1 CGHC010127742026 2026:CGHC:32013 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved on : 21-7-2026 Pronounced on : 27-7-2026 MCRC No. 3915 of 2026 • Rakesh Jain @ R.K. Jain S/o Late Shri Bhabhutmal Jain Aged About 55 Years R/o B-202, Om Complex, Fafadih, Raipur Chhattisgarh Permanent Address 23/25, Kolbhat Lane, 3rd Floor, Room No. 29, Mumbai 400002 ... Applicant(s) versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through A.C.B. And E.O.W., Chhattisgarh Police Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Applicant. : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General, Mr. Anant Bajpai and Mr. Suresh Tandon, Panel Lawyers. 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 11-12-2025 in connection with Crime No. 03/2024 registered at Police Station- Anti Corruption Bureau/ Economic Offence Wing Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District- 2 Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 420, 120-B, 467, 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 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 persons. 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, managed to make deliberate policy changes and managed to influence the then Director of Geology & Mining for issuance of 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. It is further case of the prosecution that during investigation by the Enforcement Directorate, information received regarding collection of illegal levy of approximately Rs. 540/- crores by these syndicate between July, 2020 to June 2022. 3 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 384.420, 120- B, 467, 468, 471 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 along with other co-accused. 4. From the case diary and the material so collected by the ACB/EOW, the role of present applicant is that during investigation, it was found the present applicant, namely Rakesh Kumar Jain, played an active and significant role in the management, circulation and routing of the illicit funds generated through the illegal collection of coal levy by the syndicate. Further, the specific role attributed to the present applicant, Rakesh Kumar Jain, is that he floated and operated several shell companies and firms, through which fictitious investments were shown. Thereafter, substantial financial transactions were undertaken through such entities with the sole object of giving a colour of legitimacy to the illicit funds and facilitating their withdrawal in cash. The cash so withdrawn at the behest of the present applicant was thereafter routed through co- accused Shri Suryakant Tiwari to the kingpin of the coal levy scam. During the course of investigation, it has emerged that an amount of approximately Rs. 44,52,00,000/- was circulated through the aforesaid modus operandi. The said amount was routed through fictitious transactions carried out by means of shell companies and 4 was subsequently handed over to co-accused Shri Suryakant Tiwari. The present applicant was also actively involved in creating and projecting false and fictitious payments under various expenditure heads, aggregating to Rs. 44,52,00,000/-, with the sole purpose of giving a semblance of legitimacy to the illicit funds. The diary also provides details of the various fictitious expenses alleged to have been done. 5. It is further alleged that the ill-gotten money generated through the illegal collection of coal levy was disguised by showing fictitious expenses under various heads and was routed through shell companies by way of sham transactions. Thereafter, the said amounts were withdrawn and converted into cash. The investigation has further revealed clinching electronic evidence, including Whats App communications exchanged between the present applicant and other members of the syndicate, which corroborates and substantiates the prosecution case regarding the applicant's active involvement in the circulation and management of the illicit funds. 6. During the course of investigation, it has emerged that the applicant dishonestly obtained photographs, Aadhaar Cards and other identity documents from several persons employed in private establishments by taking them into confidence. Thereafter, without their knowledge or consent, he opened bank accounts in the names of fictitious firms by using their identity documents. The investigation has collected cogent and convincing evidence demonstrating that the applicant actively utilized such shell entities and bank accounts for the illegal routing, management and circulation of the funds generated by the 5 syndicate. 7. It is further alleged that the present applicant is also involved in other criminal cases of a similar nature, wherein he played a significant and decisive role in the management and circulation of illicit funds. The details of such cases are as follows: (i) Registered at Police Station, City Kotwali, Raipur against Crime No. 346/23. (ii) Registered at Police Station, Moudhapara, Raipur, against Crime No. 325/22. 8. 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 FIR is wholly devoid of any allegation against the Applicant as no role, overt-act, or involvement of the Applicant is disclosed in the said FIR in respect of the offences alleged therein. The applicant has not collected any illicit funds nor he has invested illegal money in any shell companies as alleged. He would further submit that the main accused and key beneficiaries in the present Crime No. 03/2024, including Suryakant Tiwari, Sameer Vishnoi, Shivshankar Nag, Ranu Sahu, Saumya Chaurasia, and Deepesh Taunk, have already been granted regular bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Vide a comprehensive final order dated 28.01.2026, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted regular bail to these co-accused, explicitly noting that the trial will take considerable time to conclude due to the hundreds of witnesses cited and voluminous documents involved and would pray for grant of parity with other co- accused. 6 9. 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 is collected by the prosecution. He would further submit that the applicant has not made any attempt to suborn witnesses, tamper with the evidence, or in any manner pollute or obstruct the judicial process. Further, the applicant undertakes that he shall not tamper with the evidence or/and influence witnesses, nor there is any reasonable or justifiable apprehension thereof. He would further submit that the entire evidence relied upon the non- applicant is documentary in nature which already stands seized and placed on record. There are no ocular witnesses requiring confrontation with the applicant while in custody, thereby negating the need for further custodial interrogation. 10. 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 11-12-2025 and trial of the case will take sufficient time to be concluded, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the present applicant. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General for the ACB/EOW opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, referring to the FIR and the case diary 7 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 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 the investigation in the matter is still continuing and several material witnesses connected with the collection, handling and delivery of illegal cash are yet to be fully examined. If the present applicant is enlarged on bail at this stage, there is every likelihood that he may influence or intimidate witnesses, tamper with evidence and adversely affect the course of further investigation, particularly when he was closely associated with the principal accused and was entrusted with collection and delivery of proceeds of crime, as such his custody is required. 12. He would further submit that the material collected during the course of investigation reveals that the applicant knowingly created and operated shell entities, arranged fictitious financial transactions and adopted various deceptive methods with the object of projecting the illegally collected funds as genuine and legitimate business 8 transactions, thereby facilitating the concealment and legalization of the proceeds of crime. The investigation further discloses that the applicant remained absconding for a considerable period and deliberately evaded the process of law, thereby impeding the progress of the investigation. In view of his conduct, his influential role in the conspiracy and his close association with the other co- accused, there exists a reasonable apprehension that, if released on bail, he may tamper with the prosecution evidence, influence or intimidate witnesses, and interfere with the fair course of investigation and trial. He would further submit that the applicant has not made out any ground on which the present bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 can be allowed. There is a strong prima facie case against the present applicant/accused and, therefore, looking to the evidence collected by the prosecution, the conspiracy and crime committed by the applicant in connivance with the other co-accused, the instant bail application deserves to be rejected. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary with utmost circumspection. 14. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the trial will take longer time for disposal, therefore, the case of the applicant may be considered for grant of bail, is being considered by this Court. It is well settled position of law that grant of bail on account of delay trial is always not considered but it has to be considered as per the facts and circumstances of each case as well as the role played by the accused. As per the prosecution case, the applicant 9 was managing the financial affairs of main accused Suryakant Tiwari, as such he would be the best person to give information regarding source of funds or to illicit the true facts, where the alleged earning from coal scheme has been invested or how the shell company has been established and the above huge amount has been released to various persons, as such his custodial interrogation is necessary. Even from the order sheet of the trial Court produced by the prosecution, it is quite vivid that the number of accused is 35 and they are trying to install the trial on any pretext, therefore, it can be said that the trial is delayed due to reasons attributed by the accused persons, as such the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that on account of delay his prayer for grant of bail should be considered deserves to be rejected, accordingly, it is rejected. 15. The further submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was arrested illegally as there is no direct evidence against the applicant, is being considered by this Court. 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, 467 471 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 while considering the bail. 10 16. 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. 17. 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 have been granted bail by Hon’ble the Supreme Court whereas the applicant has been surrendered on 11-12-2005. Considering the FIR and other material placed on record and gravity of charges leveled against him, iprima 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. 18. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 19. 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 11 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: 2026.07.27 16:44:48 +0530