1 CGHC010284872026 2026:CGHC:32088 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1170 of 2026 K. P. Dewangan S/o Late Khubiram Dewangan Aged About 54 Years R/o H. No.A-5, Sector 1, Ekta Nagar, Gudhiyari Raipur (C.G.) ... Applicant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Economic Offence Wing / Anti-Corruption Bureau Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Applicant : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sakshi Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, G.A. HON'BLE SHRI RAMESH SINHA, CHIEF JUSTICE ORDER ON BOARD 27.07.2026 1. This first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the applicant, who is apprehending his arrest in SAURABH YADAV Digitally signed by SAURABH YADAV Date: 2026.07.28 18:09:34 +0530 2 connection with Crime No. 31/2008 registered at Police Station, District and State – Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur (C.G.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that pursuant to Letter No. 5010 dated 30.10.2008 issued by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, read with the General Administration Department's Memorandum dated 04.10.2008, Preliminary Enquiry No. 09/2008 was registered by the Economic Offences Wing into alleged financial irregularities in the implementation of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) in District Kanker during the financial years 2006-07 and 2007-08. During the enquiry, various procurement records, muster roll documents and other official records were examined, whereupon an interim report allegedly disclosed irregularities in the procurement of printed materials, stationery and other items. It is alleged that the present Applicant, while functioning as the then Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Kanker, in conspiracy with certain private suppliers, procured and printed materials from private firms at rates substantially higher than the prescribed Chhattisgarh Samvad Rates without inviting tenders, thereby causing 3 wrongful loss to the Government and corresponding pecuniary gain to the suppliers. The prosecution further alleges that payment of Rs. 4,53,416/ was made to M/s Jai Gurudev Industries, Kondagaon, towards the purchase of 104 executive chairs, which, upon physical verification, were allegedly not found in the District Panchayat Office, Kanker, giving rise to allegations of payment on the basis of fabricated bills. Overall, it is alleged that against an estimated expenditure of approximately Rs. 6.11 lakhs, payments amounting to Rs. 41,57,133/- lakhs were released, causing an alleged financial loss of approximately Rs. 35,45,427 lakhs to the State exchequer. On the basis of these allegations, the present FIR came to be registered against the Applicant and the proprietors of the concerned supplier firms for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and that the entire prosecution case is founded upon an erroneous appreciation of the official records and administrative decisions taken during the course of 4 implementation of the NREGS Scheme. It is submitted that the applicant, while posted as Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Kanker, had merely discharged his official duties in accordance with the decisions of the Purchase Committee and the directions issued by the competent authorities, including the then Collector, who was the designated District Programme Coordinator and Nodal Officer under the Scheme. Learned counsel contends that the allegation regarding procurement of printed materials and stationery at rates higher than the prescribed rates is wholly misconceived inasmuch as the alleged loss has been calculated on the basis of communications and rate structures issued by Chhattisgarh Samvad after the applicant had already been relieved from the concerned post. It is further submitted that the applicant is already facing trial in connection with FIR bearing Crime No. 58/2010, arising out of substantially similar allegations based on the very same inquiry report and transactions, which is presently pending as Corruption Case No. 1 of 2022 before the Court of the learned I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Uttar Bastar, Kanker, wherein evidence is presently being recorded. Learned counsel submits that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail by the Hon’ble High Court in the said case vide order passed in 5 MCRCA No. 368 of 2022 and has scrupulously complied with all the conditions imposed therein. A copy of the said order has been filed as Annexure A/4. It is further submitted that despite the pendency of the aforesaid criminal trial for several years, the applicant has regularly appeared before the Trial Court and has fully cooperated with the proceedings, thereby demonstrating his bona fides and establishing that there is no likelihood of his absconding or evading the process of law. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation relating to purchase of executive chairs is also demonstrably false inasmuch as the official records obtained under the Right to Information Act, including the communication dated 13.02.2009 and the certified stock register, clearly establish that the chairs were duly received, entered into stock and are available in the District Panchayat, Kanker. Copies thereof have been filed as Annexure A/5. It is further contended that the relevant departmental note sheets obtained under the RTI Act reveal that the procurement process was undertaken pursuant to the approval granted by the competent authorities and not on the sole decision of the applicant. Copies of the said documents have been filed as Annexure A/6. Learned counsel further submits that although the present FIR was registered on 24.12.2008, the 6 investigation remained pending for an extraordinarily long period and no effort was ever made by the investigating agency to arrest the applicant during the entire course of investigation. It is submitted that the applicant was under a bona fide impression that the allegations forming the subject matter of the present FIR stood covered by the proceedings arising out of FIR bearing Crime No. 58/2010. Immediately upon becoming aware that the present investigation was still pending, the applicant approached this Hon’ble Court by filing CRMP No. 1570 of 2026. Copies of the orders passed therein have been filed as Annexure A/7 (Colly.). Learned counsel submits that pursuant to the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court for expeditious completion of the investigation, the applicant was served with a notice dated 14.07.2026 calling upon him to appear before the Investigating Officer. A copy of the said notice has been filed as Annexure A/8. It is submitted that the applicant has always cooperated with the investigating agency and remains willing to extend full cooperation during the course of investigation. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant is no longer in government service. Though departmental proceedings were initiated against him and orders of dismissal were passed from time to time, the applicant has challenged the same 7 before this Hon’ble Court and has remained out of service for several years. Copies of the relevant orders have been filed as Annexure A/9. It is, therefore, contended that the applicant does not hold any official position enabling him to influence witnesses or interfere with the investigation. It is further submitted that the entire case is based upon documentary evidence already in possession of the prosecution, that the applicant has been cooperating with the investigation as well as the pending trial arising out of the earlier FIR, and that custodial interrogation is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, it is prayed that the applicant be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the anticipatory bail application filed by the applicant and submitted that there are two previous criminal antecedents registered against the applicant, namely Crime No. 58 of 2010, which is pending, and Crime No. 51 of 2009, in which the applicant has been acquitted. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the material available on record and the 8 submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and further it is pertinent to note that the applicant is already facing trial in connection with FIR bearing Crime No. 58/2010 arising out of substantially similar allegations based on the same inquiry report and related transactions, wherein evidence is presently being recorded before the competent Court. The applicant was arrested in the said case and was subsequently enlarged on bail by the competent Court, and there is nothing on record to indicate that he has misused the liberty granted to him. On the contrary, the material placed before this Court reflects that the applicant has regularly appeared before the Trial Court and has cooperated with the judicial proceedings. The order granting anticipatory bail to the applicant in the connected matter has been brought on record as Annexure A/4. It is further noteworthy that although the present FIR was registered as far back as on 24.12.2008, no effort was made by the investigating agency to arrest the applicant during the prolonged period of investigation extending over several years, which prima facie indicates that custodial interrogation was not considered necessary. The documents filed by the applicant, including the communication dated 13.02.2009 and the certified stock records annexed as Annexure A/5, as well as the 9 departmental note sheets annexed as Annexure A/6, prima facie lend support to the contention that the transactions in question were undertaken through official channels and pursuant to decisions taken at the departmental level. It is also not in dispute that the applicant is no longer in government service and has remained out of service for several years pursuant to departmental proceedings, and therefore the apprehension of his influencing the investigation or exercising any official authority does not appear to be substantial. The case appears to be predominantly based on documentary evidence already in possession of the prosecution, and the applicant has demonstrated his willingness to cooperate with the investigation pursuant to the notice placed on record as Annexure A/8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the applicant’s conduct, the pendency of the earlier trial arising out of similar allegations, the absence of any attempt to arrest him for a considerable period despite registration of the FIR, and the fact that he no longer holds any official position, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7. Accordingly, the instant MCRCA is allowed and it is directed 10 that in the event of arrest of the applicant – K.P. Dewangan, on executing a personal bond and one local surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer, he shall be released on bail on the following conditions:- (a) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such fact to the Court. (b) he shall not act in any manner which will be prejudicial to fair and expeditious trial. (c) he shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date given to him by the said Court till disposal of the trial. (d) the applicant and the surety shall submit a copy of his adhaar card along with a coloured postcard full size photo having printed the adhaar number on it, which shall be verified by the trial Court. (e) he shall not involve himself in any offence of similar nature in future. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Saurabh