1 2025:CGHC:57556 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 8727 of 2025 Anil Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Ravindra Prakash Gupta Aged About 57 Years Present R/o House No. 39, Sapphire Greens, Vidhan Sabha Road, Raipur (C.G.) 493111 Permanent Address 96, Diamond Harbour Road, Khidarpur, Kolkata 700023 ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Central Bureau of Investigation Through Branch Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 – Director, Central Bureau of Investigation Head O5ce CGO Complex, New Delhi ... Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anil Pillai and Mr. Gendesh Dadsena, Advocates. For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar (through Video Conferencing) and Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocates. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 26/11/2025 1. The applicant has preferred this first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS) in connection with Crime No. RC-1242025A0002/2025, registered at Police Station- ACB/CBI/Raipur, District Raipur, for the o=ences under Sections 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNS) and 2 Sections 7, 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 30.01.2025, the complainant Lalchand Athwani submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Raipur, stating that he was the proprietor of an establishment, namely, M/s The World of Beauty, located on Station Road, Durg. On 28.01.2025, at approximately 6 p.m., a team led by accused Bharat Singh, Superintendent of Central GST, raided his shop, but he was not there at the time. On 29.01.2025, at 7 a.m., he arrived at the shop with his brother, Naveen Athwani, and found accused Bharat Singh and other CGST employees and o5cers there. Accused Bharat Singh asked the complainant to come to Raipur to meet with his senior o5cer to resolve the matter. He then drove the complainant to Raipur in his Innova car, bearing Registration No. CG-04-NB-9911. An employee of the CGST, accused Vinay reached Starbux Co=ee House located at Currency Tower. There, they met a person who introduced himself as Commissioner Mishra. He said that a tax of Rs. 70,00,000/- was due in connection with the raid on his shop. Finally, he asked for Rs. 45 lakhs, of which Rs.11,00,000/- should be deposited as tax and the remaining Rs.34,00,000/- should be given as bribe. He got the bills prepared for the last 4-5 months in the handwriting of the complainant’s employees. The complainant did not want to pay the said amount, hence he made a complaint to the CBI. On this basis, a case was registered against co- accused Bharat Singh and others by the CBI/ACB/Chhattisgarh, Raipur bearing RC No. 1242025A0002 for the o=ences under Sections 61(2) of the BNS read with Section 7, 7A of the PC Act (as Amended 2018). 3. According to the prosecution, during the proceedings, one co-accused 3 Vinay Rai was caught red handed while obtaining Rs. 5 Lacs as bribe. During the investigation, voice recordings were obtained of mobile phone conversations between the complainant, Vinay Rai, and the alleged Mishra @ Anil Kumar Gupta, regarding the bribe amount. A transcript of this voice recording was also attached to the charge sheet and submitted. A thorough and meticulous review of the transcript reveals that the name of co-accused Bharat Singh also appears during the conversation, and he is addressed as "Sir" at several points. According to the prosecution, there is prima facie evidence that co-accused Bharat Singh, in connivance with other co-accused Vinay Rai and the applicant who was named as Mishra @ Anil Kumar Gupta, in a planned manner, demanded bribe from the complainant in lieu of reducing the huge amount of tax evaded and in the process, co-accused Vinay Rai received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The allegation against the applicant is that he claimed himself to be the Commissioner of GST Department and impersonated himself as Mishraji. 4. Mr. Anil Pillai, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant is a private entity and the allegation is that he acted as a facilitator, through impersonation, participated in the commission of crime which is wholly false and based on surmises. The applicant has not been named as a recipient of the alleged transaction of bribe nor he is a part of the actual bribe transaction as revealed in the charge sheet /Dnal report. The respondent CBI itself has failed to bring any cogent, substantial, tangible evidence to Dx the guilt of the applicant accused in the alleged transaction of illegal gratiDcation. The only material collected is some sound tracks alleged to have been recorded during the conversation in the course of the transaction of bribe, and the same cannot be 4 ascertained as substantial evidence as law does not recognize sound tracks etc, as substantial and conclusive evidence. Another aspect, as revealed from the charge sheet is regarding the identiDcation of the applicant as "Commissioner Mishra” is based on certain CCTV footage and the personal identiDcation subsequent to the arrest of the applicant/accused. The CCTV footage by no legal standards can express the factual position and the circumstances depicted in it unless and until it reveals some direct incriminating evidence, which, the applicant believes, is absent in the instant case. The nature of physical and personal identiDcation of the applicant reveals that the CBI has deDed all principles and practices prescribed to Test IdentiDcation of an accused involved in an o=ence, and this particular conduct of investigation reveals the ulterior motive of the respondents to implicate applicant falsely for reasons best known to them. 5. Mr. Pillai further submits that the investigation is not free from dubiety regarding any material evidence to establish that the procedure adopted by the CGST Department on the day was untrue, on the contrary if the entire procedure adopted by CGST is undisputed the big question remains to be answered by the respondents under whose authority and supervision the said CGST survey was being conducted. Merely on the basis of some inconclusive electronic evidences and legally faulty identiDcation, the applicant cannot be roped as a conspirator or a facilitator and it is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that such circumstances has to stand a test of trial in order to establish the identity, propriety, legality of such evidences. The uncertainty expressed by the respondents regarding the actual involvement in the alleged o=ence itself is a ground for exonerating the applicant from the alleged o=ence as the legal principle clearly states that no person can be implicated of an 5 o=ence based on suspicion, surmises and conjectures. 6. Mr. Pillai further submits that the supplementary charge sheet/ Dnal report reveals inclusion of a set of six more public servants belonging to CGST Department which is likely to cause delay in the initiation of the trial proceedings in the Special Court for the reason that the sanction for prosecution of these public servants arraigned as accused, is likely to delay in the taking cognizance of the o=ence by the Court and the framing of charges. The respondents have deliberately made an attempt to paint the applicant in dark through its intentions expressed in the police remand applications. The applicant having a permanent residence in Raipur and also in Kolkata, there is no chance of his absconding or tampering with the case. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that RC1242025A0002 has been registered on 31.01.2024 on the basis of the written complaint dated 30.01.2025 made by the complainant Lal Chand Athwani, who owns M/s The World of Beauty wherein it was alleged that on 28/29.01.2025, Bharat Singh, Superintendent, CGST, Raipur, raided his shop and in conspiracy with Vinay Rai and the applicant, demanded Rs. 34 lakh as bribe, which was later reduced to Rs. 10 lakhs. The complainant, unwilling to pay, had Dled a complaint with CBI on 30.01.2025. On the basis of veriDcation of the complaint, in the presence of independent witness Khushal Baliram Landge, an FIR under Section 61(2) of BNS and Sections 7, 7A of the PC Act, 1988 was registered on 31.01.2025. On the basis of the FIR, a trap was laid on 31.01.2025 at VIP Chowk, Raipur. The co-accused Vinay Rai was caught red handed while accepting bribe amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from complainant in conspiracy with other co-accused 6 persons. While Vinay Rai was detained, one person came on a scooter near Vinay and snatched his mobile phone and ran away. During trap proceedings, the tainted bribe amount was recovered by independent witness from the possession of Vinay Rai. Later Vinay Rai was arrested and is presently in judicial custody. After investigation of the case charge sheet was Dled before the learned trial Court on 29.03.2025 vide Spl. Case No. 04/25 against the accused persons including the applicant and further investigation was kept open under Section 193 (9) of the BNSS. 8. Mr. Pandey also points out to the fact that the co-accused Bharat Singh and Vinay Rai had Dled bail applications before this Court which was rejected vide order dated 20.05.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 2981/2025 and 3345/2025, respectively. One of the co-accused namely Bharat Singh had Dled a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 10762/2025, challenging the order dated 20.05.2025 passed by this Court before the Hon’ble Apex Court which also stood dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2025. 9. It is submitted that the investigation further revealed that on 29.01.2025 when the complainant along with brother Naveen Athwani returned from Prayagraj to his aforesaid shop i.e. M/s. The World of Beauty, Bharat Singh, Superintendent, CGST who was one of the member of search team told the complainant that he should meet his senior Mr. Mishra for settling of his tax matter. The complainant along with his brother Naveen Kumar Athwani and Vinay, driver of CGST visited in the car of CGST to Starbucks situated at Currency Tower, near VIP Chowk, Raipur and met there one person who was introduced by Vinay Rai as Mishra ji, Commissioner of CGST, Raipur. This person was none other than the present applicant-Anil Kumar Gupta who was impersonating a non- 7 existent Commissioner "Shri Mishraji". During discussion, the applicant informed the complainant about his tax liability towards GST and further informed that the liability of tax would be settled for Rs. 11 Lakhs and he has to pay Rs.34 lakhs in cash for settling the GST tax liability. The meeting continued for around one hour. Thereafter, the complainant along with his brother and Vinay Rai left the Starbucks in the car driven by Vinay Rai and reached the shop at around 13:00 hrs. The investigation also revealed that during the trap proceeding a call at around 18:01 hours from the mobile number 9993717756 of co-accused Vinay Rai was received over the mobile number 9827181835 of the brother of the complainant, Naveen Athwani. On this call Vinay Rai asked about how much more time the complainant was going to take to bring the bribe amount. The complainant replied to this that only 15 more minutes would be required. The CBI team in the o5cial vehicle of CBI and the complainant, his brother, alongwith shadow witness reached outside the Currency Tower at VIP Chowk, and after around 10 minutes, the co-accused Vinay Rai was caught red handed while accepting a bribe amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant in the presence of independent witness in conspiracy with other accused persons. 10. Mr. Pandey submits that the CCTV footage dated 29.01.2025 of Starbucks situated in Currency tower near VIP Road, Raipur was seized by CBI. The present applicant/accused was identiDed by Ms. Pragya Mishra, an ex-employee of ARPEE Group as a person ‘Anil Kumar Gupta’ vide CCTV identiDcation memo dated 19.03.2025 in presence of independent witness Akhilesh Roshan Gajbhiye from the IO copy of aforesaid CCTV footage. Pragya Mishra also identiDed the voice to be of the present a pplicant vide voice identiDcation memo dated 19.03.2025 from the IO copy of the conversations recorded by the CBI during 8 veriDcation and trap proceedings in presence of aforesaid independent witness. Co-accused Vinay was identiDed by Laxman Kumar Biswal vide identiDcation memo dated 11.03.2025 in presence of independent witness Roshan Kumar Sahu from the IO copy of CCTV footage dated 29.01.2025. Laxman Kumar Biswal also identiDed the voice of the co- accused Vinay Rai, vide voice identiDcation memo dated 11.03.2025 from the IO copy of the conversations recorded by the CBI during veriDcation and trap proceedings in presence of aforesaid independent witness. The investigation revealed that the present applicant/accused was identiDed by Anurag Gupta as well as Kamlesh Kumar Sahu vide CCTV identiDcation memo dated 08.03.2025 in presence of independent witnesses Yadav Ram Dhruw and Khushal Baliram Landge from the IO copy of aforesaid CCTV footage. Abhay Prasad, Shift Manager, Starbucks identiDed the premises of Starbucks from the IO copy of the CCTV footage dated 29.01.2025. Similarly, the complainant and his brother Naveen Kumar Athwani identiDed Mr. Mishra to be the present applicant and the co-accused Vinay and themselves from the IO copy of the CCTV footage dated 29.01.2025 vide aforesaid memo. The investigation also revealed that Anurag Gupta as well as Kamlesh Kumar Sahu also identiDed the voice of the (Applicant/accused) Mishra (Anil Kumar Gupta) as a person - Anil Kumar Gupta vide voice identiDcation memo dated 08.03.2025 from the IO copy of the conversations recorded by the CBI during veriDcation and trap proceedings in presence of aforesaid independent witness. 11. Mr. Pandey submits that the investigation has clearly established the active involvement of the applicant through the CCTV footage dated 29.01.2025 from Starbucks Currency Tower, Raipur, corroborated by IPDR analysis and statements of witnesses. Evidence conDrms his 9 physical presence and direct participation in the conspiracy, as he has been identiDed in the CCTV footage and in voice recordings by multiple witnesses, including employees. The investigation further revealed that the conversation recorded by the CBI during veriDcation and trap proceedings authenticated that the (applicant/accused) Mishra (Anil Kumar Gupta), Vinay and the complainant had conversation with each other on 30.01.2025 and 31.01.2025 (the day of trap proceedings). The applicant was absconding despite repeated notices issued by CBI under Section 35(3) BNSS at multiple addresses on 28.02. 2025, 04.03.2025 and 10.03.2025, and has evaded execution of the non-bailable warrant issued by the learned trial Court. During the course of further investigation, approximately three months after the Dling of main charge sheet on dated 29.03.2025, the applicant-accused appeared before the learned trial Court on 10.07.2025, whereupon, on request of the CBI, the learned Trial Court granted police custody to the CBI. Even during the period of police custody, the applicant deliberately gave evasive and misleading replies despite being confronted with documentary and digital evidence. Initially, he refused to provide his voice sample, which was crucial for scientiDc comparison with the recorded voice conversation between him and the complainant. However, upon direction of the learned trial Court, he subsequently agreed to provide voice sample. 12. Mr. Pandey submits that the investigation has revealed additional incriminating facts which corroborate the conspiracy. The search on 28.01.2025 at the shop of the complainant was conducted by CGST o5cers along with private persons Vinay Rai, Bhagwat Sahu and Durgesh Kumar Bhoi. Independent witnesses were not used, instead, regular o5ce visitors and private hands were shown as panch witnesses. Private person Vinay Rai actively participated and even dictated 10 proceedings. Shop sta= stated that Vinay gave instructions in aggressive tone. Complainant received calls during search where Vinay Rai is heard instructing Bharat Singh on statement recording. The CCTV feed of the shop had been disconnected. On 29.01.2025, complainant and his brother were directed to meet "Commissioner Mishra @ Anil Kumar Gupta at Starbucks, where demand of Rs. 1 crore was made, reduced to Rs. 45 lakhs (Rs. 11 lakhs shown as tax liability and Rs. 34 lakhs as bribe). This meeting was captured in Starbucks CCTV Manager Girish Singh conDrmed identity of the applicant. IPDR records corroborated live coordination with Bharat Singh via FaceTime call at the exact time of demand. Empty estimate books were procured and back-dated kacha bills were prepared under dictation of CGST o5cers to show false tax liability. Vivek Dewangan, private employee of Bharat Singh, took away Vinay's phone during trap and handed it to Bharat Singh, resulting in destruction of evidence. The SIM card used by applicant for bribe negotiations was purchased in the name of Ms. Pragya Mishra but exclusively used by the applicant, thereby linking his alias "Mishra" to the crime. These additional facts, corroborated by bank records, IPDR analysis, CCTV footage, witness statements and scientiDc evidence, clearly establish the applicant's direct role in demanding and negotiating bribe impersonating a Commissioner and tampering with evidence. After completion of further investigation of the case a supplementary charge sheet has been Dled before the learned trial Court against the accused persons including applicant on 05.09.2025. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 11 14. The applicant is alleged to have impersonated himself as the Commissioner of CGST and even changed his name as Mishraji and hatched a conspiracy alongwith two other named co-accused namely Bharat Singh, Superintendent, CGST, Raipur and Vinay Rai. One of the co-accused Vinay Rai was caught red handed receiving the bribe of Rs. 5 Lakhs. The co-accused persons namely Bharat Singh and Vinay Rai had Dled bail applications before this Court being M.Cr.C. No. 2981/2025 and 3345/2025 which stood rejected vide order dated 20.05.2025 and the SLP(Crl) bearing No. 10762/2025, against the same by the co- accused Bharat Singh has also been rejected by the Apex Court vide order dated 04.08.2025. 15. The investigation in the matter has been concluded and charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet have also been Dled. The prosecution has prima facie been successful in establishing the guilt of the applicant. The applicant impersonated himself as Commissioner of CGST and hatched a conspiracy against the complainant to extort illegal gratiDcation. The presence of the applicant in the Starbucks Co=ee Shop is apparent from the video footage and he has been identiDed by the complainant alongwith various other witnesses as is evident from the return Dled by the respondents. His voice sample has also been identiDed by the witnesses and there remains no manner of doubt that the applicant was present at that place. From the materials available on record, it transpires that the applicant is the prime conspirator as he introduced himself as Commissioner of the CGST and on his instructions, the other two co-accused assisted in commission of the crime in question. Further, the conduct of the applicant is also not acceptable as he had tried to abscond despite repeated notices issued by CBI under Section 35(3) BNSS at multiple addresses on 28.02. 2025, 12 04.03.2025 and 10.03.2025, and has evaded execution of the non- bailable warrant issued by the learned trial Court. During the course of further investigation, approximately three months after the Dling of main charge sheet on dated 29.03.2025, the applicant-accused appeared before the learned trial Court on 10.07.2025, whereupon, on request of the CBI, the learned trial Court granted police custody to the CBI. Even during the period of police custody, the applicant was reluctant to provide his voice sample, which was crucial for scientiDc comparison with the recorded voice conversation between him and the complainant. When the applicant has been identiDed by the complainant and other witnesses, his presence has been established at the Starbucks Co=ee shop where the negotiations for bribe took place and there is evidence in the form of CCTV footage, the rejection of the bail to the co-accused which having a5rmed by the Apex Court, we are of the considered opinion that this is not a Dt case where the applicant should be enlarged on bail. 16. Accordingly, the bail application Dled by the applicant/accused – Anil Kumar Gupta, involved in Crime No. RC-1242025A0002/2025, registered at Police Station- ACB/CBI/Raipur, District Raipur, for the o=ences under Sections 61(2) of the BNS and Sections 7, 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), is rejected. 17. O5ce is directed to send a certiDed copy of this order to the learned trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance, forthwith. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Gouri / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.11.27 18:57:35 +0530