1 CGHC010227592026 2026:CGHC:32787 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5366 of 2026 Order Reserved on 24.07.2026 Order Delivered on 30.07.2026 1 - Neeraj Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Vinod Kumar Choudhary Aged About 34 Years R/o B-56, Aradhna Mahadev Puran Colony, Kuradha Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, Currently Residing At 4th Floor, B 531, Green Field Colony, Faridabad, Haryana 121001 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Economic Offence Wing / Anti Corruption Bureau, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Senior Advocate appears through V.C. along with Mr. Yashraj Verma & Mr. Kumar Harsh, Advocates For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 General along with Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. Govt. Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) C.A.V. Order 1. The present is the first application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in connection with Crime No.44/2024 registered at Police Station Economic Offence Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur, C.G. for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 7(b) and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act, 1988’). 2. The applicant was arrested on 04.05.2026. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed on 18.05.2026 before the Special Court (Prevention of Corruption Act), Raipur. It is not disputed that cognizance is yet to be taken and charges have not yet been framed. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL) had awarded contracts to different manpower agencies for providing manpower at liquor retail outlets across the State. It is alleged that while processing the bills of such agencies, inflated amounts under different heads, including overtime and 3 incentive, were released and a part of such amount was allegedly diverted towards payment of illegal gratification to certain public servants connected with CSMCL. 4. The prosecution further alleges that manpower agencies including M/s Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited and M/s Alert Commandos Private Limited were part of the said arrangement. According to the prosecution, commission amounts were calculated on the bills raised by such agencies and the same were routed through different intermediaries. It is further alleged that on 29.11.2023, cash amounting to Rs.28.80 lakhs was intercepted while being carried by co- accused Abhishek Kumar Singh and Tijau Ram Nirmalkar for delivery to other persons allegedly connected with the illegal commission chain. 5. According to the prosecution, the present applicant was associated with M/s Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited and M/s Alert Commandos Private Limited as a Finance and Tax Consultant. It is alleged that he was involved in financial coordination relating to dispatch of cheques after approval by the management and had confirmed, through a WhatsApp call, the identity of the person who was to receive the cash amount on the date of interception. On the basis of the material collected during investigation, charge-sheet has 4 been filed against twelve accused persons including the present applicant. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated merely because he was rendering professional services as a Finance and Tax Consultant to the companies concerned. It is submitted that he was neither a Director nor a shareholder nor an authorized signatory of either of the companies. He had no authority to sanction bills, approve payments or operate bank accounts. It is argued that the FIR itself does not attribute any overt act to the present applicant. His name does not figure in the narration relating to withdrawal, transportation or delivery of the alleged cash amount. His implication has surfaced only during investigation on the basis of memorandum statements of the applicant and co-accused persons. He further submits that no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the applicant. Neither any cash nor any incriminating document nor any property representing proceeds of crime has been recovered from his possession or at his instance. No bank transaction has been brought on record to show that the applicant personally received any illegal gratification or derived any pecuniary benefit. 5 7. It is further submitted that even according to the charge- sheet, the applicant was only required to arrange dispatch of cheques after obtaining approval from the management and after the cheques had already been signed by the authorized signatories. Thus, he had no independent authority to approve or release any payment. It is contended that the prosecution substantially relies upon memorandum statements of the applicant and co-accused persons. Such material, according to learned counsel, cannot by itself justify continued incarceration particularly when no recovery has been made pursuant thereto. It is further argued that investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant has remained in custody since 04.05.2026. Approximately 65 prosecution witnesses have been cited and, therefore, the trial is likely to consume considerable time. It is submitted that no further custodial interrogation is required. 8. Reliance has been placed 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, Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22 and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791. 6 9. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of bail and submits that the present case relates to a well-organized corruption racket involving officials of the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL), private manpower agencies and other intermediaries, wherein huge amounts were allegedly collected as illegal gratification for clearance of bills submitted by manpower agencies. It is submitted that the present applicant cannot claim to be a mere professional consultant. According to the prosecution, the applicant was functioning as the financial coordinator for M/s Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited and M/s Alert Commandos Private Limited and was actively involved in arranging funds, coordinating movement of cash and confirming the identity of the recipients before delivery of the illegal gratification amount. 10. Learned State counsel further submits that the investigation has revealed that the applicant had been associated with the aforesaid companies since the year 2016 and was looking after finance, taxation, banking, renewal of credit facilities and other financial affairs of the companies. It is contended that because of his long-standing association with the companies, the applicant was entrusted with coordinating the financial aspects of the alleged commission mechanism. It is further submitted 7 that during investigation, statements of co-accused persons as well as memorandum statements of the applicant and other accused persons have disclosed that commission amounts were calculated by co-accused- Tijau Ram Nirmalkar on the instructions of Vinod Kumar Rai, whereafter the applicant used to coordinate dispatch of signed cheques from Delhi to Raipur. Thereafter, the amount was withdrawn from the bank and was allegedly utilized for payment of illegal gratification. 11. Learned State counsel also submits that on 29.11.2023, cash amounting to Rs.28.80 lakhs was intercepted while being transported for delivery. According to the prosecution, immediately before delivery of the amount, confirmation regarding the identity of the receiving persons was obtained through a WhatsApp call with the present applicant. This circumstance, according to the prosecution, clearly demonstrates his active participation in the commission of the offence. It is further argued that the transaction dated 29.11.2023 was not an isolated incident but formed part of a continuing conspiracy involving payment of illegal gratification from various manpower agencies. According to the prosecution, substantial amounts were allegedly routed as commission from different manpower agencies and the present applicant formed an integral part of the financial coordination 8 mechanism. He also submits that several independent witnesses have also supported the prosecution case regarding the existence of an illegal commission mechanism within CSMCL. It is contended that release of the applicant at this stage may result in his influencing material witnesses, many of whom are connected with the concerned companies, or tampering with documentary evidence. It is, therefore, submitted that considering the seriousness of the allegations, the organized nature of the conspiracy and the material collected during investigation, no case for grant of bail is made out. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the case diary, the charge-sheet and the documents placed on record. 13. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that while considering an application for grant of bail, this Court is not expected to undertake a meticulous appreciation of the evidence collected by the prosecution or record findings touching upon the merits of the case. The Court is only required to examine whether, on the basis of the material available, further pre-trial detention of the accused is warranted. 14. The prosecution case primarily rests upon the allegation that illegal commission was generated from the bills of manpower 9 agencies engaged by CSMCL and that such commission was ultimately utilized for payment of illegal gratification. Insofar as the present applicant is concerned, the prosecution attributes to him the role of financial coordination in relation to M/s Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited and M/s Alert Commandos Private Limited. 15. It is not disputed before this Court that the applicant is a Chartered Accountant and was working as a Finance and Tax Consultant. It is also not the case of the prosecution that the applicant was a Director, Managing Director, shareholder or beneficial owner of either of the companies. The material available in the charge-sheet also does not indicate that the applicant was an authorized signatory empowered to independently operate the bank accounts of the companies or sanction financial transactions. The prosecution itself alleges that the cheques were signed by the authorized signatories of the companies and thereafter dispatched from Delhi to Raipur. Prima facie, therefore, the applicant does not appear to have possessed independent authority either to issue cheques or to release payments. 16. It is also significant to notice that no recovery has been effected from the possession of the present applicant. The prosecution has not pointed out any recovery of cash, incriminating documents, bank deposits or any other material 10 indicating that the applicant personally received any part of the alleged illegal gratification or derived any pecuniary benefit therefrom. The cash amount of Rs.28.80 lakhs is stated to have been recovered from other accused persons during the alleged interception dated 29.11.2023. 17. The principal allegation against the applicant is that he coordinated dispatch of cheques after approval of the management and that confirmation regarding the identity of the recipient was allegedly obtained through a WhatsApp call before delivery of the intercepted cash amount. 18. Whether the said circumstance is sufficient to establish the applicant’s complicity in the alleged conspiracy is essentially a matter requiring appreciation of evidence during trial. At this stage, this Court refrains from recording any conclusive finding in that regard. Likewise, the prosecution has relied upon the memorandum statement of the applicant as well as those of the co-accused persons. The evidentiary value, admissibility and probative worth of such statements are matters which can appropriately be adjudicated only during trial after evidence is led by the parties. 19. Prima facie, apart from the aforesaid statements, no recovery has been made at the instance of the applicant nor has any independent material been pointed out before this Court 11 showing that the applicant personally handled or retained the alleged illegal gratification. 20. The offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC involve allegations relating to forgery and use of forged documents. At this stage, no document has been pointed out which prima facie bears the signature or execution of the present applicant. Similarly, whether the ingredients of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act or Section 120-B IPC are ultimately established against the applicant would necessarily depend upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence during trial. 21. This Court is conscious of the seriousness of the allegations and the settled principle that economic offences constitute a distinct class. At the same time, the gravity of the allegations, though an important consideration, cannot by itself be the sole ground to deny bail once investigation stands completed and no further custodial interrogation is required. 22. It is not in dispute that the applicant has remained in judicial custody since 04.05.2026. The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has already been filed on 18.05.2026. Thus, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is no longer required. It is also not in dispute that the prosecution proposes to examine about 65 witnesses and the case 12 involves voluminous documentary evidence pertaining to several manpower agencies, banking transactions and financial records. The trial has not yet commenced and is not likely to conclude in the near future. Continued pre-trial incarceration for an indefinite period, in such circumstances, would not be justified unless the prosecution demonstrates compelling reasons warranting further detention. 23. The apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the applicant may influence witnesses or tamper with evidence has also been considered. However, except making a general assertion in this regard, no specific material has been placed before this Court indicating that during the course of investigation the applicant had ever attempted to influence any witness, tamper with evidence or evade the process of law. On the contrary, the material available on record indicates that the applicant had appeared before the investigating agency pursuant to notices issued during investigation. The applicant is stated to have no criminal antecedents. He has fixed residence and there is nothing on record to prima facie indicate that he is likely to abscond or evade the course of justice if released on bail. Thus, at this stage, the triple test, namely, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, tampering with 13 prosecution evidence or influencing witnesses, does not appear to be attracted against the applicant. 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra (supra), has held that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused during trial and that detention before conviction should not be resorted to as a measure of punishment. It was observed that where investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed, continued incarceration is ordinarily not necessary unless justified by the facts of the case. 25. In Satender Kumar Antil (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated that personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed by prolonged pre-trial detention where the investigation is complete and the trial is likely to take considerable time. 26. Likewise, in Dataram Singh (supra), it has been held that grant of bail is the general rule and refusal is an exception. The Court is required to balance the interest of society with the valuable right of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 27. In P. Chidambaram (supra), while dealing with allegations relating to economic offences, the Supreme Court observed that though economic offences are grave in nature, the same 14 by itself cannot be a ground to deny bail if the triple test is satisfied and further custodial interrogation is not required. 28. Having considered the rival submissions, the material collected during investigation, the nature of allegations, the role attributed to the present applicant, the fact that no recovery has been effected from him, that he is admittedly not an authorized signatory of the companies, that the investigation has already been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed, coupled with the fact that the trial is yet to commence and is likely to consume considerable time, this Court is of the considered opinion that, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant has succeeded in making out a case for grant of regular bail. 29. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 30. 29. Accordingly, the application is allowed. 30. It is directed that the applicant- Neeraj Kumar Choudhary shall be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.44/2024 registered at Police Station Economic Offence Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur, C.G., upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court, subject to the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to 15 any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade such person from disclosing the facts before the Court or any investigating authority. (ii) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any (if not already surrendered), before the concerned Trial Court and shall not leave the territory of India without prior permission of the said Court. (iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each and every date fixed unless exempted in accordance with law. (iv) The applicant shall not indulge in any act which may delay or prejudice the fair conduct of the trial. (v) The applicant shall continue to cooperate with the investigating agency as and when required in accordance with law. (vi) In addition, the applicant will provide one telephone/mobile No. on which he can be contacted by the concerned Officials to ascertain his whereabouts while he is on bail. (vii) In the event of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of bail in accordance with law. 16 31. It is clarified that the observations recorded hereinabove are purely for the limited purpose of adjudicating the present application for grant of bail and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The concerned Trial Court shall proceed independently and decide the case solely on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced before it, uninfluenced by any observation contained in the present order. 32. Accordingly, the bail application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha