Chattisgarh High Court
Amit Mittal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 July, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:27547
Digitally
VISHAKHA signed by
NAFR
BEOHAR VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 4981 of 2026
Order Reserved on 24.06.2026
Order Delivered on 03.07.2026
1 - Amit Mittal S/o Late Rajendra Kumar Mittal Aged About 58
Years R/o Flat No. T G - 2 B/4, Garden Estate, Near Guru
Dronacharya Metro Station, District Gurgaon, Haryana - 122002.
... Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station In-Charge Police
Station - A C B/ E O W Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)
For Applicant : Mr. Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate
appears along with Mr. Arun Gaur, Mr.
Atul Kumar, Mr. Himasnhu Pandey & Mr.
Mayank Sharma, Advocates
For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate
General
2
(Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)
C.A.V. Order
1. The present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred on
behalf of the applicant seeking grant of regular bail in
connection with FIR No. 0044/2024 registered at Police
Station Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau
(EOW/ACB), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences
punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. Subsequently, during the course of investigation,
Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC along with Section 8 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were also added. The
applicant was arrested on 04.05.2026 and has remained in
continuous judicial custody since then.
2. The present application emanates from and assails the order
passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of
Corruption Act), Raipur, whereby the prayer of the applicant
seeking regular bail has been declined.
Case of Prosecution :
3
3. The prosecution case, as it unfolds from the material
collected during investigation, is rooted in allegations of a
well-organized and systematic corruption racket operating
within the functioning of the Chhattisgarh State Marketing
Corporation Limited (CSMCL), wherein the present applicant
is alleged to have played a influential role along with co-
accused person. It is the prosecution’s specific case that the
co-accused Anwar Dhebar, by virtue of his political stature
and influence, exercised undue control over the
administrative and financial processes of CSMCL and
misused such influence to orchestrate the clearance of bills of
certain manpower supply agencies in exchange for illegal
gratification.
4. According to the prosecution, the modus operandi of the
alleged conspiracy involved the imposition of a fixed
percentage of commission on the bills submitted by
manpower agencies engaged with CSMCL. It is alleged that
the person namely Anwar Dhebar, acting in concert with co-
accused persons, particularly Naveen Pratap Singh Tomar,
who was functioning as Deputy General Manager and in-
charge Managing Director of CSMCL, ensured that no bills
were cleared unless the concerned agencies paid the
demanded commission. The prosecution asserts that
4
Siddharth Singhania and Naveen Pratap Singh Tomar acted
as key intermediaries in this arrangement, facilitating the
collection, consolidation, and subsequent transfer of illegal
proceeds to the applicant. The entire process is alleged to
have been carried out in a clandestine yet structured manner,
thereby constituting a criminal conspiracy.
5. It is further alleged that the person namely Anwar Dhebar not
only received such commission amounts but also actively
influenced the escalation of the rate of commission beyond
what was previously prevalent. The prosecution contends
that, apart from the standard commission allegedly being
extracted, an additional portion of the service charges
payable to the manpower agencies was also siphoned off
under the guise of commission at the behest of the applicant.
This, according to the prosecution, demonstrates a deliberate
and calculated abuse of power aimed at deriving pecuniary
advantage through illegal means.
6. A significant development in the prosecution case arises from
the intervention of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which,
during the course of its investigation under the provisions of
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, unearthed
substantial evidence pointing towards corrupt practices within
CSMCL. A formal communication dated 05.12.2023 (F. No.
5
ECIR/RPZO/05/2023/678) was addressed by the Deputy
Director of the Enforcement Directorate, Raipur, to the
Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, under Section 66(2)
of the PMLA, sharing details of predicate offences disclosed
during the money laundering investigation and requesting
registration of an FIR and initiation of action by the Anti-
Corruption Bureau.
7. The prosecution heavily relies upon the events dated
29.11.2023, when a search operation conducted by the
Enforcement Directorate under Section 17 of the PMLA led to
the interception of a cash transaction amounting to Rs. 28.80
lakhs near the office premises of CSMCL. It is alleged that
two individuals, namely Abhishek Kumar Singh and Tejram
Nirmalkar, employees of M/s Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited,
a manpower supplying agency, were apprehended while
attempting to hand over the said cash to Devansh Devangan
and Jitendra Kumar Nirmalkar. A detailed panchnama was
drawn at the spot, and the cash along with mobile phones
was seized.
8. During interrogation, the said individuals purportedly
disclosed that the amount constituted illegal gratification
demanded for facilitating the clearance of pending bills of
their company. It was revealed that Abhishek Kumar Singh
6
had been instructed by a senior employee, Neeraj Kumar, to
deliver the cash to representatives of Naveen Pratap Singh
Tomar. Further statements recorded under Section 50 of the
PMLA indicated that the bribe receivers were acting under the
directions of one Lokeshwar Prasad Sinha, proprietor of M/s
Fortune Buildcon, who in turn had been instructed by Tomar
to arrange for the collection of cash.
9. The prosecution case further elaborates that M/s Eagle
Hunter Solutions Limited had submitted bills amounting to
approximately Rs. 3.43 crores to CSMCL, and in order to
secure clearance of the same, they were compelled to pay a
bribe calculated at approximately 8% of the bill value, i.e., Rs.
29.40 lakhs. It is alleged that this demand was accompanied
by explicit threats that the bills would not be processed unless
the payment was made. In furtherance of this demand, the
amount was withdrawn from the company’s bank account on
29.11.2023, out of which Rs. 60,000 was retained by the
operations manager and the remaining Rs. 28.80 lakhs was
handed over for delivery to the designated recipients.
10. The prosecution also places reliance on electronic evidence
in the form of call detail records, chat transcripts, and other
digital communications retrieved from the seized mobile
devices, which allegedly corroborate the existence of a
7
coordinated network engaged in the collection and
distribution of illegal gratification. Statements of various
witnesses and accused persons, recorded in the presence of
independent witnesses, are stated to further substantiate the
allegations of extortion and abuse of official position. On the
basis of the material collected by the Enforcement
Directorate, it is the prosecution’s case that Naveen Pratap
Singh Tomar, being a public servant, abused his official
position to obtain undue pecuniary advantage, thereby
attracting provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. The ED also indicated the possible involvement of
higher-level functionaries within CSMCL, suggesting that the
corruption was not isolated but systemic in nature.
Consequently, acting upon the information shared by the
Enforcement Directorate under Section 66(2) of the PMLA,
the State Economic Offences Investigation Bureau/Anti-
Corruption Bureau, Raipur, initiated further investigation into
the predicate offences. The present applicant is alleged to be
a principal beneficiary and key conspirator in the said illegal
scheme, having received or being intended to receive the
illicit proceeds generated through coercive extraction of
commission from manpower contractors.
8
11. In sum, the prosecution seeks to establish that the applicant,
in active connivance with co-accused public servants and
private intermediaries, engineered a corrupt mechanism
whereby official processes were subverted for personal gain,
thereby causing not only financial loss to the State exchequer
but also undermining the integrity of public administration.
Submission of Learned Counsel for the applicant :
12. Learned counsel for the Applicant, assailing the legality of the
prosecution and the continued incarceration of the Applicant,
has advanced elaborate and multifaceted submissions. It is
contended that the very institution of the present FIR
(commonly referred to as the “Manpower FIR”) constitutes a
gross abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that the
allegations, transactions, and factual substratum forming the
basis of the present FIR are substantially identical to those
already investigated in FIR No. 04 of 2024 (the “Liquor FIR”),
wherein multiple charge-sheets have been filed. The initiation
of a second FIR on the same set of facts is argued to be
impermissible in law and violative of the constitutional
protection against double jeopardy enshrined under Article
20(2) of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed upon
9
authoritative pronouncements including T.T. Antony v. State
of Kerala, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 and Amitbhai
Shah v. CBI, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348, wherein it has
been unequivocally held that a second FIR on the same
cause of action is unsustainable.
13. Developing the said submission further, learned counsel
argues that the present FIR is not only based on the same
material, accused persons, and transactions, but is in fact a
mere offshoot or consequence of the earlier Liquor FIR. The
alleged commission from manpower agencies is intrinsically
linked to, and arises out of, the broader allegations of illegal
financial operations within the Chhattisgarh State Marketing
Corporation Limited (CSMCL), which are already under
investigation in the Liquor FIR. The doctrine of sameness of
transaction, as elucidated in C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil
Nadu, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567, is invoked to contend
that no separate investigation or prosecution can be
sustained where the offences arise out of the same
transaction.
14. It is contended that the present applicant was called by the
concerned police on two occasions, and he duly appeared
before them for interrogation. After questioning, as no
incriminating material was found against him, he was neither
10
arrested nor detained and was permitted to leave. However,
when he was again called by the police on 04.05.2026, he
was arrested without there being any fresh material or
evidence against him. It is further submitted that the applicant
is one of the Directors of A2Z Infraservice Limited, which
was awarded the manpower supply contract by CSMCL. The
company has as many as five Directors, yet without assigning
any specific overt act or criminal role to the present applicant,
he has been arrayed as an accused. Learned counsel
submits that the entire work of the company at Raipur was
being managed by co-accused Mr. N. Uday Rao, who was
functioning as the authorised representative/agent of A2Z
Infraservice Limited. He was entrusted with the responsibility
of managing the entire affairs of the company in relation to
the CSMCL contract by virtue of a resolution passed by the
Board of Directors in its meeting held on 15.09.2020. As per
the said resolution, Mr. Sushil Kumar was the authorised
signatory, whereas Mr. N. Uday Rao was entrusted with the
responsibility of carrying out and supervising the entire work
relating to the CSMCL project. He was the key person
managing the entire gamut of operations. It is further
submitted that the bank account bearing No. 409001228831,
maintained for CSMCL operations, was exclusively operated
11
and controlled by Mr. N. Uday Rao. His mobile number and
email ID were registered with the bank, and no transaction
could be effected without his approval. The bills raised by Mr.
