2026:CGHC:23243 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2865 of 2026 Order Reserved on 06.05.2026 Order delivered on 15.05.2026 Satpal Singh Chabra, s/o. Dharampal Singh, House No. 54, Lavista Amlidih, District Raipur, CG. ... Applicant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S. EOW/ACB, District Raipur Chhattisgar ... Respondent/State For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shashank Mishra, Mr. Ankush Borkar and Mr. Hardik Jaiswal, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General along with Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. 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 short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 18.02.2026 in connection with Crime No. 02 of 2024 dated 16.01.2024 registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 420,120(B) of the IPC and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW/ACB, had received Letter No. ECIR/RPZO/02/2023/802 from the Enforcement Directorate, whereby information under Section 66 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, along with details of ECIR/RPZO/02/2023 dated 11/01/2024, was shared with regard to corruption in the use of funds from the District Mineral Fund in District Korba, Chhattisgarh. Further case of the prosecution is that DMF is a trust funded by miners and has been set up in all districts of Chhattisgarh with the object of working for the benefit of persons affected by mining- related projects and activities. Investigation by the Enforcement Directorate revealed that up to 40% of the total tender amount was being paid as commission to officers and officials. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is suspected that financial irregularities and corruption have occurred in DMF-related works in various districts of Chhattisgarh and public money has been siphoned off. In order to investigate the same, FIR bearing Crime No. 02/2024 was registered under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against the accused persons by Police Station ACB/EOW, Raipur (C.G.). Role of the present applicant 3. As per prosecution case, the applicant Satpal Singh Chabra emerges as a key intermediary and commission agent in the alleged irregularities relating to procurement and supply under agriculture- related schemes linked with the District Mineral Foundation (DMF) framework. During investigation, Satpal Singh Chabra admitted that since 2019 he actively involved in facilitating supply works in the Agriculture Department. He was approached by Mandeep Chawla alias Mandy, who proposed securing departmental work through the influence of Anil Tuteja. Further, the applicant is alleged to have acted as an agent connecting Rate Contract (RC) vendors with departments such as Agriculture and Horticulture. He facilitated supply orders in exchange for commission. A structured commission model was followed namely 30% to 35% commission collected from vendors, 10% forwarded upward; and the remaining 20% to 25% shared between Satpal Singh Chabra and Mandeep Chawla. Although Rate Contract (RC) was awarded through tender process, actual work allocation was allegedly influenced through agents. Vendors were compelled to pay commissions for obtaining work. 4. The material collected during investigation including the memorandum statement of the present applicant, prima facie reveals the manner in which the otherwise formal Rate Contract (RC) procurement system of Beej Nigam was misused through agents and middlemen. The applicant disclosed that procurement relating to Agriculture Department, Horticulture Department and other agriculture-related purchases was carried out through Beej Nigam under the RC mechanism, wherein vendors were selected through tender, technical and financial scrutiny, declaration of L-1 and extension of L-1 rates to other eligible vendors. However, he further admitted that after grant of RC, such RC-holding vendors used to obtain departmental work through agents in consideration of commission. He specifically stated that since the year 2019 he himself was functioning as such an agent, contacting RC vendors, collecting commission from them and facilitating supply/work in the concerned departments. This material, prima facie, shows misuse of a formal procurement process through middlemen for illegal gain. 5. The applicant has further disclosed that the decision as to which agents would operate in Beej Nigam work was primarily controlled from "CM House" and that the total work was distributed amongst different persons on fixed percentage basis, namely Guddu Mukesh - 20%, Vijay Bhatia 20%, Ramgopal Agrawal - 20%, Mandeep Chawla 10%, Jignesh Patel 10%, Kishore Chandrakar 10%, Manish Singh 5% and others 5%. He further disclosed that the work allotted to him came from the quota linked to Anil Tuteja. This clearly shows that the applicant was not a mere outsider, but an active participant in an organized and systematic network for manipulating public procurement in lieu of illegal gratification. The applicant facilitated work for multiple individuals including Ashok Mishra, Devendra Jain, Pawan Poddar, Sushil Kumar Singh and Jaspal Hora and is alleged to have received approximately Rs. 5 Crore as commission through cash and bank transfers. The memorandum statement of the applicant further, prima facie, establishes the collection, receipt and concealment of huge commission. He specifically stated that cash collection amounts of illegal were brought through his employee Govind and that, for routing and concealing the amounts received, he used the bank accounts of his family members, associates and connected entities including Raunak Bajaj, Simal Bajaj, Usha Gidhwani, Motil Devi Organic Food Industries, Om Kiran Ispat Udyog, Satpal Singh & Sons, Navinder Kaur Chhabra, Anil Ahuja, Kiran Bai, and Satpal Singh Chhabra and Satpal Singh HUF. 6. He further disclosed the specific break-up of commission received from certain beneficiaries, namely Rs. 20,00,000/- in cash and Rs. 25,00,000/- by bank transfer from Ashok Kumar Mishra; Rs. 20,04,783/- in cash and Rs. 1,13,25,832/ by bank transfer from Devendra Jain; Rs. 8,06,757/ by bank transfer from Jaspal Singh Hora; Rs. 34,40,000/- by bank transfer from Pawan Kumar Poddar; and Rs. 1,49,30,965/- by bank transfer from Sushil Kumar Singh. Thus, from these transactions alone, the applicant disclosed receipt of Rs. 40,04,783/- in cash and Rs. 3,30,03,554/- through bank transfer, apart from further amounts received from other persons/firms whose names he stated that presently he was unable to recall. The applicant further disclosed that commission amounts were systematically routed authorities, including the Agriculture Minister and to higher "House", and that under this approximately Rs. 14 Crore in cash was collected from various firms and sent onward through Mandeep Chawla. He also disclosed that he is a partner with Mandeep Chawla in Sand Agritech Firm and that two amounts of Rs. 50 lakh each, totaling Rs. 1 Crore, were taken out from the commission collections in the name of being paid to Anil Tuteja. These facts, prima facie, show the applicant's direct involvement in collection, handling and onward transmission of proceeds of corruption. Thus, on the basis of the complaint, FIR has been registered against the applicant for commission of offence under Sections 420,120(B), 467, 468, 471 of the IPC, 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 7. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Shashank Mishra, Mr. Ankush Borkar and Mr. Hardik Jaiswal 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 arrest of the Applicant itself was completely illegal as the ACB had utterly failed to satisfy and meet the threshold Article 22 of the Constitution of India as he has been arrested on bogus and flimsy grounds by the Prosecuting Agency. He would further submit that the prosecution has not collected any material to demonstrate the huge collection of fund by the applicant and even the prosecution is unable to place any material on record to demonstrate the alleged collection of bribe in the name of Anil Tuteja. Even the prosecution is unable to point out need or necessity of arrest in the ground of arrest, as such the arrest of the applicant as well as continuation of his incarceration are illegal and would pray for releasing him on bail. 8. He would further submit that the learned Special Judge failed to appreciate that the Applicant is not guilty of any of the offences alleged against him. The Applicant clearly denies his involvement in any manner whatsoever in this case. The Applicant stoutly denies that he is a member of any syndicate or that he collected any amount from Ranu Sahu in lieu of awarding tenders or that he has used the money from such fixed amount for purchase of any movable or immovable property in his or his relatives name. He would further submit that since the Applicant is not named as an accused in the Subject FIR, the Applicant does not know the allegations against him, except for what has been stated in the grounds of arrest. There is no reference to any documentary evidence or the statement of any witness who has testified regarding the complicity of the applicant in the alleged crime. There is absolutely no specific material, let alone any incriminating material against the Applicant mentioned or referred in the grounds of arrest. Thus, the entire case against the applicant is vague allegations and bald averments. 9. He would further submit that the applicant has never received any alleged illegal commission in his bank accounts or in the bank accounts of any of his family members. The allegations levelled in this regard are extremely vague and unsupported by any material particulars. The allegations fail to disclose essential details such as the identity of the person who allegedly paid the illegal commission, the purpose for which such commission was purportedly paid, the bank account in which the alleged amount was credited, or any particulars indicating receipt of the same in cash, such as the identity of the person who allegedly delivered the cash, the person who received it and the place where such alleged transaction took place. In the absence of such basic and material particulars, the allegations remain wholly speculative and cannot be relied upon to justify the prosecution's case against the Applicant. Any transaction of the applicant if held is between two private parties and not with any public servant as bribe, so it cannot be said that the applicant is involved himself in any corruption activity. 10. He would further submit that the applicant has not provided any undue advantage to any public servant to obtain any favours for procuring tender. As such, any act or omission of the applicant has not caused any loss to the Government. Admittedly, the applicant has supplied agricultural inputs /implements under DMF. Notably, all the supplies made by the applicant were made strictly as per procedure laid down by the Government and at the rate decided by the Government. In this process, there is absolutely no possibility of any irregularity and any loss to the Government. He would further submit that in terms of the settled practice in the DMF, District Collectors are empowered to procure agricultural inputs in accordance with the procedure laid down by the Government and at the rates determined by the Government. He would further submit that no offence u/s 420 of the IPC is made out against the applicant as the applicant has neither cheated any person nor dishonestly induced the person deceived to deliver any property to any person. The applicant has not caused either wrongful gain to himself or wrongful loss to any other person, and as such the fundamental ingredient of committing an act "dishonestly", as defined u/s 24 IPC is not made out. Further, notably, no false representation or misrepresentation or for that matter, any representation has been made by the applicant. No person has filed any complaint against the applicant alleging that he/she was cheated by the applicant. Since the substantive offence u/s 420 IPC is not made out in the instant case, there can be no doubt regarding the fact that no offence for committing criminal conspiracy u/s 120-B IPC can be made out. 11. He would further submit that no offence under Section 7 read with Section 12 PC Act, 1988 is made out against the applicant as the applicant is not a public servant as such the prosecution of the applicant under the PC Act is illegal and he is entitled to be released on bail. Further, there is no material to show that the applicant assisted any public servant in obtaining any undue advantage. He would further submit that there are large number of witnesses and voluminous documents have to be examined by the prosecution which will take considerable long time to conclude. He would further submit that the applicant satisfies the triple-test for grant of bail, i.e. the applicant is a flight risk or would influence any witness or would tamper with any evidence. In any event, there is no material on record to suggest that the applicant does not satisfy the triple-test. He would further submit that the co-accused persons namely Ranu Sahu, Suryakant Tiwari, 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 also 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 18-2-2026 and trial of the case will take sufficient time to be concluded, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the present applicant. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha v. State NCT of Delhi 2024 SCC OnLine SC 934, Manish Sisodia vs. CBI & ED, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1393; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2022) 10 SCC 51; Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh v. State of Punjab (2005) 7 SCC 387 and Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 291, Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (1978) 1 SCC 240; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 169 and P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2020) 13 SCC. 12. Per contra, Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State opposing the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the applicant and referring to the case diary would submit that the applicant is involved in the economical offence which is not only heinous offence but also against the economic of the Nation. He would further submit that the applicant has played a pivotal role as a central coordinator and influencer, misusing his connection with the senior bureaucrats of the Government who are in a position to manipulate allocation and execution of work under the DMF fund. 13. Learned State counsel would further submit that looking to the gravity of the offence, the nature of evidence collected and there exists a strong likelihood that the applicant may tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, and obstruct the course of investigation if released on bail. The prosecution has a strong, prima-facie, case against the applicant based on documentary and electronic evidence as well as witnesses’ statements. He would further submit that economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and huge loss to public funds stand on a different footing and are required to be viewed seriously, as such at this crucial stage custodial interrogation of the applicant is required to elicit the truth regarding the allegation made against him as per his statement before the Police on 18.02.2025 wherein he has stated that he has received commission from the firms namely Akash Laboratory, Alwen, Vina Agro, Ojas, S.S. Steel, Gautam Plastic, Markfits, Indo Us, Neptune, Sona Genetics, Suraj Agro, Gujrat Life Science, Mata Di Electricals and Surjit Engineering to the extent of 25- 30% which has been deposited in his bank account and in the account of family members out of which fixed money is given to syndicate head applicant Anil Tuteja, who has recently retired from the service as an IAS Officers. Thus, he would pray for rejection of the bail application of the applicant. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection. 15. From perusal of the case diary as well as the FIR and the statement of Jaspal Singh Hora who has stated that he has given Rs. 8 lac through bank to the present applicant for granting contracts in the Beej Corporation. The other contractors/ suppliers namely Sushil Kumar Singh has also stated before the Police that for obtaining work/contract from Beej Corporation under the District Mineral Fuds (DMF) heads, he has given Rs. 1,000,5469/- to cash to the applicant and through bank account Rs. 1,53,53,164/- towards commission. The other witnesses namely Jagdish Bhai has also stated before the Police that he has given Rs. 90 lacs as commission to the applicant. The other persons namely Sunil Marda, Rakesh Sanga, Praveen Patel, Aditya Agrawal, Santosh Rai, Tarachand Nayak, have stated about payment of huge amount as commission to the applicant. Thus, prima facie, involvement of the applicant in commission of offence under Sections 420,120(B) of the IPC, 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, cannot be ruled out. 16. Prima-facie, further considering that public funds have been misused by the private enterprises due to systematic abuse of connection of the applicant with the senior bureaucrat Anil Tuteja causing grave prejudice to public interest where investigation is still in progress, therefore, custody of the applicant is required, as such the bail application of the applicant deserves to be rejected. 17. Further submission of the applicant that other co-accused have already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the present applicant may be granted bail on the parity basis is being considered by this Court. The record of the case would show that the other accused Deepesh Taunk remained incarceration for 8 months to more than year, similarly Ranu Sahu and Saumya Chaurasia who have remained in jail more than 2 years whereas the applicant remained in jail since 18.02.2026 i.e. only two and half months, therefore, the applicant cannot claim parity with these accused persons, as such submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the basis of parity deserves to be rejected and it is rejected. 18. 18. Further submission of the applicant is that the trial may take longer time as number of witnesses have to be examined by the prosecution and voluminous documents have been filed along with the charge sheet, as such he may be released on bail, is examined by this Court 19. From the record, it is quite vivid that delay of trial always does not give any right to the accused to be released on bail. The Court has to look into the gravity of the offence, role played by the applicant and position of the applicant to influence the witnesses. Further considering the fact that the applicant has strong nexus with the senior bureaucrats of the State, as such there is likelihood that the applicant may tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, and obstruct the course of investigation if he is released on bail by this Court. 20. Considering the fact that economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to the community without considering adverse effect that the economic offenders ruin the economy of the State, as such, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that an economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community which forfeiting the trust and faith of the community and damage caused to the nation’s economy and nation’s interest, as such it should be need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, I am, of the view that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nayay Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 21. 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: 2026.05.15 17:15:52 +0530