1 2025:CGHC:54971 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7849 of 2025 1 - Manish Mishra S/o Sh. Subhash Chandra Mishra Aged About 47 Years R/o As-89 Agyeya Nagar, Vtc-Bilaspur (M.Crop) District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Applicant(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Acb/eow, Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Counsel assisted by Shri Shashank Mishra, Advocate 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 (analogous to Section 439 Cr.P.C) is filed by the applicant seeking his release on regular bail in Crime No. 04/2024 registered at Anti 2 Corruption Bureau, Raipur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467,468,471,120-B IPC and Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. BRIEF FACTS: 2. The applicant is a businessman who has been implicated in the aforementioned FIR registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur on 17.01.2024. The allegations center on the purported mis utilization of the company funds through the FL-10A liquor license to benefit a liquor syndicate by way of illegal commissions and wrongful practices. The basis of the entire prosecution is material produced by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in a letter dated 11.07.2023 under Section 66 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). However, the Apex Court in a judgment dated 08.04.2024 quashed these proceedings and the ECIR on the ground that no scheduled offence was established and the actions were without jurisdiction. The applicant was arrested on 20.07.2025 and produced before the Special Court, which granted police custody till 28.07.2025. The applicant has since been remanded to judicial custody. Despite no substantive role being attributed to him in the charge sheets and despite his consistent cooperation with the investigation over several months, bail was refused by the learned trial court. The investigation is complete vis-a-vis the applicant and the charge sheets have been filed the last being dated 24.08.2025. 3. The prosecution has cited as many as 886 witnesses spread over six charge sheets, indicating that the trial is likely to be protracted. 3 Several co-accused,including those allegedly directly responsible, have been granted bail either by the Apex Court or the High Court underscoring the applicability of the principle of parity. A departmental enquiry by the Commercial Tax (Excise) Department found no irregularities in the liquor trade and noted coercion in statements recorded by the ED. Furthermore, multiple companies were allotted the same FL-10A liquor licences in accordance with State Cabinet policy, for which the applicant has no decision making role. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents, has not absconded or avoided law proceedings and has strong societal roots. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 4. Learned Sr. Counsel for the applicant submits that the foundation of this prosecution is the letter dated 11.07.2023 by the ED and the material pertaining to ECIR/11/2022 which have been set aside by the Apex Court on the ground that no scheduled offence or proceeds of crime were established and the ED proceedings were held to be without jurisdiction. Consequently the ensuring FIR registered on the basis thereof is palpably illegal and untenable in law. It is submitted that the FIR is rooted entirely in the quashed ED report and letter under Section 66 PMLA, which were held by the Supreme Court to be without jurisdiction. Therefore, prosecution based on these is illegally permissible. There is no inadmissible incriminating material against the applicant. The allegations are based on conjectures without any direct act or role attributed to him in the offence. The charge sheets do not 4 specify any overt act or criminal conduct by the applicant. 5. It is further submitted that the arrest and prosecution appear to be motivated by malafide intent and political vendetta, given the discriminatory treatment of the applicant vis-a-vis other alleged offenders or officials who enjoy bail or interim protection. The investigation against the applicant is complete with the charge sheet filed. He submits that the continued incarceration is unwarranted and contrary to settled jurisprudence where bail is considered the rule post investigation. The charge sheet being filed against the applicant conclusively establishes that the investigation in over; there remains no justification for the applicant’s custodial detention. 6. The applicant is neither a flight risk nor likely to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. His consistent cooperation and presence before authorities substantiate this. He submits that with 886 prosecution witnesses, listed across charge sheets, the trial is unlikely to conclude soon. Prolonged detention without conviction is punitive and unsustainable in law. It is therefore submitted that given the lengthy and voluminous charge sheets, an immediate trial conclusion is not feasible. In such circumstances, continued detention before trial is manifestly disproportionate and punitive in nature, which cannot be sustained in law. With 886 witnesses across multiple charge sheets and 58,000 plus pages of evidence relied upon by the prosecution, the trial is bound to be protracted. In such circumstances, prolonged pre-trial detention transforms into punitive incarceration contrary to settled norms and 5 judicial wisdom. 7. It is next submitted that the stated apprehensions concerning the applicant viz. Risk of absconding, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses are generic and do not justify the necessity of arrest. Reliance is placed on the recent Supreme Court judgment in Arvind Kejriwal Vs. CBI (SLP (Crl.) No. 11023 of 2024), which held that such vague grounds do not meet the threshold to deny bail or justify custodial detention. 8. In consonance with Article 22(1), Section 50 Cr.P.C. which mandates that every arrested person be informed of the grounds of arrest and right to bail. The failure to provide specific grounds as discussion above also amounts to non-compliance of the statutory requirement under Cr.P.C. further legitimizing the applicant’s claim for bail. Any compelled testimony or statements against oneself are violative of Article 20(3). The prosecution’s undue reliance on confessions or statements made by co-accused further weakens the case against the applicant as established in Haricharan Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184, which holds that confessions of co- accused do not constitute substantive evidence unless corroborated. He submits that the applicant has endured prolonged pre-trial detention without commencement or conclusion of trial despite the passage of considerable time since arrest. The Apex Court in Manish Sisodia Vs. CBI and ED (2023 & 2024) and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI affirms the fundamental right to a speedy trial as an indispensable facet of the 6 right to life under Article 21. Delays occasion prejudice, hamper effective defence and violate constitutional guarantees. 9. The grounds of arrest furnished to the applicant are generic in nature and fail to stipulate specific grounds that necessitated the arrest. The grounds supplied are mere “reasons” for arrest applicable universally to any accused, rather than personalized and concrete grounds as required under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. This has been expressly condemned by the Apex Court in Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (SLP (Crl.) No. 13320 of 2024) and Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 INSC 414, which mandate that grounds of arrest must be personal and specific to the individual. The failure of the Investigating Agency to discharge its burden in this regard amounts to a violation of the applicant’s fundamental rights and renders the arrest constitutionally infirm. 10. Further he submits that several of the co-accused including those charged with direct involvement and higher culpability, have been enlarged on bail by the higher courts including the Apex Court, establishing clear precedent for granting bail to the applicant as well. The applicant, who is similarly situated, is entitled to parity of treatment. The selective custodial action against the applicant amid such context establishes malafide and arbitrariness. Prolonged pre-trial custody infringes the applicant's fundamental right of personal liberty, especially where no material suggests risk of tampering with prosecution evidence or absconding. 7 SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/EOW 11. The present case involves a meticulously execute, state-wide economic crime of unprecedented magnitude. The investigation reveals the existence of a criminal syndicate comprising government officials, politicians, private individuals and influential business persons all of whom systematically misused high office to siphon illegal commissions from the sale and licensing of liquor in Chhattisgarh. The illicit monetary gains, as revealed, have caused massive losses-estimated at over Rs. 3,2-- crores to the State Exchequer amounting to a large scale offence against the public interest. The Apex Court in Gulabrao Baburao Deokar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 16 SCC 190, has held that the seriousness of economic offences and their societal impact are crucial considerations opposing bail. 12. He submits that the material collected during the investigation unequivocally establish the applicant’s direct and central participation in the illegal syndicate. Acting as a director and shareholder in one of the conduit companies-Nextgen Power Engitech Pvt. Ltd. The applicant not only facilitated but personally benefitted from the illicit proceeds. A substantial portion of the illegal profits were transferred through and controlled by the applicant and his family members. Statements of multiple witnesses and documentary evidence affirm the applicant’s active involvement in routing and concealing these proceeds. The applicant’s pivotal financial role is further highlighted by the structured distribution of profits and the channeling of substantial sums as salary 8 and commission to himself and associates. 13. He further submits that the applicant's access to vast financial resources, network among influential players in the syndicate and demonstrated ability to channel illegal funds highlight the genuine risk that, if enlarged on bail, he may tamper with crucial evidence, intimidate or influence key witnesses and obstruct the due course of justice. The offence is marked by covert financial operations, making the protection of evidence and witness testimony imperative. The Apex Court in State of UP Vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 has emphasized that the likelihood of tampering with evidence or intimating witnesses must weigh heavily against bail. 14. There exists prima facie and reasonable ground to believe that the applicant has perpetrated grave and non-bailable offences under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as well as Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B of the IPC. The punishment prescribed is severe. The Apex Court has repeatedly emphasized in the matter of Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118- that the nature and gravity of the charges and the severity of potential punishment are foundational factors in refusing bail. 15. He submits that the mere passage of time or the likelihood of protracted trial, by itself, cannot overshadow the existential gravity of the charges. The Apex Court in State of UP Vs. Amarmani Tripathi (supra) has clarified that period of incarceration does to entitle the 9 accused to bail when the nature of the offence is grave and allegations are serious. Permitting the applicant’s release risks sending a disturbing signal to society regarding accountability in financial and corruption related offences. In line with the principle of public deterrence as discussed in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2024) 7 SCC 528, it is submitted that enlarging the applicant on bail might embolden others and undermine public confidence in the rule of law. 16. Multiple aspects of the conspiracy and the roles of other individuals are still being actively investigated. Releasing the applicant at this sensitive juncture would severely impede efforts to uncover the full magnitude of the conspiracy and trace further proceeds of crime. 17. Counsel for the respondent relied upon State of UP Vs. Amarani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21; Gulabrao Baburao Deokar Vs. State of Maharashtra 2013) 16 SCC 190, Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528, all of which underscore that when faced with grave charges supported by prima facie evidence, courts must exercise extreme caution in granting bail particularly, in cases involving corruption and large scale economic offences. 18. Upon due consideration of the material on record, rival submissions and having regard to the facts as putforth by them, the following factors emerge: 10 FINDINGS, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 19. The applicant is arraigned in a complex and large scale economic offence involving allegations of illicit financial transactions and illegal profiteering from the distribution and licensing of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh. The case is primarily based on the material produced by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate and the subsequent investigations by the Economic Offences Wing(EOW). Itis undisputed that the applicant was arrested on 20.07.2025 and has since been in judicial custody. The final charge sheet/report against the applicant has already been filed and the investigation concerning him stands concluded. The prosecution has cited a large number of witnesses- totalling approximately 886-spread across six charge sheets,which clearly indicates that the trial will be protracted and time-consuming. 20. Several co-accused persons including those having significant alleged roles in the case, have been granted bail by the Apex court and the High Court. The principle of parity militates strongly in favor of the applicant’s release on bail, ensuring equality before the law. The grounds of arrest furnished to the applicant are primarily generic, resembling routine reasons applicable in any charge of non-bailable offences. The Apex Court has repeatedly emphasized most recently in Prabir Purkayastha Vs.State (NCT of Delhi) and Vihaan Kumar Vs.State of Haryana, that grounds of arrest must be specific, personal to the accused and provide an opportunity for effective defense, failing which such arrest ought to be scrutinized critically. 11 21. The applicant has fully cooperated with the investigation over a prolonged period,has never evaded summons or attempted to abscond and has demonstrated no proclivity to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The apprehensions expressed by the Investigating Agency are no more than speculative and apprehensive, falling short of any solid foundation to justify continued custodial detention. 22. The statutory and constitutional rights of the applicant, including the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the procedural safeguards in Article 22(1), have been notably transgressed with the provision of vague grounds of arrest and prolonged pre-trial detention without trial. The writ of liberty flowing from Article 21 mandates a just, fair and expeditious resolution of liberty-related issues, especially when the investigative phase is complete and the trial yet to commence which the present case amply demonstrates. The overwhelming volume of prosecution evidence and the myriad of witnesses suggest that the trial will be lengthy, thus, continuing to hold the applicant in custody would likely amount to punitive detention, which is not permissible in the absence of exceptional circumstances. In light of the above and guided by the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI, Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI and other authoritative precedents, bail must be the rule rather than the exception once the charge-sheet is filed and investigation is concluded. 23. A further factor tipping the balance in favour of the applicant is the undisputed absence of any recovery-whether in cash, kind or 12 immovable property from his possession, which would otherwise warrant prolonged detention. This, coupled with, the fact that the applicant stands on the same footing as other co-accused- who have all been enlarged on bail in identical circumstances-invokes the principle of parity in its full force. In such a scenario, this Court is firmly of the view that no cogent rationale subsists for continued incarceration of the applicant and the fair administration of justice will be sufficiently safeguarded by granting bail, duly circumscribed by stringent conditions. 