2025:CGHC:13599 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1480 of 2024 Reserved on : 31.01.2025 Delivered on : 21.03.2025 1 - Ranu Sahu W/o Shri Jaiprakash Maurya Aged About 39 Years D2/29 Devendra Nagar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Economic Offences Wing And Anti- Corruption Bureau, Opposite Jai Petrol Pump, Telibandha Road, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Khushboo Naresh Dua, Advocate. For State : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Dy. Adv. General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV ORDER 1. This is first bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nayay Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail, who has apprehension of being arrested in connection with Crime No. 24/2024 registered at Police Station- Anti Corruption Bureau/ Economic Offence Wing Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 13(2) & 13(1)(B) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.07.2024, one Mr. Bharat Bareth, Inspector lodged a complaint before the Anti Corruption Bureau & Economic Offences Wing, Chhattisgarh pertaining to possession of disproportionate assets by the applicant and her family ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.03.21 16:13:24 +0530 member higher than their income. It has also been alleged that the applicant has aided and abetted the coal levy syndicate run by Suryakant Tiwari who collected illegal amount of Rs. 25 per tonne of coal for issuance of permits on coal delivery orders and received monetary benefits. It has also been alleged that from 2015 to October 2022, 24 immovable properties were purchased by the applicant in her name as well as family member’s name. It has been further alleged that the applicant has received Rs. 92 lacs as salary from 2011 to 2022 whereas the properties to the tune of Rs. 3.93 crores have been purchased by her. Thus, on the basis of the complaint, FIR has been registered against the applicant for commission of offence Sections 13(2) & 13(1)(B) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018 (for short “the PC Act”). 3. From the case diary and the material so collected by the ACB/EOW, the role of present applicant is that the applicant along with Smt. Saumya Chaurasia, Suryakant Tiwari and others had conspired to collect illegal coal levy of Rs. 25 per tonne from coal traders and transporters on coal transportation for which Crime No. 03/2024 has been registered against the accused persons in the ACB/EOW. Apart from this, a case regarding money laundering has also been registered against the applicant and others in Enforcement Directorate in which prosecution complaint has also been submitted before Special Court (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), Raipur. 4. Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Khushboo Naresh Dua, Advocate for the applicant would submit that the applicant has been made a victim and selectively being targeted in series of cases emanating out of the same set of facts. He would further submit that the applicant was implicated in coal scam as she was posted for few months at District Korba from 08.06.2021 to 30.06.2022 and when she was about to be granted bail in the ECIR No. 09/2022 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court then she was arrested on 23.05.2024 by the ACB/EOW in crime No. 03/2024 for committing under Sections 420, 120B, 384 of IPC and Sections 7, 7A and 12 of PC Act 1988, alleging that she was involved in the conspiracy. This was done to overcome the legal lacuna in ECIR No. 09/2022 as there was no predicate offence for the said ECIR. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted her bail vide interim order dated 08.07.2024 and thereafter confirmation order dated 07.08.2024. The charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court in FIR No. 3/2024 against 15 accused persons including the applicant in includes same allegations against the applicant as the prosecution complaint dated 18.08.2023 filed in ECIR/RPZO/09/2022. He would further submit that the immovable properties attributed to the alleged offences in the instant FIR are same as in FIR No. 03/2024, the same as the ones attached in ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 and no preliminary enquiry has been conducted by the respondent to ascertain the source of funds before attributing purchase of all listed immovable properties to the applicant herein instant FIR and there has been no recovery whatsoever from the applicant in any of the searches conducted by the investigation agencies. He would further submit that the respondent own case that investigation is needed into immovable properties, shares, insurances, SIPs which the applicant may have invested, therefore, it is clear that investigation pertains to material which is only documentary in nature and custodial interrogation of the applicant herein may not be required. Page 4 of 10 In fact, since the substratum of facts in the instant FIR is akin to the aforestated pending ED and ACB cases in which the applicant has already been investigated, it is likely that the material which is required by the respondent is already in its possession in FIR No. 03/2024 or with the ED in ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 and ECIR/RPZO/02/2023, therefore present applicant is entitled to get anticipatory bail. 5. He would further submit that the applicant apprehends that she may be again arrested strategically on the eve of a release by the Courts in other offences as SLP is pending before Hon'ble Apex Court challenging order of Hon'ble High Court passed in MCRC No. 5695/2024 whereby Hon'ble the High Court has rejected the regular bail application of the applicant in Crime No. 03/2024 and the investigation pertains to material which is documentary in nature and custodial interrogation of applicant herein may not be required. He would further submit that the investigating agency has no requirement of custodial interrogation since registration of FIR as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Union Territory Chandigarh [SLP (Crl.) No. 9949/2023]. He would further submit that applicant fulfills the twin conditions for grant of anticipatory bail as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2550], Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920]. He would further submit that the date of registration of FIR is 03.07.2024 and more than six months have already been lapsed from the date of registration of FIR but the present applicant has not been arrested neither has been questioned by the investigating agency who has felt no requirement of custodial interrogation even though the applicant could have been arrested or interrogated if required as she is already in custody for other offence since 22.07.2022. He would further submit that the right of life guarantee under Article 21 guarantees right to speedy justice which implies right to speedy investigation as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Arvind Kejriwal (supra) & Manish Sisodia (supra). He would further submit that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions imposed by the Hon'ble Court and co-operate with investigation and would pray for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. 6. 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 economic 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. It has been further contended that from the list of property purchased by the applicant, prima facie it is disproportionate to the source of income of the applicant, as such would pray for rejection of the bail application of the applicant. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and the respondent as well as considered the case diary. 8. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant have nowhere stated in the bail petition regarding source of income by which the properties mentioned in the FIR have been acquired which clearly shows that the ACB/EOW has collected certain material against the applicant. The prosecution has collected the material that she has shown active participation in the coal syndicate and the main accused Suryakant Tiwari was working as per direction issued by the applicant and by extorted money has been utilized for purchase of properties. Thus, from perusal of FIR and the material available in the case diary, involvement of the applicant in commission of offence under Section 13(2) & 13(1)(B) 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, reported in (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. Page 7 of 10 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 Hon’ble the Supreme Court has considered parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in PMLA in case of M. Gopal Reddy Vs. Enforcement Directorate, Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 2023 and has held in paragraph 6.3 & 7, which are as under:- “6.3 From the aforesaid, it can be seen that the High Court has not at all considered the nature of allegations and the seriousness of the offences alleged against respondent No. 1. As per the catena of decision of this Court, more particularly, observed in the case of P. Chidambaram (supra) in case of economic offences, which are having an impact on the society, the Court must be very slow in exercising the discretion under Section 438 of Cr.PC. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the reasoning given by the High Court and as observed hereinabove, the rigour of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall be applicable even with respect to the application under Section 438 Cr.PC and therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 1 herein in connection with F. No. ECIR/HYZO/36/2020 dated 15The judgment cited by learned Senior counsel for the applicant is distinguishable from the facts of the present case as in the present case, prima facie the Directorate of Enforcement has collected certain material against the applicant..12.2020 is unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 1 be dealt with in accordance with law. However, it is observed and made clear that after respondent No. 1 is arrested, if he files any regular bail application, the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits and considering the material collected during enquiry/investigation of the case. Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.” 9. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has considered parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in PMLA in case of M. Gopal Reddy Vs. Enforcement Directorate, Criminal Appeal No. 534 of 2023 and has held in paragraph 6.3 & 7, which are as under:- “6.3 From the aforesaid, it can be seen that the High Court has not at all considered the nature of allegations and the seriousness of the offences alleged against respondent No. 1. As per the catena of decision of this Court, more particularly, observed in the case of P. Chidambaram (supra) in case of economic offences, which are having an impact on the society, the Court must be very slow in exercising the discretion under Section 438 of Cr.PC. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the reasoning given by the High Court and as observed hereinabove, the rigour of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall be applicable even with respect to the application under Section 438 Cr.PC and therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 1 herein in connection with F. No. ECIR/HYZO/36/2020 dated 15.12.2020 is unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 1 is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondent No. 1 be dealt with in accordance with law. However, it is observed and made clear that after respondent No. 1 is arrested, if he files any regular bail application, the same be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits and considering the material collected during enquiry/investigation of the case. Present appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.” 10. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Y. S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2013) 7 SCC 439], has also examined the grant of anticipatory bail looking to the status of accused who may influence the witnesses or tamper the evidence collected by the Directorate of Enforcement and rejected grant of anticipatory bail. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held at paragraph 14 to 17 as under :- “14. On going into all the details furnished by the CBI in the form of Status Report and the counter affidavit dated 06.05.2013 sworn by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and Chief Investigating Officer, Hyderabad, without expressing any opinion on the merits, we feel that at this stage, the release of the appellant (A-1) would hamper the investigation as it may influence the witnesses and tamper with the material evidence. Though it is pointed out by learned senior counsel for the appellant that since the appellant is in no way connected with the persons in power, we are of the view that the apprehension raised by the CBI cannot be lightly ignored considering the claim that the appellant is the ultimate beneficiary and the prime conspirator in huge monetary transactions. 15. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs 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. 16. 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. 17. Taking note of all these facts and the huge magnitude of the case and also the request of the CBI asking for further time for completion of the investigation in filing the charge sheet(s), without expressing any opinion on the merits, we are of the opinion that the release of the appellant at this stage may hamper the investigation. However, we direct the CBI to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet(s) within a period of 4 months from today. Thereafter, as observed in the earlier order dated 05.10.2012, the appellant is free to renew his prayer for bail before the trial Court and if any such petition is filed, the trial Court is free to consider the prayer for bail independently on its own merits without being influenced by dismissal of the present appeal.” 11. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable from the facts of the present case as in the present case, prima facie the respondent-ACB/EOW has collected certain material against the applicant regarding financial irregularities and also the fact that during 2010 to October, 2022, she has purchased immovable property of Rs. 3,93,91,000/- from illegal source of money. 12. In view of above factual and legal matrix, material collected by the ACB/EOW, prima facie, involvement of the applicant is reflected. The material collected by the ACB/EOW has not been rebutted which also prima facie reflects about involvement of the applicant. The record of the case would further demonstrate that the applicant is unable to fulfill the twin conditions which are required for grant of bail of anticipatory bail, is equally applicable for grant of anticipatory bail, which has not been satisfied by the present applicant. 13. Considering the above stated facts and law, gravity of offence, possibility of tampering of the witnesses and prima facie considering the fact that the applicant is unable to satisfy twin conditions for grant of anticipatory bail, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 14. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nayay Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 15. The observation made by this Court is not bearing any effect on the trial of the case. The learned trial court will decide the criminal trial in accordance with evidence, material placed on record, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while deciding present bail application. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun