dy.AG (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) C A V Order The applicant has filed the instant bail application before this Court in terms of the provisions of Section 483 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ('BNSS' for short) for grant of bail in 2 connection with Crime No. 04/2024 registered with Anti Corruption Bureau, District Raipur under Sections 420,467,468,471,120-B IPC and 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. FACTUAL ASPECTS 2. Facts of the case leading to the filing of the present applicant is that the applicant is a government employee working at Bhilai Steel Plant. He has been on sabbatical leave from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2023. It is the case of prosecution that in between 26.02.2020 to 01.03.2020, the Income Tax Department carried out search and seizure operations on several premises in the State of Chhattisgarh. Subsequent to the aforesaid raids, the IT Department recorded statements of various persons alleged to be part of the imaginary liquor syndicate including the applicant. The Income Tax Department filed a complaint against certain individuals in the form of a Complaint Case bearing Ct. Case No. 1183/2022 under Sections 276(C)(1)/277/278/278E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 rad with Sections 120-B/191/199/200/204 of the IPC before the learned ACMM, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi (IT Complaint). However, the applicant was not named as accused in the IT complaint. It is alleged in the complaint of the fictitious illegal liquor syndicate in the State of Chhattisgarh and payment of bribe to various government officials by certain distillers and other persons, however none of the alleged bribe givers/distillers have been made accused in the IT complaint and no proceedings have been initiated against them by the IT Department. 3 3. On 18.11.2022, the Respondent/ED had registered ECIR bearing ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 (ECIR 11) wherein the alleged offence of Sec. 120-B IPC was considered to be the alleged scheduled offence. The ECIR was registered even thought he IT complaint was pending at the stage of cognizance before the learned ACMM. 4. Vide order dated 06.04.2023 the learned ACMM declined to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 276(C)/278/278E of the Income Tax Act read with Section 120-B/199/200/204 IPC for want of territorial jurisdiction and returned the IT complaint against these offences to be fled before the appropriate jurisdiction. Learned ACMM (Special Acts), Tis Hazari (Central) Court, in Ct. Case No. 1183/2022 vide order dated 06.04.2023 took cognizance of the alleged offence under Section 277 of the IT Act and Sec. 191 of the IPC against certain persons and directed the Income Tax Department to file separate complaints against each of the accused against who cognizance was taken since the cause of action for each accused was held to be a distinct and separate offfence. 5. On 28.04.2023, two persons who were later made co-accused along with the applicant in ECIR 11 were granted protection by the Hon’ble Apex Court in WP(Crl.) No. 153/2023 from not taking any coercive steps by the ED against the petitioner(s) in relation to ECIR 11. 6. On 16.05.2023, another co-accused was granted protection from the Apex Court in WP(Crl.) No. 208/2023. Despite protection granted to some of the accused in ECIR 11, the officers of ED arrested 4 persons and the investigation is being carried on. 4 7. On 11.07.2023, after due verification it was revealed that a prima facie cogizable offence for commission of offence under Sections 7 &12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420,467,471 and 120-
Facts
B IPC was registered as Crime No. 04/2024. As per the FIR, a criminal syndicate comprising of high level State government officials, private persons and political executives of the State Government were operating in the State of Chhattisgarh which was making illegal bribe collections by controlling the high level management of important State Departments and State Public Sector undertakings. 8. The sale of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh was one of the major sources of illegal earning of the syndicate and accused persons
Legal Reasoning
Apex Court dated 18.07.2023. He contended that it is settled law that all acts done in contempt of orders of the Hon’ble Constitutional Courts are non-est and a nullity in law, the investigation in the subject FIR cannot be allowed to be continued and therefore the arrest of the applicant is in violation of the orders of the Apex court. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari Vs. Harilal Somabhai Contractor and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC1139. 17. Further contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the investigation carried out by the ED in the liquor ECIR is null, void ab initio , without jurisdiction and illegal and therefore the subject FIR which has been registered on the complaint of the ED is also without jurisdiction. Similarly, the letter under Section 66 of the PMLA and the material collected by the ED cannot form the basis of any tenable action in law including the registration of FIR and resultantly all proceedings arising therefrom including the arrest of the applicant are illegal. He contented that the Apex Court was pleased to quash Prosecution Complaint dated 4.07.2023 filed against the applicant and categorically held that there was neither any scheduled offence in the liquor ECIR nor 10 were there any proceeds of crime therefore the entire genesis of registration of the subject FIR including the issuance of the letter under Section 66 of the PMLA,2002 by the ED which led to the registration of the subject FIR has been quashed and held to be illegal by the Apex Court. 