1 2025:CGHC:48828 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7093 of 2025 1 - Sanjay Mishra S/o Sh. Subhash Chandra Mishra Aged About 51 Years R/o Agyey Nagar, House No. A-S-89, Bilaspur, C.G. ...Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through A.C.B. / E.O.W., Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri Gagan Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Sharma, Addl. Adv. General (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 23/09/2025 This first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS (analogous to Section 439 Cr.P.C) is filed by the applicant seeking his release on regular bail in Crime No. 04/2024 registered at Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467,468,471,120-B IPC and Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2 2. The applicant was arrested on 20.07.2025 and is presently lodged in judicial custody. A charge sheet against him was filed on 24.08.2025. His prior bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur was rejected on 06.08.2025. PROSECUTION ALLEGATIONS: 3. The case of the prosecution rests primarily on a disclosure under Section 66 PMLA made by the Directorate of Enforcement on 11.07.2023 and subsequent registration of ECIR No. 11/2022. The Enforcement Directorate forwarded its findings to the State authorities, alleging circulation of illegal gratification in liquor business transactions through FL-10A company structures. It is on the basis of this material that the subject ECIR was registered by the ACB/EOW. 4. The prosecution alleges that the applicant though not a public servant, facilitated financial transactions through FL-10A companies, siphoned money and caused circulation of illegal gratification towards the alleged liquor syndicate. The FIR was registered pursuant to a letter dated 11.07.2023 from the Enforcement Directorate under Section 66 of the PMLA which emanated from ECIR/11/2022. It is not disputed that the applicant is not a public servant The allegation against him is that he was a financial operator for certain transactions and facilitated flow of funds. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT : 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire FIR 3 stems from ED’s ECIR/11/2022, which stood quashed by the Apex Court on 08.04.2024 in WP(Crl.) No. 153/2023 and connected matters. The case illustrates a startling disregard for fundamental and constitutional norms guiding arrest and pretrial detention. The prosecution case, marred by overzealous invocation of criminal machinery, is founded not on cogent evidence but on conjecture, suppressed exculpatory material and a hollow pursuit of procedural formalities. Bail is the Rule, Jail an Exception-Apex Court Authority 6. The Apex Court, has, in unyielding terms, reaffirmed that deprivation of liberty must never be the default in criminal justice. In Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2021) 10 SCC 773, and subsequent orders, the Court held: “Bail is the norm; jail is the exception. The investigating agency and courts must comply with Sections 41 and 41A Cr.P.C. strictly, ensuring arrests are not made routinely upon charge-sheet.” The principles in Satender Kumar Antil - now crystallized in multiple repeat directives-require the Court to consider: a) necessity of arrest at every stage, not just upon filing of charge sheet. b) judicial vigilance against automatic custodial remand c) Institutional responsibility to safeguard under trial rights against arbitrary institution-driven detention. 7. Similarly, in Arvind Kejriwal precedent-Triple Text, Article 21 Liberty and Prolonged Incarceration: 4 Most cogently, in Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2024, the Apex Court granted bail to the Chief Minister of Delhi after 79 days in custody holding: “Prolonged pretrial incarceration is an unjust deprivation of liberty. When trial is unlikely to conclude with urgency-especially given the extensive charge sheets and witness lists-the denial of bail offends Article 21” It has further reaffirmed the triple test: • Risk of absconding • risk of tampering with evidence/witnesses • Extent of cooperation. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that that in the instant case, the applicant here, stands having no antecedents, showing total cooperation and posing no risk to investigation. It has been argued that in Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India, 2024 INSC 604, the Supreme Court even under stringent UAPA charges directed release on bail, noting : “Bail is the rule and jail the exception. The mere fact of serious allegations does not override the constitutional safeguard that every deprivation of liberty must be justified by clear compelling material.” The Court rejected mere suspicion or tenuous links as inadequate to justify continued incarceration pretrial. The prosecution allegations must withstand the strict scrutiny of prima facie credible evidence - a standard woefully unmet in the present case, given departmental exoneration and absence of new incriminating material. 5 9. Parity and Non Discrimination Principle: Applicant’s counsel reiterates that multiple co-accused have been granted bail by the Apex Court as well as some of the co-accused have been granted bail by this Court and any discriminatory treatment of the applicant would be wholly unsustainable under Article 14 and binding precedent. It is submitted that several of the accused in similar situation and nature, namely, Trilok Singh Dhillon, Arunpati Tripathi, Anurag Dwivedi, Dilip Pandey, Deepak Duary, Sunil Dutt, Arvind Singh and Amit Singh including some of the excise officers have been granted bail by the Apex Court. In absence of distinguishing features, the principle of parity mandates that the applicant be treated alike, lest unequal treatment amount to arbitrariness in matters involving personal liberty. 10. Delay, Abuse and Article 21 Violation : it is further submitted that the persistent detention of the applicant is disregard of completed investigation and filed charge sheet, amounts to de facto punishment without trial. The Apex Court in Kejriwal, Antil and Jalaluddin line of cases warns against “compounding the injury or pretrial deprivation with judicial inaction.” 11. In such circumstances, the liberty of the applicant, whose continued incarceration constitutes a patent violation of Satender Kumar Antil, Arvind Kejriwal and Jalaluddin Khan rulings. Let justice not be sacrificed at the altar of speculative allegations or undue delay. The applicant’s liberty must be restored,lest the very foundations of the constitutional governance be shaken. Thus, counsel for the applicant has submitted the following mitigated facts and conditions can be 6 emphasized for grant of bail to the applicant: 1. No Criminal Antecedents: The applicant has no prior criminal record of involvement in any other case, establishing that there is no habitual delinquency or risk of recidivism, which weighs strongly in favour of bail. 2. Cooperation with Investigation: The applicant has consistently cooperated with investigative agencies throughout the inquiry and has voluntarily appeared for questioning and produced all required documents and explanations, negating any risk of interference with the investigation. 3. Professional Standing and Social Roots: Being a qualified Chartered Accountant with over 20 years of professional practice and a settled family life, the applicant has strong social and professional roots reducing any flight risk. 4. Completion of Investigation and submission of Charge sheet: Investigation is complete and multiple charge sheets have already been filed against the applicant and the co-accused, removing any justification for custodial interrogation or custodial remand. 5. No risk of Tampering or Influencing Witnesses: There is no material to suggest that the applicant can tamper with evidence of threaten witnesses, especially given the supervisory mechanisms in place and the applicant’s non-controversial profile. 6. Existence of Departmental Exoneration : The departmental enquiry conducted by the Excise Department has cleared the applicant of any wrongdoing and the prosecution has suppressed this significant exculpatory report, which strengthens the fairness of granting bail. 7 7. Parity with similarly situated co-accused : Bail has already been granted to similarly situated co-accused by this court as well as the Apex Court and making the continuous detention of the applicant discriminatory and untenable. 8. Absence of Public Office or influence: The applicant does not hold any public office or fiduciary position which could be misused to obstruct justice, further reducing the risk factors generally considered for bail refusal. 9. Long custodial detention pending trial : the applicant has been in custody for a substantial duration now without commencement of trial, highlighting the punitive nature of custody and invoking the right to liberty under Article 21. 10. Presumption of Innocence: The fundamental principle of “presumption of innocence until proven guilty” mandates that the applicant cannot be subjected to pretrial punishment via extended incarceration. 12. It is submitted that despite the economic offences wing having filed charges sheets against as many 29 excise officers implicated in the liquor scam, none of these officers have been arrested till date. Even the charge sheets filed contain no substantive material against the applicant to justify his continued incarceration and cognizance has not yet been taken in several criminal proceedings. The trial court itself has noted in some bail orders that the proceedings are likely to be protracted given the voluminous evidence and number of witnesses. It is pertinent to highlight that most of the accused persons including several excise 8 officers, have been granted protection or bail by the Apex Court, therefore the same parity principle be applied in his case as he has no substantive connection to any offence beyond professional assignments. 13. The applicant has already appeared before the investigating agency on more than 30 occasions, which is duly recorded in the case diary. Despite his consistent cooperation, the respondent in a malafide and arbitrary manner, resorted to arresting him under the garb of a search operation, in direct contravention of the due process mandated under Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51. Such arrest is illegal and unsustainable in law. 14. Lastly, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was arrested on 20.07.2025 and the respondent agency has already filed the final report/charge sheet against the present applicant on 24.08.2025. The investigation in so far as the applicant is concerned, stands fully completed. The search proceedings and examination of the applicant have already been carried out and there is no recovery effected from him-neither of any immovable property nor of cash or kind and consequently, no further material or evidence remains to be effected from him and he has fully cooperated at every stage of investigation. He also submits that no document has been recovered, seized or brought on record to establish that the applicant was at any point of time, holding the position of Director in Nexgen Power Engitech Private Limited. The mere allegation that he was a Director of the said 9 company, which is sought to be inferred only from the version casually or indirectly referred, is wholly insufficient to fasten such a legal status or role upon the applicant. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in judicial custody during the pendency of trial, which is yet to commence. It is pertinent to note that the respondent agency has cited as many as 886 prosecution witnesses spread over six charge sheets running to 51,000 pages making the early conclusion of trial an impossibility. The continued incarceration of the applicant under such circumstances would be manifestly unjust, arbitrary and illegal amounting to pretrial punishment in gross violation of constitutional guarantees. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE EOW/STATE 15. It is submitted that the instant bail application filed by the applicant is wholly devoid of merits and deserves outright rejection for the reasons and legal grounds set forth hereinafter: 1. Registration of FIR and pima facie case: It is respectfully submitted that the Enforcement Wing of the Department has acted upon a communication dated 11.07.2023 received from the Enforcement Directorate. On due verification and meticulous examination of records and electronic data shared by the Income Tax Department, it was revealed that prima facie cognizable offences under Sections 7 & 12 of the PC Act, 1988 and Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC are made out beyond doubt. Consequently, FIR No. 04/2024 was registered and a comprehensive investigation set in motion to unearth a systematic well coordinated criminal syndicate. 10 2. Nature and Magnitude of the offence : The charges relate to a sprawling nexus of high level State government officials, private persons and political executives, who orchestrated large scale illegal commission extraction through control and manipulation of liquor licensing and supply in the State of Chhattisgarh. The syndicate engaged in illicit siphoning of State revenue estimated in several crores and operated by three distinct illegal revenue streams as enumerated in the investigation report. 16. He submits that the applicant, identified as a key participant, allegedly leveraged his position as a Chartered Accountant to facilitate the laundering and layering of illicit proceeds through illicit corporate structures thereby causing grave financial loss and erosion of public trust. The applicant through his company Nexgen Power Engitech Private Limited was a pivotal actor in the criminal syndicate that operated in the State of Chahttisgarh between the financial year 2019- 20 and 2022-23. This syndicate was orchestrated to generate massive illegal commissions through control over liquor licensing and sales. The Commission's investigation has established the damning facts: 17. The syndicate included key bureaucrats, businessman, intermediaries and political figures who extracted commission of approximately 10% of Foreign Liquor Sales and dictated terms for liquor licensing including FL-10 A licenses. Nexgen Power Engitech Pvt. Ltd. owned and managed de facto by the present applicant was one of the only three companies granted the coveted FL-10A licenses, on the condition of price hikes mid year to 11 ensure the flow of cash bribes. 18. The company earned an aggregate net profit of approximately Rs. 27 crores during the period under investigation. A pre-planned profit sharing mechanism was coordinated, wherein about 60% of the profits were diverted to syndicate leaders Anwar Dhebar and Vikas Agrawal, while the applicant retained and laundered the remaining share. 19. The applicant obtained the FL-10A license through his connection with Anwar Dhebar. He appointed his brother Manish Mishra as Director and Shareholder of Nexgen Power Engitech Pvt. Ltd. On the instructions of Anwar Dhebar, he also inducted Abhishek Singh, cousin of Arvind Singh (a syndicate member) as another Director and shareholder. Investigations revealed that the applicant was the de facto owner and managed the company affairs. The total estimated illegal earning of the syndicate from various liquor trades was pegged at Rs. 3200 crores which directly amounts to massive loss and damage to the State exchequer. 20. Multiple statements collected during investigation indicate the applicant’s active involvement in layering proceeds from the liquor scam and assisting other accused in maintaining the criminal enterprise. As such the applicant’s role transcends mere professionals involvement and places him at the core of the conspiracy meriting custodial investigation and denial of bail in order to preserve the integrity of the investigation and prevent any risk of evidence tampering and it is revealed that the applicant was neither a mere passive observer nor 12 inadvertently involved. He was the de facto owner and manager of a company which received FL-10A licenses through corrupt nexus, controlled profit sharing with syndicate members and actively assisted in money laundering. The charge sheet clearly delineates his participation in the criminal conspiracy, corroborated by statements of multiple witnesses. 21. Legal Principles Governing Bail- Flight risk, witness tampering and investigation integrity : It is well settled by the Apex Court in the State of UP Vs. Amarmani Singh Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 and reiterated in Gulabrao Babukar Deokar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 16 SCC 190, that bail consideration must weigh multiple factors inter alia - • Nature and gravity of offence established prima facie; • severity and quantum of punishment; • threat of absconding or fleeing justice; • reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses; • character, antecedents and standing of accused; • likelihood of repetition of offence. These factors cumulatively create a compelling case for custodial detention especially given the serious economic offences committed which caused massive pecuniary loss affecting public exchequer and governance. 22. Supremacy of Investigation and Anti Bail Guidelines in Economic Offences: Relying on the Apex Court’s landmark rulings, such as in 13 Satender Kumar Antil Vs.CBI (2021)10 SCC 773, it is submitted that : • Economic offences attract stricter scrutiny due to their corrosive impact on State resources and public confidence; • Arrest and custodial interrogation are vital investigative tools to prevent dissipation of evidence. • Bail applications must be considered gravely and with circumspection especially where there is a prima facie case of serious financial fraud and complicity of accused in syndicate activities. • Investigation is ongoing with large scale evidence gathering including witness statements, financial records and cross institutional audits, which require custodial continuance for effective enquiry. The Court in Satender Antil (supra), also clarified that bail is not an automatic entitlement but subject to assessment of gravity and circumstances, mere cooperation or anticipatory bail applications do not overshadow the need for investigative custody in grave offences. 23. Absence of Exceptional Circumstances for Bail : The applicant’s attempt to highlight cooperation or professional standing cannot mask the overreaching criminal conduct and damage to public interest. No exceptional circumstances, as mandated by the Apex Court exist to justify bail in such a large scale syndicated economic crime. 24. Risk of Tampering, influencing witnesses and obstructing investigation: Due to the applicant's nexus with influential accused and direct access to financial records and witnesses, the possibility of tampering, evidence contamination, or witness intimidation is real and palpable, mandating custodial protection of the investigation’s sanctity. 14 The applicant, a Chartered Accountant by profession allegedly managed and controlled companies licensed under FL-10A that engaged in profiting from corrupt arrangements with the syndicate. Investigations revealed that the applicant was the de facto owner controlling company decisions and profits, which were shared largely among syndicate members including officials like Anwar Dhebar and Vikas Agrawal, thus implication the applicant as an active conspirator. This factual matrix places the applicant at the heart of the syndicate’s operations regarding the liquor licensing racket in the State of Chahttisgarh. 25. Thus, in the light of the foregoing, it is emphatically submitted that the bail application may be rejected on the grounds of strong prima facie case, gravity of offence, risk of absconding or tampering and to uphold the rule of law and public confidence in the criminal judicial system. 26. The instant bail application has been filed challenging the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the Sessions Court rejecting the bail of the applicant in FIR Crime No. 04/2024 registered at the Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur. 27. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire case record, including the charge sheets, investigation status and submissions made at bar. FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATION : 28. It is not in dispute that the applicant was arrested on 20.07.2025. 