24. It is significant that several co-accused including excise officers, though implicated in multiple charge sheets have been granted interim bail by the Apex Court in various connected proceedings. These accused were not arrested on the grounds of cooperation with the investigation, attracting the principle of parity in favour of the applicant who is neither directly connected with any criminal overt act outside his professional capacity nor materially different in role from those already granted bail. The Apex Court in various Special Leave Petitioners (SLPs) connected with the Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam case, including the SLP (Crl.) Nos. 012801/2025, 013029/2025, 013102/2025, 013134/2025, 013041/2025, 013026/2025, 013032/2025, 013039/2025, Diary Nos. 48364/2025, 48573/2025,48606/2025 and 48630/2025 has granted bail interim bail to several excise officers implicated in the matter. These officers were not arrested by the prosecution on the basis that they had cooperated with the investigation and supported the 13 prosecution case. Such grants of bail by the Apex Court underscore the significance of cooperation in the investigation and the principle of parity among similarly situated accused. 25. The principle of parity mandates that the applicant, who has not been implicated in any overt criminal act beyond his professional capacity, ought to be accorded similar relief as those co-accused who have been granted bail by the Apex Court. Upon meticulous perusal of the records, certain settled principles of law and justice stand out with clarity. The applicant has been in custody since 20.07.2025, however, the trial has not even commenced and is not likely to begin imminently. In parallel matters arising from the liquor scam, several co-accused have been granted bail by the Apex Court or this Court, as evidenced 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 (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). The doctrine of parity squarely applies to the present case given that of co-accused namely, Trilok Singh Dhillon, Arunpathi Tripathi, Arvind Singh, Anurag Dwivedi, Dilip Pandey, Deepak Duary - all of whom have secured bail - pales in gravity and scope, thereby strengthening the applicant's entitlement on parity grounds. 14 26. In addition, it is pertinent to note that this Court vide order 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 extended the benefit of bail to the co-accused persons arising out of the same facts and FIR, no material distinction has demonstrated by the State to disentitle the present applicant from similar relief. In keeping with the settled principle of parity and in the absence of any aggravating circumstance peculiar to the applicant, this Court is constrained to hold that the denial of bail to the applicant would be antithetical to the principle of fairness and equality before the law. The applicant is therefore, entitled to the benefit of bail in line with the similarly placed co-accused. 27. Further, the law is settled that custody pending trial is not a substitute for punishment and that prolonged detention before the commencement of trial infringes Article 21 of the constitution, which guarantees the fundamental right to personal liberty. The investigation has been concluded and the charge sheets have been filed which further dilutes the rationale for continued incarceration. The commencement of trial is not imminent given the complexity and volume of evidence and witnesses recorded. The applicant has established his eligibility for bail as he is neither a flight risk nor likely to tamper with evidence or influence the witnesses. His permanent residence, 15 professional reputation and familial ties provide sufficient assurance of compliance with judicial processes. 28. Lastly, no material or property has been seized from the applicant to justify his remand. The role assigned to the applicant is clearly of a significantly lesser scale when compared to that of the aforementioned co-accused. This disparity in involvement bolsters the applicant’s claim for bail grounded in the well-recognized legal doctrine of parity, which mandates similar treatment of accused persons situated alike in the same proceedings. Thus, the applicant’s comparatively minor role strengthens his entitlement to similar relief under this principle. 29. In the light of these facts and consistent with the precedents cited hereinabove, the bail application stands allowed. The applicant shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court subject to the following conditions ensuring cooperation with the investigation and smooth conduct of the trial, coupled with standard safeguards: (a) The application shall surrender his passport, if any, forthwith to the trial court. (b) The applicant shall extend full cooperation to the investigation and trial proceedings. (c) the applicant, shall not directly or indirectly, 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 before the Court or any authority. 16 (d) the applicant shall not commit any offence during the period he remains on bail. (e) the applicant shall forthwith intimate the court concerned by way of a sworn affidavit regarding any change in his residential address of contact details including mobile number. (f) Any further stringent conditions as may be imposed by the trial court. In the event of any violation of the above conditions, it shall be open to the prosecution to move for cancellation of bail, which shall be considered promptly and strictly on its merits. 25. It is made clear that the observations contained herein are confined solely to the adjudication of the present bail application. Nothing stated herein shall have any bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall proceed on the evidence and material before it, uninfluenced by any observation hereinabove. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge SUGUNA DUBEY Digitally signed by SUGUNA DUBEY Date: 2025.11.19 17:31:11 +0530