TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r Protection Department, Govt of Chhattisgarh he was also assigned the additional Charge of Managing Director of the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited (MARKFED) on 04.06.2023. It is alleged that during the said period the applicant was involved in the subject FIR bearing No.01/2024 dated 16.01.2024. 3. The applicant had preferred application dated 17.12.2024 before the learned Special Judge (PC Act), Raipur seeking for regular bail which was dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2024. The applicant was arrested on 4.11.2024 and is in judicial custody in respect of ECIR No. ECIR/RPZO/04/2023 dated 14.10.2023 and thereafter the applicant was remanded to police custody of the respondent ACB/EOW till 18.11.2024 and now he is incarcerated in Central Jail, Raipur. The investigation qua the applicant stands completed and the charge sheet has been filed on 01.02.2025. 4. It is alleged that after dismissal of the bail application by the learned trial court on 20.12.2024, vide order dated 29.01.2025, the Revision petition filed by the applicant in Cr.R. No. 1326/2024 was allowed by setting aside the cognizance order dated 5.10.2024 in the ED's prosecution complaint....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d of imprisonment. Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial. He has referred to the judgment of Manish Sisodia 1 (2023) Cc OnLine SC 1393 at para 27 and 29. Under the BNSS, Section 479 has further reduced the period of pre-trial incarceration for eligibility of statutory bail to 1/3rd of the maximum period of imprisonment for first time offenders. Acknowledging this as a beneficial provision, the Apex Court in the matter of Inhuman Conditions in 1382 prisons, Order dated 23.08.2024 in W.P.(c) No. 406 of 2013, has held that Section 479 BNSS will have retrospective applicability. If the trial gets protracted and the case will not be decided within a foreseeable time, the accused person is entitled for bail. He submits that in several cases, the Apex Court has granted bail to the accused persons solely on the ground of delay in trial coupled with long pre-trial incarceration, despite the alleged gravity of offences and even under statutes which contain special onerous bail conditions for grant of bail. 8. He further contended that it is well settled that the objection of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. He has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments relied upon by the ED in the prosecution complaints filed by it and the prosecution agency in the charge sheet are common. Therefore, the total detention suffered by the applicant for investigation of the same alleged transaction and occurrence exceeds over 9 months. In the instant case, the trial is not likely to commence and the investigation is still going on against other persons, 144 cited witnesses and hundreds of documents have been relied upon running into thousands of page and thus, there is no likelihood of the trial commencing soon. 11. Next contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the investigation against the applicant is complete and the charge sheet has been filed therefore there is no necessity for continued incarceration of the applicant. It is submitted that in the subject FIR, the charge sheet has been filed on 01.02.2025 and therefore the applicant is entitled for bail in terms of settled law. He has referred to the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the Apex Court in SLP (Crl) No. 9817 of 2024 Bibhav Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi at para 4, where bail was granted inter alia on the ground of custody for a period of 100 days. In the ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred to the P. Chidambaram Vs. CBI 2020 13 SCC 337 at para 32-33. He submits that the prima facie, the applicant is not guilty of the offences as alleged in the FIR and charge sheet. 14. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the entire case of prosecution is based on the allegations of extortion and illegal collection of money by the applicant from the rice millers in the State of Chhattisgarh and the learned CJM, while taking cognizance of the offences in the IT complaint declined to take cognizance of the offence of extortion. Even at the time of registration of the subject FIR, on the basis of the ED's letter under Section 66 o the PMLA, the ACB did not include extortion as an offence and the same was added belatedly at the time of filing of charge sheet. 15. It is the case of the respondent that the applicant had assisted coaccused Roshan Chandrakar in running an alleged extortion racket. The offence of extortion under Sections 383/384 IPC has not been found to be made out prima facie by the competent court and even in the subject FIR no offence was registered. He submits that the applicant was not having the knowledge of the alleged scam and he had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommitted the aforesaid offence and the necessary approval of the State government under Section 17-A of the Act, 1988 has been obtained, therefore granting bail to the applicant does not appear to be justified. He submits that while rejecting the bail application, learned trial court has specifically observed that from the prerusal of case diary and remand form, the applicant who was being posted as Managing Director, MARKFED along with other accused, entered into a criminal conspiracy to create a claim on the rice millers by neglecting his official duties and by ignoring the "First in First Out" by keeping the bills of the millers pending and pressurizing them, extorted illegal amount of Rs. 20/- per quintal therefore there are serious allegations of organized economic crime against the applicant and the material available in the case diary shows prima facie involvement of the accused/applicant in the alleged crime and the case is at the stage of investigation therefore the possibility of the accused/applicant influencing the investigation cannot be ruled out if the applicant is granted bail. 18. It is further submitted that at present the challan has been filed before the conc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....minal Appeal No. 1264 of 2025, (SLP (Crl.) No. 14646 of 2024), Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 2025 (SLP (Crl.) No. 17645 of 2024) and Criminal Appeal No.1266 of 2025 (SLP (Crl.) NO. 298 of 2025), it has been observed as under: "The appellant is being prosecuted for the various offences punishable under Sections 420,467,468,471 and 120-B of the IPC, 1860 and Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant is in custody for approximately 8 months. However, to ensure that the investigation is not affected in any manner, we direct that the appellant shall be enlarged on bail on 10th April 2025 subject to appropriate terms and conditions fixed by the concerned Sessions Court." 24. It is pertinent to mention here that the learned trial court has firstly taken cognizance by the order dated 01.02.2025 in the FIR No. 01/2024 against the applicant which has been challenged before this Court by way of Cr. Rev. No. 325/2025 and this Court has observed that without prosecution sanction order, the concerned trial court has taken cognizance therefore this Court has set aside the order taking cognizance by the trial court. The EOW/ACB has obtained prosecu....