Chattisgarh High Court
Anwar Dhebar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11113
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ORDER RESERVED ON 03.02.2026
ORDER DELIVERED ON 03.03.2026
ORDER UPLOADED ON 03 .03.2026
MCRC No. 9514 of 2025
1 - Anwar Dhebar S/o Late Hazi Zikar Dhebar Aged About 51 Years R/o
Dhebar House, Pension Bada, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Investigating Officer, Economic
Offence Wing/ Anti-Corruption Bureau Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter At
Telibandha, In Front Of Jai Jawan Petrol Pump, Raipur, Chhattisgarh -
492001
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Shri Harshwardhan Parganiha, Shri
Mayank Jain, Shri Madhur Jain and Shri
Arpit Goel, Shri Harshit Sharma
Advocates through VC assisted by Ms.
Manubha Shankar, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate
General
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA)
2
C A V Order
This is the second application filed by the applicant seeking grant
of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024,
registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Chhattisgarh, for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468,
471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Sections 7
and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The applicant came to be arrested on 05.04.2024, and after
completion of investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed on
29.06.2024 before the competent Court. The present application arises
out of, and calls in question, the order passed by the learned Special
Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Raipur, whereby the applicant's
prayer for grant of regular bail came to be rejected.
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. As per the prosecution, information was received from the
Enforcement Directorate invoking Section 66(2) of the PMLA that during
the period 2019-2023, a large-scale organized syndicate allegedly
operated in the State of Chhattisgarh in connection with manufacture
and distribution of liquor through government licensed outlets. It is
alleged that illegal commissions were collected from distillers and
suppliers; Excise officials and certain public functionaries acted in
collusion; A network was created for manipulation of procurement and
distribution and Public revenue suffered loss while illegal gains accrued
to the conspirators.
3
4. Based on the said information, EOW/ACB registered Crime No.
04/2024 and commenced investigation. During investigation, the
applicant was alleged to be one of the key conspirators connected with
financial and administrative arrangements of the syndicate. On this
basis, he was arrested on 05.04.2024. Investigation thereafter resulted
in filing of charge-sheet; however, further investigation is stated to be
continuing.
5. The applicant has earlier approached this Court seeking regular
bail in MCRC No. 3455/2024, which was dismissed on 20.12.2024.
Subsequently, the applicant approached the Supreme Court in SLP
(Criminal) No. 433 of 2025, which was dismissed on 14.07.2025,
granting liberty to the applicant to renew his bail application if no
substantial progress in trial takes place within four months.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, while assailing the
impugned order and pressing for grant of regular bail, has advanced
elaborate submissions, which, in substance, are as follows:
I. Custodial Period and Procedural Background
7. It is submitted that the applicant has remained in judicial custody
since 05.04.2024, and thus has undergone prolonged incarceration
even before commencement of trial. Investigation qua the applicant
already stands completed and charge-sheet was filed on 29.06.2024,
followed by multiple supplementary charge-sheets. Despite lapse of
considerable time, the trial has not commenced and even framing of
4
charges is pending. It is urged that continued detention of the applicant
serves no investigative purpose and amounts to punitive incarceration
prior to adjudication of guilt, which is impermissible in criminal
jurisprudence. He has placed reliance upon the decision of the
Supreme Court in Kapil Wadhawan v. CBI, 2025 INSC 1440, wherein
it has been reiterated that prolonged incarceration coupled with delay in
commencement of trial constitutes a significant ground for grant of bail.
The constitutional mandate flowing from Article 21 obligates courts to
ensure that pre-trial detention does not become punitive in character.
II. Liberty Granted by Supreme Court and Absence of Progress in
Trial
8. It is further contended that the Supreme Court, while rejecting the
earlier bail application of the applicant on 14.07.2025, expressly
granted liberty to renew the prayer for bail in the event of absence of
progress in trial within four months. He submits that the period indicated
by the Supreme Court has already elapsed, trial proceedings have not
commenced, investigation qua several accused is still ongoing and no
likelihood exists of conclusion of trial in the near future. Thus, the liberty
granted by the Supreme Court has crystallized into a substantive right
of the applicant to seek bail. He has further relied upon the seminal
judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, (1977) 4 SCC 308,
wherein the Supreme Court authoritatively laid down that the basic rule
is “bail and not jail,” except where circumstances justify detention.
9. The principle was subsequently reiterated in Sanjay Chandra v.
CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, where the Court emphasized that detention
5
before conviction must not be resorted to unless necessary to secure
presence of the accused or prevent interference with the course of
justice.
III. Investigation Still Ongoing and Trial Unlikely to Conclude Soon
10. It is submitted that even according to the prosecution,
investigation concerning other accused persons continues, and the
agency has sought further time before higher Courts to complete
investigation. He submits that the case involves more than fifty accused
persons, over a thousand witnesses, voluminous documentary material
running into thousands of pages. In such circumstances, early
commencement or conclusion of trial is practically impossible.
Continued incarceration, therefore, becomes arbitrary and violative of
Article 21 of the Constitution.
IV. Subsequent Grant of Bail to Several Co-Accused — Principle
of Parity
11. Counsel for the applicant submits that after rejection of
applicant’s earlier bail plea, several co-accused persons have since
been granted bail, including persons allegedly occupying official or
operational roles in the case. It is argued that denial of bail to the
applicant while granting liberty to similarly placed or more directly
involved co-accused results in discriminatory treatment. Parity is a well-
recognized principle applicable even in economic offences. It is further
pointed out that in connected proceedings, even excise officials have
been granted interim protection, thereby eliminating any impediment in
granting bail to the applicant.
6
12. Counsel for the applicant has also urged parity, placing reliance
upon Krishnan Subramanian v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1384,
which recognizes parity as a relevant factor in bail matters, including
economic offences. It is not disputed that several co-accused persons
have subsequently been granted bail. Though parity cannot be
mechanically applied, consistency in judicial approach remains a
relevant consideration. Further reliance is placed upon Vipin Yadav v.
Enforcement Directorate, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6237, wherein it was
observed that parity may extend even to situations where similarly
placed persons have not been arrested.
V. No Recovery or Money Trail Attributable to Applicant
13. Learned counsel for the applicant emphasizes that no illegal
money, no incriminating documents, no liquor consignments, nor any
illegal proceeds have been recovered from the applicant. It is
submitted that even in the earlier order rejecting bail, it was recorded
that no recovery has been made from the applicant, and till date, the
investigating agency has not been able to establish any direct monetary
trail linking the applicant to alleged proceeds.
14. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that reliance on
loose sheets and informal electronic communications such as
WhatsApp chats is legally insufficient unless duly proved in accordance
with law. In this regard, reliance is placed on Manohar Lal Sharma v.
Union of India, (2017) 11 SCC 731, and CBI v. V.C. Shukla, (1998) 3
SCC 410, where evidentiary limitations of loose documents and
7
uncorroborated materials were considered.
VI. Case Based Primarily on Statements of Co-Accused
15. Counsel argues that the prosecution case against the applicant is
founded predominantly on statements of co-accused and alleged
accomplices. It is submitted that the statements of co-accused cannot
constitute substantive evidence, several such statements have
subsequently been retracted and no independent corroborative
evidence connects the applicant with alleged conspiracy. Reliance is
placed on settled law that confession of a co-accused is weak evidence
and cannot by itself sustain prosecution. A substantial part of the
prosecution case against the applicant is alleged to rest upon
statements of co-accused persons.
16. In this context, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon
Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 28, where
the Supreme Court held that confession of a co-accused is not
substantive evidence and can only lend assurance to other independent
evidence. Similarly, reliance is placed upon Subramanya v. State of
Karnataka, (2023) 11 SCC 255, reiterating that conviction cannot be
founded solely on statements of co-accused without corroboration.
VII. Applicant Not a Public Servant and No Role in Policy Decisions
17. It is further contended that the applicant has never been part of
the Excise Department or any governmental decision-making body. He
neither framed policy nor exercised statutory authority in licensing or
distribution processes. Accordingly, attributing policy manipulation or
8
governmental collusion to the applicant is wholly misconceived.
VIII. Applicant Satisfies Triple Test for Bail
18. He submits that the applicant satisfies all parameters governing
grant of bail, namely:
• No flight risk — applicant is a permanent resident of the State
with deep roots in society.
• No possibility of tampering with evidence — evidence is
documentary and already collected.
• No likelihood of influencing witnesses — no complaint of misuse
of liberty even during parole periods.
19. The applicant has strictly complied with parole conditions and
surrendered on time, demonstrating respect for judicial processes.
Reliance has been placed upon P. Chidambaram v. CBI, (2020) 13
SCC 337, and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement,
(2020) 13 SCC 791, wherein the Supreme Court clarified that these
parameters equally apply even in cases involving economic offences.
The material on record presently does not indicate misuse of liberty by
the applicant during parole nor any attempt to interfere with
investigation.
IX. Arrest Not Necessary and Custody Prolonged Artificially
20. Counsel for the applicant contends that arrest of the applicant
was unnecessary and effected merely to prolong custody. It is urged
that statutory safeguards governing arrest require necessity to be
demonstrated, which is absent in the present case.
9
21. It is argued that none of the legally recognized grounds–such as
likelihood of absconding, influencing witnesses, or obstructing
investigation–were present at the time of arrest. Reliance is also
placed on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Arvind Kejriwal
v. CBI, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2550, wherein the Court deprecated the
practice of arrest being used merely to prolong custody without
demonstrable necessity. The applicant contends that his arrest was not
supported by grounds demonstrating necessity as required by law.
X. Delay in Trial as Independent Ground for Bail
22. Reliance is placed upon judicial pronouncements holding that
delay in trial itself constitutes a valid ground for bail, even in serious
economic offences. It is submitted that continued detention without
progress in trial infringes constitutional guarantees of personal liberty.
XI. Applicant’s Conduct During Parole
23. Learned counsel submits that the applicant was granted parole
on multiple occasions owing to serious illness and subsequent demise
of his mother. During the entire period of release, no complaint of
misuse of liberty arose, the applicant complied with all conditions and
surrendered as directed. This conduct demonstrates absence of risk in
releasing the applicant on bail.
XII. No Prima Facie Case Established
24. Counsel for the applicant ultimately submits that the charge-sheet
fails to establish a prima facie case showing direct involvement of the
applicant. Allegations are general and lack concrete evidentiary support
linking him with alleged illegal transactions.
10
25. On the cumulative consideration of prolonged custody, filing of
charge-sheet, absence of recovery, ongoing investigation, delay in trial,
grant of bail to co-accused,compliance with parole conditions and lack
of direct incriminating evidence, learned counsel for the applicant
submits that further detention of the applicant would amount to pre-trial
punishment. Thus, it is submitted that the applicant be enlarged on
regular bail on such terms and conditions as deemed appropriate by
this Court. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (supra)
emphasized that the object of bail is to secure appearance of the
accused at trial and not to impose pre-trial punishment. The Court also
recognized that prolonged detention before conviction results in
disproportionate curtailment of personal liberty.
26. He contended that the Investigation qua the applicant stands
substantially completed, evidence appears largely documentary, and no
misuse of liberty during parole has been demonstrated. The trial
involves numerous accused and witnesses, making early conclusion
improbable. Therefore, continued incarceration at this stage would not
serve the ends of justice.
XIII. Ingredients of Offences Alleged Not Prima Facie Made Out
27. It is contended that even if the prosecution allegations are taken
at their face value, essential ingredients of the offences invoked are not
made out against the applicant. Placing reliance on Mohd. Ibrahim v.
State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751, it is submitted that mere execution
or alteration of a document does not constitute an offence of forgery
11
unless it is shown that the document was made dishonestly or
fraudulently with intent to cause it to be believed as having been made
under lawful authority. No such material exists against the applicant.
28. Similarly, with respect to Section 420 IPC, it is argued that
cheating requires dishonest inducement resulting in delivery of property.
There is no allegation or evidence that the applicant induced any
person to part with property. Therefore, essential ingredients of the
offence are absent. With respect to Sections 7 and 12 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, learned counsel submits that the applicant
is not a public servant and there is no material indicating abetment of
any such offence. No such allegation appears even in grounds of arrest
or remand applications.
XIV. Bail Stage Not Meant for Mini Trial
29. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution is inviting this
Court to undertake a meticulous examination of evidence, which is
impermissible at the stage of bail. It is urged that determination of
evidentiary admissibility, reliability of witnesses and evaluation of
documents are matters reserved for trial and not for bail proceedings. At
this stage, only prima facie considerations and necessity of custody are
relevant.
XV. Selective Arrest and Pick-and-Choose Policy
30. It is argued that the investigating agency has adopted a selective
approach in effecting arrests. Persons alleged to be actual
beneficiaries, including aggregators, distillery owners and officials, have
not been arrested, while the applicant has been singled out.
12
Reliance is placed upon Vipin Yadav v. ED, 2025 SCC OnLine Del
6237, wherein it was observed that when the investigating agency
selectively arrests individuals, parity may extend even to those not
arrested.
XVI. Majority of Accused Not Arrested
31. It is further submitted that out of the total number of accused
persons arrayed in charge-sheets, only a small fraction have been
arrested, while several accused have been charge-sheeted without
arrest and many have been granted bail. Thus, continued incarceration
of the applicant becomes disproportionate and inconsistent with
treatment accorded to other accused persons.
XVII. Bail Granted to Excise Officers and Other Accused
32. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that even excise
officers and other functionaries alleged to be directly connected with the
alleged policy and operational aspects have been granted bail either by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court or by this Court. Once similarly or more
directly placed accused persons have been granted bail, denial of bail
to the applicant would be inconsistent with settled principles of parity.
Reliance is placed upon Krishnan Subramanian v. State, 2022 SCC
OnLine Del 1384, and Chandra Prakash Khandelwal v. ED, 2023
SCC OnLine Del 1094, where parity in bail was recognized as a
relevant consideration.
XVIII. Applicant Already Granted Bail in ED Case
33. Learned counsel points out that in connected proceedings arising
out of Enforcement Directorate investigation, the Supreme Court has
13
already granted bail to the applicant. It is argued that the present
prosecution is substantially founded upon the same set of allegations,
and therefore continued detention in the present matter becomes
unwarranted.
XIX. Long Custody and Improbability of Early Trial
34. It is submitted that the applicant has undergone custody
exceeding a year and a half, while the case involves:
• large number of accused,
• hundreds of witnesses,
• voluminous documentary evidence and ongoing investigation
concerning other accused. Thus, early commencement or
completion of trial appears unlikely.
Reliance is placed upon Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of
Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, Ramkripal Meena v.
Directorate of Enforcement, and Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb,
(2021) 3 SCC 713, wherein prolonged incarceration pending trial was
recognized as ground for bail.
XX. Evidence Entirely Documentary
35. It is submitted that prosecution evidence is documentary and
already in possession of investigating agency. No further recovery is
alleged to be pending from the applicant, and therefore custodial
detention serves no investigative purpose.
XXII. Applicant’s Cooperation with Investigation
36. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
throughout cooperated with investigating authorities and never
14
attempted to evade process of law. His conduct does not indicate flight
risk.
XXIII. No Misuse of Liberty During Parole
37. The applicant was granted parole on multiple occasions owing to
illness and demise of his mother. It is submitted that the applicant
complied with all conditions, surrendered on time, and no complaint of
misuse of liberty arose. This conduct demonstrates that apprehensions
of misuse of liberty are unfounded.
XXIV. Apprehension of Witness Influence Must Be Based on
Material
38. Reliance is placed upon Zahur Haider Zaidi v. CBI, (2019) 20
SCC 404, wherein it was held that apprehension of influencing
witnesses must be based on tangible material and cannot be presumed
at bail stage. Such considerations become relevant primarily for
cancellation of bail rather than refusal in the first instance.
XXV. Departmental Enquiry Did Not Reveal Illegality
39. It is further submitted that departmental inquiry conducted by
competent authorities did not reveal illegality in excise policy or related
transactions, thereby weakening prosecution’s broad allegations.
XXVI. Applicant’s Undertaking and Roots in Society
40. The applicant is a permanent resident of the State with deep
roots in society, possessing family and property within jurisdiction of the
Court. He undertakes to abide by all conditions imposed and to furnish
adequate sureties as directed. In culmination, learned counsel submits
15
that investigation qua applicant is complete, no recovery is attributed,
evidence is documentary, co-accused have been granted bail,
prolonged custody has occurred, trial is unlikely to conclude soon, and
applicant has not misused liberty. Therefore, continued detention would
amount to pre-trial punishment, warranting enlargement of the applicant
on bail subject to conditions deemed appropriate by this Court.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/STATE
41. The Respondent-State/EOW, has submitted the following
reply/objections opposing the relief sought by the applicant:
At the very outset, the Respondent-State submits that the
present application is misconceived, premature and legally untenable.
The applicant seeks indulgence of this Court despite the fact that the
investigation in the present matter is active, wide-ranging and
progressing on several crucial aspects involving an organised economic
offence of enormous magnitude. Grant of relief at this stage would
seriously prejudice the ongoing investigation and undermine efforts to
unearth the full contours of the conspiracy and financial trail.
II. Earlier Rejection of Bail by this Court
42. It is submitted that the applicant’s bail application had already
been rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024 passed in
M.Cr.C. No. 3455 of 2024, after due consideration of the seriousness of
allegations and the material collected during investigation. The findings
recorded therein continue to hold good, and there has been no change
in circumstances warranting reconsideration.
16
III. Proceedings Before the Supreme Court
43. Thereafter, the applicant approached the Supreme Court by filing
SLP (Crl.) No. 433 of 2025, which was dismissed vide order dated
14.07.2025. While dismissing the petition, liberty was granted to
renewthe bail application only in the event of lack of progress in
investigation within four months. It is submitted that such liberty cannot
be invoked mechanically or as a matter of right. The record clearly
demonstrates substantial investigative progress subsequent to the said
order.
IV. Investigation is presently underway and continues unabated
44. The allegation that investigation is stagnant is wholly incorrect
and contrary to the record. The investigating agency has, during the
relevant period:
• examined voluminous digital evidence approximating one
terabyte of data,
• traced complex financial transactions and layering of proceeds of
crime,
• identified foreign routing and hawala channels,
• examined beneficiary entities and money flow structures,
• analysed digital chats and financial communications and filed
multiple supplementary charge-sheets incorporating further
evidence and additional accused persons.
• Critical aspects including complete quantification of proceeds of
crime, identification of ultimate beneficiaries, and international
17financial linkages remain under active investigation.
V. Filing of Supplementary Charge-Sheets
45. It is submitted that the investigation did not stop after filing earlier
charge-sheets. Rather, further investigation resulted in filing successive
supplementary charge-sheets, including the 7th Supplementary
Charge-Sheet dated 22.12.2025, which incorporates material collected
during subsequent investigation, including emerging conspiracy links
and role of connected persons. Further reports are likely to be filed as
investigation progresses.
VI. Continued Investigation Qua the Applicant
46. The contention that no investigation survives against the
applicant is factually incorrect. Post-challan investigation has continued
specifically with respect to the applicant, including collection and
forensic analysis of additional digital evidence, examination of money-
trail and financial layering, verification of beneficiary channels,
investigation of foreign and hawala routing and corroboration through
witness statements and documentary material. Prima facie, the material
garnered fortifies the prosecution’s narrative, evincing heightened
complicity and an extended conspiratorial chain among the accused.
VII. Risk of Witness Influence and Evidence Tampering
47. Considering the nature of allegations, operational reach of the
syndicate and influence wielded by the applicant, there exists a genuine
and immediate apprehension that if released, the applicant may
influence or intimidate material witnesses, tamper with documentary
18
and digital evidence, obstruct investigation, interfere with identification
of additional accused and beneficiaries. Thus, protection of evidence
and witnesses remains crucial at this stage of investigation.
VIII. Seriousness and Magnitude of the Offence
48. The present matter concerns a systematic and organised
economic offence involving generation, concealment and diversion of
massive illegal proceeds, resulting in grave loss to public revenue and
affecting public administration. The investigation has already revealed
financial impact running into hundreds/thousands of crores, with further
quantification in progress. It is settled law that economic offences
involving public funds stand on a different footing and demand stricter
scrutiny while considering bail.
IX. Wider Nexus Under Investigation
49. Further investigation has revealed linkages of the applicant with
broader organised illegal activities and financial irregularities, including
tender-related manipulations and illegal financial arrangements.
Documentary and digital evidence relating to these aspects is under
verification and corroboration. Therefore, the release of the applicant at
this juncture would seriously hamper these investigations.
X. Digital and Documentary Evidence Indicating Active Role
50. Forensic analysis of seized mobile devices and digital records
has revealed communications indicating the applicant’s active
involvement in facilitating illegal arrangements and coordinating
processes connected with grant of undue benefits and financial
19
transactions. The investigation also indicates involvement of
absconding and other associated persons whose roles are under
investigation.
XI. Liberty Granted by Supreme Court Cannot Be Invoked
Mechanically
51. The liberty granted by the Supreme Court was conditional upon
absence of progress in investigation. However, the record clearly
demonstrates sustained and substantial progress including filing of
supplementary charge-sheets and further collection of evidence.
Hence, the premise on which the present application rests is itself
erroneous.
XII. Balance Between Liberty and Societal Interest
52. He submtis that while personal liberty is an important
constitutional value, the same cannot override societal interest where
investigation involves organised economic crime of enormous scale. At
the present stage, safeguarding the investigation, protecting evidence,
and ensuring accountability of all involved persons must take
precedence over individual liberty claims.
53. Taking into consideration the gravity of allegations, nature of
evidence collected, continuing investigation, magnitude of financial
impact, possibility of witness influence and evidence tampering, and
thestage of investigation, it is respectfully submitted that no ground
exists for granting relief to the applicant. Therefore, grant of bail at this
stage would irreparably prejudice ongoing investigation and frustrate
20
efforts to expose the full conspiracy.
XIII. Ongoing Quantification of Illegal Proceeds
54. It is submitted that the investigation has revealed that the exact
quantum of illegal money received by the applicant and other accused
persons from the multi-crore liquor scam is still under systematic
quantification through detailed money-trail analysis. The illegal
proceeds were generated and routed in multiple forms, including: cash
collections, layered banking transactions, accommodation entries,
benami investments, investments in immovable and movable
properties, and conversion of cash into high-value assets. Tracing of
these proceeds is presently in progress and requires further financial
and digital examination.
XIV. Role of the present applicant as Key Operator
55. Material placed on record through earlier charge-sheets and
updated investigation establishes that the present applicant functioned
as a principal operator and major financial beneficiary of the liquor
syndicate. Investigation indicates that meetings held with distillery
representatives and senior intermediaries led to the formulation of
mechanisms whereby illegal commissions were embedded within
supply pricing structures and recovered through enhanced landing
prices. Thus, illegal commission structures were institutionalised
through coordinated decisions at syndicate level.
XV. Manipulation in Procurement Chain and Over-Invoicing
56. Investigation further reveals that procurement of broken rice used
21
by distilleries was deliberately routed through intermediary entities
connected with accused persons instead of direct sourcing from millers.
Entities such as companies linked with relatives/associates of accused
persons were used as intermediaries, enabling approximately 20%
over-invoicing, thereby embedding illegal commission within billing
structures. Banking and documentary evidence indicates that such
over-invoicing resulted in substantial illegal gains subsequently invested
in immovable properties and other assets.
XVI. Illegal Sale of B-Part Liquor and Commission Mechanism
57. Further investigation revealed that a parallel and illegal
distribution mechanism relating to “B-Part” country liquor was
implemented through collusion with distilleries. Under this mechanism,
large quantities of unaccounted liquor were distributed through
government retail channels, illegal commission at fixed rates per case
was collected and proceeds were distributed among key conspirators.
Initial district-level analysis indicated illegal commission in excess of
₹120 Crores, while consolidated data correlating statewide records
indicates that approximately 60.5 lakh cases of unaccounted liquor
were illegally sold, resulting in estimated loss exceeding ₹2,100 Crores
to the State exchequer. Correspondingly, the illegal commissions
attributable to key operators run into hundreds of crores.
XVII. Illegal Proceeds Attributable to Accused
58. Based upon available material and prima facie financial
assessment, proceeds attributable to the present applicant alone are
22
estimated to run into hundreds of crores, and further quantification
across procurement, distribution, manpower placement and supply
chains is still under computation. Preliminary assessment indicates
aggregate proceeds attributable to him may lie in the range of ₹250-
300 Crores, subject to final verification.
XVIII. Laundering of Illegal Proceeds
59. Investigation has further revealed attempts to legitimize illegal
cash proceeds through routing funds via banking accommodation
entries, creation of artificial loan/advance documentation, layering
transactions through multiple shell or intermediary entities and
investments in real estate and business concerns in names of relatives
and associated persons. More than ₹60 Crores worth suspicious
banking entries have already been traced, while property investments
exceeding ₹100 Crores linked to the accused and associated persons
are presently under examination.
XIX. Accommodation Entry Network Through NBFC Channels
60. It is submitted that the statements recorded during further
investigation reveal that cash collections were converted into banking
entries through accommodation entry operators and NBFC-linked
networks operating across multiple cities. Cash was collected through
intermediaries and corresponding NEFT/RTGS transfers were routed to
beneficiary accounts disguised as loans or advances, thereby
concealing the true origin of funds. This mechanism is presently under
detailed forensic financial examination.
23
XX. Digital Evidence Demonstrating Active Operational Role
61. Analysis of WhatsApp chats and digital evidence recovered from
devices linked to accused persons demonstrates direct involvement in
planning and monitoring B-Part operations, coordination in procurement
and distribution mechanisms, facilitation of distillery operations,
management of complaints and enforcement pressures, discussions
concerning postings, transfers and operational control, district-wise
cash collection and routing instructions and coordination with multiple
operational intermediaries. These communications establish the
accused as a central operational and financial coordinator of the
syndicate.
XXI. Evidence of Political Protection and Organised Structure
62. He submits that the Chats and witness statements further
indicate that the syndicate functioned with organized structure involving
multiple layers of protection and facilitation, strengthening the inference
that the accused functioned as a key ground-level operator and
financial coordinator.
XXII. Conversion of Cash Into Movable and Foreign Assets
63. Investigation also reveals that portions of illegal proceeds were
converted into bullion and other high-value movable assets and routed
through intermediary handlers to avoid detection. Further leads indicate
routing of substantial funds outside the State and thereafter outside the
country through hawala networks, including routing chains operating
between Raipur, Mumbai and foreign destinations. Quantification and
24
tracing of these proceeds remain under active investigation.
XXIII. Risk of Prejudice to Investigation
64. At this critical stage, disclosure of granular operational and
financial details would seriously jeopardize investigation, enable
tampering with evidence, alteration of money trails and influence over
witnesses. Grant of bail would significantly increase such risks,
particularly considering the influence, reach and financial capacity of
the accused and associated persons.
XXIV. Investigation Continues to Progress
65. It is submitted that the applicant’s contention that investigation
has not progressed stands completely falsified by the extensive
material collected post earlier charge-sheets, including digital evidence,
financial records, witness statements and supplementary reports.
