AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 722
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vide order dated 22.08.2025. The applicant is therefore invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court against the said order impugned. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE : 3. The genesis of the instant case lies in the alleged "Custom Rice Milling Scam" in Chhattisgarh which traces its origin to Income Tax Department raids conducted on 21.08.2023 wherein a Prosecution Complaint was filed against 8 specific persons - conspicuously, the applicant was neither targeting eight persons notably, the applicant was never named. Acting on ED's letter dated 09.01.2024 under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, Respondent No. 2 registered the subject FIR on 16.01.2024 and the applicant has still not arraigned as accused. Subsequently vide letter dated 09.01.2024 under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the ED forwarded material to the respondent pursuant to which the subject FIR No. 01/2024 dated 16.01.2024 came to be registered at PS EOW/ACB, Raipur initially under Sections 120-B and 409 IPC read with Sections 11, 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the PC Act, shockingly the applicant was not named as an accused even in the FIR. 4. Despite over 1.5 years of exhaustive investigation span....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciously take notice of : Date Event Demonstrating Mala Fides 21.08.2023 IT Prosecution Complaint filed against 8 persons (applicant unnamed) 14.10.2023 ED registers Rice ECIR/RPZO/04/2023 (applicant unnamed. 16.01.2024 Subject FIR registered by ACB (applicant unnamed) 21.04.2024 Applicant first arrested in ED Liquor scam case (termed "disturbing" by Apex Court). 28.06.2024 ED files Prosecution Complaint in Rice ECIR (applicant unnamed). 25.09.2024 Respondent files false affidavit before the Apex Court falsely claiming applicant's role in "scams" (no material annexed). 04.11.2024 Co-accused Manoj Soni and Roshan Chandrakar arrested in the subject ECIR 01.02.2025 First charge sheet filed (Applicant implicated vaguely but unnamed). 09.05.2025 Manoj Soni granted regular bail by this Court (MCRC No. 2078/2025) 20.05.2025 Supreme Court grants ACB final 2 months to complete liquor FIR probe;matter listed on 18.07.2025 09.07.2025 Insurance arrest of applicant in subject FIR (no prior questioning despite 1.5 years probe. 18.07.2025 Roshan Chandrakar granted regular bail by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 6581/2025....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l circumstances amounts to hostile discrimination and shocks the judicial conscience. 9. If the fountainhead is impure, the steam cannot be pristine. Parity is not discretionary but a mandate of Article 14 - denial thereof shocks judicial conscience (State of Kerala Vs. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 78; Vijay Kumar Vs. State of UP 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1125; Chandrakeshwar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1567. II. The arrest of the Applicant is patently illegal and vitiated, malicious and in gross violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution: The so called grounds of arrest dated 09.07.2025 constitute a derisory half page, vague, non-speaking and boiler-plate document that discloses absolutely no specific necessity, urgency or material particulars justifying the arrest. Despite 1.5 years of exhaustive investigation, the applicant was : never summoned; never interrogated; never questioned prior to arrest. 10. The so called "grounds of arrest" is a vague, half page, non-speaking document, disclosing no material particulars or necessity for arrest rendering it constitutionally invalid. The Apex Court has categorically held that communication of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... unimagined by prosecution: * The applicant is not a flight risk-He is a Raipur resident of longstanding with deep familial, social and business roots and is a retired IAS Officer with 34 years of unblemished public service. There is no flight risk, all evidence documentary and secured. The Apex Court itself granted hims regular bail in the ED liquor ECIR (ECIR/RPZO/04/2024) on 15.04.2025, observing no flight risk despite prosecution's objections (Sushila Aggarwal Vs. State (NCT Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 440) para 10 "Roots in society determinative". * Witness tampering is a physical impossibility-Entire evidence is documentary-charge sheets filed; 350+ witness statements recorded under Section 180/183 BNSS; hundreds of documents exhibited. No pending witness examination requires applicant's presence. No allegation of threats to any witness across cases (P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 516) : "Documentary evidence eliminates tampering risk"). ensure trial delay; no recoveries; case rests on uncorroborated co-accused statements. * Evidence Tampering-Physical impossibility-All seized material (devices, documents, di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he prosecution's case against the applicant is bereft of any credible evidence, hinging entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of the co-accused, which renders it wholly unsustainable for purposes of denying bail. In the absence of any recovery of unaccounted cash assets or other incriminating material, the allegations fail to establish even a prima facie case. The purported evidence, comprising affidavits exposed as "cut-copy-paste" fabrications and unreliable statements from Roshan Chand, lacks the requisite corroboration mandated under Sections 133 and 114(b) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, rendering it inadmissible and unworthy of judicial reliance. Absence of Corroboration 17. The testimony of an accomplice, such as the co-accused herein, is admissible under Section 133 of the Evidence Act but stands presumptively unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence connecting the accused to the crime, as per Illustration (b) to Section 114. The Supreme Court has consistently held it unsafe to convict solely on such uncorroborated evidence, emphasizing the need for cautious scrutiny given the accomplice's potential motive to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issible under Section 133 of the Evidence Act but stands presumptively unworthy of credit unless corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence connecting the accused to the crime, as per Illustration (b) to Section 114. The Supreme Court has consistently held it unsafe to convict solely on such uncorroborated evidence, emphasizing the need for cautious scrutiny given the accomplice's potential motive to falsely implicate others for personal gain or leniency. In the instant matter, the affidavits tendered by 47 rice millers, dismissed as inadmissible. "cut-copy-paste text" fabrications, and the uncorroborated complaint of Roshan Chand-a "no miller"-fail to meet this threshold, leaving the prosecution's edifice crumbling without substantive support. 22. No Recovery of Assets: No recovery of unaccounted cash assets has been effected from the applicant despite exhaustive searches, nor has any tangible evidence of misappropriation surfaced to substantiate the charges. The prosecution rests solely on the bald assertions of the co-accused, which, absent physical recovery or independent corroboration, cannot sustain restraint on the applicant's liberty. Such z....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CB has desperately attempted to introduce statements recorded under Section 161 BNSS of certain rice millers and Section 164 BNSS statements of Ankur Paliwal and Suraj Pawar dated 29.11.2024. These material are inadmissible, fabricated and legally infirm, warranting their outright exclusion from bail adjudication. 27. Statements under Section 161 BNSS of Rice Millers-tutored, inadmissible and Post-Hoc Fabrication: The statements under the said Section are wholly inadmissible in evidence and cannot constitute the basis for denying bail. Such statements are meant exclusively for contradistinction at trial and carry no evidentiary value at the interlocutory stage. 28. These statements of 47 rice millers are evidently tutored and coerced, as demonstrated by the identical "cut-copy-paste" final paragraphs across all statements-a glaring hallmark of fabrication. These statements were suddenly recorded post facto only after this Court's categorical observation in MCRC No. 6581 of 2025 (Roshan Chandrakar Vs. State) decided on 18.07.2025 wherein it was noted: "No rice miller or any related person has filed any complaint before EOW that the applicant has extorted money". Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hest of the Applicant. 32. On the contrary, as per the complaints and charge-sheets filed by the Income Tax Department, the Enforcement Directorate, and the Respondent Agency itself, the increase in milling charges and incentives was publicly announced by the then Chief Minister, and that too in the context of an Abhinandan Samaroh organized by the Rice Millers. Nowhere in any of these statutory proceedings is the Applicant attributed with any role, direct or indirect, in either the decision-making process or its implementation. 33. Notably, the prosecution's own records are conspicuously silent regarding: * any participation of the Applicant in cabinet deliberations, * any influence over policy formulation, * any benefit derived by the Applicant from the alleged increase in milling charges, or * any linkage between the Applicant and the administrative process governing Central quota allocation. The decision relating to Central rice allocation is taken at the level of the Government of India, involving multiple layers of scrutiny by senior officers of the Central Government. The allegation, if accepted even hypothetically, would lead to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IPC and Sections 11, 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 38. Learned State counsel opposes bail for the reasons stated below: (a) the allegations disclose grave and organized criminality involving public servants and systematically-collected extortion/diversion of funds; (b) there is voluminous incriminating material-documentary, digital and cash-seized during lawful searches; (c) the offences charges are scheduled predicate offences for the PMLA and therefore engage money-laundering investigation and seizure regimes; and (d) recent jurisprudence and the statutory regime require close scrutiny of bail where the nature of the offence and the stage of investigation indicate a real risk to the integrity of the investigation and to public interest. 