AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 2001
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ensed government shops between 2019 to 2022, a sum of INR 50,00,000/- per month was given to the applicant when was then serving as Excise Minister of the State of Chhattisgarh. b. The operations of the syndicate have allegedly resulted in generation of a huge amount of money which has been distributed amongst the members of the syndicate and used to bribe high political and administrative functionaries. c. The grounds of arrest supplied to the applicant at the time of his arrest further alleges that the applicant had played an important role in framing policies that facilitated the alleged illegal operation of the syndicate, posted desired Excise Officers at desired locations and laid down terms and conditions in the public procurement process that demonstrates favoritism and biasness. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 3. Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that the present FIR No. 04 of 2024 constitutes a gross abuse of criminal justice machinery. It is submitted that the present applicant at the time when the alleged offence is said to have been committed, he was said to be in the helm of affairs in the role of Excise Minister. The applicant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0;बकारी विभाग को प्राप्त होने वाले 150 रुपये प्रति पेटी रकम में से प्राप्त हो रहे थे। इसके अलावा श्री कवासी लखमा को प्रति माह अनवर ढेबर के द्वारा अरविंद सिंह के माध्यम से 1.5 करोड़ रुपये अलग से दिये जा रहे थे।" He submits that both the ECIR an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion. He has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in the matter of Arvind Kejriwal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 Scc OnLine SC1703. 6. The private person who was involved in transfer of such funds to the applicant ie. Prakash Sharma used to work with Vikas Agrawal @ Subbu who has been absconding since, has been entrusted the task of delivering the amount on the instructions of Amit Singh and Arvind Singh to the residence of the applicant. Both these persons have negated the fact that they knew Prakash Sharma and has stated while in judicial custody when confronted with the applicant. The applicant has come from a naxalite effected area and therefore he has been provided Z+ security and no person or car could have entered his residential premises without there being any entry or exit record thereof. Merely reliance has been made on the statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. It is a government residential bungalow where the entry and exit register are maintained and records are also secured in the electronic form. There has never been any instances and in charge sheet such material is absent. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the custodial ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red. The statements of 41 individuals recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C, 1973 cannot be relied upon at this stage as they are to be tested during trial which is yet to commence. Even under the Special Acts wherein the accused has to meet a higher threshold for grant of bail, the Apex Court has held that at the stage of considering bail application, the court is not required to enter into the merits or delve into the statements of the witnesses and conduct a mini trial. He further contends that it is not a case of investigation of money laundering. It is a case wherein a criminal conspiracy is brought on record to show the involvement of the applicant with the liquor scam and his active role. As per the charge sheet, the applicant is a signatory to the FL-10A licensee in which the applicant was also involved. He submits that there were other co- accused who were also involved mainly the Excise Commissioner and other authorities but till date they have not been arrested nor custodial interrogation has been done. In so far as transfer of Excise Officers is concerned, it is stated that the applicant has passed the directive that until and unless the Minister concerned will not approve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....where it has been held that denial of bail ought not be used as a punitive device. It is well settled that bail is the rule and its denial is exception. The denial of bail in the present case would act as a completely disproportionate restriction on the personal liberty of the applicant guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 13. Three charge sheets have been filed arraigning total of 11 accused persons and citing more than 300 witnesses and 300 plus documents and that charge sheet against the applicant is yet to be filed. The Apex Court in the matter of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693, while considering the bail application of an accused prosecuted under UAPA, 1967 observed thus: "19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atements of the co-accused persons, the premises of the applicant have been raided and it is on record, therefore, the applicant may be granted bail. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/STATE 17. Shri Vivek Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is a key conspirator whose role in the Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam is omnipresent through out various stages of conceptualization and implementation of the scam, whereby loss of about 2100 crores has been inflicted on the State exchequer. It is submitted that on 11.07.2023, respondent/EOW received a communication from the ED and after due verification, on being satisfied, prima facie cognizable offence was committed and therefore FIR No. 04/2024 came to be registered under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 420,467,471 and 120-B IPC against 71 accused persons. The name of the present applicant as accused is mentioned in the supplementary charge sheet dated 17.01.2024. It is revealed that applicant Kawasi Lakhma along with Anwar Dhebar was the head of the criminal syndicate comprising of high level State government officials, private persons and political executives of the State of C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ense policy and received illegal gains from the syndicate for the said purpose. The syndicate has made a total earning of Rs. 1660,41,00,056/- from the financial year 2019-20 to 2022-23 which is nothing but loss caused to the State exchequer from the offence of conspiracy by criminal syndicate. 20. He submits that from the investigation till date, it is clear that massive corruption had taken place in the Excise Department of the State of Chhattisgarh since 2019. The excise departments were setup to regulate the supply of liquor, ensure quality liquor to user to prevent hooch tragedies and to earn revenue for the State which has been misused by the criminal syndicate by systematically altering the liquor policy and extorted maximum personal benefit for themselves with the help of co-conspirators-Arunpati Tripathi and Trilok Singh Dhillon and the present applicant provided shelter to them for running their operation being Excise Minister. 21. Further contention of Shri Sharma, is that the applicant is one of the master mind of the liquor scam and he used his position as Minister of Excise to provide shelter to the persons involved in the illegal sale of liquor and received fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Congress Bhawan at Sukma, the residential house of his son Harish Lakhma and a building which was constructed by the applicant himself. The valuation reports, witness testimonies and registers seized from the contractor Jagannath Sahu confirm that the actual expenditures far exceeded the declared amounts thereby establishing the use of unaccounted cash. Additionally a portion of this money was used to fund private travel expenses of the accused associates. These actions reflect a systematic effort to conceal the origin of illicit funds and integrate them into physical assets. The remaining portion of the 64 crores received is currently under investigation to determine the full extent of its deployment and possible involvement of other entities and individuals. 24. It is submitted that during investigation, the ACB has recorded the statement of one Prakash Sharma @ Chhotu who has categorically stated that he used to deliver cash amounting of Rs. 50 lacs and 1.5 crores per month in two installments to one Jayant Dewangan who was the OSD of the present applicant. This fact was corroborated from the statements of Khem Lal Bhuarya, Mukesh Kumar Sukhdev, Ramesh Kumar Nag, Satish K....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge (iii) severity of punishment in the event of conviction (iv) danger of 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 tampered with and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. Moreover it is also held that mere fact that the accused had been incarcerated for a certain period of time is also not a factor for granting bail. Reliance is next placed on Dolat Ram and others vs. State of Haryana 1995 (1) SCC 349, wherein the distinction between the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case and cancellation of bail already granted, was brought out : "Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179). While a vague allegation that accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused. We may also refer to the following principles relating to grant or refusal of bail stated in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan, 2004 (7) SCC 528: "The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non- application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t this Court will not ordinarily interfere in matters relating to bail, is subject to exceptions where there are special circumstances and when the basic requirements for grant of bail are completely ignored by the High Court. (see Pawan vs. Ram Prakash Pandey 2002 (9) SCC 166; Ram Pratap Yadav vs. Mitra Sen Yadav 2003 (1) SCC 15 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan 2004 (7) SCC 528. "The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non- application of mind. It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: a. The nature of accusation and the severity of puni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actors while granting bail and if those relevant factors as enumerated in Amarmani Tripathi (supra) have not been taken into consideration while considering the application of bail, founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Further in the matter of Indresh Kumar Vs. State of UP in Criminal Appeal No. 938 of 2022, it has been held that statements under Section 161 of Cr. P.C. may not be admissible in evidence, but are relevant in considering the prima facie case against an accused in an application for grant of bail in case of grave offence. CONSIDERATION OF THE BAIL APPLICATION 31. In this case, a configured crime has been allegedly committed by the applicant and other co-accused some of whom are holding high posts ie. comprising of high level State government officials, private persons and political executives. In the instant case, after receiving communication from the Enforcement Directorate, the EOW has filed prima facie cognizable offence for commission of the above offences and FIR has been registered in FIR No. 04/2024 against the applicant who is in incarceration from 02.04.2025 for the offen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und of parity. The gravity of the offence and its impact on public confidence in government services cannot be overlooked. CONCLUSION 34. The case pertains to the serious allegations of corruption and criminal misconduct against a sitting Minister, who stands charged under Sections 420,467,468, 471 and 120-B IPC, 1860 relating to the offences of cheating, forgery as well as Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, involving offences of public misconduct. These charges, if proven, represent a gross abuse of public office for personal gain and direct violation of the principles of integrity and accountability expected of a public servant. The matter underscores the necessity of upholding the rule of law, ensuring due process and reinforcing the foundational values of transparency and ethical governance. 35. There is allegation against the applicant that he received illegal unaccounted money from the Excise officials of Rs. 50 lacs and 1.5 crores per month. The applicant who was the then Excise Minister, an elected member entrusted with specific responsibilities, has been involved in causing significant financial loss to the government through illegal coll....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provide so. Therefore, the underlining conclusion is that irrespective of the nature and gravity of charge, the precedent of another case alone will not be the basis for either grant or refusal of bail though it may have a bearing on principle. But ultimately the consideration will have to be on case-to-case basis on the facts involved therein and securing the presence of the accused to stand trial." 37. When those entrusted with power betray that trust, it shakes the very foundation of our democracy. The charges brought against a serving Minister under the aforesaid Sections are not just legal indictments, they are moral indictment as well. These grave allegations serve as a clarion call for transparency, accountability and reform in public life. The applicant as the Principal conspirator possess the authority and means to prevent the operations and despite that he deliberately refrained from doing so. Therefore the role of the applicant is distinct and not at par with that of the co-accused persons, he is the principal architect of the conspiracy and had played a pivotal role in the commission of the offence, he cannot claim the benefit of parity for the purpose of seeking bai....