1 2026:CGHC:22874 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2926 of 2026 Devendra Dadsena S/o Late Mr. D.P. Dadsena Aged About 55 Years R/o A-17, Basant Corner, Ward No. 28, Avanti Vihar, Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail Raipur (Cg)) .. Applicant versus The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Economic Offences With (EOW)/ Anti Corruption Bureau(ACB), Headquarter, Opposite Jai Jawan Petrol Pump Telibandha, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001 Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Advocate through VC with Ms. Manubha Shankar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. AG Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 14/05/2026 1. The present application arises out of FIR No. 04 of 2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau, Chhattisgarh, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution case emanates from a RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2026.05.15 15:42:35 +0530 2 communication received from the Directorate of Enforcement alleging the existence of a purported syndicate engaged in irregularities relating to manufacture and sale of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh during the period 2019-2023. 2. The prosecution case, as reflected in the FIR, alleges that certain persons were involved in generating illegal proceeds through manipulation of liquor supply mechanisms and that such proceeds were allegedly distributed among various members of the syndicate. However, the FIR itself does not contain any allegation against the Applicant, nor does it disclose any overt act attributable to him. The entire case rests on documentary evidence already seized by the Investigating Agency. There are no ocular witnesses and no recoveries are contemplated from the Applicant. 3. The prosecution further alleges the Applicant's complicity in the offences registered vide FIR No. 04/2024 imputing his role in a broader conspiracy evidenced primarily through documentary records compiled over a long investigation. Despite his non-inclusion in the initial FIR or primary charge- sheet dated (followed by nine supplementary charge sheets), subsequent materials unearthed during probe sufficiently connected him to the crime, warranting his arraignment as an accused. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. In fact, he has no connection with the crime. According to the learned counsel, the present applicant has not named in any charge-sheet except the eighth supplementary charge-sheet. He would submit that in the case at hand, there 3 were total 55 accused persons and out of them 25 have been arrested and thereafter, 23 accused persons have been released on regular bail. As on date, only one accused person is absconding and the remaining 29 accused persons, who were the excise officers, were charge-sheeted without arrest. Learned counsel would submit that in the case in hand there were 1251 witnesses and there is a volume-ness of the documents in relating to the crime in question. Learned counsel would submit that the main accused persons namely Anwar Dhebar, Anil Tuteja, Chaitnya Baghel, Soumya Chaursia etc., were already released on bail by the Supreme Court as also this Court. He would submit that the applicant is in detention since 09/01/2026 and has completed more than 4 months pre-trial incarceration. He would submit that no recovery of any incriminating material has been made from the applicant. Thus, the applicant may be released on regular bail. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the aforesaid submission. He would submit that sufficient material has been collected showing the involvement of the applicant in receiving and handling the scam money connected with the coal scam, liquor scam and paddy/custom milling scam. He would submit that the applicant was actually involved in channelizing the ill-gotten money collected through various scams, particularly the liquor scam i.e. the present crime. He would submit that the applicant was working as an Accountant and was also closely associated with Ram Gopal Agrawal, Treasurer of the Congress Party and absconding co-accused. The applicant was acting as a regular receiver, custodian and distributor of whopping cash amount brought to Rajeev Bhawan in bags/cottons. Thus, the applicant is not entitle for bail. However, he has not disputed the fact that 23 4 co-accused persons have already been released on bail by the Supreme Court as well as this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Upon perusal of the material placed before this Court, this Court finds that the Applicant was not named in the FIR and has been implicated subsequently in the eighth supplementary charge-sheet. The prosecution case against the Applicant appears to be founded predominantly upon documentary evidence, which is already in possession of the investigating agency. No recovery is stated to be pending from the Applicant and no specific overt act has been attributed to him in the FIR. 8. This Court further takes note of the fact that out of 55 accused persons implicated in the present case, 23 co-accused persons, including those stated to be principal accused, have already been enlarged on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court. The principle of parity, therefore, also operates in favour of the Applicant. This Court also takes note of the fact that the Applicant is in custody since 09.01.2026 and the trial, involving a large number of witnesses and voluminous documentary records, is likely to consume considerable time. Thus, this Court is inclined to release the applicant on regular bail. 9. Let applicant, Devendra Dadsena involved in FIR No. 04 of 2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau, Chhattisgarh, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) along with 5 two local sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, subject to the following stringent conditions so as to ensure the fair, smooth and expeditious conduct of the trial: (a) he shall surrender his passport, if any, before the Trial Court; (b) The applicant must cooperate with the investigation and the trial proceedings; (c) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case; (d) he shall commit no offence whatsoever during the period he is on bail; (e) in case of change of residential address and/or mobile number, the same shall be intimated to the Court concerned by way of an affidavit; and (f) any stringent conditions as may be imposed by the trial court. Any violation of the above conditions will entitle the prosecution to move application for cancellation of bail which shall be considered promptly and on merits. 10. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are confined strictly to the adjudication of the present bail application. Nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The learned Trial Court shall proceed with the matter independently and uninfluenced by any of the observations contained in this order. 11. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Rahul/Gowri