18. He contended that the subject FIR has been registered solely on the basis of the letter dated 11.07.2023 and the material sent by the ED has o sanctity in the eyes of law in as much as the same are without jurisdiction and in violation of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Court. He submits that prima facie the FIR is illegal and untenable in law and there was absolutely no ground made out for arresting and keeping the applicant in custody and keeping the applicant behind bars in relation to an illegal case is a serious violation of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 19. Next contention of the applicant is that the applicant is in custody since 12.06.2023 and in an act of utter mala fide, as soon as the applicant was released from the illegal custody of the ED from Central Jail on 03.04.2024, a notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was served upon the applicant and he was taken to the office of the ACB, Raipur from there. It is contended that the sole basis for registration of the subject FIR against the applicant is the letter purportedly sent by the ED to the respondent/ACB. Vide order dated 08.04.2024 the Apex Court has quashed the prosecution complaint in the liquor ECIR as being 11 without any jurisdiction as there was no predicate offence and as such all actions by the ED pursuant to the registration of the liquor ECIR including the statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA the material collected and the letter purportedly issued under Section66 of the PMLA, 2002 by the Ed which led to the registration of the subject FIR has been quashed and held to be illegal. 20. It is contended that while a preliminary enquiry was conducted wherein the applicant was also summoned by the respondent the same does not find any mention in the subject FIR and the result of the preliminary enquiry has been suppressed by the respondent fo the reasons best known to them. It is ex facie evidence that the result of the said preliminary enquiry were not being relied upon by the respondent for the registration of the subject FIR and that the sole basis for the registration of the FIR and the subsequent arrest of the applicant is the illegal investigation and letter under Section 66 of the PMLA by the ED which stand quashed by the Apex Court vide order dated 08.04.2024. He contended that there is no material which can withstand the legal/judicial scrutiny with the EOW that justifies the arrest of the applicant in the subject FIR or makes out a case against the applicant as has been alleged in the subject FIR. There is no cogent and admissible material showing the role of the applicant in the alleged liquor scam and there is no documentary evidence showing the involvement of the applicant in any conspiracy. 21. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the 12 investigation agency has placed reliance upon the memorandum statement of the applicant recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on the basis of which it is alleged that the burnt duplicate holograms were seized from M/s. Anurag Dwivedi which is not admissible in the eye of law for the following reasons: i) there is difference between recovery on the basis of Section 27 of the Evidence Act and search under Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. and it is apparent that the investigating officer was aware of the exact location of the burnt holograms prior to recording of memorandum statement of the applicant. Hence it cannot be said that it is a seizure on the basis of disclosure by the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which is irrelevant when the said fact was already known to the investigating agency. He has referred to the judgment of Allarakha Habib Memon Etc. Vs. State of Gujarat 2023 INSC 590. (ii) the holograms which were seized were never the part of the crime as the same was unused holograms. It is nothing but scrap. Even if the version of the investigating agency is admitted then also there is no offence is made out against the applicant because the said holograms were never used for criminal activity. (iii) Even while conducting FSL it was found that there is discrepancy between the holograms seized and holograms compared with which were marked as Ex. B & C. (iv) And they arrested the present applicant only on the basis of the memorandum statement which is given by co-accused Anurag Dwivedi. 22. He contended that the applicant is in judicial custody and his period for custodial interrogation has been concluded during which the applicant had duly cooperated and recorded his statements and there is 13 no useful purpose for keeping the applicant in custody because the charge sheet has been filed. Further it has been contended that the search proceedings and examination of the applicant has already been concluded there is no material to be obtained from the applicant and there is no recovery made from the applicant. He contended that the Apex Court in plethora of judgments held the basic rule of “….Bail, Not Jail” (State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand (1977) 4 SCC 308) and “….bail is the ride and committal to jail an exception.” In Gurcharan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118, that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. 23. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the investigating agencies have been acting in tandem with each other to elongate the pre-trial incarceration of the applicant. The applicant is in custody for more than 17 months in different FIRs/ECIRs and considering the prolonged incarceration of the suppliant in relation to the investigation being conducted by different investigating agencies for the same alleged offence and having suffered over 9 months of custody in relation to ECIR 11 which is the same investigation as in the instant case, the applicant is entitled to bail in terms of law. The applicant therefore cannot be put in jail without trial as bail is rule and jail is exception even in the cases pertaining to the PMLA. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of Ramkripal Meena Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, SLP (Crl) No. 3205/2024, wherein it has been clarified that even under PMLA the governing principle is that “Bail is the Rule and Jail is the Exception”. 14 24. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has suffered long period of pretrial custody and the trial has not yet commenced and is not likely to conclude. He has contended that time and again it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court that right to speedy trial is a facet of the Fundamental Right to life of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Manish Sisodia Vs. CBI and ED (2023) SCC OnLine SC1393 in para 27 as under: “27. However, we are also concerned about the prolonged period of incarceration suffered by the appellant – Manish Sisodia. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement48, the appellant therein was granted bail after being kept in custody for around 49 days, relying on the Constitution Bench in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565. and Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40 that even if the allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case. Ultimately, the consideration has to be made on a case to case basis, on the facts. The primary object is to secure the presence of the accused to stand trial. The argument that the appellant therein was a flight risk or that there was a possibility of tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses, was rejected by the Court. Again, in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central 15 Bureau of Investigation and Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 this Court referred to Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh v. State of Punjab (2005) 7 SCC 387 and Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 291 to emphasize that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right within the broad scope of Article 21 of the Constitution. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), this Court while highlighting the evil of economic offences like money laundering, and its adverse impact on the society and citizens, observed that arrest infringes the fundamental right to life. 49 In P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2020) 13 SCC 337, the appellant therein was granted bail after being kept in custody for around 62 days. This Court referred to Section 19 of the PML Act, for the in-built safeguards to be adhered to by the authorized officers to ensure fairness, objectivity and accountability. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), also held that Section 436A of the Code can apply to offences under the PML Act, as it effectuates the right to speedy trial, a facet of the right to life, except for a valid ground such as where the trial is delayed at the instance of the accused himself. In our opinion, Section 436A should not be construed as a mandate that an accused should not be granted bail under the PML Act till he has suffered incarceration for the specified period. This Court, in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2021) 2 SCC 16 427, held that while ensuring proper enforcement of criminal law on one hand, the court must be conscious that liberty across human eras is as tenacious as tenacious can be. 29. Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial. If the trial gets protracted despite assurances of the prosecution, and it is clear that case will not be decided within a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail may be meritorious. While the prosecution may pertain to an economic offence, yet it may not be proper to equate these cases with those punishable with death, imprisonment for life, ten years or more like offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, murder, cases of rape, dacoity, kidnapping for ransom, mass violence, etc. Neither is this a case where 100/1000s of depositors have been defrauded. The allegations have to be established and proven. The right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with incarceration for a long period, depending on the nature of the allegations, should be read into Section 439 of the Code and Section 45 of the PML Act. The reason is that the constitutional mandate is the higher law, and it is the basic right of the person charged of an offence and not convicted, that he be ensured and given a speedy trial. When the trial is not proceeding for reasons not attributable to the accused, the court, unless there are good reasons, may well be guided to exercise the 17 power to grant bail. This would be truer where the trial would take years.” 25. Further he has relied upon the decisions of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2002) 10 SCC 561; Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 291. It has been contended that time again it has been reiterated by the Apex Court that in the cases where the fundamental right to speedy trial of the accused is violated, the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applied irrespective of the nature of the crime. He has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 wherein it has been observed that : “19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.” 26. He contended that Section 436-A Cr.P.C. should not be construed as a mandate that an accused should not be granted bail under the PMLA till he has suffered incarceration for the specified period of half of the maximum period of imprisonment. The detention or jail before being 18 pronounced the guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial. As has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Manish Sisodia 1, (2023) SCC OnLine 1393. He submits that under the BNSS, Section 479 has further reduced the period of pre-trial incarceration for eligibility of statutory bail to 1/3rd of maximum period of imprisonment for first time offenders. Acknowledging this as a beneficial provision, the Apex Court in Re: Inhuman conditions in 1382 prisons, order dated 23.08.2024 in W.P (C) No. 4062013 has held that Section 479 of the BNSS will have retrospective applicability. 27. Next contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant fulfills the triple test. The entire material is documentary and is in the custody of the Court. The applicant does not have the propensity to evade the process of law and no such allegation has been made against the applicant seeking police/judicial custody. He contended that in catena of judgments including the recent one of P. Chidambaram Vs. CBI 2020 13 SCC 337, that while dealing with the bail application it is not in dispute that ‘three factors’ or the ‘triple test’ must be seen /satisfied viz. (I) flight risk; (ii) likelihood of tampering with evidence and (iii) likelihood of influencing witnesses. Pertinently all the three facts are satisfied by the applicant and as such the applicant may be granted bail. Lastly, it is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that no fruitful purpose will be served in keeping the applicant in custody during trial because the agency has cited 457 prosecution witnesses in over 3 charge sheets and the first charge sheet is filed on 19 29.06.2024, second was filed on 27.09.2024 and the third on 17.11.2024 and the witnesses are yet to be examined. There is no likelihood to conclude the trial in near future, the conviction is punitive amounting to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Time and again, Hon’ble Apex Court has stated that bail is the rule and committal to jail an exception. It is also observed that refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 28. Per contra, Shri Saurabh Pandey, learned State counsel contended that after receiving communication from the Enforcement Directorate dated 11.07.2023 and after due verification it was revealed that prima facie cognizable offence for commission of the offences under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 467,471 and 120-B IPC was registered against the applicant in Crime No.04/2024. 29. As per the FIR, a criminal syndicate comprising of high level State Government officials, private persons and political executives of the State Government were operating the State of Chhattisgarh and making collection of illegal bribes by controlling the high level management of important State department and State Public Sector Undertakings. The sale of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh was one of the major sources of illegal earning of the syndicate which has been classified in following ways: 20 i) Part -A : Illegal commission charged from the liquor suppliers on the accounted sale of liquor in Chhattisgarh ii) Part -B : Sale of off-the record unaccounted country liquor from State run shops which was done with active involvement of distillers, hologram manufacturers, transporters, bottle makers, manpower management and district excise officials. Part -C : Annual commission paid to allow distillers tooperate in the State of Chhattisgarh. 29. It is contended by Shri Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent that the sale of liquor was one of the major sources of illegal earning of the syndicate and accused Anil Tuteja along with Anwar Dhebar, Arunpati Tripathi, MD, CSMCL and other associates namely Vikas Agarwal @ Subbu, the present applicant and one Sanjay Diwan, distillers of country liquor, excise officials etc. were the main members of the syndicate. This syndicate used to collect illegal money from the sale of liquor which was classified as Part-A, B & C. 30. The EOW has analyzed the information and the data shared by the Income Tax Department and on the basis of the said documents and records, it has been established that a conspiracy was executed by the syndicate to earn illegal commission in the sale and licensing of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh and accordingly, FIR bearing Crime No. 04/2024 was registered and investigation was initiated. For investigation, the liquor was divided into two categories namely Country 21 liquor and Indian Manufactured Foreign Liquor (IMFL). Country Liquor was produced in the State of Chhattisgarh through three distilleries : I) M/s. Chhattisgarh Distilleries Ltd. ii) M/s. Bhatia Wines and Merchants Pvt. Ltd. iii) M/s. Welcome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. 31. In the investigation, it has come that massive corruption has taken place in the Excise Department since 2019. The Excise Departments were set up to regulate the supply of liquor, ensure quality liquor to users to prevent inebriant tragedies and to earn revenue for the State but the criminal syndicate led by Anwar Dhebar and Anil Tuteja have systematically altered liquor policy as per their whims and fancies and extorted maximum personal benefit for themselves. The excise policy in the State of Chhattisgarh was amended in the year 2017 and CSMCL in February, 2017, was thus created with the responsibility to exclusively retail liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh through its stores. The CSMCL was established with the vision to provide genuine liquor, to stop sale of illegal Liquor, to provide liquor on MRP. It established its own stores to retail the liquor/beer/wine/country liquor after procuring liquor from manufacturers directly. 32. From the facts and evidence collected by the investigation Agency in the instant case, a total of Rs. 1660,41,00,056/- earning was made by the syndicate from the financial year 2019-20 to 2022-23 which is a huge loss to the State exchequer which has been acquired by the criminal syndicate from the offence of conspiracy. After initial 22 investigation, preliminary charge sheet has been filed by the EOW against four persons namely Arunpati Tripathi, Trilok Singh Dhillon, Anwar Dhebar and the present applicant. 33. The ground raised in the bail application by the learned counsel for the applicant is that the subject FIR has been registered illegally and is untenable in law. It is the contention of the applicant that the instant FIR has been registered by the EOW on the basis of the communication made by the Enforcement Directorate and the said communication is in violation of the order passed by the Apex Court in WP (Cr. No. 153/2023) dated 18.07.2023 and it has been further contended that the Apex Court has already quashed the complaint filed by the ED and the present FIR registered by the State is a second FIR because on the same set of facts, the UP police had registered an FIR. 34. To this contention, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the co-accused persons have referred petitions before this court for quashing of the impugned FIR and has raised all the grounds in the instant petition for quashing the petition and the Division Bench of this Court has already dismissed the matter. He argued that since the Division Bench being competent to decide the legality and maintainability of the FIR has already heard and therefore the grounds of illegal registration of FIR is not available to the applicant at this stage in the instant mater. 35. He further contended that the applicants are relying on the interim order granted in favour of the co-accused persons to which it has been 23 replied that from persual of the order dated 01.04.2024 in Cr.M.P. No. 721/2024 it is clear that though the interim order for not taking any coercive steps by the ED against the petitioner(s) was granted in that case till the next date of hearing but a categorical observation has been made that the investigation in the present matter may go on and therefore the applicant cannot say that the EOWis illegally investigating the matter. 36. Further contention of Shri Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent is that while hearing Cr.M.P. No. 1286/2024 (Nitesh Purohit V. Union of India and Others) related to another co-accused, the Division Bench of this Court has directed that the investigation in the instant case may go on. It is thus, contended by learned counsel for the respondent that raising all the grounds regarding non maintainability and illegal registration of the FIR against the co-accused Anil Tuteja, a WP(Crl.) No. 141/2024 was filed before the Apex court and vide order dated 19.03.2024 declined to entertain the writ petition of the co- accused. 37. In the instant case, after the initial investigation, preliminary charge sheet has been filed by the EOW and further against the petitioner the ACB/EOW has filed charge sheet before the Court having competent jurisdiction on 27.09.2024 and from the investigation, the role of the applicant emerged as follows: 38. From the facts and evidence collected in the investigation, it has been found that the applicant is originally an employee of Bhilai Steel 24 Plant and is on Sabbatical leave since 2020. During this period, he had also worked with the Chhattsigarh Excise Department by taking liquor contracts and at the same time, there developed family relation with accused Arunpati Tripathi. The applicant was included in the criminal syndicate and later on became an important part of the syndicate by becoming a close associate of Anwar Dhebar. He took leave from his job in the year 2020 and became completely engrossed in the work of the syndicate. Thereafter he started a firm named M/s. Adip Empire in the name of his wife Pinky Singh and supplied the empty bottles to the distillers. The applicant has thus become the right hand of Anwar Dhebar. The whatsapp chat from the phone of Anwar Dhebar was seized by the Income Tax Department during the search operation from which it has been revealed that there were strong link between him and Anwar Dhebar. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the applicant used to share information in relation to the liquor business with Anwar Dhebar and also shared notes related to FL-10A policy market share details of all the suppliers in the market and the records related to the vehicles. He also helped in arranging meetings with the distillers on the instructions of Anwar Dhebar and was entrusted with the responsibility of looking after the logistics part of the syndicate. It is further contended that the applicant used to supply duplicate holograms to the distillers through his nephew Amit Singh and looked after the transportation of country liquor and Indian Made foreign liquor through his another nephew namely Abhishek Singh. The applicant had entered 25 into agreement with bottle manufacturers for supply of bottles through firms owned in the name of his family members and associates. 39. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that during investigation, it was found that commission of Rs. 2 per bottle was taken for supply of bottles for country liquor and 40% of MFL’s production required new bottles in which commission of rs. 2 was charged and the applicant also got the share. In the process of FL-10A license, another nephew namely Abhishek Singh, mas made a partner who is also a partner in Nexgen Power Inject Firm. Investigation has also revealed that Vikas Agarwal and the present applicant used to get Rs. 100/- as commission per case for the sale of Part-B liquor and he was also paid for transportation and other logistics of Part-B liquor. Thus, the applicant had received about Rs. 20 crores from the sale of Part-B liquor alone. 40. Shri Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that after the arrest of applicant, when he was interrogated and statement was taken under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, he had stated that he was an important part o the criminal syndicate formed for collecting the commission in the Excise Department. He has revealed the proximity to Anwar Dhebar and Arunpati Tripathi and he has stated that he used to do the work of transporting and bottle supply through the firm in the name of his wife Adip Empire. He has also stated that another firm in the name of Adip Agro Pvt. Ltd. was in the name of his daughter-in-law which was looked by his nephew Amit Singh. It is 26 contended that after registration of the case, on 25.02.2024, search was made in the flat of the applicant located at Metro Hexa, Avanti Vihar Raipur and 30 documents in relation to the case have been seized from his house. Thereafter on 11.04.2024, after obtaining search warrant, 15 documents were seized from the flat of his nephew Amit Singh and the investigation is still going on. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that in a catena of judgments, at the time of consideration of an application for bail, the court should consider three factors, ie. flight risk or likelihood of fleeing justice; ii) likelihood of tampering with evidence and iii) likelihood of influencing witness. In the present case the applicant was part of a syndicate and involved in the sale of illegal liquor in the entire State of Chhattisgarh and has caused huge revenue loss to the State Exchequer and thus, it shows that there is every likelihood of tampering the evidence by the applicant and in the light of the above circumstance, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail during investigation. The acquisition against the applicant is very serious in nature and that the applicant is not cooperating in the investigation, which is evidence from the fact that despite of undertaking given by the co-accused Nitesh Purohit and Yash Purohit in Cr.M.P. No. 12862024 and 1288/2024 whereby the DB has passed the order that they would join the EOW for the purpose of investigation but till now they have not joined despite of issuance summons on several occasions by the EOW. It is therefore submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the co-accused persons are 27 threatening the witnesses of the case and there is every likelihood that they will try to tamper the evidence and will influence the witnesses and in the light of the above circumstances, the applicant may not be released on bail at this stage. CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION 41. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the record and the documents annexed with utmost circumspection. 42. In the instant case, an organized crime has been allegedly committed by the applicant and other co-accused some of whom are holding high posts are IAS and ITS officers. The applicant who is an employee of the Bhilai Steel Plant, after taking Sabbatical leave from his job was indulged in the making of unaccounted money by selling illegal liquor contrary to the procedure directly from the distilleries by affixing forged and duplicate holograms. Asper the complaint filed by the Income Tax Department, a criminal syndicate comprising of high level State Government officials, private persons and political executives of the State Government were operating in the State of Chhattisgarh and were collecting money through illegal bribe collections. The sale of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh was one of the major source of illegal earnings of the syndicate and the applicant was associated with the syndicate and collected illegal money in different ways from the sale of liquor by selling off the record unaccounted country liquor from State run shops. This was done with the active involvement of the distillers,hologram manufacturers, bottle makers, transporters, man 28 power management, District Excise Official and others. It has also come into account that the applicant was an integral part of the syndicate running the illegal liquor business. In the instant case, after receiving communication from the Enforcement Directorate, the EOW has filed prima facie cognizable offence for commission of the above offences and FIR has been registered in Crime No. 04.2024 against the applicant who is in incarceration from 4th April 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420,467,468,471,120-B of IPC.. 43. It is the case of prosecution that a criminal syndicate comprising of high level State Government officials, private persons and political executives of the State Government were operating in the State of Chhattisgarh and collecting illegal bribe from the State Departments and State Public Sector undertakings by sale of liquor which is one of the major source of their illegal earning. In the initial investigation, it has come into account that there was massive corruption in the Excise Department of Chhattisgarh since the year 2019. The Excise department was set up to regulate the supply of liquor, ensure quality liquor to users to prevent hooch tragedies and to earn revenue for the State but the criminal syndicate have altered the policy as per their whims and facies and extorted maximum personal benefit for themselves and total earning of Rs. 1660,41,00,056/- was made by the syndicate from the financial year 2019-20 to financial year 2022-23 to the State exchequer. Therefore, it cannot be said that no prima facie 29 ofence whatsoever is made against the applicant. After carefully analyzing the material available on record which goes to show that there is involvement of the applicant in the crime in question and the charge sheet has been filed. 44. Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account the nature and gravity of the offence, the role of the applicant herein, the manner in which he is alleged to have conspired with other co-accused persons and thereby was part of a syndicate and involved in the illegal earning by assisting in providing duplicate hologram and considering the nature of charge and gravity of offence, the applicant is charged which is extremely serious and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is not proper to order release of present applicant on regular bail for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. 23. Accordingly, the prayer for bail made by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) for the offence punishable under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC and 7&12 of the PC Act is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.02.10 13:06:30 +0530
Arguments
namely Anil Tuteja along with Anwar Dhebar, Mr. Arunpati Tripathi, MD CSMCL and other associates of Anwar Dhebar namely Vikas Agarwal @ Subbu, the present applicant, Sanjay Diwar and other distillers, excise officials were the main actors of the syndicate. The syndicate used to collect illegal money in three different ways from the sale of liquor which is classified by the syndicate itself into three parts: Part A- illegal commission charged from liquor supplier for official sale of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh. Part B – Sale of unaccounted illicit countrymade liquor from State run shops done with the involvement of distillers, hologram manufacturers, man power bottle makers, management and District Excise Officials. Part C – Annual Commission from distillers for allowing them to operate a syndicate and divide transporters, 5 the market share amongst themselves. 9. In the investigation, EOW has analyzed the information and data shared by the Income Tax Department. On the basis of these documents and records, it is established that a well planned systematic conspiracy was executed by the syndicate to earn illegal commission in the State and licensing of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh. Thus, the FIR was registered and initiated the investigation. From the investigation conducted by the EOW, it was revealed that the liquor could be divided into two categories namely Country Liquor and Indian Manufactured Foreign Liquor (IMFL). The first category of liquor ie. Country Liquor is produced in the Stte of Chhattisgarh only through three distilleries which are i) M/s. Chhattisgarh Distilleries Ltd. ii) M/s. Bhatia Wines and Merchants Pvt. Ltd. & iii) M/s. Welcome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. 10. There was massive corruption taking place in the Excise Department of Chhattisgarh since 2019 and the excise departments were set up to regulate supply of liquor, ensure quality liquor to users to prevent hooch tragedies and to earn revenue for the State. But the criminal syndicate led by accused Anwar Dhebar and Anil Tuteja has turned all these objectives upside down. They have systematically altered liquor policy as per their whims and fancies and extorted maximum personal benefit for themselves. 11. From the EOW investigation, it was revealed that the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Ltd. (CSMCL) was created 6 with the responsibility to retail liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh through its stores. The change in the State Government led to change of management of CSMCL and it became the tool in the hands of the syndicate, which was used to enforce a parallel excise department. On February 2019, accused Arunpati Tripathi (ITS Officer) was chosen by the syndicate to lead SMCL and later in the month of May 2-019 he was made the Managing Dirctor of the organization at the behest of Anwar Dhebar. 12. From the investigation it was revealed that to maximize the bribe commission collected from the liquor procured by M/s. CSMCL and to make necessary arrangement for sale of non duty paid liquor in the CSMCL run shops, the logistics were set up and the responsibility of the same was with the applicant. Further the syndicate inducted fourth type of mechanism to extort bribe from FL makes also by the concept of FL- 10A licenses. These licenses were further given to three associates of Anwar Dhebar. The said license holders were to act as intermediary and buy the foreign liquor an then sell it to the Chhattisgarh Government warehouses and generated commission of around 10% on the same and 50-60% of the final profit amount of the FL-10A licensee shall be paid to the syndicate. The FL-10A license was given to three persons who were ready to hike prices and ensure payment of cash bribe namely Sanjay Mishra (M/s. Nexgen Power Engitech Pvt. Ltd/), Atul Kumar Singh and Mukesh Manchanda (M/s. Om Sai Beverages Pvt. Ltd.) and Ashesh Saurabh kedia (M/s. Dishita Ventures Pvt. Ltd.). 7 13. A total of Rs. 1660,41,00,056/- was made by the syndicate from the financial year 2019-20 to financial yer 2022-2023 which is a huge loss to the State Exchequer. The EOW has filed preliminary charge sheet against four persons namely Arun Pati Tripathi, Trilok Singh Dhillon, Anwar Dhebar and the present applicant Arvind Singh. 14. It is the case against the present applicant that after taking Sabbatical leave from his job, he was working with the Chhhattisgarh Excise Department by taking liquor contracts and became a part of the syndicate. Thereafter he stated a firm named as M/s. Adip Empire in the name of his wife Mrs. Pinky singh to supply empty bottles to the distillers. The applicant became the right hand of accused Anwar Dhebar and he used to share the details of all suppliers, FL-10A license holders policy and the records and also arrange the meetings with distillers on the instructions of Anwar Dhebar. It is also alleged that he used to supply duplicate holograms to distillers through his nephew Amit Singh (who is also one of the co-accused) and looked after the transportation of country liquor and Indian Made Foreign liquor (IMFL) through his another nephew Abhishek Singh. The applicant entered into agreements with bottle manufacturers for supply of bottles through firms owned in the name of his family members and associates. From the investigation it has been revealed that one Vikas Agarwal and the applicant used to get Rs. 100 as commission per case for the sale of Part-B liquor, he was also paid for transportation and other logistics of 8 Part-B liquor. It is alleged that the applicant had received about Rs. 20 crores from the sale of Part-B liquor alone. 15. It is the case against the applicant that was involved in illegal sale of liquor and earned voluminous money causing huge revenue loss to the State exchequer. He was the member of the syndicate and involved in the illegal sale of unaccounted liquor in the market and collected illegal money, provided bottles and duplicate holograms to the liquor suppliers, to implement the plan of illegal liquor sale without paying tax to the government and thus earned profit by unlawful gain for himself and loss to the State government. The applicant is the main facilitator of the syndicate. It is alleged that the applicant has been charged for the offences under Sections 420,467, 468,471, and 120-B IPC and Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPILCANT 16. Contention of Shri Otwani, learned counsel for the applicant is that this Court has already protected two accused persons in relation to the subject FIR on a prima facie view that the same could not have been registered by the EOW to begin with given the orders dated 18.07.2023 and 07.08.2023 passed by the Apex Court. It is contended that under similar circumstances, in relation to the ECIR, when the bail of the applicant and the co-accused persons was dismissed by the High Court, the Apex Court noted the erroneous nature of that decision and has granted protection to the co-accused. It is contended that the ED officers have personally registered the subject FIR while the stay order 9 dated 18.07.2023 passed by the Apex Court was in operation. The complainant in the subject FIR is the same Investigating officer/Deputy Director of the ED and has registered the subject FIR with the aim of creating and usurping jurisdiction for its illegal investigation in the liquor ECIR. This is wanton and willful contempt and breach of the order of the