2025:CGHC:22055 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2744 of 2025 Reserved on : 07.05.2025 Delivered on : 14.05.2025 Suryakant Tiwari S/o Sh. Late Sh. Shashibhushan Tiwari Aged About 51 Years (In Judicial Custody) R/o I-34, Anupam Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through the SHO PS- EOW & ACB, Raipur. --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Dr. Sourbh Kumar Pande, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV ORDER 1. This is first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik 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 420, 120-B 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 ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.05.14 13:25:56 +0530 corruption in the use of funds from District Mineral Funds in District- 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 is a political person and coal businessman having close relations with politicians, administrative and police officials as also the then Deputy Secretary, Ms. Saumya Chaurasia, Chief Minister's Secretariat. Taking advantage of his good relations with politicians and administrative officials and his experience in coal business, he formed a syndicate with his associates to collect levy from coal transporters/coal businessmen. During the investigation of the case, it was found that the said offence has been committed by the applicant with assistance of Roshan Singh, Nikhil Chandrakar and others. The applicant was active participant in laundering the proceeds of crime. The nature and scale of his 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. (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. Upon allotment of tenders, the successful bidders have given huge bribe money to other co-accused persons namely Ms. Ranu Sahu, Ms. Saumya Chaurasia and the present applicant. 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. 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. The prosecution has also collected the material that the present applicant in the name of his wife and priprietor of J.D. Enterprises, M/s. A.M. Fuels as well as relatives namely Rajnikant Tiwari, Utkarsh Tiwari, friends Devesh Chandrakar, Riddhi Siddhi Builcon, Radhakant Tiwari & other persons have purchased various immovable properties. 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 17.03.2025, 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. Kishore Bhaduri, learned 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 arrest of the applicant is completely illegal and the right to fair trial and investigation is a facet of the Right to Life and Liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of the India. This right can be taken away by procedure established by law which procedure must be just fair and reasoned as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat & others [(2010) 12 SCC 254] and Gangadhar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2020) 9 SCC 202]. He would further submit that the accused must necessarily be given a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. prior to effecting his arrest as per the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC 273] & Satender Kumar Antil [(2022) 10 SCC 51] whereas in the present case, no mandatory notice has been given to the applicant prior to his arrest. He would further submit that the Cr.P.C. does not create any distinction with respect to the mandatory compliance of Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. between arrest of a person already in custody in another case and a person who is not in custody in relation to any case. It cannot be said that the fundamental rights of a person not in custody are different or superior than those of a person who has been arrested in relation to a different case. Each arrest of an accused is different and distinct and must be made only pursuant to due compliance of the applicable law. This Hon’ble Court ought to ensure that the fundamental rights of the applicant are protected from the wanton abuse and misuse of powers by investigating agencies, as such the fact that the applicant was already in judicial custody in another case can never be a ground for the respondent/ACB-EOW to avoid the compliance of Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. as per the law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Arnesh Kumar (supra). 5. 5. He would further submit that applicant’s fundamental right as enshrined under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India has been violated as the purported grounds of arrest which has been supplied to the applicant are generic in nature and does not stipulate the specific grounds for arrest and the same is not ground for arrest at all but merely the reasons of arrest. Therefore, the investigating agency has done an empty formality in providing the grounds of arrest, therefore, there is clear violation of Section 22(1) of the Constitution of India as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [2024 INSC 414]. He would further submit that the grounds of arrest do not satisfy the test of necessity to justify the arrest of the applicant as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [SLP (Crl.) No. 11023/2024] & Manish Sisodia Vs. CBI [Criminal Appeal No. 3296/2024]. 6. He would further submit that it is well settled position of law that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative and the primary purpose of bail in a criminal case is to ensure that the accused will submit to the jurisdiction of the court and be in attendance whenever his presence is required. Deprivation of liberty must be considered punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand trial when called upon punishment can only begin after conviction and necessity is the operative test. He would further submit that even if the allegation is grave of economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case and consideration has to be made on case to case basis on the facts. The primary object is to secure the presence of the accused to attend trial as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of P. Chidambaram Vs. ED [(2020) 13 SCC 791], Manish Sisodia Vs. CBI & ED [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1393], Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693], Gudikanti Narasimhulu Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [(1978) 1 SCC 240], Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565]. 7. He would further submit that the allegations levelled against the applicant in the present FIR are completely false and frivolous and have no basis in the fact or law as no specific role has been attributed to the applicant except for a vague and bald allegation of collection of some fixed amount from co-accused Ranu Sahu. Neither any amount has been specified nor any date or mode of collection has been mentioned. He would further submit that applicant has not named in the subject FIR and the applicant does not know the allegation levelled against him, except for what has been stated in the grounds of arrest dated 03.03.2025 as the grounds of arrest are generic in nature and do not stipulate any specific allegation or even the quantum of illegal commission allegedly received by the applicant. He would further submit that it is alleged that the applicant does not satisfy the triple-test for grant of bail i.e. the applicant is a flight risk or would influence any witness or would tamper with any evidence. In any event, there is no material on record to suggest that the applicant does not satisfy the triple-test. He would further submit that there is no allegation that the applicant would either tamper with any evidence or influence any witness, if bail is granted. Learned trial Court has erroneously observed that there is an apprehension that if the applicant is released on bail, he may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, it is well settled law that mere apprehension of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence can never be a ground to decline bail to any accused, unless there is cogent supporting material as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of P. Chidambaram Vs. CBI [2020 13 SCC 337]. CBI [2020 13 SCC 337]. He would further submit that any apprehension regarding the applicant being a flight risk or tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses can be taken care of by imposing suitable conditions on the applicant at the time of grant of bail and each of which the applicant undertakes to adhere to scrupulously. To substantiate this submission, he would refer to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Bibhav Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi [SLP (Crl.) No. 9817/2024]. 8. He would further submit that the applicant is suffering from various serious medical conditions viz. accelerated hypertension, cervical spondylitis & insomnia due to which, the applicant has been admitted in hospital for treatment several times during the incarceration. The applicant has suffered several bouts of bleeding from his rectum as well as nose, therefore, the applicant requires urgent medical treatment and proper medical treatment is not being provided to him by the authorities in jail and in absence of providing medical treatment to the applicant, he has undergone severe weight loss and has become extremely weak as well as his health is being severely deteriorated. He would further submit that the applicant is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the directions which may be imposed by this Court and would pray for releasing he applicant on bail. Page 8 of 12 9. 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 is not only heinous offence but also against the economy 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. He would further submit that the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Raipur vide order dated 17.03.2025 while dismissing the bail application filed by the applicant has observed that there is involvement of the applicant in the crime in question, which has not been rebutted by the applicant while making this submission before this Court and would pray for rejection of bail petition, as such he would pray for rejection of the bail application of the applicant. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and the respondent as well as perused the case diary. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant has nowhere stated in the bail petition regarding source of income by which he has purchased the properties in the name of his family members and the relatives as available in the case diary which clearly shows that the ACB/EOW has collected certain material against the applicant whereas the prosecution has collected the material against the applicant to prima facie establish that the properties described in the FIR in the name of his family members and relatives is by utilizing the extorted money which has been collected from coal transporters as well as the vendors who have been granted tender under DMF. 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, [(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, it prima facie 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 Nagrik 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