1 CGHC010214112026 2026:CGHC:38965 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 5010 of 2026 Order Reserved on 25.08.2026 Order Delivered on 03.09.2026 1 - Navin Pratap Singh Tomar S/o Bhagwan Singh Tomar Aged About 50 Years R/o. E-6, Ram Krishna Nagar, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Investigating Officer, Economic Offence Wing/anti-Corruption Bureau Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter At Telibandha, In Front Of Jai Jawan Petrol Pump, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001. ...Non-applicant (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Applicant : Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Advocate For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. A.G. (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 C.A.V. Order 1.The present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by the applicant seeking grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.44/2024 registered at Police Station EOW/ACB, Raipur, for offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7(b) and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2.The applicant was arrested on 18.02.2026. The investigation has since been completed and charge-sheet has been filed on 18.05.2026. It is stated that charges have not yet been framed and the trial is yet to commence. 3.Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the present crime originated on the basis of information shared by the Directorate of Enforcement under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 regarding alleged irregularities and corruption in the affairs of Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL). According to the prosecution, during the period from 2019 to 2023, a systematic mechanism was allegedly operating in CSMCL whereby manpower supply agencies engaged for providing 3 manpower at liquor outlets were allegedly paid amounts in excess of the amounts legitimately payable to them. 4.It is the case of the prosecution that various manpower supply agencies, including M/s Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited and M/s Alert Commandos Security Services, were engaged by CSMCL for providing salesmen, supervisors, helpers and other manpower at liquor shops operated under CSMCL. 5.According to the prosecution, inflated attendance records were prepared and excess manpower was shown in the records. It is further alleged that the calculations relating to wages, overtime and bonus were manipulated and, on the basis of such inflated records, bills were submitted by the concerned manpower agencies. The prosecution alleges that such bills were processed and excess payments were released to the agencies, pursuant to which the excess amount was allegedly withdrawn in cash and distributed amongst persons connected with the alleged arrangement. 6.The prosecution has attributed a specific role to the present applicant. It is alleged that, at the relevant point of time, the applicant was functioning as Deputy General Manager in CSMCL and was associated with the processing and clearance of manpower bills submitted by different agencies. According to the prosecution, the applicant exercised effective 4 control in relation to the processing and clearance of such bills and facilitated the collection of illegal gratification from the manpower agencies for clearance of their pending bills. 7.It is further alleged that the applicant, in connivance with other co-accused persons, participated in the alleged criminal conspiracy and, by virtue of his official position, facilitated the alleged illegal collection. The prosecution has relied upon documentary records, financial transactions, statements of persons connected with the alleged transactions, communication records and other material collected during investigation to substantiate the allegations against the applicant. 8.The prosecution has further alleged that certain bills of M/s Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited amounting to approximately Rs.3.43 crores were pending for clearance in November, 2023. It is alleged that illegal gratification was demanded in connection with clearance of the said bills. According to the prosecution, an amount of Rs.29.40 lakhs was withdrawn from the bank account of the said company on 29.11.2023. Out of the said amount, Rs.60,000/- was allegedly retained and the remaining amount of Rs.28.80 lakhs was allegedly arranged for delivery to persons connected with the applicant. 5 9.The prosecution further alleges that on 29.11.2023, certain persons were intercepted by the Enforcement Directorate near Labhandi, Raipur and cash amounting to Rs.28.80 lakhs was recovered from their possession. According to the prosecution, the said cash represented illegal gratification allegedly arranged in connection with clearance of the pending manpower bills. Statements of persons connected with the transaction, communication details and other material collected during investigation are stated to have been relied upon for connecting the aforesaid recovery with the alleged conspiracy. 10.Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted that no amount has been recovered either from the possession of the applicant or at his instance. According to learned counsel, the alleged amount of Rs.28.80 lakhs was recovered from third parties and there is no direct recovery from the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. It is contended that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution is substantially documentary in nature and the same is already in possession of the investigating agency. Therefore, there is 6 no requirement of further custodial interrogation of the applicant. 11.It is further submitted that the applicant was posted in CSMCL only for a limited period and did not have exclusive authority either to sanction or to finally clear the bills submitted by the manpower agencies. According to the applicant, the payments in question had already been sanctioned before the alleged recovery of cash on 29.11.2023. It is, therefore, contended that the allegation regarding demand of illegal gratification by the applicant is highly doubtful. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits that there is no direct evidence showing that the applicant made any demand of illegal gratification or that he personally received any amount. It is further contended that the material on record does not establish any meeting of minds between the applicant and the other co-accused so as to constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy. 12.It is also submitted that the applicant has already been granted anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.04/2024 and has duly complied with the conditions imposed therein. Learned counsel submits that the applicant has deep roots in society, there is no likelihood of his absconding and there is no material to demonstrate that he has either attempted to 7 tamper with the prosecution evidence or influenced any witness. Learned counsel for the applicant has also pressed the ground of parity, submitting that several co-accused persons have already been granted bail. It is argued that the applicant is similarly situated and, therefore, is also entitled to the benefit of bail. 13.To advance the argument, reliance has been placed on various judgments :- Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2020)13 SCC 791(1), Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40, Preeti Chandra v. Enforcement Directorate (2023) 3 HCC (Del) 1, P. Chidambaram v. CBI (2020) 13 SCC 337, Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) 4 SCC 260, Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate 2024 SCC OnLine SC 7920, Ramkripal Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement SLP (Crl.) No. 3205/2024, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024) 9 SCC 813, T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181, Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI (2013) 6 SCC 348, Paras Mal Lodha v. Assistant Director 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8676, Krishnan Subramanian v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1384, Zuhur Haider Zaidi v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2019) 20 SCC 404, Pankaj Bansal 8 v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576, Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar (1964) SCC OnLine SC 28, Prem Prakash v. Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 9 SCC 787, Surinder Kumar Khanna v. DRI (2018) 8 SCC 271, Amit Mittal v. State of Chhattisgarh MCRC No. 4981/2026 and Ajay Lohia v. State of Chhattisgarh MCRC No. 5063/2026. 14.Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the application. It is submitted that the allegations against the applicant are not in the nature of an isolated transaction, but relate to an organized and systematic mechanism allegedly operating within Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL), involving inflated manpower bills, excess payments, manipulation of overtime/bonus claims and collection of illegal gratification from various manpower supply agencies. Learned State counsel submits that the applicant, while functioning as Deputy General Manager in CSMCL, had an important and effective role in the processing and clearance of manpower bills and was not merely discharging a routine ministerial function. Learned State counsel further submits that the investigation has collected material prima facie indicating that the applicant was acting as an intermediary between the manpower supply agencies and the 9 principal accused Anwar Dhebar for collection of illegal gratification. It is submitted that on 29.11.2023, an amount of Rs.29.40 lakhs was withdrawn from the account of M/s Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited, out of which Rs.28.80 lakhs was allegedly arranged for delivery towards illegal gratification and was subsequently intercepted and seized. According to learned State counsel, the statements/memorandum statements of Abhishek Kumar Singh, Neeraj Kumar Choudhary, Lokeshwar Prasad Sinha, Jitendra Kumar Nirmalkar and Tijau Ram Nirmalkar, along with the statements of persons connected with CSMCL, prima facie connect the applicant with the aforesaid transaction and the larger conspiracy. 15.It is further submitted that the investigation has disclosed a specific commission mechanism operating in respect of the bills submitted by the manpower supply agencies. According to the State, commission was being collected at the rate of 3% on the main bills, 25% on overtime bills and Rs.1 lakh per month in respect of security agency bills and, in October, 2023, the commission on overtime bills was allegedly enhanced from 25% to 33% pursuant to the instructions of the principal accused. Learned State counsel submits that the seized amount of Rs.28.80 lakhs was not an isolated or 10 unexplained cash transaction, but was allegedly connected with the aforesaid commission mechanism. Learned State counsel has also relied upon the statement of Shri Shrijish Pillai, stated to be an employee of CSMCL, as well as the statements of Shri Rajendra Singh, Financial Advisor of CSMCL, Shri Ashish Kosam, an officer of CSMCL, and Shri Shashank Barwe, Assistant Grade-III in the Excise Department, to submit that the applicant was consciously and actively involved in the alleged arrangement. It is contended that when objection was raised regarding payment of overtime amounts to manpower agencies despite non- payment of such amounts to the actual employees, the applicant directed continuation of the existing arrangement, which, according to the State, is a circumstance requiring consideration at the stage of trial. 16.Learned State counsel further submits that the prosecution has collected material showing that the alleged illegal collection was not confined to one agency or one transaction. The charge-sheet refers to illegal commission allegedly collected from various manpower supply agencies, including M/s Sumeet Facilities Limited, M/s Primeone Workforce Private Limited, M/s A-2-Z Infraservices Limited and M/s Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited, involving a quantified amount 11 of approximately Rs.50.64 crores. It is submitted that the aforesaid circumstance demonstrates the alleged organized nature and magnitude of the offence. Learned State counsel has also pointed out that the applicant is arrayed as an accused in Crime No.04/2024 registered by ACB/EOW, Raipur, relating to the alleged liquor scam. It is submitted that the applicant was holding an important position in CSMCL and, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the material collected during investigation, there is a reasonable apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, he may influence witnesses connected with CSMCL, the Excise Department and the manpower supply agencies or otherwise interfere with the evidence. It is further submitted that the investigation has also disclosed material relating to the alleged parking/utilization of proceeds through a firm styled as "New Vision Construction", stated to have been constituted in the names of the applicant's father Bhagwan Singh Tomar, Pannalal Wasnik and Lokeshwar Prasad Sinha. Learned State counsel submits that the aforesaid circumstance, along with the material relating to the alleged illegal commission and other unlawful collections, indicates a further money trail which is required to be tested during trial. It is, therefore, contended that the applicant cannot claim bail merely on the 12 ground that the investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed. 17.Learned State counsel has further submitted that the conduct of the applicant subsequent to the seizure of Rs.28.80 lakhs on 29.11.2023, particularly his alleged switching off of the mobile phone and remaining unavailable/on leave, is also a circumstance which, though subject to proof during trial, cannot be completely ignored while considering the overall circumstances of the case. In reply to the plea of parity, learned State counsel submits that parity is not to be considered mechanically and the applicant's entitlement to bail has to be examined with reference to the specific role attributed to him and the material collected against him. It is submitted that the applicant was holding the post of Deputy General Manager in CSMCL and the prosecution has attributed to him a specific role in relation to the processing and clearance of manpower bills and the alleged collection of illegal gratification. Learned State counsel, therefore, submits that having regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the alleged organized nature of the conspiracy, the substantial financial magnitude involved, the recovery of Rs.28.80 lakhs, the statements of witnesses and co-accused persons, the specific role attributed to the 13 applicant, the material relating to the alleged money trail and his antecedents, no case for grant of bail is made out. 18.I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned State counsel and have perused the material available on record. 19. At the outset, it is required to be kept in mind that at the stage of consideration of bail, this Court is not required to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence or undertake a mini-trial. The Court is, however, required to take into consideration the nature and gravity of the accusation, the specific role attributed to the accused, the material collected during investigation, the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice, the likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses and the other attending circumstances of the case. 20.In the present case, the allegation against the applicant is not confined to a solitary or individual transaction. The prosecution case is that a systematic mechanism was allegedly operating in CSMCL in respect of manpower supply bills, whereby inflated attendance and manpower figures were reflected, resulting in submission of inflated bills and release of excess amounts. The prosecution further alleges that the excess amounts were thereafter withdrawn in cash and a part 14 thereof was distributed by way of illegal gratification/commission amongst persons involved in the arrangement. 21.The applicant has been attributed a specific role in the aforesaid mechanism. He was functioning as Deputy General Manager in CSMCL and, according to the prosecution, was associated with the processing and clearance of manpower bills. The State has placed reliance not merely upon his official designation but upon statements of persons connected with CSMCL and the alleged transactions, financial records, communication details and other material collected during investigation. At this stage, this Court cannot finally determine the evidentiary worth of each individual statement; nevertheless, the cumulative nature of the material is relevant for determining whether a prima facie case requiring consideration during trial is disclosed. 22.One of the significant circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is the transaction dated 29.11.2023. The prosecution case is that Rs.29.40 lakhs was withdrawn from the account of M/s Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited and that, after retaining Rs.60,000/-, an amount of Rs.28.80 lakhs was arranged for delivery and was subsequently recovered from persons intercepted near Labhandi, Raipur. It is true that the 15 said amount was not recovered from the personal possession of the applicant. However, at the stage of bail, absence of recovery from the physical possession of the accused cannot, by itself, be treated as conclusive where the prosecution relies upon other material and circumstances to establish the alleged connection of the accused with the transaction. 23. The further submission of learned counsel for the applicant that there is no direct evidence of demand or personal receipt of gratification also cannot, at this stage, be accepted as sufficient to discard the prosecution case altogether. The prosecution case is based upon a combination of documentary, financial, oral, communication and circumstantial material. Whether such material ultimately establishes the necessary ingredients of the offences, including the alleged conspiracy and illegal gratification, is a matter which has to be determined upon appreciation of evidence during trial. 24.The material relating to the alleged commission mechanism and the statements of the persons connected with CSMCL also assumes significance. The prosecution alleges that the commission was being collected at specified rates in respect of manpower bills and that the rate applicable to overtime bills was enhanced in October, 2023. The alleged seizure of 16 Rs.28.80 lakhs is stated by the prosecution to be connected with this mechanism. Whether the said amount was in fact illegal gratification and whether the applicant had any role in determining, facilitating or collecting such amount are matters which cannot be conclusively adjudicated upon at the stage of bail. Nevertheless, the material relied upon by the prosecution cannot be said to be wholly irrelevant for consideration of the present application. The contention that the applicant did not have exclusive authority to sanction or finally clear the bills and that the payments had already been sanctioned before the alleged recovery are essentially matters relating to the appreciation of the evidence and the respective roles of the officers involved. The absence of exclusive sanctioning authority, by itself, does not necessarily exclude the possibility of participation in a larger conspiracy, particularly when the prosecution attributes to the applicant a role in processing, facilitating and allegedly collecting illegal gratification. The ultimate effect of the documents relied upon by the parties is, however, left open for determination by the trial Court. 25. The plea that investigation has been completed and charge- sheet has already been filed has also been considered. Completion of investigation is undoubtedly a relevant consideration in an application for bail. However, the same 17 does not create an automatic right to bail. In the present case, the allegations relate to an organized mechanism involving multiple agencies, several transactions, substantial amounts and alleged illegal gratification in connection with public financial transactions. The material relating to the alleged money trail and the statements of witnesses connected with the concerned departments and agencies are matters which are yet to be tested during trial. 26.The plea of parity also does not persuade this Court at this stage. The principle of parity cannot be applied mechanically merely because some co-accused have been granted bail. The role attributed to the particular accused, the nature of the material available against him and the circumstances in which the co-accused were granted bail are required to be examined. In the present case, a specific and active role has been attributed to the applicant in relation to the processing and clearance of manpower bills and the alleged collection of illegal gratification. 27.This Court has also considered the applicant's submission that he has roots in society, has complied with the conditions of anticipatory bail granted in Crime No.04/2024 and that there is no material showing any attempt on his part to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. These 18 circumstances are relevant, but they cannot be considered in isolation from the nature of the allegations and the material collected during investigation. The prosecution has specifically pointed out that the witnesses include persons connected with CSMCL, the Excise Department and the manpower supply agencies and that the applicant had occupied an important position in CSMCL during the relevant period. 28.There can be no quarrel with the general principles emerging from the judgments relied by the counsel for the applicant that personal liberty is an important consideration while deciding an application for bail, that bail cannot be withheld as a measure of punishment, that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial may in an appropriate case constitute relevant considerations, and that the Court should not undertake a mini-trial at the stage of bail. However, the said decisions do not dispense with the requirement of examining the facts and circumstances of each individual case. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the present case. The present prosecution alleges an organized and systematic mechanism involving manipulation of manpower bills, excess payments, collection of illegal gratification and routing of 19 substantial amounts through intermediaries. The prosecution has also attributed a specific role to the applicant on account of the position held by him in CSMCL and has relied upon statements of persons connected with the transactions, documentary and financial records, communication details and the circumstances surrounding the recovery of Rs.28.80 lakhs. Thus, the present case cannot be treated as one where the accused is sought to be detained merely on the basis of a vague or general allegation. The reliance upon the judgments concerning the importance of personal liberty, completion of investigation or delay in commencement of trial also does not, in the facts of the present case, outweigh the other relevant circumstances. The applicant was arrested on 18.02.2026 and the charge-sheet has already been filed on 18.05.2026. Charges have, however, not yet been framed and the trial is yet to commence. The present application, therefore, has to be considered on the basis of the material presently available and the seriousness of the allegations, without prejudging the ultimate outcome of the trial. 29.Likewise, the judgments relied upon on the aspect of criminal conspiracy or appreciation of statements of co- accused do not require this Court, at the stage of bail, to conclusively determine the admissibility, reliability or final 20 probative value of the statements relied upon by the prosecution. The prosecution has relied upon a combination of circumstances and material, and whether the same ultimately establishes the alleged meeting of minds or the participation of the applicant is a matter for trial. 30. As regards the orders passed by this Court in Amit Mittal v. State of Chhattisgarh, MCRC No.4981/2026 and Ajay Lohia v. State of Chhattisgarh, MCRC No.5063/2026, the grant of bail in another case or to another accused cannot, by itself, determine the present application. Each bail application is required to be decided on the basis of the role attributed to the concerned accused and the material available against him. In the present case, the applicant has been attributed a specific role in the processing and clearance of manpower bills and the alleged collection of illegal gratification, and therefore the said orders do not entitle the applicant to bail as a matter of parity. 31.It is reiterated that the observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present bail application. This Court is not required to record a finding of guilt or conclusively determine the truthfulness of the prosecution witnesses, the legality of the alleged commission mechanism, the ownership or utilization of the alleged proceeds, or the ultimate 21 connection of the applicant with the recovered amount. All such questions are left open for consideration by the trial Court on the basis of evidence led before it. 32. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the prosecution has attributed a specific and active role to the applicant in an alleged organized mechanism involving corruption and illegal gratification in connection with public financial transactions. The material collected during investigation, including the statements of persons connected with the transactions, documentary and financial records, communication details and the circumstances surrounding the recovery of Rs.28.80 lakhs, raises matters which require consideration during trial. 33.The magnitude of the alleged financial irregularities, the nature of the alleged conspiracy, the position held by the applicant in CSMCL, the specific role attributed to him, the material relating to the alleged money trail and the prosecution's apprehension regarding influence over witnesses are circumstances which, when considered cumulatively, weigh against the grant of bail at this stage. The pendency of another criminal case, Crime No.04/2024, is also a circumstance placed before this Court by the State, though 22 no final opinion is expressed with regard to the allegations therein. 34. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific role attributed to the applicant, the alleged systematic and organized nature of the offence, the substantial financial magnitude involved, the circumstances relating to the recovery of Rs.28.80 lakhs, the material collected during investigation and the overall circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the applicant at this stage. 35. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that no sufficient ground is made out for grant of regular bail to the applicant at this stage. 36.Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed. 37.It is, however, made clear that the observations made in this order are confined strictly to the adjudication of the present bail application and shall not prejudice the applicant or the prosecution during the trial. The trial Court shall decide the case independently on the basis of the evidence led before it. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha