2025:CGHC:53161 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 7026 of 2025 Reserved on : 14.10.2025 Delivered on : 31.10.2025 Navneet Tiwari (in judicial custody) S/o Naveen Tiwari, aged about 45 years, r/o. Ward No. 10/37 Ramgudi Para Mishra Gali, Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Superintendent of Economic Offences Wing & Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur CG. --- Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate. For State : Dr. Sourbh Kumar Pande, Dy. Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV ORDER 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 12-7-2025 in connection with Crime No. 03/2024 registered at Police Station- Anti Corruption Bureau/ Economic Offence Wing Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 384, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Sections 7, 7-A, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.01.2024, one Mr. Sandeep Ahuja, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur through Mr. Farhan Qureshi, Deputy Superintendent of Police lodged a complaint before the Director General of Police Anti Corruption Bureau & Economic Offences Wing, Chhattisgarh pertaining to predicate offence discovered during money laundering in investigation File No. ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 was done under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “the PMLA”). Thereafter, an offence bearing FIR No. 03/2024 has been registered on 17.01.2024 at Police Station ACB/EOW Raipur (C.G.) against 35 accused persons namely Smt. Saumya Chaurasiya, Sameer Bisnoi, Smt. Ranu Sahu, Sandeep Kumar Nayak, Shivshankar Nag, Suryakant Tiwari, Manish Upadhyay, Roshan Kumar Singh, Nikhil Chandrakar, Rahul Singh, Parekh Kurre, Moinuddin Qureshi, Virendra Jaiswal, Rajnikant Tiwari, Hemant Jaiswal, Joginder Singh, Nawneet Tiwari, Deepesh Taunk, Devendra Dadsena, Rahul Mishra, Ramgopal Agrawal, Devendra Singh Yadav, Shishupal Sori, Rampratap Singh, Vinod Tiwari, Amarjeet Bhagat, Chandradeo Prasad Rai, Brashpat Singh, Idrish Gandhi, Gulab Kamro, Shri U.D. Minj, Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Jai, Chandraparakash Jaiswal, Laxmikant Tiwari & others. 3. 3. Further case of the prosecution is that a syndicate comprised of private individuals and other State Government functionaries like Smt. Saumya Chaurasiya, Director, Geology & Mining Department and with the backing of some political executives, they managed to make deliberate policy changes. As part of the well-planned conspiracy, the applicant with the active support of the politicians and some of the senior State Government functionaries managed to influence the then Director of Geology & Mining and got issued a Government Order dated 15.07.2020 which became the fountain head of this extortion system by converting the online system of issuance of Transport Permits into a manual system. They started a network of extortion to collect Rs. 25 per ton of coal transported in the State of Chhattisgarh. The investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate revealed that other senior bureaucrats viz., Smt. Saumya Chaurasia and Smt. Ranu Sahu, IAS were also involved in this conspiracy and were providing assistance to the applicant in running the extortion racket. Smt. Soumya Chourasiya while working as Deputy Secretary in Chief Minister Office, had assisted the applicant and his associates in collecting the extortion money by posting pliable officers of mining department in the coal mining areas. Smt. Ranu Sahu IAS, who worked as District Collector in coal rich Districts viz., Korba & Raigarh, had close association with the applicant and helped his associates in collecting extortion money from the coal transporters and other businessmen. 4. It is also case of the prosecution that in the coal rich areas of the State like Raigarh, Korba, Surajpur, District Mineral Officers made illegal recovery of Rs.25/- per tonne from coal transporters on the basis of the above manual, DO and permit related orders were issued from the Mineral Directorate. Investigation of the Enforcement Directorate that information received from sources revealed that illegal levy of approximately Rs.540/- crores have been collected by the above syndicate between July, 2020 and June 2022. On the basis of the report received from the Enforcement Directorate, its confidential verification and source information in relation to above incident was done in the Bureau and Crime No.03/2004 for commission of offence under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of IPC read with Sections 7, 7A & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018 (for short “the PC Act”) was registered against the applicant. 5. From the case diary and the material so collected by the ACB/EOW, the role of present applicant is that the applicant is brother of Suryakant Tiwari and an active member of illegal coal levy collection to whom Suryakant Tiwari had assigned task of keeping accounts of illegal coal levy collection and making entries in the diary of income and expenditure. Suryakant Tiwari's syndicate members Moinuddin Qureshi, Parekh Kurre, Navneet Tiwari, Rahul Singh, Virendra Jaiswal alias Montu used to bring the illegal money collected from coal transporters and businessmen in coal-rich districts Korba, Raigarh, Surajpur at Rs 25 per tonne on coal DO to Suryakant Tiwari's office in Maharaja Apartment in Raipur. Roshan Singh and Nikhil Chandrakar used to count this amount, prepare the accounts and send the income expenditure slip in which the names of the persons and companies were written in Hindi and English, in brief, to Rajnikant Tiwari at I-34, Anupam Nagar Raipur office and Rajnikant Tiwari used to enter it in the diary. Nikhil and Roshan used to contact big coal businessmen and transporters in Raipur and collect illegal coal levy and deposit that also with the applicant. Page 5 of 15 6. During investigation, it was found that the main accused Suryakant Tiwari of the case, through his Associates Roshan Singh and Rajnikant Tiwari, used to send the date of companies to accused Navneet Tiwari via WhatsApp and he was instructed as to how much illegal amount is to be received from these companies in lieu of coal lifting. Accused Navneet Tiwari used to make illegal collection from DO Lifter/Transporters on the basis of DO (Delivery Order) information from coal traders in Raigarh district. 7. During the investigation of the case, it was found that accused Navneet Tiwari and his associate had received about Rs.20 crores from coal traders/transporters of in lieu of illegal coal recovery at the rate of Rs.25/- per tonne. Evidence of this was found to have been delivered to Suryakahnt Tiwari through Moin. It is further submitted that the applicant has admitted that monthly collections from Raigarh averaged Rs.40-50 lakhs and about Rs.20 crores were routed through Moin Qureshi to Raipur. The proceeds of crime were invested in benami properties in the name of the applicant and his wife Abhika Tiwari. After Income Tax raids, such properties were shown as sham sales to Sunil Agrawal to avoid attachment and the applicant has admitted that the sale proceeds cr edited in his account were withdrawn and immediately returned on the instructions of Suryakant Tiwari, thereby establishing deliberate laundering and layering of illegal funds. 8. It is also case of the State that during the investigation of the case, it was found that a diary was recovered from the possession of co- accused Rajniknt Tiwari in which the name of accused Navneet Tiwari has been entered as “Neetu”. All the entries sent to Suryakant Tiwari for illegal coal levy collection in Raigarh district which are in the name of Neetu are of illegal coal levy collection done by accused Navneet Tiwari. During investigation evidence has been found that the name of accused Navneet Tiwari has been entered as “Neetu” in the code word on the instructions of accused Suryakant Tiwari. During investigation it was found that Surkant Tiwari had purchased benami property in the name of accused and accused’s wife Abhika Tiwari from the money of coal levy. Indramani Farm which is Sunil Agrawal's company was sold and the money from selling it came in the joint account of accused and his wife Nagarik Bank Mahasamund which was transferred through cheque to the account of Suryakant Tiwari. 9. It is also contended by the learned State counsel that the applicant has admitted preparing detailed ledgers of levy collections in PDF/Excel formats and transmitting them through WhatsApp and electronic files to co-accused persons including Moin Qureshi, Roshan Singh, Rajnikant Tiwari and Nikhil Chandrakar thereby showing his role in systematic financial accounting of illegal collections. Furthermore, after the Income Tax raid in June 2022, he was specifically instructed by Surykant Tiwari to remain underground to evade Enforcement Directorate action which demonstrates his conscious involvement in the conspiracy and deliberate attempt to obstruct due process of law. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He would further submit that arrest of the applicant is illegal and malafide as FIR itself clearly reveals that the main allegations are made against Suryaknt Tiwari, Sourmya Churasiya, Hemant Jaiswal, Sameer Bishneo and other politically influential persons. The present applicant has only been named in the FIR as he was working for Suryakant Tiwari. He would further submit that the essential ingredients of forgery of documents or valuable security are completely absent in the case of the applicant. The Investigating agency has failed to bring on record any complaint from person alleging that the applicant had intentionally created documents or electronic records for the purpose of cheating. He would further submit that the investigating agency has also failed to complete the chain of evidence to establish that the applicant had ever accepted any gratification as a motive or reward to show favour or disfavour to any person or group. No evidence has been produced to connect the applicant with the alleged offence and his name appears in the final report merely on the basis of presumption, without any direct or indirect material. 11. He would further submit that in order to establish a prima facie case, the prosecution agency was required to place cogent evidence showing that someone has been put to wrongful loss solely on account of the acts of the present applicant. However, no such material has been brought on record in the final report and in absence of any prima facie evidence, no offence under the provisions of IPC or the PC Act is made out against the applicant 12. He would further submit that there is delay in trial coupled with long period of pre-trial incarceration as the applicant was illegally arrested on 12-7-2025 and has already undergone more than 90 days and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding any time soon and in as much the investigation in the alleged offence is still ongoing qua other accused persons. He would further submit that the proceedings are going on at a snail's pace and is still at the stage of further investigation, even after a passage of over a year since the registration of the said FIR. He would further submit that the pre-trial custody and the trial has not yet been commenced and the trial is likely to take time for its final conclusion, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. He would further submit that the right to speedy trial is a facet of the Fundamental Right of life of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Manish Sisodia Vs. CBI & ED [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1393], Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2022) 10 SCC 51], Surinder Singh alias Shingara Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(2005) 7 SCC 387], Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Punjab [(1977) 4 SCC 291], Manish Sisodia Vs. ED & CBI [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 920], Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693], Bibhav Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi [SLP (Crl.) No. 9817 of 2024, decided on 02.09 2024], Vijay Nair Vs. ED [SLP (Crl.) No. 8439 of 2024, decided on 06.09.2024], Manish Sisodia Vs. ED & CBI [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 920], Neeraj Singhal Vs. ED [SLP (Crl.) No. 8439 of 2024, decided on 06.09.2024], Prem Prakash vs. ED [SLP (Crl.) No 5416 of 2024 decided on 28.08.2024], Ramkripal Meena Vs. ED [SLP (Crl.) No. 3205 of 2024 decided on 30.07.2024]. 13. He would further submit that there is no apprehension of violation of the triple test by the applicant, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail as it is well settled law that mere apprehension of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence can never be a ground to decline bail to any accused, unless there is cogent supporting material as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of P. Chidambaram Vs. CBI [2020 13 SCC 337], Manish Sisodia Vs. ED & CBI [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 1920], Manish Sisodia Vs. CBI & ED [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1393]. 14. He would further submit that there is prima facie no evidence that the applicant is involved in running an alleged extortion racket wherein an amount of Rs. 25/- was extorted per metric tonne of coal for its transportation out of the coal mine fields but the specific role ascribed to the applicant is that he was allegedly maintaining accounts of money allegedly collected from the coal levy and no substantive evidence against him, is available. The only evidence/ material is in the form of statements of co-accused and unsigned handwritten diaries/ loose sheets of papers, both of which are inadmissible in evidence. He would further submit that it is settled law that the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. is not admissible in law and the statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He would further submit that the statement of co- accused person is an extremely weak piece of evidence and cannot be treated as substantive evidence as against the other co-accused persons as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Prem Prakash Vs. ED [SLP (Crl.) No. 5416 of 2024, decided on 28.08.2024], Haricharan Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC 1184], Sanjay Jain Vs. ED [2024 SCC OnLine SC 656]. He would further submit that the unsigned handwritten diaries/ loose sheets of papers are inadmissible evidence which cannot be considered as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of CBI Vs. VC Shukla [1998 (3) SCC 4]. 15. He would further submit that the co-accused namely Ranu Sahu, Suryakant Tiwarii, Sameer Vishnoi and Saumya Chaurasiya have already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 29-5-2025 passed in SLP (Cri) No. 15941 of 2024, therefore, the present applicant may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. He would further submit that the applicant is ready and willing to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the directions which may be imposed by this Court. He would further submit that now the challan of the case has been presented before the trial Court and no investigation is pending, the accused is in custody since 12-7-2025 and trial of the case will take sufficient time to be concluded, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the present applicant. 16. On the other hand, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General for the ACB/EOW opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and referring to the FIR and the case diary would submit that the applicant is involved in the economical offence which is not only heinous offence but also against the economy of the nation. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is required as the applicant has not disclosed the source of income from where these properties which have been detailed in the final report and if the accused remained in the custody, the sources of purchased of property can be traced out. He would further submit that the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Raipur while dismissing the bail application filed by the applicant has observed that there is involvement of the applicant in the crime in question, which has not been rebutted by the applicant while making this submission before this Court. He would further submit that there is a strong prima facie case against the present applicant and the matter is under further investigation with the department and the Police will file the supplementary charge sheet after collection of fresh evidences against other co-accused persons involved in the crime at a later stage and looking to the conspiracy and crime committed by the applicant in connivance with the other co-accused, the instant bail application deserves to be rejected. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection. . 18. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the trial will take longer time for disposal, therefore, the case of the petitioner may be considered for grant of bail. This submission is opposed by learned counsel for the respondent/State and he would submit that not only the applicant but the other co-accused have adopted delay tactics by moving various applications causing delay in conclusion of trial, therefore, it cannot be said that only the prosecution is contributed in delay disposal of trial. As such, he would pray for rejection of the bail application. 19. The submission made by learned counsel for the applicant for releasing the applicant on bail on the count of delayed trial, deserves to be rejected as the applicant has not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the trial has been delayed because of the prosecution only. Page 12 of 15 20. The further submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was arrested illegally as there is no direct evidence against the applicant. This submission cannot be considered as at this stage as it is the defence of the accused to declare the arrest as illegal. 21. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant has nowhere stated in the bail petition regarding source of income which has been shown in the final report which clearly shows that the ACB/EOW has collected certain material against the applicant. The prosecution has collected the material against the applicant that he has collected money illegally form coal transporters. Thus, from perusal of FIR and the material available in the case diary, involvement of the applicant in commission of offence under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of IPC read with Sections 7, 7A & 12 of the PC Act, which is economic offence, is prima facie reflected. Hon’ble the Supreme Court while considering the gravity of economic offence in case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, [(2019) 9 SCC 24] has held at paragraph 78 to 81 as under:- “78. Observing that economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to the community, in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal and others (1987) 2 SCC 364, it was held as under:- “5. ….The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest…..” 79. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, the Supreme Court held as under:- “34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations.” [underlining added] 80. Referring to Dukhishyam Benupani, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria (1998) 1 SCC 52, in Enforcement Officer, Ted, Bombay v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora and others (1999) 5 SCC 720, while hearing an appeal by the Enforcement Directorate against the order of the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent thereon, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Single Judge granting anticipatory bail. 81. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.” 22. Again Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) & another [(2021) 6 SCC 230] has held in paragraph 23 as under :- 24. The principles governing the grant of bail were reiterated by a two judge Bench in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496: “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. “10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal...” 47. The considerations which must weigh with the Court in granting bail have been formulated in the decisions of this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh13 and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee14(noted earlier). These decisions as well as the decision in Sanjay Chandra (supra) were adverted to in a recent decision of a two judge Bench of this Court dated 19 March 2021 in The State of Kerala v. Mahesh where the Court observed: “22…All the relevant factors have to be weighed by the Court considering an application for bail, including the gravity of the offence, the evidence and material which prima facie show the involvement of applicant for bail in the offence alleged, the extent of involvement of the applicant for bail, in the offence alleged, possibility of the applicant accused absconding or otherwise defeating or delaying the course of justice, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being threatened or influenced or of evidence being tempered with, and danger to the safety of the victim (if alive), the complainant, their relatives, friends or other witnesses….” Similarly, the Court held that the grant of bail by the High Court can be set aside, consistent with the precedents we have discussed above, when such grant is based on non-application of mind or is innocent of the relevant factors for such grant. 23. The applicant cannot claim parity with other accused who remained in the custody for about two years and have been granted bail by Hon’ble the Supreme Court as the applicant has been recently arrested on 12.07.2025. Considering the FIR and other material placed on record, it prima facie shows involvement of the applicant in crime in question. As such, I am of the view that it is not a fit case where the applicant should be granted regular bail. 24. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 25. 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 Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2025.10.31 17:14:57 +0530