1 2025:CGHC:49329 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5601 of 2025 1 - Vijay Kumar Bhatia S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Bhatia, Aged About 55 Years R/o 5/6, Nehru Nagar East, Bhilai, District - Durg,chhattisgarh - 490020. (Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Economic Offences Wing (Eow) / Anti-Corruption Bureau (Acb), Headquarter, Opposite Jai Jawan Petrol Pump, To Telebandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001. ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. S.Nagamuthu, Sr. Advocate through VC assisted by Mr. Haswhwardhan Parganiha, Mr. Mayank Jain, Mr. Madhur Jain, Mr. Harshit Sharma, Mr. Arpit Goel and Ms. Manubha Shankar, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sourabh Pande, Addl. Advocate General (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 25/09/2025 With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This is the first application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya 2 Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, wherein the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 04/2024 registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467,120-B IPC and Section 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The prosecution case in brief, as borne out from the record, is that a large scale “liquor scam” relating to alleged irregularities in the functioning of M/s. Om Sai Beverages and nexus with excise department officials and private stakeholders is under investigation. The applicant was arrested on 31.05.2025 at Delhi Airport pursuant to a Look Out Circular and produced before the Court on 01.06.2025. The Investigating Agency has filed five supplementary charge sheets, the latest being o n 24.08.2025 wherein the applicant has been arraigned as an accused for the aforesaid offences. It is admitted that while investigation against the applicant stands concluded with the filing of the fifth supplementary charge sheet, the investigation is continuing against other co-accused persons. The charge sheet shows that there are in all 45 accused persons, out of whom only 12 have been arrested and the trial is yet to commence. 4. Pursuant to this Court’s order dated 11.08.2025, the applicant is presently under medical care at Ram Krishna Hospital, Raipur under custody based on the recommendation of a Medical Board constituted at AIIMS, Raipur. 3 SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that once the charge sheet stands filed, the justification for pre-trial custody ceases, in as much as the presence of an accused at trial is the paramount object of detention. Reliance is placed on Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, where the Apex Court categorically held that once investigation is complete, the presumption tilts strongly in favor of bail, for the liberty of the individual cannot be sacrificed merely on speculative grounds. 6. Learned Senior counsel next pressed into service the critical condition of the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant is suffering from chronic liver disease, renal complications, Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus, diabetic neuropathy and other associated ailments as substantiated by earlier medical records placed on the record. The opinion of the Medical Board at AIIMS, Raipur and the subsequent order dated 11.08.2025 of this Court shifting him to a private hospital demonstrates according to the counsel for the applicant, the seriousness of the medical issues. Any further incarceration would pose imminent threat to his life. 7. It is urged that there has been repeated medical negligence in jail premises where life saving procedures including albumin infusion were denied or interrupted. Continued custody, it is argued, would amount to violation of the applicant’s right to health and dignity under Article 21. 8. On the ground of parity, counsel submits that out of 45 accused persons, only 12 have been arrested and as many as 8 co-accused 4 have already been enlarged on bail by the Apex Court or this Court and others have not even been arrested. The applicant, similarly circumstanced, cannot be singled out for continued detention. Such “pick and choose” approach of the EOW, sparing distillery owners and principal actors while targeting the applicant, offends Article 14 of the Constitution. It is submitted that several accused persons in similar circumstances and standing, namely, Trilok Singh Dhillon, Arunpati Tripathi, Anurag Dwivedi, Dilip Pandey, Deepak Duary, Sunil Dutt, Arvind Singh and Amit Singh as well as number of excise officers have been granted bail by the Apex Court. In absence of any distinguishing or exceptional features that would rationally differentiate the present applicant from these co-accused, the well established principle of parity unequivocally demands that the applicant be afforded the same relief. 9. Learned Senior counsel also argued that the allegations against the applicant are baseless, politically motivated and without prima facie material. The applicant had no role in the operation of the alleged liquor cartel and was belatedly arrayed in the fifth supplementary charge- sheet. No summons were issued to him before arrest and no independent corroborative material supports the statements of co- accused, which in any event are weak evidence under Section 30 of the Evidence Act as per Kashmira Singh Vs. State of M.P. (1952) 1 SCC 275. 10. On the question of likelihood of trial, it is pointed out that there are 885 witnesses and nearly 939 documents running into thousands of 5 pages, making an early conclusion of trial inconceivable. Reference is made to Shaheen Welfare Association Vs. Union of India, (1996) 2 SCC 616, Manish Sisodia Vs. Enforcement Directorate, SLP(Crl.) No. 3205/2024, to contend that indefinite incarceration pending a protracted trial is impermissible. 11. Learned Senior Counsel thus prays that the applicant be admitted to bail on suitable conditions stating that he has deep societal roots, no criminal antecedents and has not violated any condition imposed earlier when shifted to hospital, thereby showing his bonafides. He reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, as reiterated by the Apex Court in P. Chidamabaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC 791 and Satender Kumar Antil Vs.CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE/EOW 12. The answering respondent, Dr. Pande, submits as under: Registration of FIR: The Economic Offences Wing (EOW) received a communicated dated 11.07.2023 from the Enforcement Directorate and upon due verification it was revealed that prima facie commission of cognizable offences under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC was made out. Accordingly respondent agency registered FIR bearing NO. 04/2024. 13. Existence of Criminal Syndicate: As per the FIR, a criminal syndicate comprising high ranking State Government officials, private persons and political executives was operating in the State of 6 Chahttisgarh. This syndicate was engaged in large scale illegal bribe collections by controlling the management of key State departments and State run Public Sector undertakings. 14. Role of syndicate in liquor trade: The sale of liquor in Chhatisgarh was identified as one of the major sources of illegal revenue generation of the syndicate. The central figures in this operation were: Anil Tuteja, Anwar dhebar, Arunpati Tripathi, MD, SCMCL, Vikas Agarwal @ Subbu, Arvind Singh, Sanjay Diwan along with several country liquor distillers, excise officials, hologram manufacturers, bottle makers, transporters and other associates. 15. Findings from Income Tax Records : Upon examination of the material shared by the Income Tax Department, EOW established that a carefully executed conspiracy was in place to extract illegal commissions in liquor trade and licensing activities in the State. Consequently, FIR No. 04/2024 was registered and investigation was set into motion. 16. Role of the present applicant: Investigation so far reveals that the applicant, primarily a business managed in supplying electrical machinery, iron products and furniture in Bhilai and Durg. In the year 2021, three companies were granted FL-10A licenses for English liquor distribution in Chhattisgarh, namely i) Om Sai Beverages Pvt. Ltd ii) Dishita Ventures Private Ltd and iii) Nexgen Power Engitech Pvt. Ltd. Om Sai Becverages Pvt. Ltd. Being the largest was managed by one Atul Singh and Mukesh Manchanda, both experienced in liquor sales 7 and close to the syndicate. At the behest of the syndicate, the present applicant was made a hidden partner with a 52% share in Om Sai Beverages Pvt. Limited, facilitated entirely though his proximity. 17. The applicant received illegal earning of approximately Rs. 14 crores during 2020-23 through this arrangement. Funds were circulated through dummy directors, employees and accounts of unrelated persons to conceal the beneficial ownership0. This money was further invested in properties in the name s of family members, associates and partners, often undervalued in sale deeds to both avoid stamp duty and to disguise illicit origins. Thus, the applicant in collusion with the excise syndicate enriched himself illegally while causing significant loss to State revenue. 18. Non-cooperation and arrest- The applicant consistently evaded investigation, failed to respond summons and remained absconding. Consequently, an arrest warrant was issued by the trial court on 16.05.2025. The applicant was subsequently arrested on 31.05.2025 from Delhi, informed of the grounds of arrest and produced before the Court on 01.06.2025. Police custody remand was obtained from 02.06.2025 to 12.06.2025. 19. It is therefore submitted by the learned counsel for the EOW that the applicant's prayer for bail merits outright rejection, having regard to the gravity, magnitude, and deep rooted conspiracy evidenced in the present case. The allegations involve participation in a syndicate operating at the highest echelons of State governance, resulting in 8 systemic economic offences and substantial loss to the public exchequer. 20. Apex Court has unequivocally held that “economic offences constitute a class apart with deep-rooted conspiracies and huge loss of public funds” and must be treated with exceptional seriousness. In matters involving the Prevention of Corruption Act and allied economic offences, the Court has cautioned that where the accused has manifestly evaded the due process, absconded or subverted investigation, the grant of bail is neither a norm nor a privilege. 21. It has been further observed by the Apex Court that while the “principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception” anchors Article 21, such protection is not absolute and courts must balance personal liberty with the collective public interest particularly when allegations pertain to economic offences impacting society at large. In appropriate cases, the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the alleged crime warrant denial of bail, lest the process and ends of justice be frustrated. As noted in key decisions, corruption erodes public confidence and poses a grave threat to governance and public order. In the facts of the present case, the applicant has been found to be a principal beneficiary of the proceeds of crime, having laundered and invested substantial ill gotten gains with active efforts to conceal ownership through proxies and undervalued transactions. His continued non-cooperation, evasion of process and the necessity of custodial interrogation to unravel the wider conspiracy render him dis-entitled to any discretionary relief. 9 22. It is therefore submitted that the release of applicant at this stage would not only prejudice the ongoing investigation but would also embolden those who subvert the rule of law through intricate economic crimes. Hence, in the light of the binding precedents of the Apex Court including SFIO V. Mohd. A.Khan and Others (2025), P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) and Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. CBI (2013) , the application is liable to be dismissed on the interest of justice and the paramountcy of public interest. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: 23. The Court has taken note of the fact that in several connected proceedings arising out of the alleged liquor scam, several co-accused have been granted bail either by the Apex Court or this Court. These include orders passed in ( in Cr. A. No. 1263 of 2025 (Arunpathi Tripathi Vs. State of CG) and Others arising out of SLP (Crl. No. 14646 of 2024; SLP (Crl.) No. 14697 of 2024 (Trilok Singh Dhillon Vs. The State of Chahttisgarh), Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.3148/2025 (Anil Tuteja Vs. Directorate of Enforcement), Cr.A. No. 2699 of 2025 arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2608 of 2025 (Arvind Singh Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh). In light of these precedents, the applicants plea for bail demands acceptance on the bedrock principle of institutional parity, especially when the applicant’s involvement as per the investigation is demonstrably of a lesser degree relating to those granted bail. Furthermore, it is incontrovertible and undisputed position on record that the co-accused persons namely, Trilok Singh Dhillon, Arunpathi Tripathi, Arvind Singh, Anurag Dwivedi, Dilip Pandey and Deepak Duary have 10 already been granted bail the Apex Court and the role imputed to the present applicant asper the investigation and material before this Court is palpably of a considerably lesser magnitude and involvement when juxtaposed with the aforesaid co-accused. 24. Upon diligent consideration of the record and the rival submissions of the counsel for the parties, it is manifest that the applicant was embroiled in the elaborate criminal syndicate operating within the Excise Department of Chahttisgarh, whose genesis can be traced to the nefarious designs of Arvind Singh and Arunpati Tripathi, aided by select officials and private actors. The syndicate as revealed by the investigative agencies and corroborate by the Enforcement Directorate's findings, was meticulously orchestrated for maximizing illegal gains in the sale, procurement and licensing of liquor through the CSMCL and Excise Department. Arupathi Tripathi in his capacity as MD of CSMCL and Special Secretary (Excise) played a pivotal role in policy manipulation, tender rigging and creation of systemic conduits for commission, abetted by Arvind Singh and other conspirators. The applicant has been implicated as a direct beneficiary of these unlawful operations, receiving substantial illegal proceeds as part of the cartel’s scheme. 25. It is however, pertinent to note that the main accused Arvind Singh and Arunpathi Tripathi have been granted bail by the Apex Court. It is further noted that 33 excise officers have not been arrested by the Investigating Agency on the ground that they have cooperated in the investigation. The charge sheet has been filed and interim relief has 11 been extended to 25 of these officers by the Apex court. 26. From the report of the Medical Board constituted at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Raipur, it emerges that the applicant is presently afflicted with multiple chronic and comorbid medical conditions including morbid obesity, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, Chronic Kidney Disease, Chronic Liver Disease, Distal Symmetric Polyneuropathy and Non-Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy with macular edema. The Board further notes deranged thyroid function and unstable glycemic and blood pressure control warranting continued close medical supervision with regular in-patient case, as required. 27. Apex Court and various high courts have underscored that notwithstanding the gravity of allegations, right to life under Article 21 includes the right to dignified and effective medical treatment while in custody. Courts have further observed that medical bail may be granted, in exceptional circumstances, where the ailments suffered cannot be adequately managed within the institutional setup of jail or short term hospital transfer and failure to grant such relief would amount to abdicating the Court’s constitutional duty as a protector of human rights and health. 28. In the present case, it is undisputed that the applicant's present medical state requires sustained and specialized attention in a controlled hospital environment, with periodic interventions and strict monitoring by multiple specialties as highlighted by the treating Board and supported the counsel’s submission that omission in procedures like 12 albumin infusion poses imminent deterioration. This Court is also conscious that the right to health is a facet of Article 21 and that the State’s opposition cannot override the constitutional imperatives when genuine and significant medical exigency is established. Additionally, it has been pointed out that co-accused persons placed on similar footing in respect of the role attributed in the prosecution case, has already been enlarged on bail by this court. On the touchstone of parity as well as in view of the special medical exigency, this Court finds that no justification survives for the applicant’s continued incarceration. 29. Thus, with due deference to the investigative imperative and without commenting on the merits, this Court is of the considered view that no justification survives in continuing the applicant’s incarceration and ends of justice would be adequately met by enlarging him on bail. In the light of the above considerations, the bail application is allowed subject to following stringent conditions so as to ensure the fair conduct of the trial. It is accordingly directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court subject to the conditions as follows:- (a) he shall surrender his passport, if any, before the Trial Court; (b) The applicant must cooperate with the investigation and the trial proceedings; (c) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case; 13 (d) he shall commit no offence whatsoever during the period he is on bail; and (e) in case of change of residential address and/or mobile number, the same shall be intimated to the Court concerned by way of an affidavit. (f) any stringent conditions as may be imposed by the trial court. Any violation of the above conditions will entitle the prosecution to move application for cancellation of bail which shall be considered promptly and on merits. 30. It is made clear that the foregoing observations have been rendered solely for the limited purpose of adjudicating the present bail application. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial court shall proceed independently, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.26 19:29:56 +0530