1 2025:CGHC:54970 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7790 of 2025 1 - Abhishek Singh S/o Sh. Ravinder Singh Aged About 41 Years R/o Gautam Nagar, Khursipar, Bhilai, District- Durg (C.G.) ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Acb/eow, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Shri Manoj Paranjape, Sr. Counsel assisted by Shri Gagan Tiwari, counsel for the applicant. For Respondent/State : Shri Vivek Sharma, Addl. AG (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 11/11/2025 This first bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS is being filed by the applicant seeking his release on regular bail arising out of FIR No. 04/2024 registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Chhattisgarh. The applicant is facing charges under Sections 420, 467,468,471 and 2 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on multiple charges filed in the matter. 2. The applicant was arrested by the respondent /EOW on 20.07.2025 in connection with the subject FIR and he has been periodically remanded to judicial custody. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY • FIR was registered based on a letter dated 11.07.2023 from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under Section 66 of the PMLA alleging operation of a syndicate for wrongful monetary gains via FL-10A licenses. • Six charge sheets have been filed culminating in the applicant’s arrest on 20.07.2025 after issuance of grounds of arrest and remand order (police custody until 28.07.2025, followed by judicial custody). • Apex Court judgment dated 08.04.2024 (WP (Crl.) No.s. 153/2023 and 216/2023 and connected matters) quashed the ED’s prosecution complaint and the foundation FIR, declaring no scheduled offence or proceeds of crime were made out. • Commercial Tax (Excise) Department’s Departmental Inquiry (final report dated 30.11.2023)found no substantive irregularity in liquor trade and irregularities attributed to coercion by the ED. • Applicant and several similarly placed co-accused have either been granted bail by the Apex Court or the High Court or provided 3 interim protection. SUBMISSIONS OF COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT 3. Contention of the learned Senior counsel for the applicant is that the allegations against him are based on misrepresentation of facts and a selective interpretation of the role played by him in the operations of M/s. Nexgen Power Engitech Pvt. Ltd. The applicant was appointed as a Director and Shareholder of the company following the introduction of the FL-10A licensing system under the Chhattisgarh Excise Department's new policy for the supply of foreign liquor in 2020-21. The grant of the FL-10A license to the company was in accordance with the prevailing rules, regulations and the applicant's appointment was not a result of any undue influence or illegal activity. 4. It is submitted that the role of the applicant in the company was limited to handing external affairs, including the supply of foreign liquor to CSMCL, procurement, coordination with supplier companies, management of payments, official correspondence and transportation of liquor to various stores across Chhattisgarh. The financial management of the company was handled by Sanjay Mishra and the applicant had no direct involvement in the financial transactions or the distribution of profits. The appointment of the applicant as a Director and his shareholding in the company were in line with the company’s operational requirements and were not indicative of any illegal activity. 5. Further, the allegations that the applicant received a monthly 4 salary of Rs. 1 lac per month despite having no role or contribution to the company’s operations, are unfounded. The salary payments were made in accordance with the company’s employment policies and were not intended to understate the company’s profits or inflate its content. The total amount paid to the applicant and his wife over the three year period was Rs. 1,03,90,699/- which was in line with the company’s financial practices and was not a result of any illegal activity. 6. The applicant’s role as an authorized signatory for the company’s bank accounts held with HDFC Bank (Supela, Bhilai) and IDFC Bank (Pujari Complex, Raipur) was in accordance with the company’s operational requirements and was not indicative of any illegal activity. The transfer of 60% of the company’s profits to firms affiliated with the syndicate was in accordance with the company’s financial polices and was not as a result of any illegal activity. 7. The allegation that the applicant played a special role in the implementation of the margin/rebate scheme in the process of supplying liquor and that he managed the distribution of 60% of the company’s profits to firms affiliated with the syndicate, are unfounded. The statements of Gautam Dey, Amit Awasthi, Alok Dabli, Vasu Gond and other employees associated with foreign liquor supplier companies do not provide any credible evidence of the applicant's involvement in any illegal activity and the allegations are based on a selective interpretation of the facts and a misrepresentation of his role in the company. 5 8. Contention of the learned Senior counsel for the applicant is that the FIR and all consequential proceedings are vitiated in the light of the Apex Court quashing the ECIR and prosecution complaint on the ground that no scheduled offence exists and thus, ED proceedings lack jurisdiction and legal sanctity. He next submits that the prosecution is alleged to have politically motivated, as arrest and remand appear targeted at creating a false case against select individuals, while similarly placed accused (including excise officials) have been granted bail or interim protection. 9. He next submits that despite the charge sheets addressing roles of excise department officers, the applicant (a private company director) is singled out of arrest suggesting arbitrary and discriminatory exercise of power. With the investigation complete and 6 voluminous charge sheets listing 886 prosecution witnesses,the commencement and conclusion of trial are far fetched. The applicant has cooperated through out the investigation, never attempted to abscond and appeared whenever summoned, hence, apprehension of influencing witnesses or absconding is speculative. 10. The independent enquiry concluded there was full adherence to statutory provisions in the liquor trade and testimonies were allegedly coerced by the ED without any foundational irregularity. He has placed his reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra (2021) 2 SCC 427, wherein it has been held as under: 6 “Pre-trial detention should not be punitive and that bail must be granted expeditiously where the trial is likely to be prolonged. The Court emphasized that incarceration pending trial should not amount to punishment especially in cases where the investigation is complete and the accused is not a flight risk.” 11. Similarly in the matter of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, it has been observed as under: “It has been reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, particularly in economic offences. The Court held that the mere fact that the accused is charged with a serious offence does not automatically justify denial of bail, especially if there is no evidence of flight risk or tampering with evidence.” 12. In the matter of Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India, (2018) 11 SCC 1, it has been held as under: “… the presumption against arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty is a fundamental principle. The Court emphasized that bail should be granted unless there are compelling reasons to believe that the accused will abscond or tamper with evidence.” 13. In yet another matter, Yashwant Singh Chundawat Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022) SCC OnLine SC 904, the Apex Court has held that : “.. the principle of parity must be observed in 7 bail applications. Similarly placed co-accused should not be treated differently and arbitrary or discriminatory treatment is not permissible.” 14. It is therefore submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the allegations against the applicant are largely inferential and lack direct proof of his involvement in the commission of any offence. The prosecution has not produced any material such as recovery of proceeds of crime, documentary evidence of illegal transactions or direct witness testimony - demonstrating the applicant's active participation in the alleged syndicate or the commission of the offences under the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. The statements of witnesses and the financial records, as relied upon by the prosecution, do not establish a direct nexus between the applicant and the alleged illegal activities. Therefore, in the absence of direct evidence and considering the peculiar facts of the case, the applicant submits that interim relief pending trial is warranted to safeguard his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/STATE 15. It is submitted that the EOW received communication from the Enforcement Directorate dated 11.07.2023, which after thorough verification, revealed prima facie evidence of cognizable offences under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B IPC. Based on this material, the respondent registered FIR No. 04/20224 and initiated a comprehensive 8 investigation. 16. The FIR discloses the existence of criminal syndicate comprising high level State government officials, private individuals and political executives operating in Chhattisgarh. This syndicate systematically collected illegal commissions by controlling the management of key State departments and public section undertakings. The sale of liquor in Chhattisgarh was one of the primary sources of illicit earnings with the applicant Abhishek Singh and other named associates playing pivotal roles. 17. The investigation has established that the syndicate operated through three distinct channels: (i) illegal commissions from liquor suppliers on accounted sales; (ii) off-the-record sale of unaccounted country liquor with the involvement of distillers, excise officials and other stake holders and (iii) annual commissions paid to distillers for operating in the State. The EOW, after analyzing data and records shared by the Income Tax Department, has demonstrated a well planned conspiracy to earn illegal commissions from the sale and licensing of liquor. 18. The investigation further reveals that the Excise Department, originally established to regulate liquor supply and ensure revenue for the State, was systematically subverted by the syndicate led by Mr. Anwar Dhebar and Mr. Anil Tuteja. The Excise policy was manipulated to serve the syndicate’s interests resulting in massive corruption and loss to the State exchequer. 9 19. He submits that the applicant is the nephew of one Arvind Singh, a key member of the syndicate. In the year 2020-21, the applicant was made a Director and 50% shareholder in Nexgen Power Engitech Pvt. Ltd., one of the front companies granted FL-10A licenses to act as mediators for collection of commission. The company earned a net profit of approximately Rs. 27 crores of which Rs. 16.3 crores was passed on to syndicate handlers, while the applicant and his associates controlled the remaining funds. The applicant and his wife received substantial sums, clearly indicating his role as the prime financial controller of the illegal arrangement. 20. The statements of the witnesses including those of Pushpendra Dubey, Sachin Tiwari, Awadhesh Shukla, Nitesh Agrawal, Ashish Pitroda, Mukesh Jain and Amit Kumar Agrawal, corroborate the applicant's active involvement in the affairs of Nexgen Power Engitech Pvt. Ltd. The material on record demonstrates that the applicant was not an outsider but a central figure in the syndicate misusing the FL-10A license and facilitating large scale diversion of funds, causing enormous financial loss to the State exchequer. 21. In view of the above, counsel for the Respondent submits that the applicant is not entitled to the relief as sought. The nature and gravity of the charges, the severity of the punishment, the likelihood of absconding, tampering with evidence and influencing the witnesses 10 area ll relevant factors that militate against the grant of bail. The Apex Court in the State of UP Vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 has held as under “18. It is well settled that the matters to be considered in 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 charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of 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 tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail (see Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi (2001 (4) SCC 280 [LQ/SC/2001/820] and Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179 [LQ/SC/1977/334] ). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004(7) SCC 528): "The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of 11 having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non- application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: a. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. b. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. c. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (See Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh, (2002 (3) SCC 598 [LQ/SC/2002/371] and Puran vs. Ram Bilas (2001 (6) SCC 338 [LQ/SC/2001/1208] ." …..the factors to be considered while granting bail, including the nature and gravity of the charge, severity of punishment, danger of absconding, likelihood of tampering with evidence, and the character and standing of the accused. The court emphasized that the grant of bail should not be mechanical and must be based on a judicial consideration of these factors, especially in cases involving serious offences.” 22. Similarly, the Apex Court in the matter of Gulabrao Baburao Deokar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 16 SCC 190, held as under: “25. Paragraph 25 of Nimmagadda Prasad Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in 2013 (7) SCC 466 was brought to our notice wherein with respect to the economic offences the Court has observed as follows:- "25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the 12 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 a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country." The Court stressed that such offences pose a serious threat to the financial health of the country and must be dealt stringently.” 23. In the matter of Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118, it has been held as under: “The Apex Court reiterated that the grant of bail is a discretionary power that must be exercised judiciously. The nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important factors. The Court must balance public interest in the administration of justice with the protection of individual liberty. 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…” The Court has also held that if the relevant factors are not considered while granting bail, or if the order is based on irrelevant considerations, the superior court can set aside the grant of bail.” 24. In yet another decision of the Apex Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi (2001) 4 SCC 280, it has been held as under: “….the Court must consider the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or 13 influencing witnesses while deciding bail application. The Court emphasized that bail should not be refused if there is material to show that the accused will use his liberty to subvert justice.” 25. In the matter of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs.Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528, it has been held as under: “ The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The Court must indicate reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly where the accused is charged with a serious offence. 26. The Apex Court has consistently held that in cases of serious economic offences, the court must carefully consider these factors before granting bail. 27. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Perused the case record,including the impugned order of the Sessions Court dated 30.08.2025, the series of charge sheets file by the investigating agencies and the material placed before this Court. FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATION : 28. It is not in dispute that the applicant, Abhishek Singh, is a director and shareholder of Nexgen Power Engitech Private Limited, a company licensed under the FL-10A License for the supply of foreign liquor in Chhattisgarh. He was appointed as a Director of the Company in February 2020 and holds a 50% shareholding in the firm. The company 14 is registered with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Abhishek Singh’s directorship is duly recorded in the company’s official filings. His role as a director and shareholder is a matter of public record and is substantiated by the company’s statutory documents and regulatory disclosures. 29. It is a matter of record that the applicant is in custody since 28.07.2025 in connection with FIR No. 04/2024, Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur and is named as one of the principal figures in the alleged excise syndicate unravelled pursuant to investigations into the liquor licensing scandal in the State of Chhattisgarh. The cumulative charge sheets filed-six in number, comprising over 51,000 pages, 41 accused persons and citing 886 prosecution witnesses reflect the complexity and magnitude of the case as argued by the prosecution. The voluminous nature of evidence and the sheer number of witnesses indicate that the trial is bound to be prolonged and cannot be expected to commence or conclude in the near future. 30. It is manifestly clear that the respondent agency has adopted a selective approach in arresting accused persons. Notably, charge sheets have been filed against 29 excise officers directly implicated in the liquor scam without effecting arrests; many such officers have been granted interim bail by the Apex Court in related proceedings. The principle of parity is squarely attracted in the present case, where the applicant’s role- ascribed principally to his professional capacity as as Director is neither alleged to involve overt criminal action outside such 15 remit, nor supported by documentary recovery linking him to the corpus delicti. The Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI, Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI and Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India, has repeatedly held that the role of each accused must be independently evaluated and that the denial of bail must be rooted in concrete incriminating material. 31. The court must remind itself that pretrial custody cannot serve as a substitute for punishment. Continued incarceration, once investigation stands concluded and trial commencement appears remote, would amount to an arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty in contravention of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The applicant has demonstrated an established professional and familial background, permanent residence and absence of antecedents, which together reinforce the assurances against flight risk, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. 32. Proceeding on the axis of parity, fairness and the settled law, especially as several similarly situated co-accused and officials have already secured bail including those charged with direct administration and management of the alleged scam-the present applicant’s continued custody is devoid of sustainable justification. 33. The applicant’s continued remand to custody would severely prejudice his ability to mount an effective defence, particularly given the complex and technical nature of the allegations, which involve intricate 16 financial transactions and regulatory matters. As observed by the Apex Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2SCC 565, para 27, the right to liberty is a fundamental principle and the denial of bail can result in grave prejudice to the accused, especially where the accused is unable to effectively instruct counsel or participate in the preparation of his defence while in custody. 34. The investigation in the present case is ongoing and no charges have yet been framed. The trial is unlikely to commence in the near future, given the voluminous nature of the evidence and the large number of witnesses. Despite repeated assurances by the State, the investigation remains incomplete and cognizance has not been taken in respect of the first charge sheet. The State’s pwn submissions before the Apex Court acknowledged the protracted nature of the investigation. 35. In the context of the above,the applicant’s continued incarceration is not justified. The principle of parity is squarely attracted,as several co- accused including excise officers have been granted bail or interim protection by the Apex Court and the High Court. The applicant, who is not connected with any of the alleged offences beyond his professional capacity, is similarly entitled to the benefit of parity. The denial of bail to the applicant, while others similarly situated have been granted relief, would be arbitrary and discriminatory. 36. The applicant’s role as a director and shareholder of Nexgen Power Engitech Private Limited is a matter of public record and there is 17 no material prima facie indicating any overt attempt by the applicant to obstruct justice or evade investigation. The applicant has demonstrated an established professional and familial background permanent residence and absence of antecedents, which together reinforce the assurances against flight risk, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. 37. Section 483 of the BNSS being pari materia with Section 437/439 Cr.P.C incorporates the settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, subject to the caveats of gravity of offence, likelihood of absconding, influencing witnesses or repeating offence. None of these are substantiated by the investigating agency in the present case. 38. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the findings of the Apex Court, the filing of charge sheets, the undisputed volume of prosecution witnesses and the principle of parity with co-accused granted bail, this Court is of the considered opinion that continued pre-trial detention of the applicant is neither warranted nor justified. 39. It is significant to note that several co-accused persons including the excise officers who were actively implicated in the liquor scam have not been arrested by the prosecution on the ground that they have cooperated with the investigation and supported the prosecution’s case. Importantly, the Apex court has granted interim bail to these individuals in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 012801/2025, 013029/2025, 013102/2025, 18 013134/2025, 013041/2025, 013026/2025, 013032/2025, 013039/2025, Diary Nos. 48364/2025, 48573/2025,48606/2025 and 48630/2025. In light of these developments, the principle of parity unequivocally demands that the applicant, who is not directly connected to any overt criminal act outside his professional capacity be afforded similar relief. 40. The Apex Court, has in catena of judgments, consistently reiterated that pre-trial custody cannot be treated as a substitute for punishment. Prolonged detention without rial amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution which safeguards personal liberty. The applicant's continued incarceration after the completion of the investigation serves no legitimate investigative purpose. Further the applicant has clearly demonstrated that he satisfies the triple criteria essential for the grant of bail: he is not a flight risk, will not tamper with evidence nor will he attempt to influence witnesses. The applicant’s permanent residence, coupled with an established professional and familial background, firmly ensures his presence through the trial process. 41. Upon meticulous perusal of the records, certain incontrovertible principles of law and justice emerge. The applicant has been in custody since 28.07.2025, yet the trial is nowhere near commencement. In related matters arising form the liquor scam, co-accused persons have already been granted bail either by the Apex Court or this Court as reflected in ( in Cr. A. No. 1263 of 2025 (Arunpathi Tripathi Vs. State of CG) and Others arising out of SLP (Crl. No. 14646 of 2024; SLP 19 (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 these precedents, the doctrine of parity squarely applies to the present case. It is an undisputed fact that co-accused namely Trilok Singh Dhillon, Arunpathi Tripathi, Arvind Singh, Anurag Dwivedi, Dilip Pandey and Deepak Duary have already been granted bail by the Apex Court. The role attributed to the present applicant is demonstrably of a lesser magnitude compared to these co-accused, which strengthens the applicant’s entitlement to bail on parity grounds. 42. Furthermore it is pertinent to observe that this Court, by its orders dated 12.03.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 188 of 2025 (Sunil Dutt Vs. State of CG), vide order dated 23.09.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 7093/2025 (Sanjay Mishra Vs. State of CG) & vide order dated 25.09.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 5601/2025 (Vijay Kumar Bhatia Vs. State of CG) has graciously extended the benefit of bail to several co-accused implicated in the same facts and FIR. The State has failed to demonstrate any distinguishing feature or incriminating material uniquely adverse against the present applicant to justify denial of an equivalent relief. Upholding the vulnerable doctrine of parity, and in the absence of any exigent or exceptional circumstance attributable solely to the applicant, this court finds that refusal to grant bail would be palpably unfair and inconsistent 20 with the principles of equity and equality before the law. Hence, the applicant is entitled to derive the same benefit of bail as the similarly situated co-accused. 43. Equally significant is the fact that no recovery-whether of immovable property, cash or otherwise has been effected from the applicant to warrant continued custody. Viewed against the backdrop of similarly positioned co-accused having been granted bail in the liquor scam, the rule of parity distinctly attracts. In these circumstances, this Court is unequivocally of the view that no justified cause subsists to continue the applicant’s detention. The ends of justice would be most adequately served by released the applicant on bail. 44. Accordingly, the applicant is ordered to be released on regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS subject to the following conditions: i. The applicant shall furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. ii. 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. 21 (f) any stringent conditions as may be imposed by the trial court. Any violation of the above conditions will entitle the prosecution to move application for cancellation of bail which shall be considered promptly and on merits. 45. It is made clear that the foregoing observations have been rendered solely for the limited purpose of adjudicating the present bail application. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial court shall proceed independently, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.11.19 17:29:24 +0530