2025:CGHC:22057 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2511 of 2025 Reserved on : 07.05.2025 Delivered on : 14.05.2025 Saumya Chaurasia D/o Lt. O.N. Chaurasia, Aged About 45 Years R/o House No. A/21, Surya Residency, Bhilai, Dist. - Durg, Chhattisgarh- 490020. (Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Raipur C.G.) (In Jail) ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Economic Offences Wing & Anti Corruption Bureau, Headquarter, Gaurav Path, Telibandha, Dist.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001. ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Advocate. For State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV ORDER 1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nayay Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 03.03.2025 in connection with Crime No. 02/2024 registered at Police Station- Anti Corruption Bureau/ Economic Offence Wing Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 of IPC and Section 7, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the basis of receipt of ECIR bearing No. ECIR/RPZO/02/2023 dated 11.01.2024 which is an information under Section 66 of the PMLA, 2002 with regard to corruption in the use of funds from District Mineral Funds in District- ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.05.14 13:25:57 +0530 Korba. On the basis of the ECIR, the ACB/EOW has registered Crime No. 02/2024 against the applicant. On the basis of the statement of various persons recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, it has been revealed that the suppliers have given huge commission to the applicant for obtaining tenders under the DMF. The details are as under:- (A) The present applicant was posted as Deputy Secretary in the office of the then Chief Minister's office actively misused her official position and administrative influence to facilitate and received illegal commission in relation to DMF tenders floated in Korba District. The applicant was key beneficiary in a well-orchestrated criminal conspiracy wherein she directed through her sub-ordinate and associates for giving 40% commission from contractors engaged in DMF funded works. (B) During the investigation of the case, it was found that the said commission has been collected by the applicant with assistance of Roshan Singh, Nikhil Chandrakar and others. A specific instance has come to light involving Nikul Bhai Patel alias Jignesh Patel, proprietor of Kisan Agrotech who was introduced to the then Collector Ms. Ranu Sahu by the applicant. Upon allotment of tenders, the applicant received Rs. 3 crore cash from Patel which was delivered through Roshan Singh and later shared with the applicant. It was also found that Ms. Ranu Sahu consistently transferred portion of illegal commission generated from DMF contracts to the applicant and her associates through cash carriers including Roshan Singh and Nikhil Chandrakar. These transactions have been duly recorded in the handwritten diary of Rajnikant Tiwari which corroborates the role of the applicant in the illegal gratification chain. The applicant was beneficiary and active participant in laundering the proceeds of crime. The nature and scale of her involvement, the use of intermediaries for concealment and the active routing of bribe money warrant denial of bail to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy and to prevent tampering with further evidence. (C) It was also found that Ms. Ranu Sahu the then Collector of Korba collected illegal commission exceeding Rs. 55 crore solely from DMF related tenders in one District- Korba. Such an extensive accumulation of proceeds of crime could not have been possible without the active support, administrative backing and undue political influence exerted by the applicant who at the relevant time, served as Deputy Secretary in the Chief Minister’s Office and exercised considerable influence over the State bureaucracy. Her position enabled her to direct and facilitate tender processes, protect key conspirators and ensure the smooth low and concealment of illegal commission. Thus, prima facie the investigation has collected the evidence which clearly establishes that the applicant is directly involved and knowingly party in the process connected with the proceeds of crime i.e. acquisition, possession, concealment, use and projection of such proceeds of crime as untainted and thus, committed the offence as aforestated. Thus, on the basis of the complaint, FIR has been registered against the applicant for commission of offence under Sections 7 & 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. 3. The record of the case would show that the applicant filed an application for grant of regular bail before the learned Special Judge (PMLA)/First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) seeking enlargement on regular bail. Learned Special Judge vide order dated 19.03.2025, dismissed the bail application filed by the applicant. This order is being assailed by the applicant and has prayed for releasing him on bail. 4. Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He would further submit that there was absolutely no need and necessity to arrest the applicant in the present FIR. The arrest of the applicant smacks of malafide which is palpable from the fact that despite registration of the FIR way back in the month of January 2024, the applicant was arrested on 03.03.2025 when she was enlarged on interim bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in connection with FIR No. 03 of 2024 on 17.01.2024. He would further submit that mere power to arrest simply does not give rise to the necessity to arrest as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in case of Arvind Kejriwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1703]. He would further submit that the timing of arrest of the applicant herein raised a legitimate concern as the same was not merely coincidental but a calculated action, potentially aimed at intimidating the applicant for the reason that following the release of co-accused Mr. Sunil Kumar Agrawal by Hon’ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 [SLP (Cri.) No. 5890 of 2024]. He would further submit that the action taken by the respondent shows an ulterior motive to harass and intimidate the applicant which is evident from search and seizure conducted at the applicant's residence. He would further submit that the instant FIR is part of a concerted and politically motivated attempt to harass and target the applicant as multiple FIRs and legal proceedings under different statutes are being initiated against the applicant as well as her family members for the sole purpose of harassing the applicant in respect of the same set of allegations. 5. He would further submit that the present FIR does not attribute any specific role, overt act or participation by the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence which is vague and general allegations against multiple individuals without detailing the involvement of the applicant. He would further submit that the immovable properties alleged to have been purchased by the applicant from the illegal proceeds allegedly received from co-accused Mrs. Ranu Sahu, in the name of her family members are already subject to proceedings under various statutes such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and Prohibition of Benami Transaction Act, 1988 and the legitimate owners of the said immovable properties have already taken recourse to the appropriate remedy available at law and none of the proceedings have concluded in any finding of guilt attributable to the present applicant. 6. He would further submit that at the stage of bail, this Hon'ble Court is not to enter into a meticulous examination of the merits of the case by delving into the statements of witnesses and/or documents produced in evidence and conducting a mini-trial. He would further submit that in absence of any approval obtained by the respondent from a competent authority in terms of Section 17A of the PC Act, 1988, against the applicant who was at the time of the commission of the alleged offence was admittedly discharging her duties as a public servant, the very investigation suffers from procedural defects that goes to the root of the matter. He would further submit that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence establishing that the applicant made any demand for illegal gratification or accepted any amount from the alleged syndicate. He would further submit that it is well settled position of law that in order to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988, there must be cogent evidence proving both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and mere allegation, without any substantive evidence cannot form the basis of prosecution as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Soundarajan Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police Vigilance Anticorruption Dindigul [2023 SCC OnLine SC 424]. He would further submit that there is no evidence showing any physical manifestation of agreement between the applicant and the other co-accused for committing the alleged crime for making out a case of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC. It is also well settled position of law that there must be cogent evidence to show that the co-accused are acting as per a common agreement or a common design as held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Ram Sharan Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P. [(2022) 16 SCC 166]. He would further submit that the applicant submits that the ingredients of the offence of cheating are not made out against her in any manner. He would further submit that the applicant has satisfied the triple test for the grant of bail viz. flight risk, influencing witnesses, and tampering evidence as laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Preeti Chandra Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [2023 SCC OnLine Del. 3622] which has been upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. He would further submit that it is settled position of law that apprehension of influencing the witness and tampering of evidence is required to be based on tangible evidence and mere allegation cannot be taken at face value on the asking of the investigating agency. He would further submit that the seriousness of the charge though a relevant condition, is not the only factor that needs to be considered while granting bail and that the object of bail is not punitive but to secure the presence of the accused for trial as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI [2012 (1) SCC 40]. 7. He would further submit that Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [(2020) 13 SCC 791] has observed that the parameters for bail do not change in economic offences and has held that it is not a rule that bail (with appropriate conditions) cannot be granted in cases of such offences. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ramkripal Meena vs. Directorate of Enforcement [SLP (Crl.) No. 3205/2024], and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement [SLP (Crl.) No. 8781/2024] while considering the period spent in the custody and there being no likelihood of conclusion of trial within a short span has been pleased to enlarge the accused on bail. He would further submit that the applicant has already undergone continuous pre-trial incarceration of over more than 02 years and 03 months in connection with ECIR No. RPZO/09/2022 (from 02.12.2022 to 25.09.2024), FIR No. 03 of 2024 (23.05.2024 to 03.03.2025) and FIR No. 022 of 2024 (from 08.11.2024 to 08.01.2025), as such the custody of the applicant ought not to be extended indefinitely. The extension of custody of the applicant in such circumstances would militate against the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713] & V. Senthil Balaji Vs. The Dy. Director, Directorate of Enforcement [Criminal Appeal No. 4011/2024]. He would further submit that it is well settled position of law that the purpose of bail or the denial of it, is not punitive nor preventative as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Manoranjana Sinh Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2017) 5 SCC 218], as such the denial of bail ought not to be used as a punitive device. He would further submit that it is well settled that bail is the rule and its denial is the exception. The denial of bail, in the present case would act as a completely disproportionate restriction on the personal liberty of the applicant guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The presence of the applicant during the trial can be secured by imposing conditions and the extreme measure of pre-trial detention ought not to be resorted to. He would further submit that the pre-trial incarceration of the applicant would further deprive her children of the warmth of their mother, therefore, the applicant implores this Hon'ble Court to consider the tender hearts of two innocent toddlers who barely understand the world around them. He would further submit that the applicant undertakes to abide by all the directions and conditions which may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court in granting regular bail and would pray for releasing the applicant on bail. 8. On the other hand, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General for the ACB/EOW opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and referring to the FIR and the case diary would submit that the applicant is involved in the economical offence which not only heinous offence but also against the economic of the nation. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is required as the applicant has 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 traced out. It has been further contended that from the list of property purchased by the applicant, prima facie it is disproportionate to the source of income of the applicant, as such he would pray for rejection of the bail application of the applicant. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and the respondents as well as considered the case diary. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant has nowhere stated in the bail petition regarding source of income by which the properties mentioned in the final report have been acquired which clearly shows that the ACB/EOW has collected certain material against the applicant. The prosecution has collected the material that she has shown active participation in the syndicate and the main accused Suryakant Tiwari was working as per direction issued by the applicant and extorted money has been utilized for purchase of properties. 11. Further contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is government servant, therefore, before prosecuting the applicant, sanction to prosecute as per Section 218 of the BNSS is necessary, as such the prosecution is illegal, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail, is being considered by this Court. The submission is misconceived and deserves to be rejected as it is well settled position of law that permission to prosecute from the appropriate Government, can be taken very well during the trial also as such, this submission at this juncture, deserves to be rejected. Thus, from perusal of FIR and the material available in the case diary, involvement of the applicant in commission of offence under Sections 7 & 12 of the PC Act, which is economic offence, 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.” 12. Again Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) & another reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230 has held in paragraph 23 as under :- 24. The principles governing the grant of bail were reiterated by a two judge Bench in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496: “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. “10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal...” 47. The considerations which must weigh with the Court in granting bail have been formulated in the decisions of this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh13 and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee14(noted earlier). These decisions as well as the decision in Sanjay Chandra (supra) were adverted to in a recent decision of a two judge Bench of this Court dated 19 March 2021 in The State of Kerala v. Mahesh where the Court observed: “22…All the relevant factors have to be weighed by the Court considering an application for bail, including the gravity of the offence, the evidence and material which prima facie show the involvement of applicant for bail in the offence alleged, the extent of involvement of the applicant for bail, in the offence alleged, possibility of the applicant accused absconding or otherwise defeating or delaying the course of justice, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being threatened or influenced or of evidence being tempered with, and danger to the safety of the victim (if alive), the complainant, their relatives, friends or other witnesses….” Similarly, the Court held that the grant of bail by the High Court can be set aside, consistent with the precedents we have discussed above, when such grant is based on non-application of mind or is innocent of the relevant factors for such grant. 13. Considering the FIR and other material placed on record, prima facie it shows involvement of the applicant in crime in question. As such, I am of the view that it is not a fit case where the applicant should be granted regular bail. 14. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nayay Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 15. The observation made by this Court is not bearing any effect on the trial of the case. The learned trial court will decide the criminal trial in accordance with evidence, material placed on record, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while deciding present bail application. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun