2025:CGHC:13598 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 51 of 2025 Reserved on : 06.02.2025 Delivered on : 21.03.2025 Rajnikant Tiwari (in judicial custody) S/o Sh. Late Sh. Shashibhushan Tiwari, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Ward No. 16, Purana Ravan Bhata, Rajendra Prasad Ward, Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through the SHO PS-EOW & ACB Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Akshat Gupta & Mr. Aditya Tiwari, Advocates. For State/Res. : 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 29.08.2024 in connection with Crime No. 03/2024 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, 384 of IPC read with Sections 7, 7-A, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.01.2024, one Mr. Sandeep Ahuja, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.21 16:13:25 +0530 through Mr. Farhan Qureshi, Deputy Superintendent of Police lodged a complaint before the Director General of Police Anti Corruption Bureau & Economic Offences Wing, Chhattisgarh pertaining to predicate offence discovered during money laundering in investigation File No. ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 was done under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “the PMLA”). Thereafter, an offence bearing FIR No. 03/2024 has been registered on 17.01.2024 at Police Station ACB/EOW Raipur (C.G.) against 35 accused persons namely Smt. Saumya Chaurasiya, Sameer Bisnoi, Smt. Ranu Sahu, Sandeep Kumar Nayak, Shivshankar Nag, Suryakant Tiwari, Manish Upadhyay, Roshan Kumar Singh, Nikhil Chandrakar, Rahul Singh, Parekh Kurre, Moinuddin Qureshi, Virendra Jaiswal, Rajnikant Tiwari, Hemant Jaiswal, Joginder Singh, Nawneet Tiwari, Deepesh Taunk, Devendra Dadsena, Rahul Mishra, Ramgopal Agrawal, Devendra Singh Yadav, Shishupal Sori, Rampratap Singh, Vinod Tiwari, Amarjeet Bhagat, Chandradeo Prasad Rai, Brashpat Singh, Idrish Gandhi, Gulab Kamro, Shri U.D. Minj, Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Jai, Chandraparakash Jaiswal, Laxmikant Tiwari & others. 3. 3. Further case of the prosecution is that a syndicate comprised of private individuals and other State Government functionaries like Smt. Saumya Chaurasia, Director, Geology & Mining Department and with the backing of some political executives, they managed to make deliberate policy changes. As part of the well-planned conspiracy, the applicant with the active support of the politicians & some of the senior State Government functionaries, managed to influence the then Director of Geology & Mining, and got issued a Government Order dated 15.07.2020 which became the fountain head of this extortion system by converting the online system of issuance of Transport Permits into a manual system. They started a network of extortion to collect Rs. 25 per on every ton of coal transported in the State of Chhattisgarh. The investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate revealed that other senior bureaucrats viz., Smt. Saumya Chaurasia and Smt. Ranu Sahu, IAS were also involved in this conspiracy and were providing assistance to the applicant in running the extortion racket. Smt. Soumya Chourasiya while working as Deputy Secretary in Chief Minister Office, had assisted the applicant and his associates in collecting the extortion money by posting pliable officers of mining department in the coal mining areas. Smt. Ranu Sahu IAS, who worked as District Collector in coal rich Districts viz., Korba & Raigarh, had close association with the applicant and helped his associates in collecting extortion money from the coal transporters and other businessmen. 4. It is also case of the prosecution that by this system of extortion, a huge amount of cash started accumulating with the syndicate and with this money, the applicant has purchased benami assets and a huge amount of money was transferred to the applicant, spent on political funding and transferred as per the instructions of higher powers. The Enforcement Directorate investigation further established that Smt. Ranu Sahu had aided and abetted the applicant in collection of illegal levy amounts from the coal transporters. Smt. Ranu Sahu was in touch through WhatsApp with Roshan Singh, associate of the applicant. The WhatsApp chats happened between Smt. Ranu Sahu and Roshan Singh, close associate of the applicant, revealed that Roshan Singh was in regular touch with Ranu Sahu and she agreed to do work as asked by Roshan Singh. The investigation carried out by the Enforcement Directorate further revealed that the government servants like Smt. Saumya Chaurasia, Sameer Vishnoi lAS, Smt. Ranu Sahu, State Mining Officers etc. had received kickbacks from the applicant and acquired benami properties disproportionate to their source of income. Therefore, the Enforcement Directorate requested the Anti Corruption Bureau by filing complaint to identify all the assets acquired by the various government servants who are accused of participation in this extortion syndicate in various Districts. It is also case of the Enforcement Directorate that various mining officers are involved in this extortion. As such, it was requested by the Enforcement Directorate to register an FIR and investigate the matter. In pursuance of the complaint, the FIR was registered. It is also case of the ACB/EOW that because of the instigation, Rs. 36 crores illegal extorted money has been collected which has been utilized for purchase of property in the name of applicant and other accused Saumya Chaurasia and Ranu Sahu through their relatives or friends. Thus, on the basis of the complaint, FIR has been registered against the applicant for commission of offence under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of IPC read with Sections 7, 7A & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018 (for short “the PC Act”). 5. From the case diary and the material so collected by the ACB/EOW, the role of present applicant is that the applicant is elder brother of Suryakant Tiwari and an active member of illegal coal levy collection to whom Suryakant Tiwari had assigned task of keeping accounts of illegal coal levy collection and making entries in the diary of income and expenditure. Suryakant Tiwari's syndicate members Moinuddin Qureshi, Parekh Kurre, Navneet Tiwari, Rahul Singh, Virendra Jaiswal alias Montu used to bring the illegal money collected from coal transporters and businessmen in coal-rich districts Korba, Raigarh, Surajpur at Rs 25 per tonne on coal DO to Suryakant Tiwari's office in Maharaja Apartment in Raipur. Roshan Singh and Nikhil Chandrakar used to count this amount, prepare the accounts and send the income expenditure slip in which the names of the persons and companies were written in Hindi and English, in brief, to Rajnikant Tiwari at I-34, Anupam Nagar Raipur office and Rajnikant Tiwari used to enter it in the diary. Nikhil and Roshan used to contact big coal businessmen and transporters in Raipur and collect illegal coal levy and deposit that also with the applicant. The applicant also used to keep the illegal coal levy collected amount in a big wooden cupboard, which was called Paal', in 1-34, Anupam Nagar Raipur office. The remaining amount was kept with Nikhil Chandrakar at his uncle Laxmikant Tiwari's house in Mahasamund. During the raid conducted by the Income Tax Department at Laxmikant Tiwari's place, about Rs. 6,44,38,000/- in cash and gold ornaments worth Rs. 3,24,61,655/ were seized. Similarly, Rs. 52.35,000/- cash was also recovered by the Income Tax Department from locker No. 64 of Laxmikant Tiwari and his wife Mrs. Sunita Tiwari in Punjab National Bank, Mahasamund. Rs. 48,38,600/- was recovered by the Income Tax Department during the raid at applicant’s house in Mahasamund. The money collected from coal levy was used by Suryakant Tiwari and the applicant to buy land in their name and their family members name. The applicant along with his partners formed Maa Madwarani Coal Beneficiation Company and bought two coal washeries for Rs. 96 crores and the applicant has mentioned this in his diary. The applicant has purchased other properties in the name of his family members from the amount collected from illegal coal levy. Cash payments have also been made to land sellers through Ajay Naidu, Pappu Sahu, Vatan Chandrakar and Devendra Chandrakar. Saumya Chaurasia's share was delivered to Saumya Chaurasia at her residence in Bhilai by Manish Upadhyay, Ishwar Sidar, Ajay Naidu, Narayan Sahu, Mohsin Khan etc. The amount received from illegal coal levy collection was delivered to political persons and bureaucrats by the applicant and Nikhil Chandrakar. 6. It is also alleged that the applicant and Suryakant Tiwari have purchased land from illegal coal levy in their own name and their relatives names Laxmikant Tiwari, Utkarsh Tiwari, Smt. Phool Dubey, Mukut Dubey, Aryan Tiwari and Anvi Tiwari in village Amavas, Belsonda, in the name of Smt. Divya Tiwari in village Khatti Mahasamund, Saddu Raipur, firm in the name of Maharaj Mordhwaj Mega Project in village Rasni, firm in the name of S.S. Builders in village Nardaha, firm in the name of Riddhi-Siddhi Buildcon in village Deori, Maharaja Apartment Shankar Nagar Raipur Flat No. H-29 and 29/B-1 in Sinodha, Ghodari, Raipur and land in village Rasni, Arang. Kohka Bhilai, Mohda, Mahasamund, Dharsiwa and flat in Delhi. Land has been purchased in the name of Abhishek Choubey. Land has been purchased by Suryakant Tiwari in the name of Chinmay Dwivedi and Mrs. Sonali Dubey in village Kharora Mahasamund, regarding the payment of which entry has been made in the diaries by the applicant. When diaries were seized from applicant’s house by the Income Tax Department, he admitted that he had written the diaries with his own handwriting and these diaries contain details of various illegal collections made by Suryakant Tiwari and the expenditure incurred from them he also stated that the real names hidden behind many code names used in the diaries. Suryakant Tiwari had created several WhatsApp groups, in which Suryakant Tiwari, Rajnikant Tiwari (present applicant), Roshan Singh, Nikhil Chandrakar were members. Information about the money collected as coal levy was posted in these groups. The applicant also made entries in the diaries regarding income and expenditure of the said money. He has further stated that in these WhatsApp groups, codes used to mention "gitti, reti, murum". The code word gitti means crore, reti means lakh and murum means thousand. 7. Learned counsel 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 arrest of the applicant is illegal and malafide as the applicant 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 it is settled law that notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. is issued to the accused to direct him to appear before the investigating office and the same is required to specifically stating date and time on which the presence of the accused is required. There is nothing in the Cr.P.C. which provides that notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. can be issued to the accused after he has already appeared before the investigating office whereas in the present case, notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. was issued on 29.08.2024 in completely mindless manner and for the sole reason to try and legitimize illegal arrest of the applicant, since no notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. had been issued before the applicant was taken in custody. Thus, the safeguard provided under Section 41-B of the Cr.P.C. has not been complied with by the arresting officer while arresting the applicant. He would further submit that the applicant was not provided with the grounds of arrest on the basis of which his arrest had been affected by the investigating agency, which is purely in violation of Section 50(1) of the Cr.P.C., therefore, non- supply of grounds of arrest would render illegal and the applicant is entitled for grant of bail. 8. He would further submit the applicant was illegally arrested in Agra on 26.08. 2024 and was not produced before a Magistrate for about 72 hours, till applicant's wife filed an application under Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. on 29.08.2024 and then his arrest was falsely shown to have been arrested on 29.08.2024. He would further submit that the continued detention of the applicant beyond 24 hours without producing him before a magistrate is a violation of clause 2 of Article 22 of the Constitution and renders the arrest illegal as it infringes upon the fundamental rights of the applicant. It is well settled position of law that arrest when the accused is not presented before the magistrate, gets vitiated upon completion of 24 hours as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma [SLP(Crl.) No. 1136/2023 dated 21.01.2025] affirming the order passed by this Court in case of Subhash Sharma Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [MCRC No. 5288 of 2022 dated dated 21.09.2022]. 9. He would further submit that there is delay in trial coupled with long period of pre-trial incarceration as the applicant was illegally arrested on 26.08.2024 and has already undergone more than 160 days of pre- trial incarceration in the said FIR and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding any time soon in as much the investigation in the alleged offence is still ongoing qua other accused persons. He would further submit that the proceedings are going on at a snail's pace and is still at the stage of further investigation, even after a passage of over a year since the registration of the said FIR. He would further submit that the pre-trial custody and the trial has not yet commenced and the trial is likely to take time for its final conclusion, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. He would further submit that the right to speedy trial is a facet of the Fundamental Right of life of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Manish Sisodia Vs. CBI & ED [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1393], Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2022) 10 SCC 51], Surinder Singh alias Shingara Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2005) 7 SCC 387], Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(1977) 4 SCC 291], Manish Sisodia Vs. ED & CBI [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 920], Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693], Bibhav Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi [SLP (Crl.) No. 9817 of 2024, decided on 02.09 2024], Vijay Nair Vs. ED [SLP (Crl.) No. 8439 of 2024, decided on 06.09.2024], Manish Sisodia Vs. ED & CBI [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 920], Neeraj Singhal Vs. ED [SLP (Crl.) No. 8439 of 2024, decided on 06.09.2024], Prem Prakash vs. ED [SLP (Crl.) No 5416 of 2024 decided on 28.08.2024], Ramkripal Meena Vs. ED [SLP (Crl.) No. 3205 of 2024 decided on 30.07.2024]. 10. He would further submit that there is no apprehension of violation of the triple test by the applicant, therefore, the applicant is entitled to grant of bail as 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], Manish Sisodia Vs. ED & CBI [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 1920], Manish Sisodia Vs. CBI & ED [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1393]. 11. He would further submit that there is prima facie no evidence that the applicant is guilty of money laundering. It has been alleged that the applicant is was involved in running an alleged extortion racket wherein an amount of Rs. 25/- was extorted per metric tonne of coal for its transportation out of the coal mine fields but the specific role ascribed to the applicant is that he was allegedly maintaining accounts of money allegedly collected from the coal levy and no substantive evidence against is available against the applicant. The only evidence/ material is in the form of statements of co-accused and unsigned handwritten diaries/ loose sheets of papers, both of which are inadmissible in evidence. He would further submit that it is settled law that the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. are not admissible in law and the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and Section 50 the PMLA, 2002 cannot be considered at the stage of bail since no opportunity to cross-examine is given to the applicant at such stage as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Paras Mal Lodha Vs. Page 11 of 17 ED [(2017) SCC Online Del 8676], Chandra Prakash Khandelwal Vs. ED [2023 SCC OnLine Del 1094]. He would further submit that the statement of co-accused person is an extremely weak piece of evidence and cannot be treated as substantive evidence as against the other co-accused persons as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Prem Prakash Vs. ED [SLP (Crl.) No. 5416 of 2024, decided on 28.08.2024], Haricharan Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1184], Sanjay Jain Vs. ED [2024 SCC OnLine SC 656]. He would further submit that the unsigned handwritten diaries/ loose sheets of papers are inadmissible evidence which cannot be considered as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of CBI Vs. VC Shukla [1998 (3) SCC 4]. 12. He would further submit that the applicant is suffering from hip infection since March 2022 and has also suffered from serious falls on several occasions, including during the raid conducted at his residence by the IT Department and while in judicial custody also. The Applicant has already undergone various multiple surgeries during which rods were inserted in his feet and a titanium hip ball was also inserted in his hip. The Applicant is at risk of permanent disability, if he is not provided immediate and urgent medical care and as per the report issued by the Medical Board, the applicant is required to undergo a surgery of hip joint as there is fracture in applicant's febula bone and the same has fused and the plate inserted in his leg should now be removed. He would further submit that at the time of applicant's arrest, the applicant was also recorded to be suffering from gall bladder stones. 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 Court and would pray for releasing the applicant on bail. 13. 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 01.10.2024 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 would pray for rejection of the bail application of the applicant. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and the respondents as well as considered the case diary. 15. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the trial will take longer time for disposal, therefore, his case may be considered for grant of bail. This submission is opposed by learned counsel for the respondent and would submit that not only the applicant but the other co-accused have adopted delay tactics by moving various applications causing delay in conclusion of trial, therefore, it cannot be said that only the prosecution is contributed in delay disposal of trial. As such he would pray for rejection of the bail application. 16. The submission made by learned counsel for the applicant for releasing the applicant on bail on the count of delayed trial, deserves to be rejected as the applicant has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the trial has been delayed because of the prosecution only. 17. The further submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was arrested in Agra on 26.08. 2024 and was not produced before a Magistrate for about 72 hours, till applicant's wife filed an application under Section 57 of the Cr.P.C. on 29.08.2024 and then his arrest was falsely shown to have been arrested on 29.08.2024, is being considered by this Court. This submission cannot be considered as at this stage as it is the defence of the accused to declare the arrest as illegal on the count of non-production of the applicant before the Magistrate within 24 hours. As such, it is rejected. 18. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant that when the applicant is already appearing before the prosecution agency for recording his statement then it was not justifiable for the prosecution to arrest him. This was vehemently objected by the State contending that notice under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. was issued to the applicant on 28.05.2024, 01.06.2024, 18.06.2024, 08.08.2024, 12.08.2024, 27.08.2024 for appearance on 29.05.2024, 05.06.2024, 25.06.2024, 12.08.2024, 14.08.2024 & 02.09.2024 but doors of the house of the applicant were locked therefore, the said notice was affixed on the main gate of the applicant’s house. Despite this, he could not appear therefore, the prosecution has arrested the applicant on 28.08.2024. As such, the arresting of the applicant cannot be held to be illegal. Accordingly, the submission made by the applicant in this regard, deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. Even otherwise, the submission made by the applicant in this regard, is his defence which cannot be considered while considering the bail application. 19. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant has nowhere stated in the bail petition regarding source of income of Rs. 48 lacs which has been seized by the Income Tax Department during raid and also has not stated about the 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. The prosecution has collected the material against the applicant that he has purchased properties in the name of his family members and relatives by utilizing the extorted money, which has been collected from coal transporters. Thus, from perusal of FIR and the material available in the case diary, involvement of the applicant in commission of offence under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of IPC read with Sections 7, 7A & 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.” 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 23. 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