N. Uday Rao were duly certified by the officials of CSMCL.
Thus, according to the prosecution’s own charge-sheet, the
entire work alleged therein appears to have been carried out
by Mr. N. Uday Rao.
15. It is also argued that despite the allegations being directed
against the functioning of the company, A2Z Infraservice
Limited itself has not been made an accused. Instead, for
reasons best known to the prosecution, only the Directors of
the company have been implicated in the present case
without attributing any specific criminal act to the applicant. It
is submitted that the allegation in the FIR is that, on the
pretext of making overtime payments for extra working hours
of the workmen, inflated bills were raised before CSMCL and
the amounts were allegedly diverted towards payment of
commission/bribes instead of being paid to the workers.
However, till date, no payment towards overtime has ever
been released by CSMCL to A2Z Infraservice Limited. There
is not a single document forming part of the charge-sheet
which demonstrates that any amount towards overtime
wages was paid by CSMCL to the company. It is further
12
submitted that, even assuming the prosecution allegations to
be correct for the sake of argument, the total working hours
would approximately work out to 40-41 days in a month.
However, the company raised bills only for 30 days in a
month, and there is no anomaly whatsoever in the bills
submitted. No overtime charges were ever claimed or
calculated by the company. It is also contended that the
record itself reflects that the company received only about
₹12 crores from NKJ, whereas CSMCL deducted
approximately ₹12 crores as penalty from the company’s
dues. In addition, an amount of nearly ₹7 crores was
withdrawn by Mr. N. Uday Rao from the company’s account,
as he was exclusively operating and maintaining the said
account. Consequently, the company did not derive any
financial benefit from the contract and, on the contrary,
suffered substantial financial losses running into several
crores of rupees in the execution of the aforesaid tender.
Considering the aforesaid financial losses suffered by the
company, it has already proposed to invoke arbitration
proceedings against CSMCL for recovery of its legitimate
dues.
16. It is further submitted that the present applicant was not
named in the FIR dated 05.03.2024. Subsequently, under the
13
guise of recording his statement during the course of
investigation, the applicant was repeatedly called by the
investigating agency and, at a later stage, was arrested
without there being any material to indicate his involvement in
the alleged offences. Learned counsel further submits that
the applicant has extended complete cooperation to the
investigating agency on five separate occasions–twice in
response to notices and thrice pursuant to summons–which
fact is duly reflected from the record. The applicant voluntarily
appeared before the ACB/EOW on 04.05.2026 despite being
fully aware of the possibility of his arrest, thereby
demonstrating his bona fide conduct and willingness to
cooperate with the investigation. Thus, there is no likelihood
whatsoever of the applicant absconding or evading the
process of law. It is also submitted that the applicant is a
Director of a duly registered company having its registered
office at Gurugram, Haryana. The company is engaged in
large-scale manpower operations and employs approximately
10,000 persons across various projects. Therefore, the
applicant is a permanent resident with deep social and
professional roots and there is no possibility of his fleeing
from justice.
14
17. It is further argued that the entire prosecution case rests upon
documentary evidence, including tender documents, bank
statements, invoices, contracts and other official records. At
present, all such documents are either in the custody of the
investigating agency or are otherwise part of the official
records. Whenever the applicant was called by the
ACB/EOW, he duly appeared and handed over all documents
sought by the investigating agency. Therefore, no purpose
would be served by his continued incarceration, as his
custodial interrogation is no longer required. It is further
submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant
influencing the prosecution witnesses or tampering with the
evidence. The applicant is a resident of Gurugram, Haryana,
whereas the witnesses are primarily situated in Raipur and
adjoining areas of the State of Chhattisgarh. Most of the
witnesses are public servants or official witnesses, and
therefore there is hardly any apprehension that the applicant
would be in a position to influence or intimidate them. It is
also submitted that the alleged offences pertain to the period
from 2019 to 2022, whereas the FIR came to be registered
only in the year 2024 after an unexplained delay of nearly two
years. Learned counsel further submits that, in another case
registered against the applicant under Section 406 of the IPC
15
read with Section 2(1)(b)/3 of the Essential Services
Maintenance Act, the applicant has already challenged the
FIR by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure before the Hon’ble High Court of
Allahabad. The said petition is pending consideration, and by
order dated 03.01.2025, the Hon’ble High Court has stayed
the further proceedings arising out of the said FIR.
18. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it is
pertinent to note that no FIR has been registered against A2Z
Infraservice Limited, the company which was awarded the
manpower supply contract by CSMCL. Likewise, none of the
officers or employees of the company who were directly
involved in the day-to-day execution of the contract or
preparation of the bills has been arrayed as an accused.
Instead, the prosecution has selectively implicated certain
Directors without attributing any specific overt act or criminal
role to the present applicant. It is further submitted that there
is hardly any cogent or legally admissible evidence on record
to establish that the present applicant either paid or facilitated
the payment of any commission or illegal gratification to any
official of CSMCL or to any member of the alleged syndicate.
The prosecution has failed to produce any bank transaction,
financial trail, accounting record, electronic evidence or any
16
other independent material connecting the applicant with the
alleged payment of commission. In the absence of any such
incriminating material, the prosecution’s allegation against the
present applicant remains wholly speculative and
unsupported by credible evidence.
19. Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is suffering from a
serious respiratory ailment, namely Obstructive Sleep
Apnoea, since the year 2013, which necessitates continuous
use of a CPAP machine during sleep. In the absence of such
respiratory support, the applicant is exposed to a high risk of
respiratory arrest, hypoxic brain injury and serious cardiac
complications. Owing to the deterioration of his medical
condition while in judicial custody, he has been shifted to the
ICU Ward of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital,
Raipur, where he is presently on Non-Invasive Ventilation
(NIV). His health condition is progressively deteriorating, and
he requires constant specialised medical care.
20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly
the absence of any specific role attributed to the applicant,
the documentary nature of the evidence, his complete
cooperation with the investigation, the absence of any
likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence, and his
serious medical condition, it is respectfully prayed that this
17
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the applicant on
regular bail on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit
and proper. The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the
trial and shall remain present before the Court as and when
required.
21. A detailed chronology of events has been placed on record to
demonstrate that each time the Applicant approached the
threshold of release, a fresh arrest was effected by another
agency or in another case. Such a practice, it is urged, has
been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter
of Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 2550 and more recently in Binay Kumar Singh v. State
of Jharkhand 2026 SCC OnLine SC 208 wherein the Apex
Court cautioned against the misuse of arrest powers to defeat
the grant of bail. Reliance is placed upon the celebrated
judgment in the matter of Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.,
reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 as well as Mohd. Zubair v.
State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023) 16 SCC 764 and
Siddharth v. State of U.P., reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676, to
contend that arrest cannot be made in a routine or
mechanical manner. Reliance is placed upon Ram Sharan
Chaturvedi v. State of M.P., reported in (2022) 16 SCC
166, Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, reported in 1964
18
SCC OnLine SC 28, Prem Prakash v. UOI, reported in
(2024) 9 SCC 787.Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in
(2012) 1 SCC 40 and Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State
of Punjab, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565.
Submissions of Learned State Counsel :
22. Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the
prayer for grant of bail and submits that the present case
pertains to a large-scale economic offence involving
systematic siphoning of public funds through a well-
orchestrated criminal conspiracy. It is submitted that the
allegations are not confined to mere procedural irregularities
but disclose a deep-rooted conspiracy whereby huge
amounts of public money were fraudulently extracted in the
name of overtime wages, bonus and additional working days,
which were never actually paid to the employees. Learned
State Counsel submits that the present applicant is not a
mere sleeping Director of A2Z Infraservice Limited, but was
one of the persons in overall control and management of the
affairs of the company. Being a Director, he cannot escape
criminal liability merely by shifting the entire responsibility
19
upon co-accused N. Uday Rao. The role attributed to the
applicant is supported by documentary evidence collected
during investigation, statements of material witnesses
recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS and the
memorandum statements of the co-accused persons. It is
further submitted that the investigation has revealed that an
amount of approximately Rs.34.06 crores was received by
A2Z Infraservice Limited under the heads of overtime
allowance, bonus, payment for additional working days and
service tax, although the corresponding benefits were never
passed on to the employees. Out of the said amount,
approximately Rs.6.90 crores was paid as commission to the
illegal syndicate headed by the principal conspirators. Thus,
the applicant was an active participant in the illegal financial
arrangement and was a beneficiary of the proceeds of crime.
23. Learned State Counsel further submits that the contention
that no overtime payment was released by CSMCL is
contrary to the material collected during investigation. The
documentary evidence, bank records, financial transactions
and statements of the concerned officers clearly demonstrate
that huge amounts were released under different financial
heads and were subsequently diverted in furtherance of the
conspiracy. It is further argued that merely because the
20
applicant was not named in the FIR does not entitle him to
the benefit of bail. During investigation, sufficient material
surfaced disclosing his active role in the commission of the
offence and, therefore, he was rightly arrested after collection
of incriminating evidence. It is well settled that an FIR is not
expected to contain every minute detail regarding the role of
each accused and that the investigation may subsequently
reveal the involvement of other persons. Learned State
Counsel further submits that the plea that co-accused N.
Uday Rao was exclusively handling the affairs of the
company cannot absolve the applicant of his criminal liability.
The company acts through its Directors and responsible
office bearers, and the applicant, being one of the Directors,
was under a legal obligation to ensure that public funds
received by the company were utilized for the purposes for
which they were sanctioned. The attempt to shift the entire
liability upon another co-accused is a matter of defence,
which can only be adjudicated during trial.
24. It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress
with regard to tracing the proceeds of crime, identifying other
beneficiaries, recovering diverted funds and unearthing the
larger conspiracy involving public officials and private entities.
Several financial transactions are still under scrutiny and
21
certain co-conspirators are yet to be apprehended. Therefore,
the custodial detention of the applicant is necessary to
facilitate an effective and unhindered investigation.
25. Learned State Counsel also submits that the applicant is a
resident of Gurugram, Haryana, whereas the offence has
been committed within the State of Chhattisgarh. In the event
of his release, there is every likelihood that he may evade the
process of law, influence witnesses, tamper with documentary
evidence or coordinate with other accused persons who are
yet to be apprehended. The possibility of obstructing further
investigation cannot be ruled out. It is further submitted that
economic offences involving public money constitute a
distinct class of offences and are required to be viewed with
greater seriousness. Such offences undermine public
confidence in governmental institutions and have far-reaching
consequences upon the financial health of the State. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI
2013 (7) SCC 439, Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI 2013 (7)
SCC 466, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement
(2020) 13 SCC 791 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar 2020 (2)
SCC 118 has consistently held that economic offences
involving deep-rooted conspiracies require a different
approach while considering applications for bail.
22
26. So far as the medical condition of the applicant is concerned,
learned State Counsel submits that adequate medical
treatment is being provided by the State authorities. The
applicant is presently admitted in a Government Super
Speciality Hospital and is receiving all necessary medical
care under the supervision of specialist doctors. Therefore,
his medical condition cannot be made a ground for grant of
regular bail.
27. Learned State Counsel lastly submits that considering the
magnitude of the financial scam, the substantial loss caused
to the public exchequer, the gravity of the allegations, the
prima facie evidence collected during investigation and the
active role attributed to the applicant, no case for grant of bail
is made out. It is, therefore, prayed that the present bail
application deserves to be rejected.
28. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the case diary, charge-sheet and other material and
the relevant documents placed on record.
29. The present application has been preferred under Section
483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking
regular bail in connection with Crime No. 44/2024 registered
by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Chhattisgarh, for offences punishable under Section 120-B
23
IPC and Sections 7(b) and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, wherein subsequently, after filing of charge-sheet,
offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and
Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act have also been
incorporated.
30. At the outset, this Court is conscious of the settled principles
governing consideration of bail under Section 483 BNSS.
While adjudicating a prayer for bail, the Court is not expected
to undertake a meticulous examination of evidence as would
be done during trial; nevertheless, the Court is required to
assess whether a prima facie case exists, the nature and
gravity of accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the
possibility of tampering with evidence, likelihood of
influencing witnesses and the larger societal impact of the
alleged offence.
31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kalyan Chandra
Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528
has authoritatively held that while considering bail, the Court
must take into account the nature of accusation, severity of
punishment, character of evidence, possibility of securing
presence of the accused and reasonable apprehension of
witnesses being influenced. The Apex Court observed that
24
grant of bail is a matter involving judicial discretion to be
exercised cautiously and not mechanically. It was held thus :
“11. 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 punishment
in case of conviction and the
nature of supporting evidence.
25
(b) Reasonable apprehension
of tampering with the witness or
apprehension of threat to the
complainant.
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of
the court in support of the
charge.”
32. The allegations in the present case disclose a deep-rooted
and systematic corruption network allegedly operating within
the functioning of the Chhattisgarh State Marketing
Corporation Limited (CSMCL). The material collected during
investigation, prima facie, indicates that manpower supply
agencies were allegedly compelled to pay illegal commission
for clearance of their legitimate dues and bills.
33. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the rival
submissions and upon careful perusal of the FIR, the charge-
sheet, the case diary and the documents forming part of the
investigation, this Court finds that the allegations against the
present applicant require to be examined keeping in view the
settled principles governing grant of bail under Section 483 of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. At the stage
of consideration of bail, the Court is not expected to conduct
a meticulous appreciation of evidence as would be
undertaken during trial. The Court is only required to examine
26whether a prima facie case exists, the specific role attributed
to the accused, the necessity of continued custodial detention
and whether his release is likely to prejudice the investigation
or the trial.
34. It is not in dispute that the alleged transactions pertain to the
period between 2019 and 2021, whereas the FIR came to be
registered only on 05.10.2024. More importantly, the present
applicant was admittedly not named in the FIR. Even after
registration of the FIR, the investigating agency repeatedly
summoned the applicant on several occasions. The record
reveals that the applicant appeared before the Investigating
Officer on 06.01.2026, 27.01.2026, 06.03.2026 and thereafter
pursuant to further notices. On every occasion, he
cooperated with the investigation, furnished the information
sought and was permitted to leave without being arrested.
Ultimately, the applicant was arrested only on 04.05.2026
when he voluntarily appeared before the Investigating Officer
pursuant to summons. The conduct of the applicant
throughout the investigation clearly demonstrates that he
neither attempted to evade the investigation nor absconded
from the process of law. His repeated appearance before the
Investigating Agency substantially negatives the
apprehension that he is likely to flee from justice.
27
35. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddharth v. State of Uttar
Pradesh, (2022) 1 SCC 676, has categorically held that
arrest is not mandatory merely because it is lawful to do so.
The power to arrest and the necessity to arrest are two
distinct concepts. The Court observed that where an accused
has cooperated throughout the investigation and custodial
interrogation is not required, arrest should not be resorted to
as a matter of routine. Similar principles were reiterated in
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260,
wherein the Apex Court held that no arrest can be made
merely because it is lawful for the police officer to do so; the
arrest must be justified by necessity.
36. Another important circumstance which persuades this Court
to consider the applicant’s prayer favourably is the manner in
which the arrest has been effected. Learned counsel for the
applicant has specifically contended that the mandatory
constitutional requirement regarding communication of
grounds of arrest was not complied with.
37. In the matter of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and
another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269, the Hon’ble
Court has held the following in para 41 & 41 with respect to
the communication of the grounds of arrest :
“41. The issue on the requirement of
28communication of grounds of arrest to the
person arrested, as mandated under Article
22(1) of the Constitution of India, which
has also been incorporated in the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
under Section 19 thereof has been
succinctly reiterated in this judgment. The
constitutional mandate of informing the
grounds of arrest to the person arrested in
writing has been explained in Pankaj
Bansal [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India,
(2024) 7 SCC 576 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri)
450] so as to be meaningful to serve the
intended purpose which has been
reiterated in Prabir Purkayastha [Prabir
Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2024) 8 SCC 254 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri)
573] . The said constitutional mandate has
been incorporated in the statute under
Section 50CrPC (Section 47 of the BNSS).
It may also be noted that the aforesaid
provision of requirement for communicating
the grounds of arrest, to be purposeful, is
also required to be communicated to the
friends, relatives or such other persons of
the accused as may be disclosed or
nominated by the arrested person for the
purpose of giving such information as
provided under Section 50-ACrPC. As may
be noted, this is in the addition of the
requirement as provided under Section
29
50(1)CrPC.
42. The purpose of inserting Section 50-
ACrPC, making it obligatory on the person
making arrest to inform about the arrest to
the friends, relatives or persons nominated
by the arrested person, is to ensure that
they would be able to take immediate and
prompt actions to secure the release of the
arrested person as permissible under the
law. The arrested person, because of his
detention, may not have immediate and
easy access to the legal process for
securing his release, which would
otherwise be available to the friends,
relatives and such nominated persons by
way of engaging lawyers, briefing them to
secure release of the detained person on
bail at the earliest. Therefore, the purpose
of communicating the grounds of arrest to
the detenue, and in addition to his relatives
as mentioned above is not merely a
formality but to enable the detained person
to know the reasons for his arrest but also
to provide the necessary opportunity to him
through his relatives, friends or nominated
persons to secure his release at the
earliest possible opportunity for actualising
the fundamental right to liberty and life as
guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution. Hence, the requirement of
communicating the grounds of arrest in
30
writing is not only to the arrested person,
but also to the friends, relatives or such
other person as may be disclosed or
nominated by the arrested person, so as to
make the mandate of Article 22(1) of the
Constitution meaningful and effective
failing which, such arrest may be rendered
illegal.”
38. Recently, in the matter of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that if an
accused is arrested for any cognizable offence, the
concerned Investigating Officer is required to inform the
arrestee of the grounds of arrest in writing. The following was
held in para 64, 65, 66 and 67 :
“64. In view of the above, we hold with
regard to the second issue that non-supply
of grounds of arrest in writing to the
arrestee prior to or immediately after
arrest would not vitiate such arrest on the
grounds of non-compliance with the
provisions of Section 50CrPC (now
Section 47 of BNSS 2023) provided the
said grounds are supplied in writing within
a reasonable time and in any case two
hours prior to the production of the
arrestee before the Magistrate for remand
proceedings.
31
65. It goes without saying that if the
abovesaid schedule for supplying the
grounds of arrest in writing is not adhered
to, the arrest will be rendered illegal
entitling the release of the arrestee. On
such release, an application for remand or
custody, if required, will be moved along
with the reasons and necessity for the
same, after the supply of the grounds of
arrest in writing setting forth the
Explanation for non-supply thereof within
the above stipulated schedule. On receipt
of such an application, the Magistrate shall
decide the same expeditiously and
preferably within a week of submission
thereof by adhering to the principles of
natural justice.
66. In conclusion, it is held that:
66.1. The constitutional mandate of
informing the arrestee the grounds of
arrest is mandatory in all offences under
all statutes including offences under IPC,
1860 (now BNS 2023);
66.2. The grounds of arrest must be
communicated in writing to the arrestee in
the language he/she understands;
66.3. In case(s) where, the arresting
officer/person is unable to communicate
the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon
after arrest, it be so done orally. The said
grounds be communicated in writing within
32a reasonable time and in any case at least
two hours prior to production of the
arrestee for remand proceedings before
the Magistrate.