Investigation has now progressed into deeper layers of financial routing
and beneficiary identification. Further charge-sheets and reports shall
be filed upon crystallisation of evidence.
XXV. Necessity of Continued Custodial Control
66. Considering the magnitude of economic offence, continuing
financial investigation, risk of witness influence, possibility of evidence
tampering and involvement of complex financial networks, custodial
control or continued restraint on liberty of accused persons remains
necessary for effective completion of investigation.
XXVI. Updated Consolidated Assessment of Illegal Proceeds –
Country Liquor Operations
25
67. It is submitted that upon consolidation of district-wise sales data,
warehouse records, transport movement details and digital evidence,
investigation has established large-scale illegal sale of unaccounted B-
Part country liquor. The updated assessment indicates illegal sale of
approximately 60.5 lakh unaccounted cases resulting monetary impact
and illegal accrual aggregating to approximately ₹2,174.60 Crores and
further illegal collections of approximately ₹52 Crores under supply
area/zone determination mechanisms. Accordingly, investigation
indicates that illegal gains derived from country liquor operations alone
amount to approximately ₹2,545.93 Crores.
XXVII. Illegal Commission from Foreign Liquor Operations
68. The Investigation into foreign liquor (FL/IMFL and beer)
operations reveals that illegal commissions for the year 2019-20 have
been quantified at approximately ₹88.69 Crores, additional illegal
commission of approximately ₹21.56 Crores has been traced under
market share manipulationsn and through FL-10B licensee
mechanisms, illegal collections of approximately ₹171.64 Crores during
the period 2020-21 to 2022-23 have been established. Thus, illegal
commission attributable to foreign liquor operations aggregates to
approximately ₹281.89 Crores.
XXVIII. Illegal Gains from Misuse of FL-10A License Policy
69. Further investigation establishes that misuse of the FL-10A
license policy resulted in three licensee companies obtaining undue
gross profits approximating ₹248.50 Crores, which, in ordinary course,
26
would have accrued to the State exchequer and CSMCL. Such
manipulation directly caused loss of legitimate State revenue.
XXIX. Consolidated Financial Impact of the Scam
70. Upon combining the illegal commissions (proceeds of crime) and
direct revenue losses arising from policy misuse, the total financial
impact presently established during the relevant period stands at
approximately ₹3,076 Crores. Investigation into additional streams of
illegal gain is continuing, and upon inclusion of further identified heads,
the overall scam amount is likely to exceed ₹4,000 Crores. This
magnitude itself demonstrates the organised and systemic nature of the
criminal conspiracy.
XXX. The inquiry delving into ancillary channels of evidence.
71. Investigation is actively examining additional channels of illegal
gain, including procurement manipulations, manpower placement
commissions, supply-chain distortions, accommodation entries and
foreign routing of proceeds. Further quantification and identification of
beneficiary networks are under progress and supplementary reports
shall be filed upon crystallization of evidence.
XXX1. Necessity to Protect Integrity of Investigation
72. At this stage, learned State counsel submtis that premature
disclosure of sensitive financial and operational details may prejudice
investigation, enable tampering with evidence, allow alteration of money
trails and facilitate influencing of witnesses. Hence, investigation
agencies are proceeding cautiously in accordance with law to secure
27
evidence prior to full disclosure.
XXXII. Respect for Orders of the Court
73. It is submitted that all actions of the investigating agency are
undertaken strictly in accordance with law and subject to directions of
this Court, and the State remains bound to comply with the said orders
in letter and spirit.
XXXIII. Verification of Contents
74. Thus, in view of the enormity of financial impact, ongoing
investigation, complexity of financial routing, involvement of multiple
entities and persons, and serious apprehension of interference with
investigation, the applicant does not deserve any discretionary relief.
Grant of bail at this stage would severely prejudice investigation and
frustrate efforts to bring the entire conspiracy and proceeds of crime to
light thus, the application be dismissed in the interest of justice.
FINDINGS ON PROSECUTION STORY
75. Having considered submissions by learned advocates and the
documents on record with due diligence–put differently. For
adjudication of the present bail application:
i. It appears that on 18.11.2022, on the basis of a complaint lodged by
the Income Tax Department (Complaint Case No. 1183/2022), the
Enforcement Directorate registered ECIR No. RPZO/11/2022, treating
Section 120-B IPC as a standalone scheduled offence.
ii. It is further borne out from the record that the Supreme Court in W.P.
(Crl.) No. 153 of 2023, vide order dated 28.04.2023, granted
28protection against coercive action in relation to ECIR No.
RPZO/11/2022, recording a prima facie view that no underlying
scheduled offence was made out.
iii. Thereafter, the applicant along with others approached the Supreme
Court by filing W.P. (Crl.) No. 208 of 2023 seeking quashing of ECIR
No. RPZO/11/2022. However, during the pendency of the said
proceedings, the Enforcement Directorate arrested the applicant on
06.05.2023 in connection with the said ECIR.
iv. Subsequently, the present FIR bearing Crime No. 04/2024 dated
17.01.2024 came to be registered by EOW/ACB, Chhattisgarh on the
basis of information forwarded by the Enforcement Directorate under
Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act vide
communication dated 11.07.2023, alleging existence of a syndicate
engaged in illegal manufacture and sale of liquor during the period
2019-2023, involving excise officials and other persons.
v. It further appears that several co-accused persons were granted
protection from coercive action by this Court in Cr.M.P. No. 721/2024.
The applicant also approached this Court by filing Cr.M.P. No. 860/2024
(Anwar Dhebar v. Union of India & Ors.) seeking quashing of the FIR
and interim protection.
vi. Thereafter, the Supreme Court in W.P. (Crl.) No. 208 of 2023 vide
order dated 08.04.2024 quashed ECIR No. RPZO/11/2022, holding
that there was no scheduled offence and no proceeds of crime, thereby
declaring the earlier ECIR to be unsustainable in law.
vii. Immediately thereafter, on 11.04.2024, the Enforcement
29
Directorate registered ECIR No. RPZO/04/2024 on the basis of the
present FIR and the applicant was subsequently arrested on
08.08.2024 in the said ECIR.
viii. The prosecution filed Charge-sheet No. 03/2024 dated 01.07.2024
against four accused persons including the present applicant, wherein it
was specifically mentioned that further investigation was continuing.
Thereafter, several supplementary charge-sheets were filed on
27.09.2024, 18.11.2024, 30.06.2025, 07.07.2025 and 26.08.2025,
which itself indicates that investigation continued for a considerable
period.
76. Without entering into the merits of the prosecution case, the rival
contentions deserve consideration under the following heads:
I. Successive Bail Application and Change in Circumstances
77. This Court is conscious of the gravity of the allegations levelled
against the applicant. The prosecution has contended that the applicant
is one of the principal conspirators and a key architect of the alleged
liquor syndicate, and that the activities attributed to the accused
persons have resulted in substantial loss to the State exchequer. The
earlier bail application of the applicant was rejected by this Court in
M.Cr.C. No. 3392 of 2025 dated 18.07.2025, and thereafter the
Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition vide order
dated 14.07.2025 in SLP (Crl.) No. 433 of 2025, while granting liberty
to renew the bail prayer in the event no progress in trial is made
within four months. The present application has been filed in
pursuance of the liberty so granted. The record indicates that despite
30
expiry of the period stipulated by the Supreme Court:
• cognizance against all accused persons is yet to be completed,
• charges have not been framed,
• supplementary charge-sheets continue to be filed, and trial has
not commenced.
Thus, the applicant has been able to demonstrate a substantial
change in circumstances, making the present application maintainable.
II. Length of Custody and Constitutional Protection of Liberty
78. It is not disputed that the applicant has remained in custody since
05.04.2024 and has undergone more than one year and seven months
of pre-trial detention. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.A.
Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, has authoritatively held that prolonged
incarceration pending trial is a valid ground for grant of bail even in
serious offences.
79. Recently, in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920, the Supreme Court reiterated that
indefinite incarceration without likelihood of early trial would offend
Article 21 of the Constitution. It has been held that :
“29. Detention or jail before being pronounced
guilty of an offence should not become
punishment without trial. If the trial gets
protracted despite assurances of the
prosecution, and it is clear that case will not be
decided within a foreseeable time, the prayer
for bail may be meritorious. While the
prosecution may pertain to an economic
offence, yet it may not be proper to equate
these cases with those punishable with death,
imprisonment for life, ten years or more like
31offences under the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, murder,
cases of rape, dacoity, kidnaping for ransom,
mass violence, etc. Neither is this a case where
100/1000s of depositors have been defrauded. The
allegations have to be established and proven. The
right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with
incarceration for a long period, depending on the
nature of the allegations, should be read into
Section 439 of the Code and Section 45 of the PML
Act. The reason is that the constitutional mandate
is the higher law, and it is the basic right of the
person charged of an offence and not convicted,
that he be ensured and given a speedy trial. When
the trial is not proceeding for reasons not
attributable to the accused, the court, unless there
are good reasons, may well be guided to exercise
the power to grant bail. This would be truer where
the trial would take years.”
80. Further, the Supreme Court in Senthil Balaji v. Directorate of
Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626, while considering the
issue of prolonged custody and delay in trial, has reiterated in
paragraph 27 that continued incarceration of an undertrial prisoner,
where the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, would
be inconsistent with the constitutional mandate under Article 21, and in
such circumstances the Court is required to lean in favour of grant of
bail. It reads thus:
27. Under the Statutes like PMLA, the minimum
sentence is three years, and the maximum is
seven years. The minimum sentence is higher
when the scheduled offence is under the NDPS
Act. When the trial of the complaint under PMLA
is likely to prolong beyond reasonable limits, the
Constitutional Courts will have to consider
exercising their powers to grant bail. The reason
is that Section 45(1)(ii) does not confer power on
the State to detain an accused for an
32unreasonably long time, especially when there is
no possibility of trial concluding within a
reasonable time. What a reasonable time is will
depend on the provisions under which the
accused is being tried and other factors. One of
the most relevant factor is the duration of the
minimum and maximum sentence for the offence.
Another important consideration is the higher
threshold or stringent conditions which a statute
provides for the grant of bail. Even an outer limit
provided by the relevant law for the completion of
the trial, if any, is also a factor to be considered.
The extraordinary powers, as held in the case of
K.A. Najeeb, can only be exercised by the
Constitutional Courts. The Judges of the
Constitutional Courts have vast experience.
Based on the facts on record, if the Judges
conclude that there is no possibility of a trial
concluding in a reasonable time, the power of
granting bail can always be exercised by the
Constitutional Courts on the grounds of violation
of Part III of the Constitution of India
notwithstanding the statutory provisions. The
Constitutional Courts can always exercise its
jurisdiction under Article 32 or Article 226, as the
case may be. The Constitutional Courts have to
bear in mind while dealing with the cases under
the PMLA that, except in a few exceptional cases,
the maximum sentence can be of seven years.
The Constitutional Courts cannot allow provisions
like Section 45(1)(ii) to become instruments in the
hands of the ED to continue incarceration for a
long time when there is no possibility of a trial of
the scheduled offence and the PMLA offence
concluding within a reasonable time. If the
Constitutional Courts do not exercise their
jurisdiction in such cases, the rights of the
undertrials under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India will be defeated.
In a given case, if an undue delay in the disposal
of the trial of scheduled offences or disposal of
trial under the PMLA can be substantially
attributed to the accused, the Constitutional
Courts can always decline to exercise jurisdiction
33
to issue prerogative writs. An exception will also
be in a case where, considering the antecedents
of the accused, there is every possibility of the
accused becoming a real threat to society if
enlarged on bail. The jurisdiction to issue
prerogative writs is always discretionary.”
81. The Apex Court emphasized that personal liberty cannot be
sacrificed on account of protracted investigation or delayed trial,
particularly where the accused has remained in custody for a
considerable period and the proceedings are not likely to conclude in
the near future. Applying the aforesaid principle to the facts of the
present case, it is evident that the applicant has remained in custody for
more than one year and several months, multiple charge-sheets have
already been filed, the trial has not yet commenced, charges have not
been framed, and conclusion of trial is not foreseeable in the near
future.
82. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Senthil Balaji
(supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case and lends
substantial support to the applicant’s prayer for bail. The same principle
has been reaffirmed in the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in
Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal
arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 15478 of 2025, decided in 2026),
wherein it has been emphasized that prolonged custody coupled with
delay in trial justifies enlargement on bail even in prosecutions involving
economic offences.
83. This Court also finds considerable support from the principles laid
34
down by the Supreme Court in recent judgments governing grant of bail
in economic offences.
” A three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Padam Chand Jain v.
Directorate of Enforcement has reiterated that
prolonged incarceration cannot be permitted
to convert pre-trial detention into punishment,
particularly where the evidence is primarily
documentary in nature and already seized by
the prosecution, thereby substantially
reducing any possibility of tampering with
evidence.”
84. It has further held that:”The right to speedy trial, enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the
offence. Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without
commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be
countenanced as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into a
form of punishment.”
85. It has further observed that economic offences cannot be treated
as a homogeneous class warranting blanket denial of bail, and the
Court must consider the individual facts and circumstances of each
case. The Supreme Court has also taken note in several cases that
periods of incarceration ranging from a few months to about seventeen
months have been considered sufficient for grant of bail, particularly
where investigation stands completed and trial is not likely to
commence in the near future. It has been observed that:
“Various Benches of this Court, while taking
into account the period of incarceration which
ranges from three months to seventeen
35months in several cases, have granted bail to
the appellants therein.”
86. It has further noted that where cognizance has not been taken,
against all the accused persons, proceedings remain at preliminary
stages, large number of witnesses are to be examined, and trial is
unlikely to commence in the near future, continued incarceration would
be unjustified. Thus, continued incarceration of the applicant for an
indefinite period would be inconsistent with constitutional safeguards.
III. Completion of Investigation Qua Applicant
87. Investigation qua the applicant culminated in filing of the first
charge-sheet on 29.06.2024, followed by multiple supplementary
charge-sheets. However, the charge-sheets themselves indicate that
investigation is incomplete and continuing qua other accused persons.
The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 has
held that once investigation is complete and the accused is no longer
required for custodial interrogation, continued detention must be
justified on compelling grounds.No such compelling necessity has been
demonstrated in the present case.
IV. Delay in Trial and Improbability of Early Conclusion
88. The record placed before this Court indicates that there are
numerous accused persons, more than 1100 witnesses, voluminous
documentary evidence running into thousands of pages, and
investigation qua other accused is still continuing.
89. Despite filing of several charge-sheets, the trial Court has not yet
36
taken cognizance against all accused persons and charges are yet to
be framed. Thus, commencement of trial itself appears uncertain and its
conclusion appears even more remote. The Supreme Court in K.A.
Najeeb (supra) and Manish Sisodia (supra) has held that when trial is
unlikely to conclude within reasonable time, continued detention
becomes unjustified.
V. Bail Granted in Connected Proceedings
90. It is an admitted position, and certainly so, that the Supreme
Court has already granted bail to the applicant in the connected
proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate, stemming from
ECIR No. RPZO/04/2024. The allegations crystallized in the present
FIR bear substantial overlap with those ventilated in the aforesaid ECIR
proceedings, pertaining to the very same transaction, role, and
complicity attributed to the applicant. The Supreme Court, in its
profound wisdom and after a meticulous scrutiny of the material on
record–including the applicant’s role, the nature of accusations, and
the totality of circumstances–deemed it just and proper to enlarge the
applicant on bail in the ED case. This enlightened judicial determination,
rendered by the Apex Court, unequivocally tilts the scales in favour of
the applicant herein. As held by the Supreme Court in State of
Maharashtra v. Suresh Nivrutti Bhusare (2016) 14 SCC 483, the
grant of bail in connected proceedings by a superior court constitutes a
compelling circumstance militating against continued incarceration in
parallel matters, particularly where the substratum of allegations
remains materially identical. Continued detention of the applicant in the
37
instant case, therefore, would not only be patently unjust but also
violative of the sacrosanct principle that liberty is the rule and restraint
the exception (Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273).
This factor, in itself, emerges as a paramount consideration warranting
the grant of bail.
VI. Parity with Co-Accused
91. The material on record irrefutably discloses that several co-
accused, in terms of role, complicity, and the gravity of allegations, have
already been favoured with the grant of bail by the Apex Court as well
as by this Court. Indeed, a substantial number of accused persons have
been charge-sheeted in the present case without even the
necessity of prior arrest. However, the present applicant is a principal
conspirator of the crime in question.
VII. Nature of Evidence and Necessity of Custody
92. Undoubtedly, the applicant stands as a chief architect of alleged
conspiracy. The case of the prosecution hinges predominantly on
documentary evidence comprising bank records, transactional ledgers,
and allied papers which stands fully secured and in the untrammelled
possession of the investigating agency. No whisper of any further
recovery, disclosure, or custodial interrogation is articulated qua the
applicant; the investigation vis-Ã -vis him stands concluded with the filing
of the final charge-sheet. In such circumstances, the continuance of
custodial remand serves no conceivable investigative imperative and
degenerates into sheer punitive overreach. This position finds unerring
affirmation in the sagacious pronouncement of the Supreme Court in P.
38
Chidambaram v. CBI (2020) 13 SCC 337, wherein it was trenchantly
observed that “If the investigation has been completed and the charge-
sheet has already been filed, the continued custody of the accused is
not necessary for the purposes of investigation. Where the evidence is
entirely documentary in nature, there is no necessity for custodial
interrogation.”
93. A perusal of the case diary and charge-sheet reveals that the
prosecution’s edifice rests preponderantly on documentary evidence,
which is already within the safe custody of the investigating agency. No
material is forthcoming to suggest any imminent recovery or custodial
necessity qua the applicant. The investigation against him stands
concluded with the filing of the charge-sheet. In this backdrop, the
continued incarceration of the applicant serves no investigative
purpose. As observed by the Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v.
CBI (2020) 13 SCC 337 wherein it has held that “Where the evidence is
documentary and investigation is complete, custodial detention is not
warranted.” This Court finds itself in respectful agreement. The
applicant’s detention cannot be sustained merely for the asking.
94. Aligned thereto, the Apex Court in Prabhakar Singh v. State of
Uttar Pradesh (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1085) has emphatically
cautioned against deploying custody as a tool for fishing expeditions
once tangible material is exhumed. The applicant’s enlargement on bail,
therefore, aligns seamlessly with these binding precepts, rendering his
continued incarceration bereft of any statutory or jurisprudential
39
justification.
VIII. Constitutional Equilibrium Between Liberty and Investigation
95. The offences alleged are economic in nature and undoubtedly
serious. However, gravity alone cannot justify pre-trial incarceration
ad infinitum. The Supreme Court in has held that “Bail is rule, jail
exception. Seriousness of offence cannot by itself warrant denial where
other factors militate against custody.”
Undeniably, the accusations herein pertain to economic offences,
the gravity of which merits vigilant scrutiny. Yet, it is a postulate etched
in stone within our constitutional ethos that the mere seriousness of
allegations, sans more, cannot sanctify indefinite pre-trial incarceration,
lest it metamorphose into punishment antecedent to conviction. The
Supreme Court, in the locus classicus of Sanjay Chandra v. CBI
(2012) 1 SCC 40, illuminated this vital tenet thus:
“The object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventative. It is to secure the attendance of
the accused during the trial… No one likes to
be in jail and one would certainly not like to go
back to jail after having tasted freedom. The
main consideration, therefore, ought to be
whether the accused is likely to abuse the
discretion granted in his favour.”
96. Upon a holistic prism of the conspectus, this Court cannot be
oblivious to the mosaic of compelling factors: the earlier bail application
stands distinguished on fresh supervening circumstances; liberty has
been vouchsafed to the applicant by the Supreme Court in cognate
proceedings; the applicant has endured custody exceeding 22 months;
investigation qua him is consummated with charge-sheet filing; a
40
colossal array of witnesses and documents portends an protracted trial;
charges remain unframed with zero trial progression; other many co-
accused persons bask in freedom; and the vista of expeditious trial
conclusion appears chimerical. Aggregately viewed, these facets
coalesce to render continued incarceration not merely unjustifiable but
tantamount to impermissible pre-trial punishment, antithetical to the
constitutional sine qua non of personal liberty (Supreme Court Legal
Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1995) 1 SCC 51). Article 21
mandates that deprivation of liberty must be fair, just and reasonable.
Here, with investigation complete and no trial in sight, continued
custody would be constitutionally infirm and disproportionate.
97. It is not in dispute that the applicant has remained in judicial
custody since 05.04.2024 and has undergone incarceration for a period
of about 1 year and 10 months, as an under trial prisoner. The record
further indicates that the charge-sheet was filed on 29.06.2024 and
thereafter as many as five supplementary charge-sheets have been
filed, yet investigation in respect of other accused persons is stated to
be continuing.
98. It is further significant to note that the earlier bail application
preferred by the applicant came to be rejected by this Court in M.Cr.C.
No. 3392 of 2025 dated 18.07.2025, whereafter the applicant
approached the Supreme Court by filing SLP (Crl.) No. 433 of 2025
seeking regular bail in connection with the present FIR. The Supreme
Court vide order dated 14.07.2025, while declining the prayer for bail,
41
was pleased to grant liberty to the applicant to renew the bail
application in the event no progress is made within a period of
four months, and further clarified that the impugned order passed by
the High Court shall not come in the way of consideration of the
subsequent bail application.
99. It is evident from the material placed before this Court that the
aforesaid period of four months has long expired and no meaningful
progress has taken place thereafter. Even as on date the trial in the
present case has not commenced, charges have not been framed,
cognizance against all accused persons is yet to be completed, and
investigation by the Economic Offences Wing in the subject FIR is still
continuing. Thus, the very contingency contemplated by the Supreme
Court while granting liberty to renew the bail prayer has arisen in the
present case. The prolonged incarceration of the applicant for about 22
months, coupled with the absence of any tangible progress in trial,
clearly indicates that continued detention of the applicant would serve
no useful purpose and would amount to punitive detention prior to
conclusion of trial.
100. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the Supreme Court
has granted liberty to renew the prayer for bail upon absence of trial
progress, and such absence of progress is evident from the record, the
applicant becomes entitled to reconsideration of his bail prayer on
merits.
101. Furthermore, the fact that more than 51 accused persons,
42
including the present Applicant, have been arrayed as accused, and the
prosecution proposes to examine as many as 1,111 witnesses. The
case also involves voluminous documentary evidence running into
thousands of pages, which would necessarily require considerable time
for appreciation during trial. The investigation is still continuing despite
filing of multiple supplementary charge-sheets indicates that the trial is
not likely to commence or conclude within a reasonable period of time.
This circumstance assumes considerable significance while balancing
the competing considerations of individual liberty and the interest of
investigation, particularly in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution.
102. Accordingly, the prolonged custody of the applicant, absence
of trial progress, and liberty granted by the Supreme Court
constitute substantial and compelling grounds for grant of bail.
Applicant has languished in custody for an inordinate period. Despite
the effluxion of considerable time, cognizance remains elusive, and the
trial is yet to commence. Thus, whilst the earlier bail application stood
rejected principally on the bedrock of the gravity, magnitude, and
pernicious scope of the allegations portraying the Applicant as the
principal conspirator in this egregious scam, the instant application falls
for consideration against the backdrop of prolonged incarceration and
inexcusable protraction in investigation and trial.
103. A person confined in judicial custody cannot be expected to
remain incarcerated indefinitely awaiting completion of
investigation, filing of supplementary charge-sheets, framing of
43
charges and eventual conclusion of trial. A person in custody cannot
be compelled to sit in prison indefinitely awaiting the uncertain
timeline of investigation and trial. The present case demonstrates
precisely such a situation where the trial is unlikely to conclude
within a reasonable time and continued detention would amount to
punitive incarceration without adjudication of guilt.
104. Accordingly, this Court deems it proper to grant bail to the
Applicant, notwithstanding the undiminished seriousness of the
imputations and his indicted role as principal conspirator. Continued
pre-trial detention amid such interminable delay would be manifestly
unjust, unconscionable, and subversive of the inviolable constitutional
safeguard of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
105. In light of the above discussion, and after weighing the
submissions, witnesses, ongoing investigation, absence of charge-
sheet cognizance against the Applicant, and protracted trial prospects,
this Court holds the view that the present second bail application
warrants approval and thus deserves to be allowed. It must be
emphatically stated that the Applicant is being released on bail
exclusively due to extended detention and the probable delays in
concluding the investigation and trial, not on the substantive merits of
the case.
106. The previous order dated 18.07.2025 in M.Cr.C. No. 3392 of
2025, which dismissed the Applicant’s bail plea following thorough
evaluation of the allegations’ severity, the gravity of offences concerning
44
public revenue, and the extent of the alleged liquor scam, stands intact.
This Court neither weakens nor deviates from the findings therein
regarding the prosecution’s case on merits.
107. The instant bail grant rests solely on a fresh and substantial shift
in circumstances, specifically the Applicant’s extended detention of
approximately 22 months, lack of substantial trial advancement despite
directions from the Supreme Court, submission of several
supplementary charge-sheets, and the unlikelihood of prompt trial
completion. Such ongoing custody would contravene the fundamental
right to personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
108. Thus, this ruling is to be understood narrowly as addressing
these intervening developments and must not be taken as any
comment on the merits of the case, which remain for determination at
trial, unaffected by remarks herein. Additionally, should any condition be
breached or new facts arise necessitating review, the prosecution may
apply for bail cancellation as per law.
109. In view of the foregoing discussion, and taking into consideration
the long period of incarceration undergone by the Applicant, the
magnitude of the prosecution case involving a large number of accused
persons and witnesses, the pendency of further investigation, the non-
taking of cognizance of the charge-sheets against the Applicant, and
the protracted nature of the trial, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the present second bail application deserves to be allowed.
45
However, it is made clear that the Applicant is being enlarged on bail
solely on the ground of prolonged incarceration and the likelihood of
delay in completion of investigation and trial, and not on merits of the
case.
110. The applicant is directed to be released forthwith on regular bail
in connection with Crime No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024, registered at
Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau, Chhattisgarh,
for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and
Sections 7, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, upon his
executing a personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) together
with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court, subject to the following conditions:
(i) he shall surrender his passport, if any, before
the Trial Court;
(b) the applicant must cooperate with the
investigation and the trial proceedings;
(c) he shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case;
(d) he shall commit no offence whatsoever
during the period they are on bail; and
(e) in case of change of residential address
and/or mobile number, the same shall be
intimated to the Court concerned by way of an
affidavit.
(f) He will not leave the country without prior
46permission of the Court.
(g) any stringent conditions as may be imposed
by the trial court.
Any violation of the above conditions will
entitle the prosecution to move application for
cancellation of bail which shall be considered
promptly and on merits.
111. Pursuant to well-settled bail jurisprudence, the views expressed
are strictly confined to bail parameters and shall not impinge upon
Article 21 rights during trial adjudication. The parties are bound by this
delineation.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Digitally signed
by SUGUNA
DUBEY
SUGUNA Date:
DUBEY 2026.03.03
17:47:44
+0530
