1 2025:CGHC:49057 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1504 of 2025 1 - Chaitanya Baghel S/o Shri Bhupesh Baghel Aged About 38 Years R/o 1/7, Mansarovar Parisar, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh (Presently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Raipur (C.G.)) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Economic Offences Wing (Eow)/ Anti- Corruption, Bureau (Acb), Headquarter, Opposite Jai Jawan Petrol Pump, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.Hariharan, learned Sr. Counsel through VC assisted by Mr. Mayank Jain, Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Mr. Madhur Jain, Mr. Arpit Goel, Mr. Deepak Jain, Mr. Aman Akhtar and Mr. Arjan Mandala, Advocates For Respondent/State : Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate through VC assisted by Mr.Vivek Sharma, Addl. AG and Mr. Ravi Sharma, Dy.GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 24/09/2025 The applicant, seeks indulgence of this Court by filing application 2 under 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 04 of 2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti corruption Bureau, Chhattisgarh, Raipur for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420,467,468,471,120-B IPC and Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. the applicant asserts with utmost humility that he has ben falsely roped in owing to ulterior motives and the substratum of allegations as recorded in the charge sheets do not, even prima facie, disclose his culpability. The present application, therefore necessitated in the interest of justice and fair play, for protection of the aplicant’s liberty which stands fortified by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THE CASE: 2. During the period 2019-2022, a well organized and large scale syndicate was allegedly operating in the State of Chhatisgarh which was systematically engaged in the ilicit manufacture and clandestine sale of liquor through officially licensed government outlets thereby reaping unlawful and disporportionate pecuniary gains. The prosecution asserts that the illicit proceeds of this unlawful enterprise were not only accumulatedi n staggering proportions but were also funneled to various associates of the syndicate and further deployed to bribe influential political as well as administrative authorities, all with the objective of perpetuating and safeguarding the nefarious operations. 3. Significantly, in FIR No. 04/2024 there is no direct, specific or overt allegation whatsoever has been attributed to the present applicant. However, the non-applicant has sought permission from the 3 jurisdictional court to interrogate the applicant at Central Jail, Raipur in connection with the said FIR. This action, despite the absence of any specific role assigned to the applicant has given rise to a strong reasonable and bonafide apprehension of his imminent arrest. SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT 4. Learned Sr. Counsel submtis that the genesis of the present proceedings traces back to a reference from the Enforcement Directorate, Raipur Zonal Office, based on an IT Complaint forwarded by the CBDT. Acting on such reference the non-applicant registered FIR No. 04/2024. subsequent thereto, a series of charge sheets and supplementary charge sheets have been filed before the Special Judge (PC Act), Raipur enlisting several accused persons from time to time. 5. It is pertinent to note that while more than 40 persons have already been arraigned as accused through successive supplementary charge sheets, no specific role of the applicant have been delineated in any of those reports,except broad and omnibus allegations without any substantiating material. The applicant, was however, arrested by the Enforcement Directorate on 18.07.2025 in connection with ECIR No. RPZO/04/2024 which admittedly emanates from the predicate FIR under challenge. Thereafter, the applicant was interrogated in jail custody by the non-applicant pursuant to the order of the Special Court (PMLA), Raipur. 6. The FIR on its plain reading, does not attribute any specific role, overt act or participation of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offences. The narration therein is couched in vague, omnibus 4 and generalized terms directed against a large number of individuals, but conspicuously bereft of any detail as to the alleged involvement of the applicant. Such sweeping and non-specific allegations,without a whisper of particularity, cannot form the foundation of criminal prosecution against the applicant. Such vague generalizations lacking specificity, fall squarely within the category of cases identified by the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp. (10 SCC 335, where proceedings are liable to be quashed on account of their manifestly vexatious and arbitrary manner. 7. It has been argued that the applicant is not culpable of the aleged offences. The case against him is a clearoutcome ofmalafide political vendetta, aimed at falsely branding him as part of a longer conspiracy in order to settle scores. Even if the FIR is taken at its highest value and assumed to be correct in toto, the statutory ingredients constituting the offences invoked under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act are palpably absent insofar as the applciant is concerned. Hence the continuation of proceedings against the applicant is manifestly an abuse of process of law. 8. It is next contended by the learned Sr. Counsel that under the guise of “further investigation”, the non-applicant is indulging in coercive tactics by extracting statements from certain co-accused and fugitive, with the ulterior motive of fabricating material that can be misused in supplementary charge sheets.Such a course, if permitted would preujdice the rights of the applicant and subvert settled principles of fair investigation under criminal jurisprudence. The Apex Court has 5 consistently held, including in P.Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2019) 9 SCC 24, that powers of investigation cannot be wielded as instruments of harassment, intimidation or to satisfy extraneous agendas. 9. The issue is no longer res integra in light of the categorical pronouncement of the Apex Court in Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1703, wherein the Apex Corut examined the legality of arest under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court empahsized that thearrsting authority must strictly adhere to the “reasons tobelieve” standard mandated by Section 19(1) and those reasons must be recorded in writing with proper application of mind. 10. It was held by the Court that the designated officer cannot arbitrarily or selectively by ignoring material that may exonerate the accusee. Failure to consider exculpatory evidence would undermine thelegislative intent of imposing stringent safeguards for arrest under PMLA, which is a penal statute requiring strict interpretation. The Court reinforced that thenecessity toarrest must be justified on sound legal and factual backgrounds andnot used as an instrument for opression or harassment. 11. The landmark ruling thus mandates heightened scrutiny over arrests under the PMLA, ensuring protection of liberty andpreventing misuse of investigive powers as a tool for political victimzation or undue coercion. The appicant had earlier invoked the jurisidciton of the Apex 6 Court by filing Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 299 of 2025, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 04.08.2025 albeit with the express liberty to pursue all remedial measures before this Court in the appropriate proceedings. It is important tonote that in the said writ petition, the appicant has also moved I.A. No. 183288 of 2025, specifically challenging the illegal actsof further investigation resorted to by the non-applicant andhad sought reliefs interalia restraining such impermissible investigating maneouvres. The present proceedings therefore, represent a bona fide invocation of the liberty granted by the Apex Court. 12. It is most significant that five charge sheets have been filed in thepresent case, yet the name of the applicant does not figure as an accused in any of them. Even after registration of the case on 17.01.2024 and passage of approximately 1 ½ years, no sumons have been issued to the applicant by the respondent agency (ECOW/ACB) to participate in the investigation. 13. On 18.07.2025, the ED conducted a search at the residence of the applicant and thereafter, on 11.09.2025, the applicant was taken into custody for interrogation. The applicant is already in custody of the ED in a matter under the PMLA making any apprehension of his absconding wholly unwarranted and devoid of any legal or factual basis. 14. It is further contended that there is no necessity or jusitfication for custodial interrogation of the applicant in the present case. Alarmingly, on 11.09.2025, the investigating agency approached the trial court 7 seeking permission to interrogate theapplciant on 12th and 13th September 2025 but failed to conduct any such interrogation on those dates. 15. Learned Senior counsel also relied on the order passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 1435 of 2025 where the bail application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS 2025 was dismissed on the sole ground of non-maintainability, the court holding that the applicant ought to have availed the remedy before the competent Sessions court. 16. It is contended that on the application filed by the prosecution agency, production warrant has been issued by the trial court therefore there is apprehension of arrest of the applicant. He further contended that nothing has been recovered from the applicant though the EDhas conducted search in his residence. There is absence of direct allegations and the applciant is already in custody in PMLA and the case is in documentary nature ie. whatsapp chat and other documents, no previous antecedents of the applicant therefore triple test is in favour of the applciant. 17. It is next argued that the Apex Court has been pleased to enalrge on regular bail the co-accused arising out of the same FIR namely, Arunpati Tripathi, Arvind Singh, Trilok Singh Dhillon, Anurag Dwivedi, Amit Singh, Deepak Duary and Dilip Pandey. Furthermore, this Court itself has been plased to grant regular bail to co-accused Sunil Dutt in the very same case. The appicant has neither made any attempt to suborn or influence witnesses nor endeavoured to tamper 8 with the evidence or obstruct the court of justice. Thus, there exists no reasonable or justifiable apprehension to the contrary, and continued incarceration of theappicant would serve no legal or equitablepurpose when the co-accused stand enlarged on bail. 18. Further contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Excise Offices who have actively parrticipated in the crime have not been arrested on the ground that they have suported the case of prosecution and the Apex Court has also granted bail to 25 of the Excise Officers. He has further relied upon the judmentof Parisha Trivedi and Another Vs. State of Chha;ttisgarh in M.Cr.C.A No. 944/2024 which reads as under: “6. The present bail application has been preferred under section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is relevant to note that the difference between the erstwhile pari materia provision of 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. In the erstwhile provision there were several guiding factors which needs to be considered while granting the anticipatory bail. The new provisions, however, deletes the guiding factors which the courts hearing anticipatory bail applications may have taken into account, such as nature and gravity of accusation, criminal antecedents, and the possibility of the accused to fee from justice. This deletion widens the discretionary powers of the court hearing such applications. 7. The BNSS, however, incorporated the conditions which can be imposed while granting anticipatory bail in the light of the facts of the particular case,including a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; a condition that the person shall not, directly orindirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; a condition that the person shall 9 not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of Section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section. 8. Therefore, the said amendment suggest that the provisions has been amended in order to widen the scope of anticipatory bail that when there are reasonable ground for holding that a person accused of an offense is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require him first to submit to custody, remain in prison for few days and then apply for bail. In this regard it is quite important to note . The Law Commission of India, in its 41st Report dated 24-9-1969 pointed out the necessity of introducing a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure enabling the High Court and the Court of Session to grant “anticipatory bail”. It observed in Para 39.9 of its Report (Vol. V) and the same is set out as under: “39.9. Anticipatory bail.—The suggestion for directing the release of a person on bail prior to his arrest (commonly known as ‘anticipatory bail’) was carefully considered by us. Though there is a conflict of judicial opinion about the power of a court to grant anticipatory bail, the majority view is that there is no such power under the existing provisions of the Code. The necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cause for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for somedays. In recent times, with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency is showing signs of steadyincrease. Apart from false cases, where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require him first to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail.” SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE/EOW 19. Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate, has vehemently opposed 10 the bail application on the ground that the offence involved is of a grave and serious nature, involving the alleged misappropriation and laundering of approximately 960 crores through the present applicant in collusion with co-accused Anwar Dhebar, Dipen Chawda and Ram Gopal Agrawal. It is further contended that statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C has been recorded and 164 Cr.P.C.is yet to be recorded, which are essential for the progress in investigation. Custodial interrogation is imperative to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy and to confront the applicant with other close associates and co- conspirators, thereby ensuring the integrity of the probe. 20. The applicant is closely associated with the principal accused Anwar Dhebar and Arunpati Tripathi. The Apex Court has granted three months’ time to conclude the investigation and file charge sheet, underscoring the critical nature and urgency of this inquiry. 21. From the Enforcement of Wealth view point, it is submitted that granting bail at this stage, while key investigative processes remain unfinished and in respect of offences involving sophisticated financial crime of such magnitude, would jeopardize the investigation and interest of justice. Custodial interrogation of the applicant is indispensable to unearth the complete nexus and prevent tampering or influencing of evidence and witnesses. Therefore t0he bail application merits rejection in the interest of fair and effective prosecution of this serious economic offence. 22. According to the case diary, the syndicate involved in this offence 11 illicitly amassed proceeds estimated at approximately Rs. 3,200 crores from the financial years 2019-20 to 2022-23 causing immense loss to the State exchequer. Specifically the applicant is alleged to have generated unlawful gains amounting to Rs. 960 crores by virtue of his association with the syndicate. 23. The case diary further reveals that the syndicates activities resulted in the accumulation of vast sums of money which were allegedly distributed among various members. These operations have not only inflicted substantial financial loss on the public exchequer but have also involved the syndicate in further financial impropriety and funding of unlawful activities. CONCLUSION: 24. No doubt, the name of the applicant does not find mention in the FIR and though five charge sheets have been filed by the EOW the applicant has not yet been specifically named as an accused, and after FIR was lodged on 17.01.2024, the EOW has never summoned the accused and only after 1 ½ years, custodial interrogation of the applicant was necessitated. Be that as it may, the investigation remains ongoing and material evidence, including whatsapp chats, has been recovered by the EOW indicating the necessity for further investigation. 25. It is a well settled legal principle that powers conferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C and Section 482 of the BNSS are extraordinary in nature and are to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. These provisions are not meant to be invoked as a 12 matter of routine. Further the investigation is at a crucial stage, with material evidence yet to be collected and witnesses to be examined. 27. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, considering the gravity of the allegations, the ongoing nature of the investigation and the resultant large scale financial implications, this Court finds no exceptional circumstances to grant the instant application under Section 482 of the BNSS. Accordingly anticipatory bail does not warrant indulgence at this stage. Consequently, the application is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.09.26 19:30:52 +0530