Chattisgarh High Court
Roshan Chandrakar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 July, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:34178
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ORDER RESERVED ON 16.06.2025
ORDER DELIVERED ON 18.07.2025
MCRC No. 2836 of 2025
1 - Roshan Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Homendra Chandrakar Aged
About 44 Years R/o Sandha Chowk, Sanjay Nagar, Kurud, District -
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
... Applicant(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Anti Corruption
Bureau, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Shailendra Dubey, Advocate assisted by
Shri Aditya Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Saurabh Pandey, Dy. AG assisted by Ms.
Nupur Trivedi, PL
(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)
C A V Order
The applicant has filed this bail application u/s. 483 of BNSS,
2023 in connection with Crime No. 01/2024 for commission of offences
punishable under Sections 11, 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
2
Corruption Act and Sections 384, 409 and 120-B of IPC. The present
bail application has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by
the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned First Additional
Sessions Judge, Special Court (PC Act), Raipur.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
2. Brief facts of the case are that confidential verification was done
in the Bureau in relation to the report of letter No.
ECIR/RPZO/04/2023/971 by the Deputy Director, Enforcement
Directorate, Regional Office, Raipur at police station EOW/ACB, Raipur
and during investigation, it was found that MARKFED allocated different
quantities of paddy to rice millers which, after milling was to be
deposited to the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and Nagrik Aapurti
Nigam (NAN) for which payment was made to the respective rice
millers by MARKFED. Apart from this, incentive amount was also given
by the MARKFED. Before Khariff marketing in the year 2021-22,
incentive amount was provided to rice millers at the rate of Rs. 40 per
quintal, increasing it from Rs. 40 to Rs. 120 per quintal. It was given to
the MARKFED in two installments at the rate of Rs. 60/- per quintal
each.
3. The prosecution case, as alleged, is that the applicant along with
co-accused Manoj Kumar Soni (MD, MARKFED) after conspiring with
the office bearers of the State as well as District Rice Millers’
association, hatched a plan to collect illegal kickback amounts from the
rice millers in three stages:
Stage 1: On December 2021, a meeting was
held wherein unofficial and illegal diktat was
given to all rice millers to pay kick back amounts
3of Rs. 40/- per quintal for clearance of their bills
by MARKFED.
Stage 2 : Bills of only those rice millers who paid
kick back amount were forwarded by DMOs to
Manoj Kumar Soni for clearance.
Stage 3 : The applicant collected the illegal kick
back amount.
Search proceedings were carried out by the Income Tax
Department and despite of that, there was no recovery of any
unaccounted money or incriminating documents from the
residence/office/firms premises was made. On 14.10.2023, ED
registered ECIR based on the above prosecution complaint.
4. FIR No. 01/2024 was registered on 16.01.2024 against the
applicant based on the ED’s letter dated 09.01.2024 under Section 66
of the PMLA. On 08.02.2024, the trial court took cognizance of some of
the offences in the IT complaint ie. under Section 277, 181,191,193,417
and 418 IPC in which Sections 417 and 418 IPC are scheduled
offences. The trial court had declined to take cognizance of the
offences under Sections 383,384, 420, 120-B and 34 IPC however, no
offence of extortion or cheating under Section 420 IPC is made out.
5. On 19.04.2024, ED had registered an addendum ECIR based on
ACB FIR and on 05.05.2024, the applicant was arrested by the ED. On
04.06.2024, ED carried out another search at the resident of the
applicant and no incriminating material or documents or any
unaccounted cash was recovered. Thereafter on 26.06.2024, ED filed
its prosecution complaint before the learned PMLA court. On 4.11.2024,
applicant was arrested by the respondent who was already in judicial
custody. On 01.02.2025, charge sheet was filed against the applicant
4
and 144 witnesses have been cited and about 27 documents have
been relied upon by the respondent and the investigation is still going
on. The bail application was filed by the applicant on 19.03.2025 before
the learned trial court and was dismissed and against which the
applicant has come before this Court under Section 483 of the BNSS
for grant of regular bail.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
6. Contention of Shri Shailendra Dubey, learned counsel appearing
for the applicant is that on 18.07.2023, a search operation was carried
out by the officials of the Income Tax Department at the residential as
well as business premises of the firms owned and controlled by the
applicant and his family members. During the search proceedings, the
officials of the Income Tax Department recorded completely false
statements inter alia the applicant under Section 132(4) of the IT Act
and he was coerced to sign on the pre-typed statements and was not
allowed to read. On 21.08.2023, the Income Tax department filed a
complaint case through the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.) II,
Raipur inter alia arraigning the applicant as one of the accused for the
alleged commission of offence under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act
and under Sections 181, 191, 193, 196, 200, 383, 384, 417, 418,
7. It is submitted that no assessment proceedings whatsoever were
initiated by the Income Tax Department against the applicant nor any
show cause notice was issued to the applicant. There is not even an
allegation of ant evasion of tax or a finding of income tax evasion
whatsoever in the IT complaint. This clearly shows the premature,
5
malafide nature of the complaint and the allegations of cheating and
extortion have been included in the IT complaint. On 14.10.2023, the
ED registered ECIR/RPZO/04/2023 treating the above complaint as
scheduled offences. The competent court had not taken cognizance of
the offences alleged in the IT complaint and thus the registration of the
said ECIR itself was premature. It was well within the knowledge of the
ED that Section 277 of the IT Act is a non-cognizable offence and
therefore the ECIR could not have been registered before cognizance
was taken by the competent court. Thereafter On 20.10.2023, a search
under Section 17 of the PMLA was carried out at the resident of the
applicant and two rooms were sealed. Thereafter, summons under
Section 50 of the PMLA directing his personal appearance on
20.10.2023 itself was issued and since the applicant was not present in
the house, certain documents including the search Panchnama, sealing
notice and the summons were affixed outside his resident. Likewise
twice the summons were affixed outside his resident for his personal
appearance on 25.10.2023, 28.10.2023. The applicant replied to all the
summons which were prepared by his lawyer and in the meanwhile,
the co-accused persons filed certain objections to the IT complaint
including its maintainability which was dismissed by the competent
court on 26.12.2023 on the ground that the cognizance ha not yet been
taken therefore they have no locus. Thereafter on 09.01.2024, the ED
had issued a letter on 09.01.2024 under Section 66(2) of the PMLA to
the ACB/EOW seeking registration of FIR in respect of the very same
allegations and transactions which formed the subject matter of the IT
complaint and on 16.01.2024, the ACB/EOW registered the subject FIR
inter alia arraigning the applicant as an accused. However, while the
6
allegations of paying bribes have been made in the FIR, no
proceedings under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has
been initiated against the individuals who have been alleged to have
paid bribe in the case.
8. Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that every rice
miller across the State of Chhattisgarh ought to have been made an
accused in the FIR because as per the allegations of the ACB/EOW, all
the rice millers have paid bribes in the instant case. It is further
submitted that registering FIR under Section 8 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act is not a discretion of the investigating agency but is
mandatory under the Prevention of Corruption Act. On 19.04.2024, ED
registered an addendum ECIR based on the subject FIR registered by
ACB/EOW which in turn was registered on the EDs own
complaint/letter dated 09.01.2024. On 15.05.2024 applicant once again
appeared before the Investigating Officer and his statement was
recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA. On 04.06.2024 the ED carried
out another search in the residence of the applicant and no
incriminating material or documents were recovered by the ED. On
4.11.2024, when the applicant was in judicial custody in the ECIR and
his bail application was pending before this Court, the ACB moved an
application seeking seeking issuance of a production warrant to the
applicant for affecting his arrest in the subject FIR. Learned counsel for
the applicant submits that for almost 10 months of the registration of the
FIR, the ACB did not find it necessary to arrest the applicant and his
arrest was nothing but a backup to ensure that the applicant is in
custody regardless of the outcome of bail application filed by the
7
applicant in the said ECIR. On 04.11.2024, the said application was
allowed and the applicant was remanded to police custody of the ACB
till 14.11.2024 and thereafter on 01.02.2025, the respondent filed
charge sheet under Section 384,409,120-B IPC read with Section 11,
13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the PC Act and on the same day, the trial court
had taken cognizance of the offence mentioned in the charge sheet.
9. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the
applicant has already suffered a long period of pre-trial custody and the
trial has not yet commenced. He submits that time and again it has
been reiterated by the Apex court that the right to Speedy Trial is a
facet of the fundamental right to life of an accused under Article 21 of
the Constitution of India. He has referred to the judgment in the matter
of Manish Sisodia Vs. CBI & ED, (2023) SCC Online SC 1393 in para
27 citing with approval, the judgments in Satender Kumar Antil Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation (20220 10 SC 51; Surinder Singh @
Shingara Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2005) 7 SCC 387 and
Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 291 Manish
Sisodia Vs. Ed and CBI (2024) SCC Online SC 920 (Manish Sisodia
3″) @ Para 50; Prem Prakas Vs. ED, Judgment dated 28.08.2024 in
SLP (Crl.) No. 5416 of 2024.
10. He further submits that in cases where the fundamental right to
speedy trial of the accused is violated, the State or any other
prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground
that the crime committed is serious. He has referred to the judgment of
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC
8
Online SC 1693.
11. He submits that detention or jail before being pronounced guilty
of an offence should not become punishment without trial. He has
referred to the judgment in the matter of Manish Sisodia 1, (2023)
SCC OnLine SC1393. He submits that under the BNSS, Section 479
has further reduced the period of pretrial incarceration for eligibility of
statutory bail to 1/3rd of maximum period of imprisonment for first time
offenders. Acknowledging this as a beneficial provision, the Apex Court
in Re: Inhuman conditions in 1382 prisons, Order dated 23.08.2024 in
WPC No. 406/2013, has recently held that Section 479 BNSS will have
retrospective applicability.
13. He submits that if the trial gets protracted and it is clear that the
case will not be decided within a foreseeable time, the accused persons
is entitled for bail. In number of cases, the Apex Court has been
pleased to grant bail to accused persons solely on the ground of delay
in trial coupled with long pre-trial incarceration, despite the alleged
gravity of offences and even under statutes which contain special
onerous bail conditions for grant of bail. He has referred to the
judgment in the matter of Bibhav Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi in
SLP (Crl.) No. 9817 of 2024 wherein the incarceration was 100 days.
In Vijay Nair Vs. ED, 22 months of custody (SLP (Crl.) Dy. NO.
22137 of 2024; Neeraj Singal Vs. ED SLP (Crl.) No. 8439 of 2024 16
months custody; Kavalkunta Kavitha Vs. ED 5 months custody, SLP
(Crl.) No. 10778 of 2024; Prem Prakash Vs.ED, SLP (Crl.) No. 5416
of 2024, 1 year custody; Manish Sisodia 3 (2024) SCC OnLine SC
920, 17 months of custody; Ramkripal Meena Vs. ED, SLP (Crl.) No.
9
3205 of 2024, 1 year custody; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2024 SCC Online SC 1693, more than 4 years of
custody; Jainam Rathod Vs. State of Haryana, 2022 OnLine SC
1506, more than 2.5 years of custody and Sujay U Desai Vs. SFIO,
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1507, more than 2.5 years of custody.
14. It is well settled that the object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventive. The primary purpose of bail in a criminal case is to ensure
that the accused would submit to the jurisdiction of the court and would
remain present whenever required. He submits that deprivation of
liberty must be considered punishment unless it can be required to
ensure that an accused person will stand trial when called upon.
15. He submits that even if the allegation is one of the grave
economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every
case. The primary object is to secure the presence of the accused to
stand trial. He has referred to the judgment of P. Chidambaram Vs.
ED, (2020) 13 SCC 791. He submits that the applicant shall be severely
prejudiced and pre-judged if he is continually remanded to custody. It is
imperative for the proper and effective defense of the applicant and as
a step to ensure the fair trial of the applicant that he be on bail unless
there are overwhelming considerations otherwise. It is submitted that
the denial of bail shall cause grave prejudice to the applicant. He has
referred to the judgment of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. StAte of
Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565. He submits that in the matter of Manish
Sisodia 3, the Apex Court has observed as under:
53. The Court further observed that, over a
period of time, the trial courts and the High
10Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle
of law that bail is not to be withheld as a
punishment. From our experience, we can say
that it appears that the trial courts and the High
Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of
bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is
an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On
account of non-grant of bail even in straight
forward open and shut cases, this Court is
flooded with huge number of bail petitions
thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high
time that the trial courts and the High Courts
should recognize the principle that “bail is rule
and jail is exception”.
16. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the instant
case, the applicant is in custody since 04.11.2024 in the subject FIR
and the ACB/EOW and ED are being conducted with the same alleged
transaction and occurrence. The allegations, material, witnesses and
documents being relied upon by the ED in the prosecution complaint
filed by it and by the prosecuting agency in the charge sheet are mostly
common. He submits that the trial is likely to commence and the
investigation in the alleged offence is still going on against other
accused persons. There are 144 cited witnesses and hundreds of
documents running into thousands of pages.
17. The next submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is
that the investigation against the applicant is complete and the charge
sheet has been filed, therefore there is no necessity for the applicant’s
continuous incarceration. It is trite law that once the investigation
against the applicant is complete and charge sheet has been filed, the
applicant is entitled to be released on bail. He has referred to the
judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Bibhav Kumar Vs. State
11
of NCT of Delhi in SLP (Crl.) No. 9817 of 2024; Kalvakunta Kavita
Vs. ED in SLP (Crl.) No. 10778 of 2024 and Krishnan Subramanian
Vs. State NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1384.
18. He submits that if bail is denied to the applicant at this stage, he
will remain in custody for an indefinite period. On this issue, the Apex
Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 held as under:
” It is not in the interest of justice that accused should
be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the
offence alleged against the appellants is a serious
one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State
exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from
enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no
serious contention of the respondent that the
accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the
trial or tamper with evidence. We do not see any
good reason to detain the accused in custody that
too, after the completion of the investigation and
filing of the charge sheet.”
19. In the present case, the applicant has already undergone 14 days
of police custody and during which period, a thorough investigation was
conducted by the investigating agency and the applicant has co-
operated in the same. Next submission on behalf of the applicant is
that there is no recovery of any incriminating material or documents
from the applicant. Extensive search was carried out at the residential
premises of the applicant by the IT Department from 18.07.2023 to
23.07.2023 as also by the ED on 20.10.2023 and 04.06.2024 however
nothing incrimination has been recovered from the applicant despite
allegations of serious financial crimes and generation and possession
of huge amounts in the form of receipt of cash kickbacks from rice
miller, no cash amount or any undisclosed assets were recovered.
12
20. It is submitted that the applicant fulfills the triple test for grant of
bail. It is trite law that once the investigation qua an accused is
complete and charge sheet has been filed, there is no apprehension of
violation of triple test. Hence he may be granted bail. He has placed his
reliance in the matter of Kavalakunta Kavita Vs. ED in SLP (Crl.) No.
10778 of 2024, wherein it has been observed as under:
10. On perusal of the record, we find that in CBI
case charge-sheet has been filed and in ED case
complaint has been filed. As such, the custody of
the appellant herein is not necessary for the
purpose of investigation.
11. The appellant has been behind the bars for the
last five months. As observed by us in the case of
Manish Sisodia(supra), taking into consideration
that there are about 493 witnesses to be examined
and the documents to be considered are in the
range of about 50,000 pages, the likelihood of the
trial being concluded in near future is impossible.
12. Relying on the various pronouncements of this
Court,we had observed in the case of Manish
Sisodia (supra) that the prolonged incarceration
before being pronounced guilty of an offence
should not be permitted to become punishment
without trial.
13. We had also reiterated the well-established
principle that “bail is the rule and refusal is an
exception”. We had further observed that the
fundamental right of liberty provided under Article
21 of the Constitution is superior to the statutory
restrictions.
21. Further in the case of Krishnan Subramanian Vs. State NCT of
Delhi, 20-22 SCC OnLine Del 1384, it has been observed that :
24. A perusal of record shows that charge sheet
has already been filed, all materials have been
collected by the investigating authorities and the
evidence against the applicant is documentary in
nature. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
applicant is neither a flight risk, nor can there be
any propensity on his part to tamper with any
evidence or influence any witness inasmuch as
13the entire domain of evidence is documentary in
nature, which exists as it is from the year 2008
onwards, unhindered, and untampered. The
applicant is a permanent resident of Delhi and has
clean antecedents. He has been languishing in jail
since 8th December 2021. In that background
considering the charge sheet, first supplementary
charge sheet and second supplementary charge
sheet as well as the fact that other co-accused
persons having been enlarged on bail by the
Coordinate Bench which stand confirmed by the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court; and the facts and
circumstances and discussion as aforesaid, this
Court is inclined to allow the instant bail
application seeking regular bail.”
22. The applicant does not have the propensity to evade the process
of law and no such allegation has been made against the applicant
seeking police/judicial custody. He contended that in catena of
judgments including the recent one of P. Chidambaram Vs. CBI 2020
13 SCC 337, that while dealing with the bail application it is not in
dispute that ‘three factors’ or the ‘triple test’ must be seen /satisfied viz.
(I) flight risk; (ii) likelihood of tampering with evidence and (iii) likelihood
of influencing witnesses. Pertinently all the three facts are satisfied by
the applicant and as such the applicant may be granted bail.
23. He submits that the applicant is a businessman by profession
and is engaged in the business of custom rice milling and he is a
permanent resident of Kurud, CG, has no criminal antecedents. There
is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing the witnesses.
Another paramount consideration for grant of bail is that there is no
likelihood of the applicant to tamper with the evidence. He submits that
the investigation is concluded and the prosecution complaint has been
filed.
14
24. Counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is
prima facie not guilty of the offences as alleged in the FIR and charge
sheet. He submits that without prejudice to the above,it is well settled in
law that the merits of a case ought not be gone into at the time of
adjudication of bail application. In Niranjan Singh & another Vs.
Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others (1980) 2 SCC 559, it has
been held that :
“Detailed examination of the evidence and
elaborate documentation of the merits should be
avoided while passing orders on bail
applications. No party should have the
impression that his case has been prejudiced.
To be satisfied about a prima facie case is
needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive
exploration of the merits in the order itself.”
25. He submits that the subject FIR was registered without
conducting any preliminary enquiry which is evident from the fact that
the subject FIR was registered on 16.01.2024 even though the
information of the alleged offence was received by the ACB/EOW on
17.01.2024 ie. after registration of the FIR. The entire case of
prosecution is based on the allegations of extortion and illegal collection
of money by the applicant from the rice millers in the State of
Chhattisgarh. While taking cognizance of the offences in the IT
complaint, it declined to take cognizance of the offence of extortion. At
the time of registration of subject FIR , on the basis of the ED’s letter
under Section 66 of the PMLA, the ACB did not include extortion as an
offence and the same was added later ie. at the time of filing of charge
sheet.
15
26. The allegation against the applicant is that he was involved in
running the alleged extortion racket wherein an amount of Rs.
20+20=Rs. 40/- was extorted per quintal of custom milled rice out of the
special incentive price of Rs. 120/- payable by the State government of
Chhattisgarh to the custom rice millers. However, the offence of
extortion under Sections 383 and 384 IPC were not found to be made
out against the applicant by the competent court and sine no
cognizance was taken of the alleged offence of extortion.
27. He contended that the alleged material being relied upon by the
Prosecuting Agency against the applicant is in the form of statements
under Section 161 Cr.P.C which are not admissible and the statement
under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and 50 of the PMLA cannot be considered at
the stage of bail. He has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in
the matter of Parasmal Lodha Vs. Ed (2017) SCC OnLine Del 8676
and Chandra Prakash Khandelwal Vs. ED, 2023 SCC OnLine Del
1094. Even otherwise, the statements being relied upon by the ACB are
the ones where the persons have implicated themselves. It is submitted
that the statements of the co-accused persons is a weak type of
evidence and cannot be treated as substantive evidence as against the
other co-accused persons. As per the statements relied upon by the
ACB, all the rice millers who have admitted to have paid bribes ought to
have been implicated under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act. He submits that none of the persons allegedly involved in the
alleged scam have been charge sheeted which goes to show that the
ACB/EOW is operating in a pick and choose manner.
16
28. Lastly, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the
applicant is suffering from several ailments and during his custody by
the ED in the said ECIR, he has been referred to Medical College
Raipur. He submits that the applicant has been charged with Section
384 IPC and the maximum punishment is for 3 years and is triable by
the Magistrate. So far as Section 409 IPC is concerned, it is not
applicable in the case of the applicant.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF STATE/RESPONDENT
29. Opposing the submissions made on behalf of the counsel for the
applicant, it has been argued by Dr.Sourabh Pandey, learned counsel
for the respondent/State that as per prosecution case, on 16.01.2024,
the ACB/EOW, Raipur had registered the subject FIR under Crime No.
01/2024 for commission of the offences under Sections 384, 409 and
120-B IPC read with Section 11,13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act against the applicant.
30. The present applicant who is a rice miller, has been given the
charge of Treasurer in the syndicate and by putting pressure on rice
millers in the State of Chhattisgarh for milling and payment of incentive
amount, rice millers got Khariff Marketing Season done. Illegal recovery
has been made at the rate of Rs. 20/- per quintal from the quantity of
paddy lifted in 2021-22. On the basis of the report received from the
ED, confidential verification and source information, FIR No. 01/2024
was registered against the applicant. In the month of November 2021,
the applicant, along with Kailash Rungta, President and General
Secretary, Pramod Agrawl, Anil Tuteja agreed at Udyog Bhawan,
Raipur that special incentive would be increased by Rs. 120/- per
17
quintal and out of that illegal money at the rate of Rs. 40/- per quintal
will be returned to the party fund. Before the raid by income tax
department, special incentive amount of Rs. 120/- per quintal was to be
given in two installments at the rate of Rs. 60/- per quintal and illegal
recovery was to be made @ 20/- per quintal and after the IT raid, illegal
recovery could not be made. It is submitted that the collection of illegal
money from rice millers was made possible due to criminal nexus
between the applicant and the MD of MARKFED and District Marketing
Officers by keeping the payment of special incentive amount pending at
the stage of final approval by the office of DMO and MD. The present
applicant used to put undue pressure on the rice miller and delayed
payment of special incentive amount adversely affected the business
cycle of the rice milers. Apart from this, the rice millers had to pay
necessary interest on cash credit limit due to delayed payment. After
the raids by the Central Agencies, the applicant contacted Anil Tuteja
and Anwar Dhebar through Siddarth Singhania and found that R. 20-22
crore was illegally collected from the rice miller of different districts.
31. The present applicant arranged the meetings with rice millers in
different districts and threatened them to pay illegal amount of Rs. 20/-
per quintal. Thereafter he sent the money Mr. Manoj Soni and to the
list of names of rice millers firms. It is submitted that on the observation
of the payment file of MARKFED and the panchnama prepared by the
MARKFED officers, despite there being sufficient funds to provide
special incentive amount to 13 districts on special incentive payment.
However, the files which were forwarded to MARKFED headquarters
for payment of special incentive amount without illegal collection of
money from the districts were returned for various reasons ie.
18
recalculation of item wise details of rice millers or payment in the file or
re-approval of the same after forwarding it to the Chief Accountant after
approval as has been mentioned in the scrutiny file.
32. It is alleged that when the IT raid was conducted at various
places in connection with custom milling on 18.07.2023, illegal
collection of money in payment of special incentive amount was found.
About Rs. 3.4 crores of illegal recovery was done by the rice miller
Mahasamund and delivered to the present applicant in two installments.
Out of the amount collected from 26 rice millers in Rajim, district,
Raipur, Rs 4 crores were given to the associate of the present applicant
and the remaining 1.53 lacs was given to the applicant in his rice mill at
Kurud District, Dhmatari. During the raid conducted by the IT
department, information has been prepared from the seized mobile
data of DMO Korba, Preetika Pooja Kerkatta wherein information
related to the mill’s registration number, name of the mill, amount paid
to RC, amount received, Pan number etc. and registered Usna Milling
capacity have been maintained. It is submitted by learned counsel for
the State that the District Marketing Officer, Korba did not sent the bills
of those rice millers in the dues of 09.05.2023 whose PDF was
prepared from the seized mobile data. It is also alleged that under
pressure from rice millers of different districts the applicant and his
associates collected illegal money from various places in Raipur (VIP
Road, Telibandha, VY Canyon Kamal Vihar Road, Palm Belizio,
Shankar Nagar and BTI Ground Shankar Nagar). During investigation,
it was found that the applicant himself collected illegal money from a
group of rice millers at some places in Chandi Rice Mill, Kurud and
Dhamtari. On 01.02.2023, charge sheet No. 05/2025 under Section
19
173(8) Cr.P.C. has been filed before the Special Court for Prevention of
Corruption Act.
33. Dr. Pandey, counsel for the State submits that the Sections of
Prevention of Corruption Act would apply to the applicant even though
he is not a public servant. The reason for attracting Sections of PC Act
against the applicant is because he had entered into a criminal
conspiracy with the then Managing Director of Markfed Manoj Soni to
obtain special permission from the rice millers in contravention of the
official duties of Shri Manoj Soni. The rice millers were economically
pressurized and the illegal money from the rice millers at the rate of
Rs. 20/- per quintal from the quantity of paddy lifted for payment of
special incentive amount was given to Manoj Soni.
34. When no rice miller had reported the matter to the police, Section
384 Cr.P.C would be applicable to the applicant. The rice millers in their
statements have stated that due to the political and administrative
influence of the applicant, the rice millers did not made complaint to the
police station regarding illegal extortion. The rice millers have fear that
if they made a complaint, they can suffer permanent loss in their
business in future. The present FIR has been registered upon sharing
the information by Enforcement Directorate. As per the law laid down by
the Apex Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari (supra), a police officer
is duty bound to register an FIR and carry on investigation.
35. Further contention of the State counsel is that the question as to
when no property was formally handed over to the applicant, then how
can Section 409 IPC apply?
20
To this, it has been stated that MARKFED is a state controlled
cooperative institution, which falls under Section 2(c) (VIII) of IPC and
its Managing Director is a Public Service under Section 21 of the Indian
Penal Code. The said MD misusing the power to approve/reject special
incentive fund, made payments to ricemillers who paid bribes to the
applicant. Thus, the applicant was playing a key role in the crime by
conspiring/instigating Manoj Soni.
36. So far as Sections 8, 11 and 12 of the PC Act and Sections 384,
409 and 120-B IPC are concerned, they come under the category of
crime. Section 409 IPC was invoked against the applicant because he
along with then MD, MARKFED took a policy decision as per 6 (II) A on
the note sheet to increase the special incentive amount from Rs. 40 per
quintal to Rs. 120 per quintal and the special incentive amount will be
paid on the first come first serve basis. The fact that when neither cash
was recovered nor any bank entry or any transaction was found
recorded in the account book then how can the prosecution be proved?
To this, the judicial statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C and
presumption of truthfulness of the statement under Section 114(d) IPC
could be taken into consideration. The applicant has taken money
directly from the Rajim Rice Miller, M/s. Radheshyam Rice Mill
Paragaon, Girdhar Gopal Rice Product, Maa Durga Rice Mill. The rice
millers of Korba, on the instructions of the applicant, gave money to the
rice millers at Kurud. In compliance with Section 114, illustration (d) of
the IPC, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C can be imposed
against the accused after conclusion of the judicial work. The
investigation is pending and the details of bank accounts by which the
amount given by the rice millers in connection with the illegal extortion
21
and information regarding withdrawal of money was collected. It is
further submitted that property worth crores was purchased in the
name of the applicant, his wife and his firm Mahamaya Foods whose
market value and registry value were found to have a difference of
more than 50 lacs. Thus, it is submitted that from the evidence collected
during investigation it has been found that Sections 11 12(1)(a) and
13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 as amended and Sections 384,409 and 120-
B of IPC are attracted against the applicant.
37. Even though if the applicant is not a public servant, he can still be
charged under Sections 384, 409, and 120-B of the IPC and Sections
11, 13(1)(a), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) if is
found to have abetted or conspired with a public servant in committing
these offenses, or if his actions fall under the ambit of the PC Act. In
summary, while the Prevention of Corruption Act primarily targets public
servants, its provisions can extend to private individuals who are
involved in corrupt activities with public servants. The specific
applicability will depend on the individual’s role and the nature of their
involvement in the alleged offence.
38. The principle of equal application of the law is fundamental to a
just legal system. If there is evidence that the PCA is being selectively
enforced, it could raise serious concerns about fairness and the
integrity of the justice system
CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION FOR BAIL
39. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
22
40. The crux of the matter is that the applicant was working as a
Treasurer in the rice millers association and he was involved in running
an extortion racket by way of Rs. 20+20=Rs. 40/- per quintal of custom
milled rice out of the special incentive price of Rs. 120/- payable by the
State of Chhattisgarh to the custom rice millers. As alleged, he along
with the members of rice millers association and the MD of Markfed
Manoj Kumar Soni had a nexus to facilitate the collection of extortion
amount from the rice millers.
41. The applicant is facing charges under Sections 384, 409, and
120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 11, 13(1)(a), and
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The ACB (Anti-Corruption
Bureau) has filed the charges. The applicant’s request for bail or other
relief depends on the specific facts of the case and the applicable laws.
42. The question is whether the applicant has to be granted bail will
depend on various factors, including the severity of the offence, the
strength of the evidence, and the risk of the applicant absconding or
tampering with evidence. The court will also consider the applicant’s
background and the potential impact of the alleged offences.
43. Further it appears that none of the rice millers had ever made
complaint against the applicant for extortion and illegal collection of
money. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant
that there is no prima facie case made out against the applicant under
Sections 384,409 IPC and Sections 11, 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. The applicant is not a public servant,
therefore the Act, specifically its sections related to corruption offences,
23
may not directly apply. However, at the time of consideration of bail
application it can not be taken into account as to what charges would
be framed against the applicant as it is the duty of the trial court to
decide and frame charges after taking into consideration the fact of the
case. However, it is clear that none of the rice miller or any of the
persons related have made any complaint before the EOW that the
applicant has extorted money and caused a huge loss to the State
exchequer.
44. As has been alleged by the counsel for the applicant that there
was a pick and choose policy by the prosecution. The claim of “pick and
choose” implies discriminatory application of the law, which needs to be
substantiated with evidence of selective prosecution.
CONCLUSION
45. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case, particularly the long incarceration of the applicant in custody, ie.
for a period of about six months in the present FIR, charge sheet has
already been filed before the trial court but the prosecution has failed to
produce any document with regard to the previous antecedents of the
accused and had also failed to produce evidence that the applicant, if
released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence,
144 witnesses have been cited and about hundreds of documents
running to thousands of pages, he also fulfills the triple test, there is no
recovery of any bribe amount made from the applicant and the fact that
the co-accused Manoj Kumar Soni has been granted bail by this Court,
24
the role of the present applicant is also similar to that of the co-accused
and the applicant is facing charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
ie. Sections 384 (extortion), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public
servant, etc.), and 120 B (criminal conspiracy), as well as sections 11,
13(1)(a), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, therefore,
on the ground of parity the applicant may also be granted similar
benefit. Even though charges were not framed against the applicant,
there is no progress in the trial and investigation is going on, the trial is
not likely to commence in the near future, and in similar situation, in
liquor scam case, the Apex Court has granted bail to the applicants in
Cr. A. No. 1263 of 2025 (Arunpathi Tripathi Vs. State of CG) and Others
arising out of SLP (Crl. No. 14646 of 2024; SLP (Crl.) No. 14697 of
2024 (Trilok Singh Dhillon Vs.The State of Chahttisgarh), Special Leave
Petition (Crl) No.3148/2025 (Anil Tuteja Vs. Directorate of
Enforcement), Cr.A. No. 2699 of 2025 arising out of Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No. 2608 of 2025 (Arvind Singh Vs.The State of
Chhattisgarh) and therefore, I am of the view that the bail application of
the present applicant may also be considered for grant of regular bail.
46. Thus, the applicant deserves to be granted regular bail. The
concerned trial court shall enlarge the applicant on bail subject to
stringent terms and conditions as may be fixed after hearing the
EOW/ACB/respondent. The condition shall include (a) surrender of
passport if any (b) furnishing an undertaking on oath to the concerned
court that he will regularly and punctually attend the trial court and shall
cooperate with the trial court for early disposal of the case and (c) in the
event it is found that the applicant is not cooperating with the concerned
court for early disposal of the case or commits a breach of any of the
25
conditions of bail, it will be open for the respondent to apply for
cancellation of bail before the concerned court.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
Digitally signed
by SUGUNA
DUBEY
SUGUNA Date:
DUBEY 2025.07.21
14:12:46
+0530