1 CGHC010227622026 2026:CGHC:32786 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5347 of 2026 Order Reserved on 24.07.2026 Order Delivered on 30.7.2026 • Abhishekh Kumar Singh, Son of Shri Mohan Ji Singh, aged about 36 Years, Resident of 119, Parikhara, Tikhampur, Ballia City, Ballia, Uttar Pradesh. --- Applicant versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Economic Offence Wing/ Anti Corruption Bureau, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) MCRC No. 5372 of 2026 • Tijau Ram Nirmalkar, Son of Shri Dukhit Ram Nirmalkar, aged about 37 Years, Resident of 21/979, New Ganj Mandi Road Near Nalghar, Shashtri Nagar, Fokat Para, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Applicant VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Versus • State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Economic Offence Wing / Anti- Corruption Bureau, District - Raipur (C.G.) ...Non-applicant (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate appears along with Mr. Yashraj Verma , Advocate For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General along with Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) C.A.V. Order 1. Since both these applications arise out of the same crime number, involve identical questions of fact and law and the allegations against both the applicants arise out of the same transaction, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. These are first applications under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail in connection with FIR/Crime No.44/2024 registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing/Anti- 3 Corruption Bureau, Raipur (C.G.) for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7(b) and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on the basis of information received from the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau registered the present crime alleging a large-scale conspiracy relating to the award and execution of manpower supply contracts by the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL). During investigation, it was found that manpower supply companies, namely Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited, Alert Commandos Private Limited and other agencies, in conspiracy with certain officials of CSMCL, allegedly prepared inflated and forged bills and, after receiving payments from CSMCL, paid a fixed percentage of the amount as illegal gratification to the concerned public servants. 4. According to the prosecution, on 29.11.2023, a cheque of Rs.29,40,000/- was received from the Delhi office of Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited. After withdrawal of the said amount from ICICI Bank, Shankar Nagar Branch, Raipur, a sum of 4 Rs.60,000/- was retained towards office expenses and the remaining amount of Rs.28,80,000/- was allegedly being carried by the present applicants for being delivered to the concerned persons as illegal gratification. Before the amount could be delivered, the applicants were intercepted and the said cash amount was seized. Applicant- Abhishek Kumar Singh was working as a Field Officer of Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited, whereas applicant- Tijau Ram Nirmalkar was working as Accountant and Branch Coordinator of the said company. According to the prosecution, applicant- Abhishek Kumar Singh actively participated in transportation of the cash amount, whereas applicant- Tijau Ram Nirmalkar was involved in preparation of bills, ERP entries, calculation of commission and coordination of the financial affairs of the company. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that both the applicants are merely salaried employees of Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited and had no role in the policy decisions, financial management or decision-making process of the company. According to the learned counsel, they were only discharging their duties under the directions of their superior officers and 5 had no knowledge of the alleged conspiracy or the transactions in question. It is further submitted that the applicants have been implicated solely on account of their employment with the manpower supply company and there is no material collected during the investigation to demonstrate that either of them derived any personal monetary benefit or played any active role in the alleged offences. It is argued that the investigation has been completed and the charge- sheet has already been filed. The prosecution case rests entirely upon documentary evidence, which is already in the possession of the investigating agency, and therefore no further custodial interrogation of the applicants is required. It is also submitted that no recovery has been effected from the applicants, no criminal antecedents have been attributed to them, and they have remained in judicial custody since 19.04.2026. Considering that the prosecution has cited a large number of witnesses, the trial is likely to take considerable time. Placing reliance upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51; P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791; Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22; Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609; 6 Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 16 SCC 166; and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600, it is submitted that the applicants satisfy the settled parameters governing the grant of bail and are, therefore, entitled to be enlarged on regular bail. 6. 6. It is stated that the entirety of the prosecution's case against the Applicants rests on the assertion that they have "transported money to the individuals of Naveen Pratap Singh Tomar on instructions of his superiors and the alleged seized cash was withdrawn by Vinod Kumar Rai and not the present applicants, which is discernible from the FIR and the chargesheet which itself shows that the applicants do not have any operational control or decision making power in the company or is actively involved in the said alleged transaction. They were just an employee following the instructions of his superiors without having knowledge of the alleged transaction. " This formulation of transporting money acting as conduits is legally insufficient to establish criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. The agreement to commit an illegal act is the very gist of criminal conspiracy. Mere knowledge, even if proved, does not constitute an agreement. No material has been produced showing that the 7 Applicant entered into any agreement with any co-accused or any public servant for the commission of an illegal act. 7. It is further submitted that it is a particularly significant circumstance that Siddharth Singhania, who has been named by multiple persons in the course of investigation as the principal conduit between the manpower agencies and the government syndicate, and through whom commission amounts were allegedly channelled has not been arrayed as an accused. If Vinod Kumar Rai, who reportedly withdrew the alleged cash from the ICICI Bank and handed over the amount to the present applicant to hand it over to the individuals associated with Naveen Pratap Singh Tomar who actually played a direct and active role, has not been prosecuted, the prosecution of the Applicant, who is attributed only to be a transporter of money in the capacity of an employee working on his superiors directions is all the more difficult to justify. Moreover, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Bhupesh Arora vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 SCC Online Del 704 have categorically held in para 151 of the said judgement that the essential ingredient for the ED to seize jurisdiction is the presence of a predicate offence. 8 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the present case discloses a well-organized conspiracy involving officials of CSMCL and various manpower supply agencies, whereby inflated and forged bills were allegedly prepared and, after release of payments, a fixed percentage thereof was allegedly paid as illegal gratification to the concerned public servants. It is submitted that the present applicants cannot, at this stage, be treated merely as innocent employees. Applicant- Abhishek Kumar Singh, being the Field Officer of Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited, actively participated in receiving the cheque, withdrawal of cash from the bank and transportation of the amount of ₹28,80,000/- for its intended delivery. Likewise, applicant- Tijau Ram Nirmalkar, who was working as Accountant and Branch Coordinator, was entrusted with preparation of bills, ERP entries, calculation of commission and coordination of the financial affairs of the company. Thus, both the applicants were active participants in the alleged conspiracy. It is further submitted that apart from the recovery of Rs.28,80,000/-, the prosecution has collected bank records, billing documents, statements of independent witnesses, statements of co-accused persons, memorandum statements and other documentary material 9 connecting the applicants with the alleged offences. It is submitted that considering the gravity of the offence, the organized nature of the conspiracy and the specific role attributed to the applicants, they do not deserve the benefit of bail. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary, charge-sheet and the material available on record. 10. At the stage of consideration of an application for bail, this Court is not required to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence or record any finding on the merits of the prosecution case. The Court is only required to examine whether the material collected during investigation discloses a prima facie case and whether the applicants deserve the discretionary relief of bail having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the role attributed to them, the material collected during investigation and the settled parameters governing grant of bail. 11. Upon perusal of the charge-sheet and the material available on record, prima facie it appears that the prosecution has collected material indicating that after withdrawal of Rs.29,40,000/- from the account of Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited, an amount of Rs.60,000/- was retained towards 10 office expenses and the remaining amount of Rs.28,80,000/- was allegedly entrusted to the present applicants for its delivery as illegal gratification. Before the amount could be delivered, the applicants were intercepted and the cash was seized. The prosecution has further placed reliance upon bank records, billing documents, statements of independent witnesses, statements of co-accused persons, memorandum statements of the accused persons and other documentary material to show that the amount recovered formed part of the alleged commission mechanism operating between the manpower supply agencies and certain officials of CSMCL. The investigation also indicates that the amount was allegedly calculated on the basis of bills raised by Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited and Alert Commandos Private Limited and was intended to be paid towards illegal gratification. Prima facie, the material collected during investigation also indicates that the transaction in question was not an isolated incident but formed part of a continuing mechanism for payment of illegal commission. 12. So far as applicant- Tijau Ram Nirmalkar is concerned, the material collected during investigation prima facie indicates that he was associated with preparation of CSMCL bills, ERP entries, calculation of commission and financial coordination. 11 Likewise, the role attributed to applicant- Abhishek Kumar Singh is not confined merely to his presence at the place of seizure but extends to receipt of the cheque, withdrawal of cash and transportation of the amount which was allegedly intended to be delivered to the persons concerned. Thus, at this stage, the role attributed to both the applicants cannot prima facie be treated as merely ministerial in nature. 13. The contention that the applicants were merely employees acting under the instructions of their superior officers is a matter of defence which can appropriately be considered during trial after appreciation of the evidence. At this stage, in view of the material collected during investigation, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention. 14. There can be no dispute with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra (supra), Satender Kumar Antil (supra), P. Chidambaram (supra), Dataram Singh (supra) and the other decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants. However, it is equally well settled that while considering an application for bail, the Court is required to take into consideration the nature and gravity of the accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, the prima facie material collected during 12 investigation and the larger interest of justice. Each case necessarily depends upon its own facts. 15. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that several prosecution witnesses are stated to be associated with the manpower supply agencies, billing records, financial transactions and the alleged commission mechanism. At this stage, the apprehension expressed by the prosecution regarding the possibility of the applicants influencing material witnesses or interfering with the course of trial cannot be said to be wholly unfounded. 16. In the present case, considering the specific role attributed to the applicants, the recovery of a substantial amount of cash during the alleged transaction and the material collected during investigation, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that sufficient material exists connecting the applicants with the alleged offences. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to hold that the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail merely because the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed. 17. The plea of parity raised on behalf of the applicants also does not persuade this Court. Parity is undoubtedly a relevant consideration; however, the same cannot be applied mechanically. The specific role attributed to the present 13 applicants, particularly in relation to the alleged movement and intended delivery of Rs.28,80,000/- coupled with their connection with the billing and financial mechanism of the manpower supply agencies, prima facie distinguishes their case from that of the co-accused who have been granted bail. 18. It is true that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed. However, mere filing of the charge-sheet, by itself, does not entitle an accused to the grant of bail as a matter of right. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the organized manner in which the alleged conspiracy is stated to have been executed, the specific role attributed to the present applicants, the seizure of Rs.28,80,000/- during the alleged transaction and the prima facie material collected during investigation, this Court is not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in favour of the applicants. 19. So far as the contention raised on behalf of the applicants that they had merely transported the cash to the associates of Navin Pratap Singh Tomar on the instructions of their superiors, that no cash was recovered from their possession, and that they were only carriers of the cash without any 14 knowledge of the alleged conspiracy, and therefore no offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code is made out against them, is concerned, the said issue pertains to the merits of the prosecution case and is a matter to be adjudicated by the competent Trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence led during the course of trial. At the stage of consideration of a bail application, this Court is not required to undertake a detailed examination of such disputed questions of fact. The further submission that an agreement to commit an illegal act constitutes the very essence of the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC also involves appreciation of the material collected during investigation to ascertain whether a prima facie meeting of minds existed amongst the accused persons. The veracity and evidentiary value of such material are matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the Trial Court and cannot be conclusively examined at this stage. Likewise, the role attributed to accused Vinod Kumar Rai, who is alleged to have withdrawn the cash from the ICICI Bank and thereafter handed over the same to the present applicants for onward delivery to the persons associated with Navin Pratap Singh Tomar, is also a matter requiring appreciation of evidence during trial. Whether the applicants acted merely as carriers 15 or were active participants in the alleged conspiracy are disputed questions of fact, which can be determined only after evidence is adduced before the competent Criminal Court. Consequently, these submissions cannot be accepted as grounds for grant of bail at this stage. 20. Consequently, MCRC No.5347 of 2026 (Abhishek Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh) and MCRC No.5372 of 2026 (Tijau Ram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh), being devoid of merit, are hereby dismissed. 21. It is, however, made clear that the observations made hereinabove are confined solely to adjudication of the present bail applications and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The learned trial Court shall decide the case independently on the basis of the evidence adduced before it, without being influenced by any observation made in this order. 22. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha