2026:CGHC:22534-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPCR No. 265 of 2026 Amit Mittal S/o Late Rajendra Kumar Mittal, Aged About 58 Years R/o Flat No. Tg-2 B/4, Garden Estate, Gurgaon, Near Guru Dronacharya Metro Station Gurgaon,- Haryana -122002. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Director General Of Police, Officer Of Director General Of Police Raipur District Raipur C.G. 2 - Superintendent Of Police Acb/eow Raipur Police Station -Acb/eow Raipur District Raipur C.G. 3 - Deputy Superintendent Of Police Acb/eow Raipur Police Station Acb/eow Raipur District Raipur C.G. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Petitioner : Shri Amrito Das, Sr Advocate with Shri Himanshu Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/State : Dr Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Dy AG --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per R amesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.05.2026 Heard Amrito Das, learned Senior Advocate along with shri Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned Dy AG for the State. 1. Petitioner has filed the present petition with the following prayers:- “A) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, and declare the detention of the present petitioner in connection with the Crime No.44 of 2024 registered at PS ACB/EOW under Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.05.19 18:34:03 +0530 Wpcr 265 of 2026 2 Section 120B of the IPC and Section 7 B of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as illegal and without authority of law and further, and in view of the judgment dated 01.04.2026 passed in Dr Rajinder Rajan Vs Union of India, SLP(Crl) No. 3326/2026 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the petitioner Amit Mittal is entitled for release from the illegal detention forthwith; and B) That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 04.05.2026 (Annexure P/8) passed by Special Judge (PC Act), District and Session Court, Raipur. C) That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass such other and further orders, as it deems fit and proper in the facts of the case, and in the interest of justice.” 2. By way of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the unlawful action of the respondent authorities who have unlawfully and illegally detained the petitioner- Amit Mittal since 04.05.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in connection with FIR No.44 of 2024, in which petitioner’s name was not there, he was issued notice dated 05.01.2026 directing him to produce certain documents as mentioned in the said notice in compliance of which present petitioner had furnished all the relevant documents as sought by respondent-3 on the very next ie 06.01.2026 itself. Thereafter, again on 23.01.2026 notice was issued for production of certain other documents and the same was also complied with by the petitioner. Personal presence of the petitioner was also sought for and he remained present on the dates as directed. When the petitioner attended the summons for 04.05.2026, he was illegally detained by the respondent authorities by way of duplicity on 04.05.2026 without providing any grounds for arrest as mandated under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023. Wpcr 265 of 2026 3 4. Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that though the petitioner’s name was not initially mentioned in the FIR No.44 of 2024, during the course of investigation his complicity surfaced on the basis of material collected by the investigating agency. It is submitted that notices dated 05.01.2026 and 23.01.2026 were duly issued to the petitioner for production of relevant documents and for his appearance before the Investigating Officer, which he complied with. However, upon examination of the documents so furnished and other material collected during investigation, sufficient incriminating evidence was found against the petitioner warranting his custodial interrogation and arrest. Learned State counsel would further submit that the petitioner was not illegally detained as alleged, rather he was arrested strictly in accordance with law after due compliance of the provisions contained in the BNSS, 2023. Grounds of arrest were duly communicated to him and all mandatory procedural safeguards were adhered to. It is further contended that the investigation is at a crucial stage and the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is necessary for effective investigation of the offence. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is alleged that the petitioner, Mr. Amit Mittal, in connection with the affairs of A-2-Z Infra services Limited, a company engaged in supplying manpower to the liquor shops of Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL), during the period from 2019 to 2023, received payments from CSMCL towards overtime work performed by employees beyond 8 hours per day. It is further alleged that, instead of disbursing the said Wpcr 265 of 2026 4 overtime amounts to the concerned employees, the funds were utilized for the benefit of the company and for extending illegal gratification to certain officials of CSMCL. It is also alleged that, under the terms and conditions of the tender, the company was required to first make payment to its employees and thereafter seek reimbursement from CSMCL. However, the company allegedly claimed reimbursement of overtime/incentive amounts by falsely representing that such payments had already been made to the employees. The aforesaid acts are alleged to constitute offences punishable under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 and the Indian Penal Code. 7. It transpires from the material available in the petition that there is allegation against the petitioner, in which investigation is going on and the petitioner has challenged the remand order. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not informed the ground of his arrest is not sustainable. 8. It is necessary to notice here the relevant part of the order sheet of the learned trial Court dated 04.05.2026 (Annexure-P8), which reads as under: " उक्त आवेदन के संबंध ेሰ उभय प्ቌ के संन जाकेर, के सं डायर के अवेलोकेन किकेय गय। रज्य आቕኌ"#के अपरध अन्वेषण एवे एटी) केरप्शन ब्य-र रयपर ेሰ अपरध ्ቅेሰके 44/24 के अतग/त अभिभयक्तगण के दिदनके 04/05/2026 के किगरफ्तर किकेय गय है4 और अभिभयक्तगण के किगरफ्तर के आधर6 सं अवेगत केरय जान दቕኌश#त है4, जिजासंसं ्ቢ्ቖ है4 किके अभिभयक्तगण के 24 घंटी के अदर न्ययलोय के संेሰ्ቌ ्ቚस्तत किकेय गय है4। ्ቚकेरण ेሰ उक्त अभिभयक्तगण सं किवेस्त=त प-छतछ केर केेሰशन खोर सं जा़ቨ अन्य अधिधकेरिरय6 एवे ्ቤሹኌक्तय6 के संबंध ेሰ किवेस्तर सं प-छतछ केर ्ቚकेरण सं संबंधिधत केई ेሰहैत्वेप-ण/ दस्तवेजा6, इलोक्቏ኋकिनके दस्तवेजा एवे अन्य संቌኚय6 Wpcr 265 of 2026 5 केJ जाप्त किकेय जान केJ आवेश्यकेत के आधर पर उक्त अभिभयक्तगण केJ पलिलोसं रिरेሰडा केJ ेሰग केJ गय है4। ्ቚ"ेሰ सं-चन प्ቔ एवे के सं डायर ेሰ उपलो्ቓ संेሰቇኍ के आधर पर अभिभयक्तगण केJ आरकिपत अपरध ेሰ ्ቚ"ेሰ दृ्ቖय संलिलोप्तत दश/य जाकेर, अभिभयक्तगण के किगरफ्तर के आधर बंतलोय जाकेर, उन्है किगरफ्तर किकेय जान भ दቕኌश#त हैकेर ्ቚकेरण ेሰ 24 घंटी के अदर अन्वेषण प-ण/ किकेय जान संभवे ्ቚतत नहैR हैत है4" 9. It clearly transpires from the above order sheet that Police remand is claimed by the Investigating Agency for the reason that the various important documents and electronic documents are required to be seized from the accused person with respect to subject offence, and from the material available in the case diary, it further transpires that the ground of arrest was duly informed to the accused petitioner and only thereafter, he was arrested and investigation is going on. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not been informed about the ground of his arrest. 10. Petitioner is in jail. He is at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law, if so advised. 11. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma