2026:CGHC:5740 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved on 29-01-2026 Delivered on 02-02-2026 MCRCA No. 1701 of 2025 Narayan Sahu S/o Hariram Sahu Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Hicha, Ward No. 11, District Mahasamund C.G. ... Applicant. versus State of Chhattisgarh Through A C B (E O W), Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For applicant. : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) State : Mr. Sourabh Kumar Pande, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas CAV ORDER 1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant who apprehends his arrest 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 and 384 of IPC and Sections 7, 7-A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Initially the applicant had moved an application under Section 482 of BSNN 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned trial Court and learned trial Court vide its order dated 29-8-2024 has dismissed the same. 2. On 19.12.2025, learned State counsel has submitted before this Court that warrant of arrest has been issued against the applicant, as such the instant anticipatory bail application is liable to be dismissed on this count alone. On 07.01.2026, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that before issuance of warrant of arrest, no summons have been issued to the accused as he was not named in the FIR, as such, the procedure adopted by the prosecution is illegal and would submit that he may be allowed to produce the copy of the order-sheet of the trial Court. 3. This Court has directed the applicant to substantiate his submission to place on record relevant order sheets or record for perusal of the Court. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 16.01.2026 and on 16.01.2026, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for time to comply with the earlier order dated 07.01.2026 passed by this Court, therefore, the matter was taken up on 29.01.2026 and on 29.01.2026 the learned counsel for the applicant would submit that he is unable to place on record the documents and would pray for hearing the matter finally on the basis of the material placed on record. On his submission, the bail application is heard finally. 4. 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. 5. Immediately after registration of the FIR, the Police have duly investigated the matter. However, from the investigation done so far it is revealed that confidential verification was done in the Bureau Police Station EOW/ACB Raipur, in relation to the report of letter number ECIR/RPZO/09/2022/801 dated 11.01.2024 shared by Shri Sandeep Ahuja, Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Zonal Office, Raipur. During the investigation of the case, it was found that Mr. Suryakant Tiwari S/o. Late Mr. Shashibhushan Tiwari, used his political domination influence Chhattisgarh State Government officials viz Smt. Saumya Chaurasia, the then Deputy Secretary, Chief Minister's Office, Chhattisgarh Government, Mr. Sameer Vishnoi, (IAS), Mineral Department. A criminal conspiracy was hatched under the protection of political personalities along with officials Smt. Ranu Sahu, the then Collector Korba and other associates. By working as a syndicate with Mr. Sameer Vishnoi, the then Director, Directorate of Mines and Minerals, Government of Chhattisgarh, on 15.07.2020, an order was passed to issue mineral DO and transport permit through manual method instead of online, the reason assigned being error in the online system. 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 and information received from sources revealed that illegal levy of approximately Rs. 540 crore has 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 the above incident was done in the Bureau and Crime Number-03/2024 Section 420, 120 B, 384 IPC and 7, 7A and 12 of the Act 1988 as amended Act 2018 was registered. 6. From the case diary and the material so collected by the ACB/EOW, the role of the accused- Narayan Sahu is that during investigation, it was found that accused -Narayan Sahu was not merely the driver of accused Suryakant Tiwari, but his most trusted confidant, who remained continuously associated with him in his illegal activities. The close proximity between them is evident from the fact that the wife and children of Narayan Sahu have been residing along with the mother of accused Suryakant Tiwari in his flat, clearly demonstrating a relationship of exceptional personal trust and confidence rather than that of an ordinary employer-driver exists. Page 5 of 14 7. Further, analysis of the diaries seized by the Income Tax Department reveals that approximately Rs. 13 crore of illegal cash was collected by accused- Narayan Sahu on behalf of the coal syndicate run by Suryakant Tiwari and that accused -Narayan Sahu, on the instructions of Suryakant Tiwari, delivered approximately Rs. 7.5 crore in cash from the proceeds of crime to co-accused Soumya Chaurasia, Sameer Vishnoi, Jaiprakash Maurya, Vinod Tiwari, Devendra Yadav, Rampratap Singh and others. The said diaries contain numerous entries where both "cash received from Narayan" and "cash given to Narayan" have been recorded, clearly indicating that he was functioning as a key cash handler in the illegal coal levy network. 8. To substantiate the above facts, the non-applicant/State has filed copies of the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of Roshan Kumar Singh, the statement of Ishwar Sidar recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., memorandum of accused Manish Upadhyay and the permanent arrest warrant of the applicant issued by the learned special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act and First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (CG) which are collectively annexed as Annexure-NA-1. 9. 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 the allegations leveled in the F.I.R. do not constitute any offence under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of IPC and Sections 7, 7A and 12 of P.C Act. The report has been lodged with malafide intention just to rope the present applicant in a false case. The applicant was working as a driver of Suryakant Tiwari, and therefore his name has been mentioned as an accused in the present offence. However, the applicant was appointed on a collector-rate/ad-hoc basis during the year 2020-21, and thereafter he discontinued his association with Suryakant Tiwari. Furthermore, the alleged offence pertains to the period of 2020-21 to June 2022, whereas the applicant had already left the service of Suryakant Tiwari in the year 2020-21, prior to the period of the alleged offence. Hence, there is no question of the applicant's involvement in the said offence and even he is not named in the FIR. 10. He would further submit that even if aforesaid allegations are taken at face value, the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out against the applicant. There is no element of deception attributable to the applicant. As per the allegation he acted only on the directions of his employer, without any independent intention to deceive or induce delivery of property. The allegation that the applicant collected money and handed it over to Suryakant Tiwari does not disclose the offence of extortion, as there was no wrongful gain to the applicant himself, nor did he benefit in any manner and there is no material and substantial evidence that shows applicant has extort illegal levy money. 11. Furthermore, the allegations under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act are not made out against the applicant, as per the allegation he acted solely in the capacity of an employee of Suryakant Tiwari, merely handing over money on instructions. He did not obtain, accept, or attempt to obtain any undue advantage for himself, nor did he influence or induce any public servant to act dishonestly. There is no evidence of mens rea or independent intent, and mere facilitation or execution of instructions cannot constitute an offence under these Sections. Accordingly, the applicant's role is peripheral and the essential ingredients of Sections 7 and 7A PC Act are absent. He would further submit that the applicant's role as reflected from the FIR and letter dated 29.08.2025, is merely that of an employee acting under the instructions of the Suryakant Tiwari, without criminal intent. Hence, the offences alleged under any independent Sections 420, 384, 467, 468, IPC along with offence under Section 7, 7A and 12 of PC Act does not attract. 12. Further contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the allegations under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act are not made out against the applicant, as per the allegation he acted solely in the capacity of an employee of Suryakant Tiwari, merely handing over money on instructions. He did not obtain, accept, or attempt to obtain any undue advantage for himself, nor did he influence or induce any public servant to act dishonestly. There is no evidence of mens rea or independent intent and mere facilitation or execution of instructions cannot constitute an offence under these sections. Accordingly, the applicant's role is peripheral, and the essential ingredients of Sections 7 and 7A PC Act are absent. Accordingly, the applicant's role, as reflected from the FIR and letter dated 29.08.2025, is merely that of an employee acting under the instructions of the Suryakant Tiwari, without criminal intent. Hence, the offences alleged under any independent Sections 420, 384, 467, 468, IPC along with offence under Sections 7, 7A and 12 of PC Act does not attract. Thus, the implication of the applicant appears to be solely on account of his past association as a driver, without any material indicating conscious participation in the alleged offence. Page 8 of 14 13. He would further submit that the applicant has been made an accused in the present case solely on the basis of the statements of co-accused persons. It is submitted that under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, such statements are not admissible in evidence against any other accused and cannot be relied upon for the purpose of prosecution. Therefore, in absence of any independent or corroborative material linking the applicant with the alleged offence, the prosecution case against the applicant is unsustainable in law. To substantiate his submission he would refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., reported in AIR 1952 SC 159. 14. He would further submit that it is well settled provisions of law that the statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of the Cr.P.C. are not admissible in law. 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 in the present case, there is also no evidence showing any physical manifestation of agreement between the applicant and other co-accused for committing the alleged crime for making out a case of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC. It is well settled that there must be cogent evidence to show that the co-accused are acting as per a common agreement or a common design. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. State of M.P., (2022) 16 SCC 166. 15. He would further submit that there is no apprehension of violation of the triple test by the applicant, therefore, the applicant is entitled to get anticipatory 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]. 16. He would further submit that the co-accused persons 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 granted anticipatory 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, therefore, the benefit of anticipatory bail should be extended to the present applicant. In support of his arguments he has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Srikant Upadhyay and others vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2024) 12 SCC 382, Deepankar Vishwas vs. State of Madhya Pradesh through PS Omti, reported in 2025 SCC Online MP 6145, State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 171. Page 10 of 14 17. 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, 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. He would further submit that in view of the above material, the investigation clearly establishes that accused-Narayan Sahu was actively and knowingly involved in the collection, movement and distribution of illegal cash arising out of the coal syndicate's illegal coal levy collections and directly participated in the acquisition, transfer and use of the proceeds of crime. 18. He would further submit that after the allegations were found prima facie proven, the challan was presented before the Hon'ble Court against the accused and co-accused persons. The present applicant has been absconding for about last two years, has not joined the investigation despite repeated opportunities, and a Permanent Arrest Warrant has been issued against him by the Court of the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act and First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.). After the arrest of the applicant, an appropriate supplementary charge-sheet will be presented. 19. He would further submit that in view of the above, it is clear that the present applicant is involved in the aforesaid crime. The investigation in the matter is continuing, as in the present case a huge amount of public money is involved and money laundering has also taken place from the illegal levy on coal transportation by officials of the State Government in connivance and conspiracy with other accused persons. He would further submit that the applicant has not made out any of the ground in which the instant bail anticipatory bail application of the present applicant under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahita, 2023 can be allowed. It is further submitted that there is a strong prima facie case against the present applicant/accused. Looking to the conspiracy and crime committed by the applicant in connivance with the other co-accused, the instant application deserves to be rejected. 20. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection. 21. From perusal of the record of the case and also considering the fact that the arrest warrant has been issued against the applicant and he was absconded from the proceedings. Learned State counsel has submitted that the proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. or Section 84 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for proclamation of person absconding will be initiated shortly as he is absconded and warrant of arrest has been issued by the learned trial Court. The applicant has also not disputed that the warrant of arrest has been issued against the applicant, therefore, the present anticipatory bail application until the warrant of arrest is not cancelled by invoking Section 70(2) of the Cr.P.C. or Section 72 of the Cr.P.C., is liable to be dismissed on this count alone as held Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Srikant Upadhyay & others Vs. State of Bihar and another [(2024) 12 SCC 382] wherein it has been held in paragraphs 25 & 30 as under:- “25. The meaning of the term “absconded” has been dealt by us hereinbefore. We found that its etymological and original sense is that the accused is hiding himself. What is required as proof for absconding is the evidence to the effect that the person concerned was knowing that he was wanted and also about pendency of warrant of arrest. A detailed discussion is not warranted in this case to understand that the appellants were actually absconding. It is not in dispute that they were served with the “summons”. The fact that bailable warrants were issued against them on 12.04.2022 is also not disputed, as the appellants themselves have produced the order whereunder bailable warrants were issued against them. We have already referred to Section 70 (2), Cr. PC which would reveal the position that once a warrant is issued it would remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it or until its execution. There is no case for the appellants that either of such events had occurred in this case to make the warrants unenforceable. They also got no case that their application was interfered with by a higher Court. That apart, it is a fact that the appellants themselves on 23.08.2022, moved a bail-cum- surrender application before the Trial Court but withdrew the same fearing arrest. It is also relevant to note that in the case on hand even while contending that they were before a Court, the appellants got no case that in terms of the provisions under Section 438 (1-B), Cr. PC an order for their presence before the Court was ordered either suo motu by the Court or on an application by the public prosecutor. When that be the circumstance, the appellants cannot be allowed to contend that they were not hiding or concealing themselves from arrest or that they were not knowing that they were wanted in a Court of law. 30. We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. While called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. We shall not be understood to have held that the Court shall not pass an interim protection pending consideration of such application as the Section is destined to safeguard the freedom of an individual against unwarranted arrest and we say that such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases. At any rate, when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power. Certainly, this will not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice. But then, person(s) continuously, defying orders and keep absconding is not entitled to such grant” 22. From perusal of the record, it is quite vivid that 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 that the economic offence is a serious offence and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail. 23. Again Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) & another [(2021) 6 SCC 230] has held that for declining bail application, the Court should consider whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail or reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced. From submission made by the parties, it is quite vivid that prima facie these conditions are available on record. 24. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is entitled to claim parity as other accused persons have been granted bail by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, deserves to be rejected as other accused who remained in the custody for about two years and have been granted bail by Hon’ble the Supreme Court whereas in the present case, the applicant has been absconding for the last two years whereas in the present case, the applicant is absconding for more than two years and warrant of arrest has also been issued against the applicant. Considering the FIR and other material placed on record, it prima facie shows involvement of the applicant in crime in question and issuance of warrant of arrest against him. As such, I am of the view that it is not a fit case where benefit of Section 482 of BSNN should be extended to the applicant. 25. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is liable to be and is hereby rejected. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Raju RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Digitally signed by RAVVA SATYANARAYANA RAJU Date: 2026.02.02 15:23:41 +0530