39. STATUTORY FRAMEWORK-BNSS, PMLA, PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT : Section 483 BNSS preserves the Court's special power to order bail in appropriate cases and frames the high court's jurisdiction to pass protective and conditional orders in furtherance of liberty. The applicant proceeds under that provision. The present crime is not a standalone or isolated incident. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the conspiracy operated in a systematic and organized manner. 44. The material collected during investigation prima facie discloses the involvement of the applicant in the larger conspiracy. The role attributed to the applicant is not peripheral or incident, but forms part of the decision making and facilitation mechanism through which illegal collections were made. 45. It is submitted that the at this stage, the Court is not required to conduct a mini trial. It is sufficient that the prosecution has placed credible material showing the applicant's nexus with the alleged offences. 46. The Economic offences involving corruption by public servants stand on a distinct footing. Such offences are committed with deliberation, affect public institutions and have serious ramifications on governance and public confidence. The Apex court has consistently held that economic offences and corruption cases require a cautious approach while considering bail, particularly when the investigation is ongoing and involves complex financial trails and multiple accused. The present case concerns: Abuse of public office; Criminal breach of trust in respect of public funds....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs Association with the ulterior motive of recovering kickbacks of Rs. 40 per quintal from the rice-millers. 52. Investigation further discloses that Roshan Chandrakar, Treasurer of the State Rice Millers Association was entrusted with the responsibility of collecting these illegal kickbacks from rice millers throughout the State and channelizing the same for the benefit of political and bureaucratic patrons. The said illegal collection was carried out with active connivance of co-accused Manoj Soni the then Managing Director, MARKFED, Who was the competent authority for clearance of milling bills. He issued instructions to District Marketing Officers to forward only those bills which were "cleared" by the District Rice Millers Associations, thereby institutionalizing extortion. District Marketing Officers also played an active role by facilitating the clearance of bills only of those millers who paid the demanded kickbacks, thus becoming complicit in the offence. These acts, prima facie, constitute offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 384,417,418 and 420 IPC, 1860 besides offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. On the basis of disclosures made by the Directorate o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ile Anwar Dhebar and Roshan Chandrakar operated as trusted intermediaries. 57. Digital evidence further established sustained and contiguous communication between the applicant and Roshan Chandrakar since at least 2020 times, on matters relating to paddy procurement, custom milling and government schemes clearly rebutting any claim of a casual or incidental association. Though these chats may not directly pertain to the precise transaction in the present FIR, they are highly relevant to demonstrate the nature of relationship, control and trust thereby strengthening the prosecution case of conspiracy. To substantiate the facts, the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C have been filed and the applicant has been arrested strictly in accordance with law and is presently in judicial custody. Upon completion of investigation charge sheet has already been filed and investigation against the remaining accused is ongoing. From the FIR and material available in the case diary, a strong prima facie case under the Prevention of Corruption Act is clearly made out. The offence is an economic offence of grave nature, involving deep rooted conspiracy and large scale los....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....books. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the National Economy and National Interest..." 59. The plea of parity raised by the applicant is wholly untenable as parity is not a rule of law and the Court is required to examine the specific role of the accused seeking bail. The applicant herein stands on a distinctly higher footing as the mastermind and controller of the conspiracy. 60. He therefore submits that in view of the aforesaid facts, evidence, seriousness of allegations, the influential postilion of the applicant, likelihood of tampering with evidence and ongoing investigation, it is respectfully submitted that the applicant has failed to make out any a ground....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 118, 114, 113, 112, 111,110,109,108,106,105,115,126,128,129,160, 165,163,159,162, 54, 63, 96, 154,122,121,120,119,123, 201 and 203 namely, Sohan Lal Sahu, Shyam Sundar Agarwal, Saurabh Chandrakar, Vinay Kumar Agrawal, Amit Kumar Goyal, Aakash Panjwani, Arun Agarwal, Abhishek Agarwal, Deepak Kumar Jain, Dinesh Agarwal, Hotaram Chaudhary, Indar mittal, Kishan Agarwal, ManishAgarwal, Naresh Kumar Jain, Sanjay Agarwal, Sumit Agarwal, Aayush Agarwal, Deepak Kumar Agarwal, Shiv Kumar Agarwal, Yogesh Kumar Agarwal, Manish Kumar Agarwal, Vikas Kumar Agarwal, Prakhar Agarwal, Hemant Kumar Patel, Pawan Goyal, Dongermal Jain, Ganesh Rangatta, Lavlesh Chandravanshi, Vivek Singh Tomar, Dilip Agarwal, Danesh Memon, Chandrashekhar Agarwal, Chandan Agarwal, Manoj Agarwal, Mandeep Singh Arora and Vijay Goyal respectively are verbatim reproductions of each other. It has been reproduced as under: "रोशन चंद्राकर को प्रशासनिक एवं राजनीतिक संरक्षण ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bail to co-accused Roshan Chandrakar in MCRC No. 2836 of 2025-wherein it was noted that no rice miller had lodged any complaint of extortion. 65. As regards the statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC of Ankur Paliwal and Suraj Pawar, the legal position is no longer res integra that the statement of a co-accused or accomplice cannot be the sole basis for implicating another accused and can be relied upon only for corroboration. This principle has been authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 28 and reiterated in Somasundaram v. State, (2020) 7 SCC 722. A perusal of the said statements reveals that neither Ankur Paliwal nor SurajPawar, the legal position is no longer res integra that the statement of a co-accused or accomplice cannot be the sole basis for implicating another accused and can be relied upon only for corroboration. This principle has been authoritatively laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 28 and reiterated in Somasundaram v. State, (2020) 7 SCC 722. A perusal of the said statements reveals that neither Ankur Paliwal nor Suraj Pawar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or influencing witnesses and the larger interests of justice. The presumption of innocence continues to operate until guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt in a full fledged trial. In the present case, upon careful scrutiny of the material placed on record, it emerges that the prosecution case against the applicant rests largely on documentary material, digital evidence and statements of witnesses, all of which are already in custody of the investigating agency. The applicant is no longer in a position to influence the collection of such evidence. The apprehension expressed by the State regarding tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses remains general in nature and is not supported by any specific material showing an attempt on the part of the applicant after his arrest. 72. It is also relevant to note that the applicant has been in judicial custody for a considerable period. Investigation, in so far as the applicant is concerned, the charge sheet has already been filed. Continued incarceration of the applicant at this stage would therefore partake the character of pre-trial punishment which is impermissible in law,. 73. The argument advanced by learned State coun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e at p.1007 of 1987 Edn. 32. The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence; a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage." 76. Similarly, in CBI Vs. K. Narayana Rao (2012) 9 SCC5 12, the Apex Court has cautioned that officers or persons cannot be prosecuted merely because a decision taken by them, or in which they are alleged to have been involved, later turns out to be questionable, unless there is material to show abuse of position for personal gain. It was held as under:- "24. The ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are that there should be an agreement between the persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cement (supra) has categorically held that bail cannot be denied as a matter of punishment, and that in economic offences as well, custody must be justified by compelling reasons such as flight risk, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses. None of these circumstances have been demonstrated in the present case. 81. Further, in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (supra), the Apex Court has observed that pre-trial incarceration should not be resorted to merely because allegations are grave, and that the object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at trial, not to inflict punishment before conviction. 82. It is also relevant to note that no recovery of unaccounted money, movable or immovable assets has been effected from the Applicant, despite searches conducted by multiple agencies. 83. The Court must now assess whether continued incarceration of the Applicant is necessary having regard to: the nature of allegations, the stage of investigation, the nature of evidence, the likelihood of the Applicant fleeing justice, and the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. The prosecution has not demonstrated that: ....