15 the final report (charge sheet) has been filed by the respondent agency on 24.08.2025. As per the record, six charge sheets running to 51,000 pages have been filed involving 886 prosecution witnesses thereby indicating a complex case with voluminous evidence. The sheer number of prosecution witnesses clearly shows that the trial will be protracted and is unlikely to conclude in the near future. 29. It is beyond dispute that although charge sheets and supplementary charge sheets have been filed against as many as 29 excise officers implicated in the alleged liquor syndicate, none of these officers have been arrested by the EOW and without arresting them, the respondent agency has filed charge sheet against them. 30. Significantly, it is pertinent to mention here that some other co- accused persons who had actively participated in the liquor scam case, who are the Excise Officers were not arrested by the prosecution agency on the ground that they have supported the prosecution case and ultimately, the Apex Court has granted interim bail to them vide SLP (Crl.) Nos. 012801/2025, 013029/2025, 013102/2025, 013134/2025, 013041/2025, 013026/2025, 013032/2025, 013039/2025, Diary Nos. 48364/2025, 48573/2025,48606/2025 and 48630/2025. The principle of parity demands that the applicant, who is not directly connected with any overt criminal act outside his professional capacity, be afforded similar relief. 31. The Apex court in catena of judgments has reiterated that pretrial custody is not to be a substitute for punishment. Prolonged custody 16 without trial amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees personal liberty. The applicant's incarceration after completion of investigation serves no legitimate investigative purpose. The applicant has demonstrated that he satisfies the triple criteria for grant of bail-he is not a flight risk, will not tamper with evidence, nor will he influence witnesses. He has a permanent residence and an established professional and familial background to ensure his presence during trial. 32. The charge sheet does not show any criminal antecedent or prior involvement in offence by the applicant. The allegations, though serious, principally rests on financial transactions and his professional capacity as a Chartered Accountant. No material prima facie indicates any overt attempt by the applicant to obstruct justice or evade investigation. 33. Reliance has been placed by the applicant on the settled Apex Court authorities including Satender Kumar Antil and Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (supra), is apposite and well founded, wherein the Court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Further, the Apex Court in Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India, has held that the role of every accused must be evaluated independently. Merely sharing a common space in the allegations or association with co-accused is insufficient to refuse bail without substantial incriminating material. The investigations do not prima facie disclose any exceptional circumstances warranting continued detention of the applicant pending trial. 34. Thus, this Court after perusing the records place before this Court, 17 certain principles of law and justice emerge with clarity. The applicant is in custody since 20.07.2025 and the trial is nowhere on the horizon of immediate commencement. Notably in connected cases arising from the liquor scam, co-accused persons have been granted bail either by the Apex Court or by this Court ( 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 the light of the precedents referred to hereinabove, the rule of parity operates squarely in favour of the present applicant. It is undisputed position that the co-accused Trilok Singh Dhillon, Arunpati Tripathi, Arvind Singh, Anurag Dwivedi, Dilip Pandey and Deepak Duary have already been granted bail by the Apex Court and the role ascribed to the present applicant is demonstrably of a lesser degree as compared to the aforesaid co-accused persons and hence,on the ground of parity, the applicant stands on an even stronger footing for grant of bail. It is also pertinent to note that no document whatsoever has been recovered, seized or placed on record to indicate that the applicant was ever a Director of Nexgen Power Engitech Private Ltd. 37. Equally significant is the fact that there has been no recovery from the applicant, neither of any immovable property nor of cash or kind as as to justify his further custody. When viewed against the backdrop of 18 similarly placed co-accused in the liquor scam having been granted bail, the rule of parity stands squarely attracted. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no justification survives in continuing the applicant’s incarceration and the 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. 38. 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; (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. 19 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. 39. 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 exopression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial court shall proceed independetly, unifluenced by any of the observations made in this order. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.25 18:57:43 +0530