TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wani, submitted a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Raipur, stating that he is the proprietor of an establishment namely M/s The World of Beauty, situated at Station Road, Durg. It is alleged that on 28.01.2025 at about 6:00 p.m., a team led by co-accused Bharat Singh, Superintendent of Central GST, conducted a raid at his shop in his absence. On the following day, i.e., 29.01.2025 at about 7:00 a.m., when the complainant reached the shop along with his brother Naveen Athwani, he found co-accused Bharat Singh and other CGST officials present there. Co-accused Bharat Singh asked the complainant to accompany him to Raipur to meet his senior officer for settlement of the matter and thereafter took him to Raipur in his Innova car bearing Registration No. CG-04-NB-9911. Subsequently, a CGST employee, co-accused Vinay, reached Starbucks Coffee House located at Currency Tower, Raipur, where they met a person who introduced himself as Commissioner Mishra. The said person informed the complainant that a tax liability of Rs. 70,00,000/- had arisen pursuant to the raid conducted at his shop and ultimately demanded Rs. 45,00,000/-, out of which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication. He has not been named as a recipient of any part of the alleged bribe amount, nor is he shown to be a direct participant in the alleged transaction as reflected in the charge sheet dated 29.03.2025 and the supplementary charge sheet dated 05.09.2025. The entire case against the applicant rests upon disputed electronic evidence, namely voice recordings and CCTV footage, which are yet to be forensically authenticated and tested in accordance with law. Such material, by itself, does not constitute conclusive proof of guilt. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof. In corruption cases, the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance must be independently established; mere attribution of intention or alleged impersonation, without cogent evidence, is insufficient to justify continued incarceration. 6. He further submits that the investigation conducted by the respondent agency suffers from material inconsistencies and procedural infirmities. The alleged identification of the applicant as "Commissioner Mishra" is based upon questionable CCTV footage and subsequent identification, which are legally di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and official in nature. Considering the prolonged nature of trial involving numerous witnesses and voluminous documents, the balance between personal liberty and the interest of justice warrants grant of regular bail to the applicant, subject to any stringent conditions this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to impose. 9. On the other hand, Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Central Bureau of Investigation, submits that the first bail application of the present applicant, being MCRC No. 8727 of 2025, was rejected by this Court on merits vide order dated 26.11.2025, and that RC No. 1242025A0002 was registered on 31.01.2025 pursuant to a written complaint dated 30.01.2025 submitted by the complainant, Lal Chand Athwani, proprietor of M/s The World of Beauty; it is contended that the complainant alleged that on 28/29.01.2025, Bharat Singh, Superintendent, CGST, Raipur, conducted a raid at his shop and, in conspiracy with co-accused Vinay Rai and the present applicant, demanded a bribe of Rs. 34,00,000/-, which was subsequently reduced to Rs. 10,00,000/-, and as the complainant was unwilling to pay the illegal gratification, he approached the CBI on 30.01.2025....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... applicant-Anil Kumar Gupta who was impersonating a non-existent Commissioner "Shri Mishraji". During discussion, the applicant informed the complainant about his tax liability towards GST and further informed that the liability of tax would be settled for Rs. 11 Lakhs and he has to pay Rs.34 lakhs in cash for settling the GST tax liability. The meeting continued for around one hour. Thereafter, the complainant along with his brother and Vinay Rai left the Starbucks in the car driven by Vinay Rai and reached the shop at around 13:00 hrs. The investigation also revealed that during the trap proceeding a call at around 18:01 hours from the mobile number 9993717756 of co-accused Vinay Rai was received over the mobile number 9827181835 of the brother of the complainant, Naveen Athwani. On this call Vinay Rai asked about how much more time the complainant was going to take to bring the bribe amount. The complainant replied to this that only 15 more minutes would be required. The CBI team in the official vehicle of CBI and the complainant, his brother, alongwith shadow witness reached outside the Currency Tower at VIP Chowk, and after around 10 minutes, the co-accused Vinay Rai was caugh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urther submits that the investigation has clearly established the active involvement of the applicant through the CCTV footage dated 29.01.2025 from Starbucks Currency Tower, Raipur, corroborated by IPDR analysis and statements of witnesses. Evidence confirms his physical presence and direct participation in the conspiracy, as he has been identified in the CCTV footage and in voice recordings by multiple witnesses, including employees. The investigation further revealed that the conversation recorded by the CBI during verification and trap proceedings authenticated that the (applicant/accused) Mishra (Anil Kumar Gupta), Vinay and the complainant had conversation with each other on 30.01.2025 and 31.01.2025 (the day of trap proceedings). The applicant was absconding despite repeated notices issued by CBI under Section 35(3) BNSS at multiple addresses on 28.02. 2025, 04.03.2025 and 10.03.2025, and has evaded execution of the non-bailable warrant issued by the learned trial Court. During the course of further investigation, approximately three months after the filing of main charge sheet on dated 29.03.2025, the applicant-accused appeared before the learned trial Court on 10.07.2025, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otiating bribe impersonating a Commissioner and tampering with evidence. After completion of further investigation of the case a supplementary charge sheet has been filed before the learned trial Court against the accused persons including applicant on 05.09.2025. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the applicant is not entitled for grant of regular bail in the present case. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 16. The applicant is alleged to have impersonated himself as the Commissioner of CGST and even changed his name as Mishraji and hatched a conspiracy alongwith two other named co-accused namely Bharat Singh, Superintendent, CGST, Raipur and Vinay Rai. One of the co-accused Vinay Rai was caught red handed receiving the bribe of Rs. 5 Lakhs. The co-accused persons namely Bharat Singh and Vinay Rai had filed bail applications before this Court being M.Cr.C. No. 2981/2025 and 3345/2025 which stood rejected vide order dated 20.05.2025 and the SLP(Crl) bearing No. 10762/2025, against the same by the co-accused Bharat Singh has also been rejected by the Apex Court vide order dated 04.08.2025. 17. ....