66.4. In case of non-compliance of the
above, the arrest and subsequent remand
would be rendered illegal and the person
will be at liberty to be set free.
67. After having come to the above
conclusion, it is pertinent to note that the
provision of law under Section 50CrPC
(Section 47 of BNSS 2023) does not
provide for a specific mode of or time-
frame for communication of the grounds of
arrest to the person arrested. This Court
in Prabir Purkayastha [Prabir
Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2024) 8 SCC 254 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri)
573] , held that the grounds of arrest be
conveyed to the arrestee in writing in all
offences at the earliest, which means it
need not be given at the time of arrest but
within a reasonable time thereafter, for
offences under all the statutes, which
period would be as has been laid down
above in this order.”
39. Coming to the factual matrix, this Court finds that the
prosecution itself has placed sufficient material demonstrating
that the day-to-day functioning of A2Z Infraservice Limited in
33
the State of Chhattisgarh was not being supervised by the
present applicant.
40. The Board Resolution placed on record shows that one Mr. N.
Uday Rao had been specifically authorised to supervise and
conduct the entire business relating to the CSMCL contract.
The documents annexed with the charge-sheet further reveal
that he was the authorised representative operating the
Company’s bank account, dealing with CSMCL authorities,
coordinating with government officials and managing financial
transactions. The bank account through which the alleged
financial transactions were routed admittedly carried the
mobile number and operational control of N. Uday Rao.
41. The prosecution itself further alleges that approximately
Rs.12 crores were deducted by CSMCL as penalty from the
dues payable to the Company and that nearly Rs.7 crores
were withdrawn by N. Uday Rao from the Company’s
account. These circumstances prima facie indicate that the
operational and financial control of the contract rested
substantially with the said authorised representative.
42. Equally significant is the fact that the alleged recovery of
Rs.28.80 lakhs was not effected from the possession of the
present applicant. The recovery was admittedly made from
other co-accused persons at Raipur. No recovery whatsoever
34
has been made from the applicant. Likewise, there is no
allegation that the applicant personally demanded, accepted
or received any amount of illegal gratification.
43. Another significant circumstance noticed by this Court is that
one Siddharth Singhania, who according to several
statements recorded during investigation appears to have
acted as the principal intermediary between manpower
agencies and government officials, has subsequently been
cited as a prosecution witness. Without expressing any
opinion on the evidentiary value of such statements, this
circumstance undoubtedly assumes relevance while
evaluating the comparative role attributed to the present
applicant at the stage of bail.
44. The investigation, so far as the present applicant is
concerned, already stands concluded. The charge-sheet has
admittedly been filed. The entire evidence sought to be relied
upon by the prosecution is documentary in nature consisting
of contracts, invoices, tender records, bank statements,
official correspondence and electronic records, all of which
already stand seized by the investigating agency.
45. The prosecution has not pointed out any further custodial
interrogation which remains necessary. No recovery remains
to be effected from the applicant. There is no material to
35
indicate that he attempted to influence any witness during the
long period when he remained at liberty despite repeated
appearance before the Investigating Officer.
46. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,
(2012) 1 SCC 40, has held that once investigation is
complete and the evidence is primarily documentary in
nature, continued incarceration of an accused cannot be
justified merely because the allegations are serious. The
object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused during
trial and not to inflict punishment before conviction.
47. Likewise, in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC
51, the Supreme Court has reiterated that personal liberty
under Article 21 must receive primacy once investigation is
complete and the accused has cooperated throughout the
investigation.
48. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC
22, the Apex Court once again emphasized that grant of bail
is the rule whereas refusal is the exception and every
accused continues to enjoy the presumption of innocence till
conviction.
49. The prosecution has sought to fasten criminal liability upon
the applicant primarily because he was one of the Directors of
36
A2Z Infraservice Limited. However, criminal jurisprudence
does not recognise automatic or vicarious criminal liability
merely on account of holding a corporate office unless the
statute specifically provides so or unless specific overt acts
are attributed to the individual concerned.
50. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Small Industries
Corporation Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, (2010) 3 SCC
330, has categorically held that every Director of a company
cannot automatically be prosecuted merely because of his
designation. Criminal liability can arise only against those
persons who were actually in charge of and responsible for
the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant
time. Merely holding the office of Director does not create
criminal liability.
51. The same principle has subsequently been reiterated in Sunil
Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4
SCC 609, wherein the Supreme Court held that criminal
liability is personal and cannot be inferred merely from one’s
corporate designation. Unless the complaint or the
prosecution material specifically attributes active participation
or individual role to the concerned Director, prosecution
cannot proceed merely on the basis of his official position.
37
52. In the present case, apart from the applicant being one of the
Directors of the Company, no independent material has been
pointed out demonstrating that he personally instructed
payment of illegal commission, prepared forged documents,
handled the alleged cash transactions or participated in the
alleged conspiracy.
53. This Court also cannot ignore the serious medical condition of
the applicant. The medical reports placed on record indicate
that the applicant is suffering from Obstructive Sleep Apnoea
Syndrome, Type-II Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension,
Hypothyroidism and respiratory complications. The reports
submitted by the Medical Officer of the Central Jail further
indicate complaints relating to breathlessness, urinary
complications and kidney-related ailments requiring
specialised treatment from different medical departments. A
perusal of the report submitted by the Medical Officer, Central
Jail, Raipur, states the following :
“वर्तमान में मरीज को पेशाब संबंधी समस्याएं, कमर में दर्द
तथा सांस लेने में तकलीफ (Breathlessness) की
शिकायत है। उक्त लक्षणों के कारण मरीज का यूरोलॉजी
विभाग में उपचार जारी है। साथ ही मरीज की समग्र
चिकित्सकीय जांच एवं उपचार हेतु मेडिसिन विभाग,
रेस्पिरेटरी मेडिसिन विभाग, ऑर्थोपेडिक विभाग एवं
न्यूरोसर्जरी विभाग से भी परामर्श (Consultation) लिया
जाना प्रस्तावित/आवश्यक है।”
38
54. The record further shows that the applicant has repeatedly
been referred to Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital
and DK Super Speciality Hospital for specialised treatment.
Though adequate medical facilities may be available within
the State machinery, the deteriorating medical condition of
the applicant remains an additional circumstance which
deserves consideration while balancing the competing
considerations governing grant of bail.
55. Having regard to the cumulative effect of the aforesaid
circumstances, namely, that the applicant was not named in
the FIR; he appeared before the Investigating Officer on
every occasion pursuant to summons and fully cooperated
with the investigation; he was arrested after several months
despite such cooperation; the investigation already stands
concluded and the charge-sheet has been filed; the evidence
is predominantly documentary in nature; no recovery remains
to be effected from him; the operational control of the
Company appears, prima facie, to have been exercised by
Mr. N. Uday Rao; criminal liability cannot be fastened merely
because the applicant held the office of Director; and the
applicant is suffering from serious medical ailments requiring
continuous treatment, this Court is of the considered opinion
39
that further custodial detention of the applicant would not
serve any useful purpose.
56. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent matter
of Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement 2026 SCC
OnLine SC 30 has held as under:-
“16. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in V.
Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director,
Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 2626 case has held that under the
statutes such as PMLA, where maximum
sentence is seven years, prolonged
incarceration pending trial may warrant grant
of bail by Constitutional Courts, if there is no
likelihood of the trial concluding within a
reasonable time. Statutory restrictions
cannot be permitted to result in indefinite
pretrial detention in violation of Article 21.
17. A three Judge Bench of this Court in
Padam Chand Jain (supra), reiterated that
prolonged incarceration cannot be allowed
to convert pretrial detention into punishment
and that documentary evidence already
seized by the prosecution eliminates the
possibility of tampering with the same.
18. 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,
40without commencement or reasonable
progress of trial, cannot be countenanced,
as it has the effect of converting pretrial
detention into form of punishment. Economic
offences, by their very nature, may differ in
degree and fact, and therefore cannot be
treated as homogeneous class warranting a
blanket denial of bail.”
57. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Arvind Dham (Supra), Joginder Kumar (Supra),
Siddharth (Supra), Sanjay Chandra (Supra), Dataram
Singh (Supra), Satender Kumar Antil (Supra), National
Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (Supra), Sunil Bharti
Mittal (Supra), Vihaan Kumar (Supra), and Mihir Rajesh
Shah (Supra), and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the prosecution case, this Court is satisfied that the
applicant has succeeded in making out a fit case for grant of
regular bail.
58. Accordingly, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on
his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) with two sureties in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court,
subject to the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to
41any person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade such person from
disclosing the facts before the Court or any
investigating authority.
(ii) The applicant shall surrender his passport,
if any (if not already surrendered), before the
concerned Trial Court and shall not leave the
territory of India without prior permission of
the said Court.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present before
the Trial Court on each and every date fixed
unless exempted in accordance with law.
(iv) The applicant shall not indulge in any act
which may delay or prejudice the fair conduct
of the trial.
(v) The applicant shall continue to cooperate
with the investigating agency as and when
required in accordance with law.
(vi) In the event of violation of any of the
aforesaid conditions, it shall be open to the
State to seek cancellation of bail in
accordance with law.
(vii) In addition, the appellant will provide one
telephone/mobile No. on which he can be
contacted by the concerned Officials to
ascertain his whereabouts while he is on bail.
42
59. It is clarified that the observations recorded hereinabove are
purely for the limited purpose of adjudicating the present
application for grant of bail and shall not be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The
concerned Trial Court shall proceed independently and
decide the case solely on the basis of the evidence that may
be adduced before it, uninfluenced by any observation
contained in the present order.
60. Accordingly, the bail application is disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha
