1 2026:CGHC:19187 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2667 of 2026 Order Reserved on 16.04.2026 Order Reserved on 25.04.2026 Anil Tuteja S/o Late H.L. Tuteja Aged About 62 Years R/o House No. 35/1396, Beside Farishta Nursing Home, Katora Talab, Civil Lines, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O., P.S. EOW/ACB, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Counsel appeared through Video Conferencing with Mr. Ankush Borkar and Mr. Hardik Jaiswal, Advocates for the Applicant. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General along with Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. 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 short 'BNSS') for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 23.02.2026 in connection with Crime No. 02 of 2024 dated 16.01.2024 registered by the Economic SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Digitally signed by SANTOSH KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2026.04.25 15:22:06 +0530 2 Offences Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau, Chhattisgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 420,120(B), 467, 468, 471 of the IPC, 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the basis of receipt of ECIR bearing No. ECIR/RPZO/02/2023/802 dated 11.01.2024 which is an information under Section 66 (2) of the PMLA, 2002 pertaining to predicate crimes discovered during the money laundering investigation with regard to corruption in the use of funds relates to District Mineral Fund of District-Korba. On the basis of the ECIR, the ACB/EOW has registered Crime No. 02/2024 on 16.01.2024 against the applicant and other co-accused. On the basis of the statements of various persons recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002, it has been revealed that the suppliers have given huge commission to the applicant for obtaining tenders under the DMF. Role of the applicant 3. As per the case of the prosecution the applicant was serving as an I.A.S. Officer during the relevant period from 2019 to 2022 and was posted as Additional Secretary in the Industry Department, Government of Chhattisgarh and was actively involved in multiple large scale of financial irregularities during the said period which includes (I) Rice Milling Scam (ii) DMF Scam (iii) Coal Scam (iv) Liquor Scam (v) NAN Scam and (V) Mahadeo Betting App case. It is alleged that the applicant played a pivotal role as a central coordinator and influencer, misusing his official position to manipulate allocation and execution of works under the District Mineral Foundation (DMF) fund. It is also case of the prosecution, that the applicant using his influential position in the hierarchy in the Government 3 department provided undue advantage to select private entities by influencing District level administrative authorities and thereby orchestrated illegal allotment of works in lieu of pecuniary benefits. 4. It is alleged that under the DMF scheme, various developmental works such as Smart Classes, Mini Science Labs, RO Systems, furniture supply etc are undertaken. On the basis of information/complaint, FIR has been registered against the applicant for commission of offence under Sections 420,120(B), 467, 468, 471 of the IPC, 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During investigation, it is revealed that the applicant deliberately ensured allocation of such works to favoured individuals namely Vinod Rathi, Kishan Tuteja and lalit Bhansali. It is also alleged that from the incriminating Whats-app chat, which is extracted from seized mobile phone of the applicant it is clearly established that the applicant was directly involved and from one of the communications dated 27.11.2019, it is vivid that the applicant instructed coordination with District Authority for allotment of DMF works to the favoured contractors/suppliers, as such he has misused his official position to secure unlawful benefits for selected parties. The said message reads as under:- “Mr. Lalit Bansali and Ashish Rathi will meet u regarding above mentioned works. Make arrangements to provide them works under above projects through DMF funds”. 5. The Similar communication referring to entities such as Maa Ganga Enterprises and Yash Enterprises, coupled with explicit directions to "make arrangements" for allocation of DMF works, which further substantiate the prosecution's allegation that the applicant made undue influence over the district administration. The material on record clearly 4 indicates a systematic mechanism adopted by the applicant to facilitate work allotment in exchange for illegal gratification, thereby amassing disproportionate assets. 6. It is further alleged that Lalit Bhansali and Ashish Rathi were facilitated with DMF works exceeding Rs.50 Crores through their firms, namely Maa Ganga Enterprises and Yash Enterprises, on account of misuse of official position. Further case of the prosecution is that during investigation, memorandum of co-accused Satpal Singh Chhabra was recorded wherein he has specifically disclosed that since the year 2019 he was facilitating supply works in the Agricultural Department after being approached by Mandeep Chawla, who proposed securing such departmental works through the influence of the applicant. The co- accused further disclosed that the work handled by him was from the quota linked to the present applicant and that out of the commission amounts collected from various firms, to sum of Rs. 50 lakh each, totaling Rs. 1 crore were separately taken out in the name of payment to Anil Tuteja which, prima-facie, shows the involvement of the applicant and conspiracy relating to manipulation of public procurement and collection of illegal commission. Thus, on the basis of the complaint, FIR has been registered against the applicant for commission of offence under Sections 420,120(B), 467, 468, 471 of the IPC, 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 7. Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana, 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 the applicant is a retired IAS officer who had served as a Civil Servant over 34 years in the 5 State of Chhattisgarh with unembellished service record. The applicant is a well reputed individual having deep roots in society and resides in Raipur along with his family. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents as he has not been convicted in any case. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the action of the Agency to arrest the applicant in the subject FIR is rife with mala-fide and is being done to keep the applicant in pretrial incarceration in one case or the other. The applicant is being continually harassed and targeted by different investigating agencies, including the ACB by falsely implicating the applicant since the past 10 years. Despite investigating for over 10 years, by 5 different agencies and 5 searches having been carried out at the premises belonging to the applicant for the last 5 years, not a single rupee of unaccounted money/ disproportionate assets has ever been recovered from the applicant and the alleged allegation is baseless allegation of the agencies. It has been further contended that the applicant has already been granted bail in other offence registered against him by the High Court in FIR No. 9/2025 registered by ACB. He has also been released on bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in connection with other offences registered by Enforcement Director. Similarly in FIR No. 2 of 2024 registered by E.O.W.Raipur. The High Court of Chhattisgarh has granted bail in MCRC No. 10421 of 2025 and the present FIR has been registered just to harass the applicant and to deprive him to get the advantage of bail granted by other Courts including the Hon’ble Supreme court which is nothing but it is violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 6 9. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the arrest of the applicant itself was completely illegal and he ought to have been released on bail immediately thereafter in view of the fact that the ACB had utterly failed to satisfy and meet the threshold Article 21 of the Constitution in as much as completely bogus grounds of arrest were furnished by the prosecuting agency to the applicant, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 10. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the investigating agency prior to his arrest had not even summoned the applicant even once in the past 2 years in the alleged DMF scam, as such the ground are extremely vague, in as much as it does not even reflect that for which DMF work, the applicant favoured the complainant and as to how the corruption took place or the official position held by the applicant was misused in order to gain any pecuniary advantage, therefore, the application deserves to be allowed as the continued incarceration of the applicant is manifestly illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and punitive, under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and contrary to the settled principles governing arrest and grant of bail. The applicant seeks enlargement on regular bail in FIR No. 02/2024 registered by S.H.O., P.S. EOW/ACB, District Raipur Chhattisgarh for the offenc under Sections 420,120(B), 467, 468, 471 of the IPC, 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 11. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that this is not the first time where the Respondent Agencies have made an attempt to take custody of the applicant. An identical approach was adopted by them, when the applicant was arrested on 09.07.2025 in Rice scam. In the said 7 case, the applicant was granted bail. The manner of pre-trial arrest of applicant is directly in violation of principles laid down in the cases of Arvind Kejriwal vs. Central Bureau of Investigation in Crl. Appl. No. 3816 of 2024 and Uday Chand vs. Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, Chief Minister J& K reported 1983 (2) SCC 417 and Binay Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand in W.P. (Crl.) NO. 55 of 2026. 12. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the respondent agencies adopted calculating action against the applicant by filing affidavit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in September, 2024 which clearly shows mechanism to perpetuate the custody of the applicant without trial, therefore, the action taken by the respondent agency itself is illegal and violation of fundamental right of the applicant. He would further submit that neither the name of the applicant mentioned in the FIR nor in the charge sheet and the prosecution agency has failed to demonstrate any direct role, overt act or misuse of official capacity of the accused in the alleged DMF transaction. 13. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the power under the DMF scheme is available with the Collector of particular district and he was not holding any position in the office, therefore, his involvement is not reflected and no recovery of unaccounted assets or money or any incriminating document, material relating to DMF scam have been made from the applicant as there are six to seven raid has conducted against him. He would further submit that the other co-accused have already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) No. 164 06 of 2025 on 28.01.2026, therefore, the applicant is claiming party with the other co-accused. 8 14. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that in the reply of the respondent there are only two allegations levelled against him in the form of whats app chat and all those whats app chats do not show that the applicant was involved in so called allegation of granting favour to anybody and demanding money and all the chats pertain to year 2020 which was allegedly seized by the respondent agency though they could not make him accused in the 2020 and only in 2026 they roped him as an accused in the instant case and any data copied or extracted prior to seizure can have no sanctity and admissibility in evidence. He would further submit that the applicant could not have had any role in causing any wrongful loss to the State exchequer in as much it was the Government itself which has fixed the rate for supply of material; as such arrest of the applicant is completely baseless and done without any reason except to prolong his custody. 15. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that the applicant has neither cheated any person nor dishonestly induced anyone deceived to deliver any property to any person, therefore, no offence under Section 420 and 120-B IPC are made out. He would further submit that regarding offence under Section 467, 468 and 471 is concerned, the prosecution has failed to show that any forgery has been committed at the behest of the applicant. He would further submit the prosecution has also failed to prove that the applicant had either abetted in obtaining undue advantage with intention to perform public duty improperly or dishonestly or himself obtained any such undue, therefore, offence under Section 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is also not made out against the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that trial 9 in the said FIR is likely to take time and the applicant cannot be kept in custody for the entire period of the trial and would pray for grant of bail to the applicant. 16. On the other hand, Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Krishna Gopal Yadav, Dy. Govt for the State opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant and referring to the case diary would submit that the applicant is involved in the economical offence which is not only heinous offence but also against the economic of the Nation. He would further submit that the applicant has played a pivotal role as a central coordinator and influencer, misusing his official position to manipulate allocation and execution of work under the DMF fund. The applicant facilitated undue advantages to select private entities by influencing district level administrative authorities and gave allotment of work in lieu of pecuniary benefits and the material collected during investigation, including memorandum statement of co-accused Satpal Singh Chhabra, who has clearly disclosed that since 2018 he was facilitating supply works in the Agriculture Department after being approached by Mandeep Chawla, who proposed securing such departmental works through the influence at behest of applicant Anil Tuteja. He would further submit that the co-accused in his memorandum statement has further disclosed that the work handled by him was from the quota linked to the applicant and out of the commission amounts were collected from various firms and Rs.50 lakh each was separately taken in the name to Anil Tuteja, thus the applicant has played active role and hatched criminal conspiracy relating to manipulation of public procurement and collection of illegal commission, as such, the applicant 10 was directly connected with allotment of works. He would further submit that the material collected by the prosecution agency which clearly reflected that the applicant was involved in multiple cases of serious economic offences and financial irregularities and securing unlawful pecuniary advantage through organized networks. 17. Learned State counsel would further submit that looking to the gravity of the offence, the nature of evidence collected, and the influential position previously hold by the applicant, there exists a strong likelihood that the applicant may tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, and obstruct the course of investigation if released on bail. The prosecution has a strong, prima-facie, case against the applicant based on documentary and electronic evidence as well as witness statements. He would further submit that economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and huge loss to public funds stand on a different footing and are required to be viewed seriously and the instant case reflects a systematic abuse of official position by the applicant for securing undue advantages to selected private entities which caused grave prejudice to public interest and the investigation is still in progress, as such at this crucial stage custodial interrogation of the applicant is required to elicit the truth regarding the allegation of Satpal Singh Chhabra in his statement before the Police on 18.02.2025 wherein he has stated that he has received commission from the firms namely Akash Laboratory, Alwen, Vina Agro, Ojas, S.S. Steel, Gautam Plastic, Markfits, Indo Us, Neptune, Sona Genetics, Suraj Agro, Gujrat Life Science, Mata Di Electricals and Surjit Engineering to the extent of 25- 30% which has been deposited in his bank account and in the account of family members out of which fixed 11 money is given to syndicate head applicant Anil Tuteja, who has recently retired from the service as an IAS Officers thus would pray for rejection of the bail application of the applicant. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and the respondent as well as perused the case diary. 19. From perusal of the case diary as well as the FIR and the statement of Satpal Singh Chhabra, prima-facie, establishes involvement of the applicant in commission of offence under Sections 420,120(B), 467, 468, 471 of the IPC, 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further perusal of the case diary, it is quite vivid, that Satpal Singh Chhabra has received Rs. 16 Crores as illegal commission from the firms whose name has already been detailed in the foregoing paragraph and out of which it has been paid to the applicant, thus prima-facie, involvement of the applicant in crime in question cannot be ruled out. Prima-facie, further considering that public funds has been misused by the private enterprises due to systematic abuse of official position by the applicant causing grave prejudice to public interest where investigation is still in progress, therefore, to elicit the truth regarding the allegation of Satpal Singh Chhabra in his statement before the Police on 18.02.2025, custody of the applicant is required, as such the bail application deserves to be rejected and it is rejected. 20. Further submission of the applicant that other co-accused have been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the present applicant may be granted bail on the parity basis is being considered by this Court. 12 21. The record of the case would show that the accused Deepesh Taunk remained incarceration for 8 months to more than year, similarly Ranu Sahu and Saumya Chaurasia who have remained in jail more than 2 years whereas the applicant remained in jail since 23.02.2026 i.e. only two months, therefore, the applicant cannot claim parity with these accused, as such submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail on the basis of parity deserves to be rejected and it is rejected. 22. Further submission of the applicant is that the trial may take longer time as number of witnesses have to be examined by the prosecution and voluminous documents have been filed along with the charge sheet, as such he may be released on bail, is examined by this Court. 23. From the record, it is quite vivid; that delay of trial always does not give any right to the accused to be released on bail. The Court has to look into the gravity of the offence, role played by the applicant and position of the applicant to influence the witnesses, as he was senior officer in the department and huge amount of public funds has been pilferaged by the applicant in connivance with the suppliers. 24. Further considering the fact that the applicant was holding influential position previously, there exists a strong likelihood that the applicant may tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, and obstruct the course of investigation if he be released on bail this Court. 25. Considering that economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to the community without considering adverse effect that the economic offenders ruin the economy of the State, this Court cannot lose sight of 13 the fact that an economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community which forfeiting the trust and faith of the community and damage done to the national economy and national interest, as such it should be need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, I am, of the view that the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nayay Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 26. 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 influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while deciding present bail application. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge santosh