TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1068
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icant exercised considerable influence in the erstwhile Government of the State of Chhattisgarh and was involved in the functioning of various Government departments. b. Reliance is placed on certain WhatsApp chats retrieved from digital devices seized in connection with another alleged liquor scam, suggesting that the Applicant was in communication with co-accused Anil Tuteja, allegedly discussing policy formulation, tender processes and postings of officers. c. It is further alleged that the Applicant conspired with co-accused Roshan Chandrakar and Anil Tuteja to illegally extract levies from special incentives granted for custom milling of rice, and that one Siddharth Singhania was engaged to facilitate the alleged scheme. d. The prosecution claims that the alleged syndicate generated approximately Rs. 20-22 crores, which ultimately reached to coaccused Anil Tuteja through the Applicant and another co-accused. 3. The Applicant was not named in the FIR and no role was attributed to him at the time of its registration. He was arrested on 09.07.2025, after a lapse of nearly one year and seven months, without any fresh incriminating material emerging in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urvedi v. State of M.P., wherein the Apex Court held that criminal conspiracy cannot be inferred from mere association or communication. B. WhatsApp Chats and Digital Material Are, at This Stage, Weak Evidentiary Links 7. The prosecution relies on WhatsApp chats allegedly retrieved from devices seized in an entirely separate investigation. These chats are not accompanied by: any recovery from the Applicant, any forensic attribution of authorship beyond bare assertion, or any independent corroboration establishing criminality. 8. It is respectfully submitted that electronic communications, even if taken at face value, do not demonstrate entrustment, demand, acceptance, or misappropriation, which are essential ingredients of the offences alleged. At the stage of bail, it has been consistently held that a meticulous analysis of electronic evidence is impermissible, and untested digital material cannot be elevated to conclusive proof warranting continued detention. C. Alleged Conspiracy Is Not Supported by Cogent Material 9. The prosecution alleges a criminal conspiracy under Section 120- B IPC. However, there is no material demonstrating any p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uncorroborated assertions are matters to be tested during trial and cannot be accorded determinative weight while adjudicating a prayer for bail. Arrest Was Not Justified Under Statutory Parameters 12. No summons or notice was ever issued to the Applicant after registration of the FIR. The arrest was effected after a prolonged delay, without demonstrating: necessity for custodial interrogation, likelihood of abscondence, risk of tampering with evidence, or threat to witnesses. The remand application dated 09.07.2025 does not record satisfaction of the statutory conditions governing arrest. The Applicant was not interrogated even when he was already in judicial custody in another case, which itself demonstrates lack of investigative necessity. THERE WAS NO NEED OR NECESSITY TO ARREST THE APPLICANT IN THE INSTANT CASE 13. It is further submitted that the arrest of the Applicant in the present case is wholly unwarranted, illegal, and contrary to the settled principles governing deprivation of personal liberty. At the time when the present FIR came to be registered, the Applicant was already in judicial custody in another case. Despite such availability, the Non-Applicant/I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olice officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bonafides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be ome reasonable justification in the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....all issue necessary instructions requiring due observance of these requirements. In addition, departmental instruction shall also be issued that a police officer making an arrest should also record in the case diary, the reasons for making the arrest." 16. Further, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Apex Court has unequivocally laid down that arrest must be an exception and not the rule, and that the police must justify the necessity of arrest by demonstrating compelling reasons. The Court emphasized that personal liberty cannot be sacrificed on the altar of unfettered police discretion. 17. Similarly, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Apex Court has unequivocally laid down that arrest must be an exception and not the rule, and that the investigating agency must record specific reasons showing necessity of arrest. Arrests made in a routine and casual manner, without satisfying statutory preconditions, have been expressly deprecated. 18. It is also significant that no summons, notice, or intimation was ever issued to the Applicant after registration of the FIR. No search or seizure was conducted at his premises, and no recovery w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d from Rohit Tandons premises was connected with the petitioner, the learned counsel informed that statements of co-accused Rohit Tandon and his employees have been recorded and they have disclosed in their statements that the currency belonged to the petitioner. These statements are to be tested during trial. Status report reveals that Vijay Kumar @ Kant Mishra has claimed ownership of the new currency recovered from the spot before Income Tax Department. No credible evidence is on record to infer as to whom the money belonged and how the petitioner was beneficiary." 23. Thus, tested on the anvil of the settled principles laid down by the Apex Court, the arrest of the Applicant in the present case is manifestly arbitrary, unconstitutional, and unsustainable in law. The continued incarceration of the Applicant serves no legitimate purpose of investigation and is liable to be set aside. The Applicant, therefore, deserves to be enlarged on bail in the interest of justice. 24. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Applicant was arrested nearly one year and seven months after registration of the FIR, despite being available throughout and without any allegation of no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in custody for the last 19 months. Though the accused-appellant is facing charge under Section 302, we are told that the trial has not made substantial progress beyond the framing of the charge. Completion of trial will take some time. 4. The only apprehension expressed on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation is that the appellant being a highly placed police officer may intimidate and win over witnesses and influence them. 5. We are of the view that the bail ought not to be denied on the aforesaid ground and in the event of any such conduct, the prosecution can always approach the competent court for cancellation of bail." 29. In the present case, the Prosecution has failed to demonstrate any circumstance indicating that the Applicant has ever attempted to interfere with the course of justice. On the contrary, the conduct of the Applicant throughout the proceedings unequivocally belies the apprehensions sought to be projected. PARITY AND CONDUCT OF THE APPLICANT: GRANT OF BAIL IN A GRAVER OFFENCE 30. It is further significant to note that the Applicant has already been enlarged on regular bail in connection with ECIR No. RPZO/04/2024 dated 11.0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the constitutional mandate under Article 21. The Applicant does not seek a clean chit or adjudication on merits at this stage. The limited submission is that continued detention is not warranted, particularly when the investigation has substantially progressed and the material relied upon by the prosecution is already in its custody. PARITY WITH SIMILARLY PLACED CO-ACCUSED: SELECTIVE ARREST AND DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT 35. Learned counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant has specifically raised the ground of parity, which goes to the root of fairness in criminal investigation. It is an admitted position, even as per the prosecution's own narrative, that several individuals who are alleged to have occupied equal or more central, managerial, or decision-making roles in the alleged transactions have not been arrested, nor subjected to custodial interrogation. The Applicant submits that such selective arrest, without any rational or intelligible differentia, violates the principle of equal treatment under law, and is a relevant factor while considering a bail application. 36. In this context, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Arvind Kejri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f bail is merely to secure the presence of the accused during trial. It reads thus: "39. Coming back to the facts of the present case, both the Courts have refused the request for grant of bail on two grounds :- The primary ground is that offence alleged against the accused persons is very serious involving deep rooted planning in which, huge financial loss is caused to the State exchequer ; the secondary ground is that the possibility of the accused persons tempering with the witnesses. In the present case, the charge is that of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document. The punishment of the offence is punishment for a term which may extend to seven years. It is, no doubt, true that the nature of the charge may be relevant, but at the same time, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, also bears upon the issue. Therefore, in determining whether to grant bail, both the seriousness of the charge and the severity of the punishment should be taken into consideration. 40. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the Court. The grant or d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he predicate offences are under Sections 120B IPC and 420 IPC, Section 8 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Case is registered against the appellant and others under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA. The main point falling for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail. In order to consider whether the appellant is to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, it is necessary to consider the salient features of the special enactment - Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX 33. Section 19 of PMLA deals with the power of the specified officer to arrest. Under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of PMLA, the specified officer viz. the Director, the Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, on the basis of the material in possession, having "reason to believe" and "reasons for such belief be recorded in writing" that the person has been guilty of offence punishable under the PMLA, has power to arrest such person. The authorised officer is required to inform the accused the grounds ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es that custodial interrogation was never required. Reliance is placed on Siddharth v. State of U.P., wherein the Apex Court held that arrest during investigation is warranted only when custodial interrogation becomes necessary or where there exists a real possibility of absconding or influencing witnesses. The power to arrest an accused during the course of investigation arises only in defined circumstances- namely, where custodial interrogation is imperative, where the offence alleged is of a heinous nature, or where there exists a reasonable apprehension that the accused may influence witnesses, tamper with evidence, or abscond. The mere existence of a lawful power to arrest does not, by itself, justify or mandate its exercise. A clear and well- recognized distinction must always be maintained between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for its exercise. 47. Routine or mechanical arrests, without compelling reasons, have the potential to cause irreparable and incalculable harm to the dignity, reputation, and self-esteem of an individual. Arrest, therefore, cannot be treated as an inevitable or automatic consequence of the registration of an offence. Whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed co-accused. The selective deprivation of liberty, when persons allegedly higher in the hierarchy of the purported conspiracy are either on bail or have not been arrested, renders the Applicant's continued detention manifestly disproportionate. 53. The principle of parity, which this Court has consistently recognized as a relevant and weighty consideration in bail jurisprudence, mandates that similarly situated accused persons be treated alike, unless a clear and rational basis for differentiation is established. In the present case, no such basis is discernible from the record. On the contrary, the Applicant's alleged role is comparatively peripheral, unsupported by recoveries or independent corroboration, while co-accused with allegedly greater involvement are already enjoying the benefit of liberty. 54. Viewed thus, the Applicant's continued incarceration, in the face of bail granted to co-accused with graver allegations and the non-arrest of others similarly placed, offends the principle of parity and fairness, and results in an unequal application of bail standards. Such an approach, if sustained, would amount to an arbitrary curtailment of personal liberty, which cann....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rolonged incarceration and inordinate delay engaged the attention of the court, which considered the correct approach towards bail, with respect to several enactments, including Section 37 NDPS Act. The court expressed the opinion that Section 436A (which requires inter alia the accused to be enlarged on bail if the trial is not concluded within specified periods) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 would apply: "We do not wish to deal with individual enactments as each special Act has got an objective behind it, followed by the rigour imposed. The general principle governing delay would apply to these categories also. To make it clear, the provision contained in Section 436-A of the Code would apply to the Special Acts also in the absence of any specific provision. For example, the rigour as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way in such a case as we are dealing with the liberty of a person.We do feel that more the rigour, the quicker the adjudication ought to be. After all, in these types of cases number of witnesses would be very less and there may not be any justification for prolonging the trial. Perhaps there is a need to comply with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 15.09.2022. Thereafter, for a prolonged period of more than seven to eight months, the respondents themselves did not deem it necessary to further interrogate the applicant. This conduct clearly demonstrates that the custodial presence of the applicant was neither essential nor indispensable for the purpose of investigation. Significantly, by order dated 10.08.2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already addressed and dispelled the apprehension regarding the applicant being a flight risk. The said finding stands reinforced by the subsequent order of the Sessions Court dated 07.11.2022, wherein it has been categorically observed that the applicant does not pose any risk of absconding. 75. Viewed cumulatively, these circumstances unequivocally indicate that the continued incarceration of the applicant is not justified. The investigation has substantially progressed, the applicant has cooperated throughout, and the concerns of flight risk have been judicially negated. Consequently, the liberty of the applicant deserves due protection in accordance with settled principles governing the grant of bail." BAIL IS THE RULE; JAIL IS THE EXCEPTION 62. It is a settled....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there are stringent conditions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. 66. Thus, when the facts and circumstances of the present case are viewed cumulatively, including the stage of the proceedings, the nature of evidence, the absence of recoveries, parity with co-accused, and the improbability of early conclusion of trial, this Court finds no justification for continued pre-trial incarceration of the Applicant. The balance between the interests of the prosecution and the fundamental right to personal liberty decisively tilts in favour of grant of bail, subject of course to appropriate conditions to secure the Applicant's presence during trial. 67. It is a settled principle of law that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and denial of bail cannot be used as a punitive measure. The presence of the Applicant during trial can be adequately secured by imposing appropriate conditions. Thus, if viewed cumulatively, the facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant continued pre-trial incarceration of the applicant. IV. CONCLUDING SUBMISSION 68. It is therefore submitted that even taking the prosecution allegations at their highest, the material on record does not just....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mandatory where information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. In the present case, credible information pertaining to predicate offences unearthed during money laundering investigation was received by the Director General of Police, ACB/EOW, Chhattisgarh, pursuant to disclosures made by the Enforcement Directorate during investigation in ECIR/RPZO/04/2023. Accordingly, FIR No. 01/2024 was duly registered and investigation commenced in accordance with law. II. ORIGIN AND MODUS OPERANDI OF THE CUSTOM RICE MILLING SCAM 74. The prosecution case, in brief, is that during the course of investigation by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, multiple predicate offences came to light relating to the Custom Rice Milling Scheme in the State of Chhattisgarh. A prosecution complaint dated 21.08.2023 was filed by the Income Tax Department (Investigation), Raipur, before the Court of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, detailing a systematic conspiracy involving office bearers of the Chhattisgarh State Rice Millers Association, officials of MARKFED, and other connected persons. 75. The investigation revealed that spe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emerged that the Applicant Anwar Dhebar was a highly influential figure during the relevant period, exercising substantial political and administrative influence. Digital evidence seized during searches, including WhatsApp chats and call records, reveals regular communication between the Applicant and co-accused Anil Tuteja and Roshan Chandrakar, wherein discussions pertained to: allocation of schemes, movement of illegal funds, postings in key departments such as PWD, Forest Department, Excise Department, Electricity Department, and MARKFED. 81. Witness Siddharth Singhania, whose statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC before the competent Court, has categorically stated that the Applicant was involved in collection and consumption of illegal proceeds arising out of the custom milling scam, and that the extortion money collected was routed through Roshan Chandrakar and delivered to Anil Tuteja at the behest of the Applicant. The said witness has further detailed the manner in which: FaceTime calls were used, specific mobile numbers were shared, collection points were fixed, vehicles and locations were identifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ge of bail. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Supreme Court, after surveying earlier precedents, has categorically observed that economic offences are committed with cool calculation and deliberate design, and that the magnitude of such crimes and their impact on the economy are relevant considerations while deciding bail. The Court reiterated the principle earlier laid down in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, wherein it was held 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... the entire community is aggrieved." In the present case, the offence is not an isolated transaction but a continuing criminal enterprise, systematically executed over a period of time, involving institutional capture of decision-making processes and deliberate exploitation of public resources. IX. GRAVITY, MAGNITUDE AND SOCIETAL IMPACT 86. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, has held that: "34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....two judge Bench in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496: "9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a lethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....BALANCE BETWEEN LIBERTY AND SOCIETAL INTEREST 90. The Respondent respectfully submits that while personal liberty under Article 21 is sacrosanct, it is not absolute and must be balanced against societal interest, rule of law and the need for a fair and effective investigation. 91. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that Article 21 does not confer a license to subvert justice, particularly in cases involving serious economic offences with far-reaching consequences. In view of the overwhelming prima facie material, the grave nature and magnitude of the offence, the systematic and organized manner of commission, the Applicant's influential position, and the real likelihood of obstruction of justice, the Respondent-State submits that no case for grant of bail is made out The instant bail application is devoid of merits, suffers from suppression of material considerations, and, if allowed, would seriously undermine public confidence in the administration of criminal justice. 92. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Respondent submits that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to reject the bail application, in the interest of justice, public interest, and to preserve the integrity of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v. State of U.P., (2022) 1 SCC 676, wherein it was observed that if arrest is not necessary for investigation, an accused should not be arrested merely because it is lawful to do so. 97. More recently, in Mohd. Zubair v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 16 SCC 764, the Supreme Court cautioned against mechanical arrests and underscored that deprivation of liberty must satisfy the test of necessity and proportionality. Tested on these principles, this Court finds substance in the submission that the arrest of the Applicant, effected after an inordinate delay and without demonstrable custodial necessity, prima facie appears to be disproportionate. EVIDENTIARY ASSESSMENT AT THE STAGE OF BAIL 98. The prosecution case against the Applicant rests substantially on statements of co-accused. It is trite law that such statements are not substantive evidence and can only be used for limited purposes, subject to strict corroboration. In Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184 and Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, (2018) 8 SCC 271, the Supreme Court has held that uncorroborated statements of co-accused cannot form the sole basis for conviction, much ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....undamental right to personal liberty. Apprehensions regarding absconding, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses have not been substantiated by any concrete material. Such apprehensions can be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions. 105. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the Applicant was not named in the FIR, no recovery has been effected from him, and the prosecution case, insofar as the Applicant is concerned, rests primarily on the statement of one Siddharth Singhania, who has merely stated that certain amounts were transferred to him. At this stage, there is no independent material on record demonstrating that such alleged transfer was at the behest of the Applicant or for his benefit. CONCLUSION 106. Having considered the rival submissions, the nature of allegations, the stage of investigation, the period of custody already undergone, parity with co-accused, and the settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that continued incarceration of the Applicant is neither necessary nor justified. The Applicant has made out a case for grant of regular bail. The ends of justice would be....