Chattisgarh High Court
Anil Tuteja vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 3 March, 2026
1
2026:CGHC:11112
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ORDER RESERVED ON 06.02.2026
ORDER DELIVERED ON 03.03.2026
ORDER UPLOADED ON 03.03.2026
MCRC No. 10421 of 2025
1 - Anil Tuteja S/o Late H.L. Tuteja Aged About 62 Years R/o House
No.35/1396, Beside Farishta Nursing Home, Katora Talab, Civil Lines,
District- Raipur (C.G.) (Applicant Details Wrongly Mentioned In Copy Of
Impugned Order Annexure A/1)
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. EOW/ACB. District-
Raipur C.G. (Respondent Details Wrongly Mentioned As State In Copy
Of Impugned Order Annexure A/1)
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s) : Shri Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Advocate
through VC assisted by Shri Ankush
Borkar, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Praveen Das, Dy. AG
(HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA)
C A V Order
2
The present is the second application filed by the applicant under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking
grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 04/2024 dated
17.01.2024 registered at Police Station ACB/EOW, Raipur for offences
punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC read
with Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
pertaining to the alleged liquor scam in the State of Chhattisgarh.
2. The applicant is in custody in connection with the present FIR
since 21.08.2024 and, prior thereto, was already in custody in
proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate arising out of the
same set of transactions. Thus, the applicant has undergone prolonged
incarceration approaching two years in relation to the same alleged
transaction.
FACTS OF THE CASE
3. At the heart of the prosecution’s narrative lies an alleged criminal
conspiracy orchestrated by certain public servants, excise officials, and
private players to subvert the State’s excise policy, liquor procurement,
distribution, and revenue mechanisms–purportedly engineering
wrongful loss to the public exchequer and illicit gains through a shadowy
parallel system of commissions. FIR No. 04/2024 was lodged on
17.01.2024 against unknown persons and select accused; tellingly, the
applicant–a retired senior government officer of unblemished service,
was conspicuously absent from its array. His subsequent implication
rests on post-FIR witness statements and documents, despite his
3
unequivocal non-involvement: never posted in the Excise Department,
never wielding statutory authority over liquor matters, and never
touching a single file germane to excise administration. Exemplifying
utmost cooperation, the applicant dutifully complied with investigative
summons well before arrest. He had earlier invoked this Court’s
extraordinary jurisdiction for FIR quashing, securing interim protection
only for arrest to follow on 21.08.2024 (post-vacation) by ACB/EOW,
Raipur. Critically, this came atop prior custody by the Enforcement
Directorate for identical scam allegations, forging an unbroken chain of
pre-trial detention: nearly two years across agencies, exceeding 1.5
years under this FIR alone.
4. The prosecution’s case sprawls across multiple charge-sheets
and supplements, with the applicant belatedly named not in the initial
filings and investigation still meandering in segments. It ensnares over
50 accused (public servants and privates alike), cites 1000+ witnesses,
and buries the record under lakhs of pages, a colossus underscoring
trial delay and the applicant’s peripheral role. These facts, viewed
through the prism of twin bail touchstones non-tampering risk and flight
absence compel release, lest Article 21‘s guarantee against punitive
pre-trial bondage be rendered hollow. It is in the backdrop of the
aforesaid factual matrix, prolonged custody, subsequent implication,
filing of charge-sheets, parity with co-accused, absence of recovery,
documentary nature of evidence and inevitable delay in trial–that the
applicant seeks enlargement on bail.
CONTENTION OF THE APPLICANT
4
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, while assailing the
continued detention of the applicant and seeking his enlargement on
bail, advanced elaborate submissions touching upon factual,legal and
constitutional aspects of the matter, which, in substance, are
summarized as under:
APPLICATION FILED PURSUANT TO THE LIBERTY GRANTED BY
THE APEX COURT
6. It is contended that the present application is being filed pursuant
to liberty expressly granted by the Apex Court while dismissing the
earlier Special Leave Petition preferred by the applicant. The Apex
Court, while directing the investigating agency to complete investigation
within a stipulated period by filing an additional charge-sheet, granted
liberty to the applicant to renew his bail application before this Court and
directed that such application be considered on its own merits
uninfluenced by earlier orders. It is therefore contended that the present
bail application is maintainable and deserves independent consideration
in view of the changed circumstances.
INVESTIGATION QUA APPLICANT IS COMPLETE AND CUSTODY IS
NO LONGER REQUIRED
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that investigation
insofar as the applicant is concerned already stands completed and
charge-sheet has been filed. The applicant has not been interrogated
after expiry of police custody and no further custodial interrogation is
sought. It is argued that once investigation is complete and material
evidence is already collected, continued incarceration becomes wholly
unjustified. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court
5
in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein it has
been reiterated that arrest and custody after filing of charge-sheet
should not be mechanical and bail must ordinarily follow unless
exceptional circumstances exist.
PROLONGED PRE-TRIAL INCARCERATION VIOLATES ARTICLE 21
8. It is contended that the applicant has remained in custody for a
prolonged period in connection with the same alleged transaction before
different agencies. The trial has not commenced and is unlikely to
conclude within a reasonable period in view of the voluminous record
and multiplicity of accused persons. The Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra
v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, has categorically held that pre-trial detention
should not operate as punishment and where trial is likely to take
considerable time, bail should ordinarily be granted.
9. Further reliance is placed on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb,
(2021) 3 SCC 713, wherein it was held that constitutional courts are
duty-bound to protect personal liberty where trial is not likely to conclude
within a reasonable time.
RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL IS A CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE
10. It is argued that the right to speedy trial is an integral facet of
Article 21 of the Constitution. Continued detention when trial itself is
uncertain amounts to punishment before conviction. Reliance is placed
upon Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 291,
Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2005) 7 SCC 387 and recent
reiteration in Manish Sisodia v. CBI & ED (2023 SCC OnLine SC
1393), wherein prolonged custody coupled with delay in trial was held to
6
justify grant of bail.
CASE AGAINST THE APPLICANT IS BASED ON INFERENCES, NOT
RECOVERY OF DIRECT EVIDENCE
11. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that despite extensive
investigation and searches conducted by multiple agencies, no recovery
of unaccounted money, incriminating material, counterfeit holograms or
illegal liquor has been effected from the applicant. No property
belonging to the applicant has been attached. The prosecution case
thus rests upon inferential allegations and statements of co-accused
persons. Reliance is placed on Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar,
AIR 1964 SC 1184, wherein the Apex Court held that statements of co-
accused are weak evidence and cannot be treated as substantive
evidence against another accused.
APPLICANT SATISFIES THE TRIPLE TEST
12. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant
satisfies all conditions governing grant of bail:
• He is not a flight risk;
• He has cooperated throughout investigation;
• Documentary evidence is already in custody of the prosecution;
• There is no possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing
witnesses.
It is submitted that once investigation is complete and evidence is
documentary in nature, apprehension of interference becomes illusory.
Reliance is placed on P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of
Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791, wherein the Apex Court held that
7gravity of offence alone cannot justify denial of bail if the accused
satisfies the triple test.
PARITY WITH CO-ACCUSED FAVOURS THE APPLICANT
13. It is submitted that several co-accused persons, including those
alleged to have played far more significant roles in the alleged scam,
have already been granted bail either by this Court or by the Apex
Court. Even officers of the Excise Department and key functionaries
connected with procurement and execution have been enlarged on bail.
Many persons allegedly involved in core operational aspects of the
alleged scam have not even been arrested. It is therefore contended
that denial of bail to the applicant would violate the principle of parity, a
recognized ground in bail jurisprudence.
14. That the instant proceedings stem from the selfsame alleged
liquor scam wherein the Apex Court, seized of a co-accused’s petition,
(SLP (Crl) No. 16980 of 2025 Kawasi Lakhma Vs. Stateof CG) has
authoritatively reckoned with the investigation’s labyrinthine complexity
and the accused’s protracted incarceration. It has expressly noted that:
“Multiple charge-sheets and prosecution
complaints stand already filed in the
EOW/ACB case against sundry accused,
inclusive of the petitioner therein.The probe
implicates a vast constellation of accused
and voluminous material, with the
prosecution envisaging examinationof
hundreds of witnesses–portending an
inordinately delayed trial. Investigation qua
diverse facets and accused persists, with
supplementary charge-sheets imminent,
betokening proceedings of interminable
duration.
The Apex Court lucidly observed that
8such intricate investigations defy
expeditious culmination, and peremptory
directives to accelerate could grievously
impair the prosecution’s case [(2024) SCC
OnLine SC 1234].
Balancing Prosecution’s Imperatives with
Accused’s Liberty:
The Apex Court sagaciously
harmonized the prosecution’s right to
untrammelled investigation against the
sacrosanct personal liberty of the accused
more so where custody has ossified into
prolonged torment, and cooperation with the
probe stands unequivocally tendered.
Mindful thereof, interim bail was vouchsafed
to the co-accused under stringent conditions
mandating investigative cooperation and
prohibiting witness interference or evidence
meddling.
The Court clarified that such relief
constitutes no adjudication on merits,
leaving regular bail amenable before the
competent forum.
It is therefore Parity Imperative for the
Applicant: These hallowed principles,
sanctified by the Supreme Court for an
identically situated co-accused, bind with
irresistible force upon the present applicant.
Trial commencement remains a distant
mirage; custody, an unconscionable
perpetuity. Equity, precedent, and Article 21
compel analogous relief.”
INVESTIGATION REFLECTS PICK AND CHOOSE APPROACH
15. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that investigation
demonstrates a clear pattern of pick-and-choose action. Persons
allegedly involved in large-scale transactions and beneficiaries of
alleged illegal gains have not been arrested or proceeded against,
whereas the applicant, who was not even part of the Excise
9
Department, has been incarcerated for an extended period. Reliance is
placed upon the principle laid down in Vineet Narain v. Union of India,
(1998) 1 SCC 226, emphasizing that investigations must remain
insulated from extraneous considerations.
16. It is submitted that the investigation conducted by the Respondent
Agency reflects a clear pattern of selective prosecution. A non-arrest
charge-sheet has been filed against as many as 29 Excise Department
officials, against whom serious allegations involving huge financial
irregularities have been made, yet none of them have been arrested. In
contrast, the applicant, who was never part of the Excise Department,
continues to remain in custody. Key alleged beneficiaries and facilitators
of the alleged liquor scam have neither been arrested nor charge-
sheeted, including:
• Certain distillers, alleged to have benefited to the tune of several
hundred crores, remain outside custody;
• Agencies involved in manpower supply and cash collection,
alleged to be operating at the core of liquor trade operations, have
also not been subjected to custodial action;
• Vikas Agarwal @ Shubhu, described in the prosecution material
as an alleged beneficiary of illegal gains running into more than
₹1,000 crores and stated to be absconding abroad, has not been
secured in custody;
• Laxmi Narayan Bansal @ Pappu Bansal, alleged to be a recipient
of hundreds of crores, has not been arrested despite issuance of
non-bailable warrants, and is stated to have continued appearing
10before agencies without being taken into custody.
17. These facts, it is submitted, clearly demonstrate selective
prosecutorial action. The discriminatory nature of investigation has
already been judicially noticed by this Court in earlier proceedings,
wherein it was recorded that investigation appeared to be conducted
selectively.
18. It is further submitted that persons against whom allegations of far
graver roles exist have either not been arrested or have already been
granted bail, thereby entitling the applicant to bail on the ground of parity
alone.
NO RECOVERY FROM APPLICANT
19. It is submitted that despite searches and investigation by multiple
agencies, no recovery of unaccounted money, incriminating material,
illegal liquor, or counterfeit holograms has been made from the
applicant. No property belonging to the applicant has been attached.
This significantly weakens the prosecution’s allegation of financial
involvement.
NO PRIMA FACIE CASE MADE OUT AGAINST THE APPLICANT
20. Without prejudice to other submissions, learned counsel for the
applicant submits that even on merits, no prima facie case is made out
against the applicant. The applicant was not named in the first two
charge-sheets and came to be arrayed as an accused only in a later
supplementary charge-sheet.
21. The applicant never served in the Excise Department, never
processed excise-related files, and had no role whatsoever in liquor
11
procurement, licensing, or policy execution. None of the witnesses have
stated that the applicant was the mastermind of the alleged scam or that
any illegal gratification or kickback was ever paid to him. The
prosecution case, insofar as the applicant is concerned, rests largely on
certain electronic communications and statements of co-accused
persons, the admissibility and reliability of which are matters to be
tested during trial and cannot justify continued incarceration.
22. Despite multiple searches conducted by various agencies, no
recovery whatsoever of unaccounted money, incriminating material,
illegal liquor bottles or counterfeit holograms has been effected from the
applicant. The absence of recovery from the applicant has already been
judicially noticed in earlier orders, yet continued custody persists. No
property belonging to the applicant has been attached by the
prosecution, further indicating absence of material linking the applicant
with alleged illegal proceeds.
CASE BASED ON STATEMENTS OF CO-ACCUSED
23. Counsel for the applicant argued that the prosecution case relies
substantially upon the statements of co-accused persons, which are
inherently weak pieces of evidence and cannot be treated as
substantive evidence. Reliance is placed upon Haricharan Kurmi v.
State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184, wherein the Supreme Court held
that confession or statement of a co-accused cannot be treated as
substantive evidence against another accused.
APPLICANT NEVER DEALT WITH EXCISE ADMINISTRATION
12
24. It is further argued that the applicant was never posted in the
Excise Department and never exercised statutory authority relating to
liquor procurement or licensing. No document shows his direct
involvement in decision-making connected to excise policy execution.
Thus, according to the counsel for the applicant, the attempt to portray
the applicant as controlling excise affairs is factually incorrect.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ALREADY SECURED-NO POSSIBILITY
OF TAMPERING
25. It is contended that the entire case rests upon documentary
evidence already seized and placed before the Court. Statements of the
witnesses stand recorded. Hence apprehension of tampering with
evidence or influencing witnesses is wholly illusory. Reliance is placed
upon P.Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC
791, holding that gravity of offence alone cannot justify denial of bail if
the accused satisfies the triple test.
OBJECT OF BAIL IS NOT PUNITIVE
26. It is submitted that the object of bail is to secure attendance of the
accused during trial and not to impose punishment prior to conviction.
Reliance is placed on Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor,
(1978) 1SCC 240, and Constitution Bench judgment in Gurbaksh
Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, which laid down
that liberty must not be curtailed unless custody is imperative.
TRIAL WILL TAKE SUBSTANTIAL TIME
27. The prosecution has cited large number of witnesses and
documents. Cognizance itself is pending in respect of various charge-
13
sheets and further investigation continues. Hence, the trial is not likely to
commence in the near future. In such circumstances, continued custody
would amount to indefinite detention.
ALLEGATIONS DO NOT JUSTIFY INDEFINITE DETENTION
28. Even assuming seriousness of allegations, gravity alone cannot
justify indefinite incarceration when investigation stands completed and
trial is distant. The Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra (supra) held that
seriousness of offence must be balanced against personal liberty.
APPLICANT COOPERATED THROUGHOUT INVESTIGATION
29. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has
appeared before investigating agencies whenever called and there is no
allegation of non-cooperation. His arrest occurred only after interim
protection orders ceased. There is no Likelihood of Absconding. The
applicant is a senior citizen with permanent residence and social roots.
There is no likelihood of absconding or evading trial.
BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE LIES IN FAVOR OF BAIL
30. It is submitted that denial of bail would cause irreparable prejudice
to the applicant, whereas release on bail would not prejudice
investigation or trial since evidence is documentary and already
secured.
CONDITIONS CAN SAFEGUARD PROSECUTION INTEREST
31. It is submitted that any apprehension of the prosecution can be
addressed through stringent bail conditions, including restrictions on
travel, attendance before authorities and other safeguards deemed
14
appropriate.
32. On a holistic appraisal of the attendant circumstances viz.,
investigation’s culmination, the applicant’s protracted incarceration
nearing two years, the overwhelming documentary hue of evidence
foreclosing tampering, stark absence of recoveries, parity with co-
accused already liberated, inexorable trial delay amid 1000+ witnesses
and lakhs of pages, applicant’s unreserved cooperation, and the
paramount constitutional ethos of personal liberty enshrined in Article
21, learned counsel submits that his continued incarceration transcends
mere custody into punitive retribution prior to adjudication of guilt.
33. This inexorable detention, bereft of exceptional justification, flouts
the sacrosanct bail mantra (Siddaram Satappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar) and erodes the rule of
law’s foundational precept: bail, not jail, as the norm.
34. In culmination of the foregoing submissions, learned Counsel for
the applicant submits that the applicant’s continued incarceration is
wholly unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case,
occasioning a direct infraction of his fundamental right to personal liberty
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the
applicant remains in custody despite substantial completion of
investigation and filing of supplementary charge-sheets qua him. No
further custodial interrogation is required or contemplated. The
prosecution’s evidence being predominantly documentary and already in
judicial custody, precludes any apprehension of tampering.
15
35. It is further urged that several co-accused, including those alleged
to have played more significant roles, have been enlarged on bail;
continued detention of the applicant offends the principle of parity.
Lastly, the Apex Court, while declining interim bail earlier, granted liberty
to renew the application post-investigation. The instant application, filed
pursuant thereto, merits consideration on its own merits amid
subsequent developments. Given the settled principles governing bail–
prolonged incarceration, documentary evidence, absence of recovery,
parity with co-accused, and inevitable trial delay, this Court may enlarge
the applicant on bail upon such terms and conditions as deemed fit in
the interests of justice.
REPLY ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
36. The State contests the instant bail application strenuously, on
facts as well as law, as elucidated below.
I. OFFENCE DISCLOSES A DEEP-ROOTED ECONOMIC
CONSPIRACY CAUSING HUGE LOSS TO THE STATE EXCHEQUER
37. It is submitted that the present case does not involve an isolated
criminal act but concerns a well-orchestrated, large-scale economic
conspiracy relating to manipulation of State liquor policy, illegal
extraction of commission, diversion of public revenue, and unlawful
enrichment of a criminal syndicate operating through manipulation of
administrative machinery.
38. Investigation reveals that a syndicate comprising government
functionaries, influential intermediaries and private operators devised
and implemented a systematic mechanism for:
16
* collection of illegal commissions from liquor suppliers,
* sale of unaccounted liquor through State channels,
* use of counterfeit holograms and manipulation of distribution channels,
and
* generation and laundering of huge illegal proceeds.
39. The magnitude of illegal financial gain runs into hundreds of
crores, causing grave financial loss to the State exchequer and
undermining public trust in governance. The Apex Court has repeatedly
held that economic offences constitute a class apart, requiring a strict
approach in bail matters. Reliance is placed upon Y.S. Jagan Mohan
Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, wherein the Apex Court has held that
economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and huge loss of
public funds must be viewed seriously while considering bail.
40. Similarly, in Serious Fraud Investigation Office v. Nittin Johari,
(2019) 9 SCC 165, it was held that economic offences are committed
with deliberate design and have serious consequences for the economy
of the country.
II. APPLICANT PLAYED A CENTRAL ROLE IN EXECUTION OF THE
CONSPIRACY
41. It is contended that the applicant was not a peripheral or
incidental participant, but played a central and coordinating role in
implementation of the criminal scheme. Evidence collected during
investigation demonstrates that:
* The applicant actively facilitated appointments and postings of key
officers instrumental in execution of the excise policy mechanism.
17* He maintained continuous communication with principal conspirators
and intermediaries responsible for commission collection and policy
manipulation.
* Digital evidence reveals sustained involvement in operational as well
as policy-level decisions affecting liquor distribution and revenue flows.
* The applicant exercised influence over administrative processes
across departments to ensure continuation of the illegal scheme.
42. The material collected shows that his involvement extended
beyond routine administrative interaction and directly impacted policy
implementation and operational decisions. The Apex Court in State of
Bihar v. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751, has held that where material
indicates active participation in economic offences of large magnitude,
grant of bail at an early stage is not justified.
III. DIGITAL EVIDENCE CLEARLY LINKS APPLICANT TO
CONSPIRACY
43. During investigation, digital devices including the mobile phone of
the applicant were seized and subjected to forensic analysis. WhatsApp
chats and digital communication recovered reveal:
* coordination with co-accused persons regarding appointments,
postings and policy decisions;
* discussions relating to operational matters connected with excise
administration;
* involvement in matters concerning tendering, distribution
arrangements and policy implementation;
* communication concerning financial arrangements and distribution
18mechanisms.
44. The digital trail shows that the applicant was actively involved in
matters forming the backbone of the illegal scheme. The Apex Court in
P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24,
recognized that economic offences supported by documentary and
digital evidence require careful consideration while granting bail.
IV. POSSIBILITY OF TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE AND INFLUENCING WITNESSES
44. It is submitted that the applicant held an influential position and
enjoyed proximity to persons in power and administrative machinery.
Release of such an accused at this stage carries substantial risk of:
* influencing witnesses, many of whom are government officials;
* interfering with documentary and digital evidence;
* obstructing further investigation and trial.
45. The conspiracy involves administrative officers and
intermediaries, many of whom remain susceptible to influence. The
Apex Court in Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466, held
that in economic offences involving influential persons, the possibility of
tampering with evidence is a relevant consideration for denial of bail.
V. GRAVITY OF OFFENCE AND PUBLIC INTEREST OUTWEIGH
PERSONAL LIBERTY
46. It is respectfully submitted that personal liberty, though
sacrosanct, cannot be considered in isolation when weighed against the
seriousness of allegations affecting public revenue and governance. The
Apex Court in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2
19
SCC 364, held that economic offences harm the entire community and
must be dealt with sternly. Grant of bail in such matters risks eroding
public confidence in the criminal justice system.
VI. INVESTIGATION IS CONTINUING AND TRIAL INVOLVES
VOLUMINOUS MATERIAL
47. Investigation has revealed complex financial and administrative
linkages. Analysis of documentary and digital evidence is ongoing, and
several aspects require further examination. The prosecution proposes
to rely on voluminous records and multiple witnesses, making early
release of the applicant detrimental to the course of justice.
VII. PARITY CANNOT BE CLAIMED WHERE ROLE IS DISTINCT
48. The applicant seeks parity with other accused persons. However,
parity cannot be mechanically applied when the role attributed to the
applicant is materially different and more serious. The Apex Court in
Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2016) 15 SCC 422, held that parity
cannot override consideration of individual role and impact of the
offence.
49. The Apex Court vouchsafed merely interim bail to the co-accused
(Kawasi Lakhma) in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that
singular case, expressly eschewing any adjudication on the merits of
the allegations and has cogently cautioned that its order shall not
be construed as an expression of opinion on merits, nor does it
confer any precedential entitlement to bail upon other accused in
connected matters. Such relief was calibrated to the unique attributes
of the co-accused: his individualized custody duration, demonstrated
investigative cooperation, and sundry bespoke factors, none of which
20
translate mechanically to the present applicant. Critically, the Apex Court
permitted unhindered continuance of the ongoing investigation,
underscoring that probe integrity remains paramount. No General
Principle Emerges:The cited order lays down no universal mandate for
bail to all in cognate proceedings. Bail jurisprudence mandates case-
specific scrutiny hinging on the applicant’s discrete role in the
conspiracy; Prima facie material unearthed against him; Tangible risks of
witness tampering or investigative sabotage. Parity is no talisman; it
yields to individuated merits (Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi,
2001). The interim relief to the co-accused thus affords no automatic
passport to liberty for the present applicant. This application merits
independent adjudication on its compelling facts, warranting rejection.
VIII. ECONOMIC OFFENCES REQUIRE A DIFFERENT APPROACH
IN BAIL JURISPRUDENCE
50. The Apex Court has consistently emphasized that economic
offences involving public money and institutional corruption require a
cautious approach. Reference has been made to
* CBI v. Ramendu Chattopadhyay, (2020) 14 SCC 356
* Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI (supra)
* Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy (supra)
These judgments underscore that grant of bail in serious
economic offences should not be routine.
IX. APPLICANT’S RELEASE WOULD PREJUDICE FAIR TRIAL
51. Given the applicant’s alleged influence and administrative reach,
his release may prejudice fair conduct of trial and impede examination
of witnesses who remain vulnerable to pressure. Preservation of
21
integrity of judicial process must prevail.
X. APPLICANT’S CONTINUING ROLE IN POLICY EXECUTION
AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL
52. Investigation has revealed that the applicant was not merely a
passive observer but exercised continuing influence over policy
execution and administrative processes relating to excise
administration. The recovered digital communications demonstrate that
even after approval of the excise policy by the competent authority,
senior officials continued to communicate policy status and
implementation updates to the applicant. The applicant, in turn,
forwarded and escalated such matters, thereby evidencing his
continuing involvement and influence in sensitive policy and
administrative matters. This conduct reflects not only access but active
intervention in policy execution and operational decisions, strengthening
the prosecution case regarding his involvement in the conspiracy.
XI. ILLEGAL PARALLEL SALE OF “B-PART” COUNTRY LIQUOR
53. It has been further revealed that, in continuation of the conspiracy
and in collusion with distilleries, a parallel and illegal distribution
mechanism of “B-Part” country liquor was operated through Government
retail channels. Under this mechanism, a fixed illegal commission of
₹300 per case was earmarked for principal conspirators, including the
applicant, resulting in systematic diversion of revenue. Initial district-
wise data indicated illegal sale of approximately 41 lakh cases
generating illegal commission exceeding ₹123 Crores, with the
applicant’s share assessed at over ₹60 Crores.
54. Subsequent consolidation of State-level sales data, warehouse
22
records, transport movement details, cash collection records and digital
evidence has now revealed that approximately 60.5 lakh cases of
unaccounted liquor were illegally sold, causing an estimated revenue
loss of about ₹2,174 Crores to the State exchequer. On application of
the illegal commission formula, the total illegal commission derived from
these operations is assessed at approximately ₹181.50 Crores, with the
applicant’s share estimated at approximately ₹90 Crores, thereby
demonstrating his role as a major beneficiary.
XII. `MASSIVE FINANCIAL IMPACT ESTABLISHED BY INVESTIGATION
55. Investigation has further established that:
* Illegal commissions from distilleries amount to approximately ₹319
Crores;
* Illegal B-Part liquor sales have caused revenue loss exceeding ₹2,174
Crores;
* Additional illegal collections under supply zone determinations
approximate ₹52 Crores.
Thus, from country liquor operations alone, illegal proceeds
exceeding ₹2,545 Crores have been traced. Further investigation in
respect of foreign liquor operations shows:
* Illegal commission of about ₹88 Crores during 2019-20;
* Additional illegal collections of approximately ₹21 Crores under market
share arrangements;Further illegal collections of approximately ₹171
Crores through licensee channels over subsequent years.
56. Collectively, illegal commissions attributable to foreign liquor
operations approximate ₹281 Crores, raising the total illegal commission
23
derived from both country and foreign liquor operations to nearly ₹2,828
Crores. Apart from illegal commissions, misuse of licensing mechanisms
further resulted in undue profit of approximately ₹248 Crores to private
entities, which otherwise constituted revenue legitimately accruable to
the State.
57. Thus, the consolidated financial impact of the scam presently
established exceeds ₹3,000 Crores, with investigation indicating that the
total figure may eventually exceed ₹4,000 Crores upon tracing
additional streams.
XIII. REAL APPREHENSION OF TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE
58. The investigation presently involves extensive digital, financial
and documentary evidence, including:
* digital chats and communication trails,
* layered financial transactions and hawala routing,
* intermediary handlers and money trails, and
* beneficiary identification and asset tracing.
59. Protection of witnesses and preservation of digital and
documentary evidence are critical at this stage. Release of the applicant
carries a real and substantial risk of influencing witnesses, tampering
with evidence, and obstructing investigation, particularly as several
financial linkages and beneficiary trails remain under examination.
XIV. INVESTIGATION IS STILL EXPANDING AND CHARGE-
SHEETS CONTINUE TO BE FILED
60. The present case reflects a multi-layered economic conspiracy.
After filing of the charge-sheet against the applicant, multiple
24
supplementary charge-sheets have been filed against other accused
persons, and investigation continues to trace additional links,
intermediaries, handlers and end-use beneficiaries. Material relating to
several accused persons continues to emerge and investigation remains
active in quantifying proceeds of crime and tracing fund flows. Grant of
bail at this stage would seriously prejudice ongoing investigation.
XV. ROUTING OF PROCEEDS AND PROPERTY INVESTMENTS
UNDER INVESTIGATION
61. It is contended that attempts to legitimize illegal proceeds through
banking entries routed via various entities and investments in
immovable properties. Suspicious banking entries and investments
exceeding several crores have surfaced, and the identification of linked
entities and properties is presently under verification. Premature
disclosure or release of the applicant may seriously hamper these
efforts.
XVI. APPLICANT’S INVOLVEMENT IN OTHER ECONOMIC
OFFENCES
62. It is further submitted that the applicant is also an accused in
other organized economic offences involving procurement and
departmental irregularities. Investigation in those matters also reveals
financial and documentary linkages which are presently under
examination. Release of the applicant may adversely affect investigation
across interconnected streams.
XVII. OFFENCE IS PART OF AN ORGANIZED ECONOMIC SYNDICATE
63. The offence under investigation is not an isolated transaction but
25
part of an organized and systematic economic conspiracy involving
manipulation of policy, diversion of public revenue, generation of illegal
funds and concealment of proceeds through layered transactions. Such
offences have grave consequences on public finance and governance,
and therefore require a cautious judicial approach at the stage of bail.
XVIII. PARAMETERS GOVERNING BAIL ARE NOT SATISFIED
64. It is respectfully submitted that the Apex Court in State of U.P. v.
Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, has laid down guiding
parameters for grant of bail, requiring courts to consider:
* existence of a prima facie case;
* nature and gravity of accusation;
* severity of punishment in the event of conviction;
* likelihood of accused absconding;
* character, behaviour and standing of the accused;
* likelihood of repetition of offence;
* possibility of witness tampering; and
* danger of justice being thwarted.
Applying these parameters, it is submitted that the present case
involves grave economic offences, large-scale loss to public funds,
strong prima facie material, and a real apprehension of interference with
investigation and witnesses. Hence, the applicant does not satisfy the
criteria for grant of bail.
XIX. ECONOMIC OFFENCES REQUIRE STRICTER APPROACH
65. The Apex Court in Gulabrao Baburao Deokar v. State of
Maharashtra, (2013) 16 SCC 190, has held that economic offences,
26
due to their societal impact, demand careful scrutiny while considering
bail.
66. Similarly, in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118, it has
been reiterated that courts must consider the seriousness of allegations
and likelihood of obstruction of justice before granting bail. Further, in
Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466, the Supreme Court
categorically held that economic offences form a class apart and require
a stricter approach in bail matters. Likewise, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan
Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439, it has been held that economic
offences involving public money demand stringent consideration while
dealing with bail applications. In Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014)
8 SCC 682, the Apex Court observed that corruption strikes at the root
of governance and requires strong judicial response. Further, in Neeru
Yadav v. State of U.P., (2016) 15 SCC 422, it has been reiterated that
courts must consider the nature of accusation and possibility of
tampering with evidence while adjudicating bail. These authoritative
pronouncements clearly indicate that grant of bail in cases involving
organized economic crime requires exceptional caution.
XX. PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL LINKS THE APPLICANT TO THE
CONSPIRACY
67. The WhatsApp chats and other digital communications placed on
record reveal the involvement of the applicant in matters connected with
policy execution and operational functioning, thereby lending prima facie
support to the prosecution case. At the stage of bail, meticulous
evaluation of evidence is impermissible; existence of prima facie
material is sufficient to decline bail.
27
XXI. FREE AND UNHINDERED INVESTIGATION MUST BE PROTECTED
68. It is a settled principle that courts must ensure that investigation
proceeds in a free and unhindered manner. Considering the complexity
and magnitude of the present case, grant of bail at this stage would risk
interference with ongoing investigation. The offences alleged involve
enormous financial loss to the State and a network-based economic
conspiracy. Release of the applicant may adversely affect witness
protection and preservation of digital and documentary evidence.
XXII. MANIFEST APPREHENSION OF WITNESS INFLUENCE AND
EVIDENCE TAMPERING
69. In view of the applicant’s commanding position of influence and
the sensitive nature of evidence at stake, there subsists a manifest and
imminent danger of the applicant menacingly influencing witnesses,
brazenly tampering with records, and derailing the investigation or trial if
enlarged on bail. The prima facie material on record unequivocally
substantiates these perils, rendering bail wholly untenable.
XXIII. BAIL APPLICATION MUST BE REJECTED OUTRIGHT
70. Confronted with the heinous gravity of accusations, the
astronomical scale of financial devastation wrought, irrefutable prima
facie evidence, the critical infancy of investigation, and the palpable
threat of witness intimidation and evidence manipulation, the applicant is
emphatically disentitled to bail. Every contrary averment in the bail
application stands categorically repudiated as patently frivolous, legally
bankrupt, and deserving of outright dismissal.
28
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
71. Arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties heard in
extenso; rival contentions weighed and material on record scrutinized
with utmost care.
72. 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 instant application, second bail application, filed post
dismissal of SLP (Crl.) No. 17659/2024 on 16.09.2025–wherein the
Supreme Court expressly granted liberty to renew before this Court,
discloses material alteration in circumstances. Applicant languishes in
custody exceeding 18 months (since 21.08.2024 in the present
case); chargesheet stands filed, investigation concludes sans further
material discoveries. Prior rejections (Ld. Special Judge order dt.
09.09.2024; this Court’ in MCRC 6496/2024 dt. 04.12.2024) turned on
nascent investigation stage, now overtaken by prolonged incarceration
sans trial commencement. This shift invokes Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v.
Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528, holding extended custody post
chargesheet as prima facie change meritingreconsideration. Article 21
mandates liberty as rule, detention exception balance tilts decisively
here.
I. Earlier Bail Proceedings and Liberty Granted by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court
29
73. It is not disputed that the applicant’s maiden bail application
preferred before this Court stood rejected vide order dated 04.12.2024
in M.Cr.C. No. 6496 of 2024. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant
approached the Supreme Court by way of SLP (Crl.) No. 17659 of 2025
wherein, vide order dated 16.09.2025, their Lordships were pleased to
grant liberty to the applicant to renew his prayer for bail after the expiry
of three months from that date, expressly in the event no substantial
progress had been made in the investigation or trial of the subject
matter. This Court also takes into consideration the order passed by the
Supreme Court in the proceedings arising out of the same set of
allegations, wherein the Apex Court directed the investigating agencies,
including the Enforcement Directorate and the concerned State
agencies, to complete the investigation and file the complaint by way of
an additional charge-sheet within a stipulated period.
74. The Supreme Court thereafter granted liberty to the accused
persons to apply for regular bail or anticipatory bail before the
competent Court, directing that such applications shall be considered on
their own merits without being influenced by the earlier orders passed in
the matter. It has held that :
By way of a conclusion, we would only direct
the Investigating Agencies ie. the
Enforcement Directorate and the concerned
State agencies to file the complaint and
conclude the investigation by way of an
additional charge sheet, within a period three
months from the date of receipt of copy of this
order.
Thereafter, liberty is granted to the
petitioner(s)to file application(s) for regular
30bail or anticipatory bail, as the case may be,
which will have to be considered on their own
merits, without being influenced by any of the
orders passed earlier or by the impugned
orders(s). For seeking the aforesaid relief of
bail, the petitioners can approach the High
Court. The interim orders granted earlier
stand vacated.”
75. The Supreme Court further clarified that the accused persons
would be at liberty to approach the High Court for seeking appropriate
relief. The present application has been preferred in pursuance of the
liberty so granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore deserves
independent consideration on its own merits.
II. Length of Custody and Right to Speedy Trial
76. The Applicant has remained in custody for a period of more than
18 months. During this period, although the prosecution has filed a
supplementary charge-sheet, the trial has not progressed in any
meaningful manner. It is well settled that prolonged incarceration without
commencement of trial amounts to violation of Article 21 of the
Constitution, particularly where the delay is not attributable to the
accused. A person confined in judicial custody cannot be expected
to remain incarcerated indefinitely awaiting completion of
investigation, filing of supplementary charge-sheets, framing of
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
31
punitive incarceration without adjudication of guilt.
III. Absence of Prosecution Sanction and Non-Taking of
Cognizance
77. It is an admitted position that although a supplementary charge-
sheet has been filed against the Applicant, prosecution sanction has not
yet been obtained. In the absence of a valid sanction, the learned
Special Court is legally precluded from taking cognizance against the
Applicant. Consequently, the trial has not even commenced and remains
indefinitely deferred. This factor assumes considerable significance
while examining the Applicant’s right to liberty, particularly when the
delay is entirely attributable to the prosecution.
IV. Investigation Still Continuing
78. Though the charge-sheet has been duly filed, the prosecution
maintains that investigation remains ongoing, with no discernible
timeline furnished for its culmination. This Court has repeatedly
emphasized that post-charge-sheet prolongation of probe, absent
compelling justification, erodes the very rationale of pre-trial detention
(Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; P. Chidambaram v.
Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 229). The absence of a
definite closure horizon not only beclouds trial commencement but
portends protracted proceedings, fraught with uncertainty Such
investigative inertia amplifies the vice of extended incarceration, now
exceeding [18 months], rendering continued deprivation of liberty
manifestly unjust. Article 21 enshrined right to expeditious trial stands
imperilled; bail emerges not as concession but constitutional compulsion
where State falters in timelines (Bhim Singh v. State of J&K, (1986) 1
32
SCC 214). The scale ineluctably tips towards applicant’s release,
balancing probe needs against primacy of personal liberty.
V. Magnitude of Evidence and Protracted Trial
79. The prosecution case rests on a colossal evidentiary edifice: 1111
witnesses proposed for examination, thousands of documents,
against 51 accused persons across 7 charge-sheets, with further
investigation still pending. Cognizance qua the charge-sheet
encompassing the applicant and co-accused remains elusive; charges
stand unframed, trial nascent. This voluminous record unwieldy by any
yardstick portends proceedings protracted over years, if not a decade
(Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40; P. Chidambaram v.
Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 229). Pre-trial detention
cannot mirror sentence in such labyrinthine prosecutions; Article 21
speediness imperative renders continued incarceration punitive, not
preventive. Magnitude itself constitutes change in circumstances,
compelling bail as constitutional corollary.
VI. Parity with Co-Accused
80. The applicant stands on complete parity with co-accused
Arunpati Tripathi and Arvind Singh both enlarged on regular bail by
competent Courts vide orders dated 07.03.2025 SLP (Crl.) No.
14646/2024 and 19.05.2025 in SLP (Crl.) No. 2608/2005 respectively.
The role ascribed, overt acts alleged, and evidentiary matrix against the
applicant mirror those against the released co-accused in all material
particulars–no distinguishing feature surfaces from the case diary or
charge-sheet to warrant differential treatment. The doctrine of parity, a
settled concomitant of Article 14 equality, mandates uniform application
33
in bail jurisprudence unless countervailing circumstances exist (State of
Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784; Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P.,
(2014) 16 SCC 508). Absent such, perpetuating solitary detention of the
applicant offends consistency and fairness.
VII. Applicability of Article 21 – Settled Precedents
81. The Supreme Court in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of
Enforcement (2024) has authoritatively held that prolonged pre-trial
incarceration, coupled with trial delay, constitutes compelling ground for
bail enlargement even in grave economic offences, trumping rigours of
special statutes. Echoing this, Senthil Balaji v. Directorate of
Enforcement (2024) underscores that continued custody sans
meaningful trial progression renders Article 21 personal liberty
guarantee hollow and punitive. Most recently, in Arvind Dham v.
Directorate of Enforcement (SLP (Crl.) No. 15478/2025, decided
2025), their Lordships reiterated that “where trial culmination remains
distant, statutory stringency cannot justify indefinite deprivation–bail
inheres as constitutional entitlement.”
82. The prosecution edifice rests preponderantly on documentary
evidence, forged records, transactional ledgers, and pecuniary trails,
long since secured, seized, and sealed post applicant’s arrest. Such
material, immutable in character and insulated from post-custody
interference, dissipates any genuine apprehension of tampering. The
theoretical possibility pales against Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1
SCC 40 mandate: bail denial cannot stem from imagined risks where
evidence integrity remains unassailable. Minimal tampering latitude
34
reinforces liberty presumption under Article 21.
VIII. Cumulative Assessment
83. Collating the material facets, this Court holds that Prior bail
rejection (order dt. 04.12.2024 in M.Cr.C. No. 6496/2024) overtaken by
Supreme Court’s liberty in SLP (Crl.) No. 17659/2024 (dt. 04.12.2024),
explicitly tied to investigative stasis now manifest after 18 months’
custody sans chargesheet or trial strides (Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v.
Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528). Prolonged incarceration
(exceeding 18 months ) sans sanction, cognizance, or framed charges,
with investigation lingering indefinitely. Evidentiary colossus–1111
witnesses, 51 accused, 7 charge-sheets, thousands of documents–
portending trial spanning years (P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of
Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 229).
84. The Supreme Court has specifically observed that indefinite
incarceration may lead to infringement of the fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and on a
balancing of these considerations directed release of the petitioner on
bail.
IX. Supreme Court Precedents
85. The principles expounded by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid
precedents–Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024);
Senthil Balaji v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024); Arvind Dham v.
Directorate of Enforcement (SLP (Crl.) No. 15478/2025)–impinge
with unerring force on the instant matrix, rendering them binding under
35
X. Factual Parity with Apex Court Narratives
86. The conspectus here mirrors those authoritative canvases taking
into consideration the magnitude of the prosecution case and the
volume of evidence proposed to be led during trial.
87. From the material placed on record, it emerges that as many as
seven charge-sheets/prosecution complaints have already been filed,
wherein more than 51 accused persons, 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.
88. It is further not in dispute that further investigation is still pending
and the prosecution itself has indicated the likelihood of filing additional
supplementary charge-sheets depending upon the outcome of the
ongoing investigation. This circumstance alone demonstrates that the
proceedings are far from attaining finality. Significantly, despite the filing
of multiple charge-sheets and the passage of a considerable period of
investigation, cognizance of the charge-sheets qua several accused
persons, including the present Applicant, has not yet been taken by the
learned Special Court, and consequently charges have not been framed
till date.
89. In view of the number of accused persons, the large number of
36
witnesses, the voluminous documentary evidence, and the continuing
investigation, the commencement of trial itself appears uncertain and its
conclusion is even more remote. These circumstances substantially
replicate those where their Lordships discerned trial inevitability
spanning years, if not a decade. The Supreme Court has authoritatively
crystallized in mega-prosecutions of such magnitude, investigative/trial
complexities perforce consume considerable time–prolonged
incarceration sans progress cannot subsume liberty core of Article 21.
90. The Applicant has endured over 18 months’ incarceration; trial
remains embryonic–cognizance elusive owing to sanction deficit. Such
indefinite pre-trial detention, sans demonstrable trial strides, transmutes
into punishment afore adjudication–expressly interdicted by the Apex
Court threesome. Thus, continued deprivation mocks personal liberty.
91. Given the scale and complexity of the prosecution, the trial is not
likely to conclude in the near future and may reasonably take several
years for completion. The likelihood of a prolonged and time-consuming
trial is therefore evident. In such circumstances, continued incarceration
of the Applicant during the pendency of an uncertain and protracted trial
would be inconsistent with the constitutional guarantee of personal
liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
CONCLUSION
92. 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
37
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. 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.
93. The earlier order dated 04.12.2024 in M.Cr.C. No. 6496 of 2024,
rejecting bail upon due advertence to the gravity of allegations,
seriousness of offences implicating public funds, and magnitude of the
alleged scam–remains impervious, its observations and findings intact
and binding. The instant grant of bail rests sui generis on the singular
ground of prolonged incarceration amid interminable investigation and
nascent trial, rendering continued detention antithetical to personal
liberty mandate under Article 21. This order shall be construed strictly
qua change in circumstances; merits determination awaits trial
culmination. Liberty to prosecution to seek cancellation on breach or
material vicissitudes.
94. Accordingly, the second bail application sans any adjudication on
the merits of the case and circumscribing this order exclusively to the
tenets regulating bail predicated on undue incarceration and trial delay,
the instant second bail application merits allowance. It is well settled that
the seriousness of the accusation, by itself, cannot be the sole ground to
deny bail, particularly when the trial is unlikely to commence or conclude
within a reasonable time. The object of bail is neither punitive nor
38
preventive, but to secure the presence of the accused during trial.
95. The Applicant, shall stand released on regular bail qua Crime No.
04/2024, Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau,
Chhattisgarh registered for offences u/ss 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC
and ss. 7 & 12, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988–upon furnishing a
personal bond of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one solvent
surety of equivalent value, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court,
subject to the ensuing 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
permission of the Court.
(g) any stringent conditions as may be
imposed by the trial court.
96. In the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, it shall be
39
open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail by way of an
appropriate application, to be disposed of on its own merits strictly in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Digitally signed
by SUGUNA
DUBEY
SUGUNA Date:
DUBEY 2026.03.03
17:31:06
+0530