2025:CGHC:22056 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2608 of 2025 Reserved on : 07.05.2025 Delivered on : 14.05.2025 Ranu Sahu W/o Jai Prakash Mourya, Aged About 40 Years, R/o D-2/29, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through State Anti-Corruption Bureau/economic Offence Wing, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Opposite Jai Petrol Pump, Telibandha Road, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Khushboo Naresh Dua, Advocate. For State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, 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 13:25:56 +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 statements 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 Collector at Korba and applicant along with other co-accused persons are involved in siphoning off money as 40% of the total tender amount was being paid as commission to the officers and officials. A vendor namely Sanjay Shende has admitted in his statement that he had got tender worth about Rs. 120-130 crore and had paid about Rs. 20 crore as commission to the applicant through her brother Piyush Sahu. Ashok Kumar Agrawal has stated in his statement that 20% commission has been paid to Ms. Ranu Sahu for granting tender. Mukesh Kumar Agrawal has also stated in his statement that he used to give 15-20% of the total tender amount i.e. Rs. 5-6 crores as commission to Ms. Ranu Sahu in lieu of tenders awarded to him. Hrishabh Soni has also admitted that he has given Rs. 7 crores as bribe to the applicant as commission. (B) Similarly another person Manoj Kumar Dwivedi who is alleging that he is running NGO and has stated about payment of commission to the applicant. It was also found that the applicant 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 with Ms. Soumya Chaurasiya 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 process, protect key conspirators and ensure the smooth low and concealment of illegal commission. 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 her on bail. 4. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate 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 the applicant is strategically being victimized, implicated and arrested in series of offence on the same set of facts which is impermissible under law and violates the fundamental right enshrined to a citizen of India. He would further submit that arrest of the applicant in the alleged offence is writ large from the fact that the basis of information i.e. the letter dated 11.01.2024 written by Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate in categoric terms states about involvement of other civil servants and names Mr. Rajendra Kumar Katara District Collector of Bijapur and further recommends forensic audit accounts for the utilization of DMF in the last 5 years in all Districts of Chhattisgarh to reach at the root of the scam as it is limited to Korba only. Even then applicant has been targeted surgically and that too without there being any substantive evidence. He would further submit that there is no recovery from possession of the present applicant in respect of the said crime. He would further submit that facts of the FIR No. 02/2024 and ECIR/02/2023 are same and since the applicant has already been taken into custody in ECIR/02/2023 and has been interrogated and there is no recovery, therefore, she is not required to be remained in custody now. He would further submit that the victimization and false implication of the present applicant is also borne out from the fact that she was posted as Collector Korba for a brief period of 11 months as Collector and by virtue of her post she was only an ex-officio chairman of DMF trust constituted under Sections 9(B), 15(4) and 15(A) of the MMDR Act 1957 and no decision could have been taken by her in individual capacity and was a collective decision of the trust and not an individual decision. Thus, the allegations on the face of the statutory provisions are unpalatable and has no ground to stand. He would further submit that allegation levelled against the present applicant being given commission оr bribe is still unsubstantive, rather belied in absence of any recovery of any amount or there being any sanction order given by the applicant in the individual capacity. The entire prosecution case is based on imaginary cock and bull story without there being any connecting evidence worth the name. It is false implication and victimization of the present applicant as is evident from the fact that there being another FIR with respect to corruption in DMF funds for the period from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2018 there is no investigation on the contrary there seems to be a closure to see the delinquent and implicate the present applicant falsely by carving out afresh FIR for a different period and limiting it to the applicant. 5. He would further submit that the entire prosecution story is based on statement of the co-accused persons recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA Act in the ED investigation or may be under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., but the same does not qualify to be a substantive evidence as held by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Prem Prakash Vs. Union of India [2024, SCC online SC 2270]. He would further submit that the FIR was lodged on 16.01.2024 and no need arose since then to question/interrogate or arrest the applicant only until the day when the applicant was enlarged on interim bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court in connection with FIR No. 03/2024 registered by the same investigating agency which makes it clear that arrest is nothing but to curb the applicant's right to personal liberty and to make sure she incarcerates in jail as a form of pretrial punishment. He would further submit that even in FIR No. 03/2024, the timing of arrest of the applicant raised a legitimate concern as the same was not merely coincidental but calculated action as the applicant was arrested immediately after co- accused Sunil Agrawal was enlarged on interim bail by Hon'ble the Supreme Court anticipating that even the applicant will be enlarged on bail. He would further submit that the prosecution failed to get sanction prior to the arrest of the applicant in the matter under Section 197(1) of Cr.P.C. keeping the accused in custody in absence of sanction under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. shall amount to illegal custody. He would further submit that the applicant is subjected to multiple investigation and interrogations collectively by the Enforcement Directorate and ACB/EOW. Her house official and that of the relatives have also been raided still there is no incriminating document or substantive evidence that has been seized from the applicant to establish the allegations speltout in FIR No. 02/2024. He would further submit that mere power of arrest simply does not give rise to the necessity to arrest as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 SCC Online SC 1703]. He would further submit that if there is a prima facie case against the present applicant then also she is entitled for grant of regular bail as the case has to be tried and proved in trial. As per cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence applicable under Indian law, every accused is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty and the guilt can only be established after trial as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2024 SCC Online SC 2550]. He would further submit that in economic offences matter also, completion of investigation and delay in trial is a ground for bail. The bail is not to withhold the punishment, the requirement as to the bail is merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at the trial as held by by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 SCC Online SC 1920]. He would further submit that the applicant is an Indian Administrative Officer and a permanent resident of Chhattisgarh and she is already cooperating with the investigating agency i.e. Enforcement Directorate or ACB/EOW and has attended the summons received from time to time. There is no material to suggest that she has not co-operated or will not co-operate with the investigation. He would further submit that the investigating agencies both central and the State are acting in tandem to defeat the right of the applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that bail is a right and jail is an exception. In-fact the developments that have been taken place in the manner in which the agencies one after other orchestrating the arrest and detention of the applicant establish that they intent to defeat the rule of bail being right and jail being exception. Hence, there was no necessity made out by the investigating agency in the instant FIR to arrest the applicant. In fact, her arrest is in contravention with the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273] as all the offences alleged in the instant FIR are punishable with a maximum of 7 years of imprisonment. He would further submit that there is no direct substantive evidence to connect the applicant with a criminal conspiracy as she has not done any illegal act or aided illegal act by legal means. There is no cogent evidence to implicate the applicant and 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. It is settled position in law that in order to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988, there must be a cogent evidence proving both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Mere allegation, without any substantive evidence cannot form the basis of prosecution. 6. He would further submit that a detailed and in depth analysis of the material and recording finding is essentially a matter of trial. At the stage of bail, the 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 the considerations for grant of bail is the availability of the accused when required. The applicant herein is an IAS officer and resident of Chhattisgarh and there is no likelihood of her tempering with the evidence of influencing the witness and it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court tampering of evidence or influencing of witness cannot be the ground for rejection of bail as sufficient conditions can be imposed. He would further submit that in the identical matters Hon'ble the Supreme Court has already considered the aspect of influencing the witness or tampering with the evidence and has granted bail to the present applicant and even if the allegation is of grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case and the primary object is to secure the presence of accused to stand trial and apprehension or possibility of the applicant influencing the trial or notwithstanding it cannot be made the basis to deny the bail as sufficient conditions can be imposed. He would further submit that there is no likelihood of applicant committing an offence of similar nature under Prevention of Corruption Act. He would further submit that the applicant is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the directions and conditions which may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court and would pray for enlarging the applicant on bail. 7. To substantiate his submission, he would referred to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of State of U.P. through CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21], Surinder Kumar Khanna Vs. Intelligence Officer Director of Revenue Intelligence [(2018) 8 SCC 271], Prem Prakash Vs. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement [SLP (Crl.) No. 5416/2024], Bhagirathsinh Vs. State of Gujrat [(1984) 1 SCC 284], Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement [SLP (Crl.) No. 8781/2024], Arun Ramchandran Pillai Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [Bail App. No. 3322/2023], Kalvakuntla Kavitha Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2269], 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] & Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI [(2012) 1 SCC 40]. 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 applicant and the respondent as well as perused the case diary. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant has 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. The prosecution has collected the material that she has shown active participation in the syndicate. 11. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being Chairman of the DMF trust cannot be held responsible as no work order was issued by the applicant, is misconceived and deserves to be rejected as the Chairman has much responsibility to see that the rates of supplied material should not be on a higher pedestal or the services of NGOs which is alleged to have been utilized, have really performed their part of contracts and any work for which tender was given to them, has been discharged or not. This clearly reflects that despite the knowledge of this fact, no action has been taken by the applicant to pilferage the huge amount of funds. Even the applicant has not placed on record any material to demonstrate the source of property purchased by her or her family members during the period in question, which prima facie establishes the involvement of the applicant in the crime in question. The further submission of learned senior counsel for the applicant that to frustrate the order of Hon’ble the Supreme Court by which an interim bail has been granted, the applicant has been arrested, is also misconceived as the prosecution has to take steps to investigate the crime which cannot be monitored by the Court unless so compelling reasons have been assigned by the applicant. This is not the situation in the present case. 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 [(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