Chattisgarh High Court
Sandeep Kumar Nayak vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 December, 2024
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Page 1 of 32
2024:CGHC:49535
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 6490 of 2024
Reserved on : 13.11.2024
Delivered on : 16.12.2024
1 - Shiv Shankar Naag S/o Shri Prem Lal Naag Aged About 40 Years R/o
Village, Amlidih, Post-Mudibhawar, Tehsil-Magarload, District- Dhamtari
(C.G.)
---- Applicant
versus
1 - Anti-Corruption Bureau/ Economic Offence Wing Raipur, District- Raipur
(C.G.)
---- Respondent
MCRC No. 7041 of 2024
1 – Roshan Kumar Singh S/o Late Shri Ganesh Singh Aged About 39 Years
R/o House No. 202, Second Floor, Jeevan Niketan, Rajeev Nagar, Distt.
Raipur (C.G.) Permanent R/o Village Baranda, P.S. Dhibara, Distt.
Aurangabad, Bihar.
—- Applicant
Versus
1 – State of Chhattisgarh ACB & EOW, Chhattisgarh Police Raipur (C.G.)
—- Respondent
MCRC No. 7093 of 2024
1 – Sheikh Moinnuddin Qureshi S/o Late Shamsuddin Qureshi Aged About 50
Years R/o Priyadarshani Nagar, Near Ayesha Masjid, House No. 429,
Panchpedi Naka, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
—- Applicant
Versus
1 – State of Chhattisgarh ACB & EOW, Chhattisgarh Police, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
—- Respondent
Digitally
signed by
ARUN
ARUN KUMAR
KUMAR DEWANGAN
DEWANGAN Date:
2024.12.16
16:37:12
+0530
Page 2 of 32MCRC No. 7210 of 2024
1 – Sandeep Kumar Nayak S/o Kirti Chand Nayak Aged About 42 Years R/o
Village Dantu, Post Dantu, P.S. Kasmaar, District Bokaro, Jharkhand.
—- Applicant
Versus
1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Eow/ ACB Raipur District
Raipur (C.G.)
—- Respondent
MCRC No. 7292 of 2024
1 – Chandra Prakash Jaiswal S/o Late Babu Lal Jaiswal Aged About 52 Years
R/o H.No. 178 Ward No. 04, Durpa Road, Korba, Chhattisgarh
—- Applicant
Versus
1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through, Police Station Anti- Corruption
Bureau/economic Offences Wing (ACB/EOW) Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
—- Respondent
MCRC No. 7615 of 2024
1 – Virendra Kumar Jaiswal @ Montu S/o Late Shankar Lal Jaiswal Aged
About 41 Years R/o House No. 392 Ward No. 03, Durpa Road, Korba,
Chhattisgarh.
—- Applicant
Versus
1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Anti-Corruption
Bureau/economic Offences Wing (ACB/EOW), Raipur, District – Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
—- Respondent
MCRC No. 7419 of 2024
1 – Hemant Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Babulal Jaiswal Aged About 56 Years R/o
Amaltash Colony Shanti Nagar Bilaspur District – Bilaspur (C.G.)
—- Applicant
Versus
1 – State of Chhattisgarh Through Additional Superintendent Of Police
Economic Offence Wing/ Anti Corruption Bureau District – Raipur (C.G.)
—- Respondent
and
MCRC No. 6919 of 2024
1 – Parekh Kurre S/o Dilip Kurre Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Jharagaon,
P.S. Jharagaon, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Father Name As Per Fir)
—- Applicant
Versus
1 – Economic Offence Wing and Anti Corruption Bureau Through Deputy
Page 3 of 32
Superintendent of Police, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
—- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Basant Dewangan, Advocate on behalf
(in MCRC No. 6490 of 2024) of Mr. Krishna Tandan, Advocate.
For applicants : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe & Mr. Arpan Verma,
(in MCRC No. 7041 of 2024 Advocate.
& MCRC No. 7093 of 2024)
For Applicant : Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocate.
(in MCRC No. 7210 of 2024)
For Applicant : Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate.
(in MCRC No. 7292 of 2024)
For Applicant : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
(in MCRC No. 7419 of 2024) Mohit Kumar, Advocate.
For Applicant : Ms. Juhi Jaiswal, Advocate.
(in MCRC No. 7615 of 2024)
For Applicant : Mr. Soumya Rai, Advocate.
(in MCRC No. 6919 of 2024)
For State/ACB/EOW : Dr. Saurbh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
CAV ORDER
1. Since all the bail applications have arisen out of same crime number,
they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common
order but the role played by each of the applicants has been
considered separately.
2. All the bail applications are first bail applications filed under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to
the applicants (Shiv Shankar Naag), (Chandra Prakash Jaiswal,
Virendra Prakash Jaiswal @ Montu & Hemant Jaiswal) (Parekh
Kurre, Roshan Kumar Singh, Sheikh Moinuddin Qureshi &
Sandeep Kumar Nayak) who have been arrested on 11.06.2024,
13.06.2024 & 18.06.2024 respectively in connection with Crime No.
Page 4 of 32
03/2024 registered at Police Station- Anti Corruption Bureau/
Economic Offence Wing Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)
for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of IPC and
Section 7, 7-A, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11.01.2024, one Mr.
Sandeep Ahuja, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur
through Mr. Farhan Qureshi, Deputy Superintendent of Police lodged a
complaint before the Director General of Police Anti Corruption Bureau
& Economic Offences Wing, Chhattisgarh pertaining to predicate
offence discovered during the money laundering in investigation File
No. ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 was done under Section 66(2) of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “the PMLA”).
Thereafter, an offence bearing FIR No. 03/2024 has been registered
on 17.01.2024 at Police Station ACB/EOW Raipur (C.G.) against 35
accused persons namely Smt. Saumya Chaurasiya, Sameer Bisnoi,
Smt. Ranu Sahu, Sandeep Kumar Nayak (MCRC No. 7210/2024),
Shivshankar Nag (MCRC No. 6490/2024), Suryakant Tiwari, Manish
Upadhyay, Roshan Kumar Singh (MCRC No. 7041/2024), Nikhil
Chandrakar, Rahul Singh, Parekh Kurre (MCRC No. 6919/2024),
Moinuddin Qureshi (MCRC No. 7093/2024), Virendra Jaiswal (MCRC
No. 7615/2024), Rajnikant Tiwari, Hemant Jaiswal (MCRC No.
7419/2024), Joginder Singh, Nawneet Tiwari, Deepesh Taunk,
Devendra Dadsena, Rahul Mishra, Ramgopal Agrawal, Devendra
Singh Yadav, Shishupal Sori, Rampratap Singh, Vinod Tiwari,
Amarjeet Bhagat, Chandradeo Prasad Rai, Brashpat Singh, Idrish
Gandhi, Gulab Kamro, Shri U.D. Minj, Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Jai (friend
of Suryakant), Chandraparakash Jaiswal (MCRC No. 7292/2024),
Page 5 of 32
Laxmikant Tiwari & others.
4. Further case of the prosecution is that a syndicate comprised of
private individuals and other State Government functionaries like Smt.
Saumya Chaurasia, Shri Sameer Vishnoi IAS, State Mining Officers
and with the backing of some political executives, they managed to
make deliberate policy changes. As part of the well-planned
conspiracy, Suryakant Tiwari, with the active support of the politicians
& some of the senior State Government functionaries, managed to
influence Shri Sameer Vishnoi IAS, the then Director of Geology &
Mining, and got issued a Government Order dated 15.07.2020 which
became the fountain head of this extortion system by converting the
online system of issuance of Transport Permits into a manual system.
They started a network of extortion to collect Rs. 25 per on every
tonne of coal transported in the State of Chhattisgarh. The
investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate revealed that
other senior bureaucrats viz., Smt. Saumya Chaurasia and Smt. Ranu
Sahu, IAS were also involved in this conspiracy and were providing
assistance to Suryakant Tiwari in running the extortion racket. Smt
Saumya Chaurasia, Deputy Secretary and working in Chief Minister
Office, had assisted Suryakant Tiwari and his associates in collecting
the extortion money by posting pliable officers of mining department in
the coal mining areas. Smt.. Ranu Sahu IAS, who worked as District
Collector in coal rich Districts viz., Korba & Raigarh, had closed
association with Suryakant Tiwari and helped his associates in
collecting extortion money from the coal transporters and other
businessmen.
5. It is also case of the prosecution that by this system of extortion, a
Page 6 of 32
huge amount of cash started accumulating with the syndicate and with
this money, Suryakant Tiwari has purchased benami assets and a
huge amount of money was transferred to Saumya Chaurasia, spent
on political funding and transferred as per the instructions of higher
powers. The Enforcement Directorate investigation further established
that Smt. Ranu Sahu had aided and abetted Suryakant Tiwari in
collection of illegal levy amounts from the coal transporters. Smt. Ranu
Sahu was in touch through WhatsApp with Roshan Singh, associate of
Suryakant Tiwari. The WhatsApp chats happened between Smt. Ranu
Sahu and Roshan Singh, close associate of Suryakant Tiwari,
revealed that Roshan Singh was in regular touch with Ranu Sahu and
she agreed to do work as asked by Roshan Singh. The investigation
carried out by the Enforcement Directorate further revealed that the
government servants like Smt. Saumya Chaurasia, Shri Sameer
Vishnoi lAS and Smt. Ranu Sahu, State Mining Officers etc had
received kickbacks from Suryakant Tiwari and acquired benami
properties disproportionate to their source of income. The details of
property so attached are given in the table format as under:-
Sr. Name of the Public No. of properties Value of attached
No. Servant attached under properties
PMLA
1. Sameer Vishnoi Five Immovable Rs. 10,42,83,000/-
property and cash
& jewellery
2. Saumya Chaurasia 29 Immovable Rs. 22,12,89,600/-
properties
3. Ranu Sahu 36 Immovable Rs. 5,52,43,961/-
properties
6. Therefore, the Enforcement Directorate requested the Anti Corruption
Bureau by filing complaint to identify all the assets acquired by the
various Government servants who are accused of participation in this
Page 7 of 32
extortion syndicate in various Districts. It is also case of the
Enforcement Directorate that various mining officers are involved in
this extortion. As such, it was requested by the Enforcement
Directorate to register an FIR and investigate the matter. In pursuance
of the complaint, the FIR was registered. It is also case of the
ACB/EOW that because of the instigation, Rs. 36 crores illegal
extorted money has been collected which has been utilized for
purchase of property in the name of Smt. Saumya Chaurasia through
Deepesh Taunk for purchase of property in the name of her mother
Smt. Shanti Devi Chaurasia and Anurag Chaurasia. Subsequently,
Deepesh Taunk was working as Manager in the farm and he was
involved in conversion of illegal money into legal money. Similarly
against Smt. Ranu Sahu, material has been collected regarding
collection illegal money of Rs. 5.52 crores. Thus, on the basis of the
complaint, FIR has been registered against the applicants for
commission of offence under Sections 7, 7A & 12 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018 (for short “the PC Act“) read
with Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC.
7. From the case diary and the material so collected by the ACB/EOW,
the role played by each of the applicants is given in brief separately.
The role of applicant- Shiv Shankar Naag (MCRC No. 6490/2024)
8. Applicant-Shiv Shankar Naag during his posting as Deputy Director
Mining in District Korba, was collecting Rs. 2/- per tonne of coal from
coal transporters/coal traders for issuing no objection certificate (NOC)
for coal transportation, which was collected from coal transporters/coal
traders as per instructions of the present applicant by one Ajit
Sonwani, a trusted operator appointed to monitor the mineral online
Page 8 of 32
portal working under the applicant at that time. The applicant also
used to collect illegal money of about Rs. 1 lakh per month. He also
used to collect Rs. 2/- per tonne from him at Korba, which has also
been confirmed by coal trader Ashish Agarwal in his statement that he
has paid illegal money of Rs. 2 per tonne to the applicant. He used to
provide support to Suryakant Tiwari’s syndicate for this illegal levy
collection.
9. During investigation, it has been found that the applicant -Shiv
Shankar Naag has neither conducted a preliminary investigation of the
anonymous complaint received by him nor did he obtain approval from
the then Korba Collector before sending the said complaint to the
Director of Mining, Raipur and sent it to the Director of Mining
Directorate for appropriate action. It is also the case of the prosecution
during further investigation, the document received from the Income
Tax Department includes a handwritten document of Suryakant Tiwari
recovered from Flat No. 301 VIP Karishma Block D-2 Khamhardi
Raipur, during the survey proceedings conducted by the Income Tax
Department on 30.06.2022 at the residence and office of Suryakant
Tiwari and others, it is found that transit pass of coal delivery order
(DO) should be done manually instead of online and the reason cited
is an online “error in the portal”, which is also mentioned in the
anonymous complaint sent by the applicant stating that there is an
error in the online portal which shows that the applicant was involved
in the coal levy syndicate. During investigation, one Ajit Sonawani,
who was working as computer operator under Shiv Shankar has
stated in his statement given under Section 161/164 of Cr.P.C. that in
the State Economic Offences Investigation Bureau Raipur and the
Page 9 of 32
Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur that on the instructions
of Shiv Shankar, the delivery order holder used to give the mobile
number given by the applicant to coal traders for talking to Parekh
Kurre and to deposit the coal levy of Rs. 25/- per ton and after getting
an OK message from Parekh Kurre, NOC was issued from the Mining
Office. Also on the instructions of the applicant, he used to collect
mining expenses of Rs. 2/- per ton from the coal traders and
transporters and give it to the applicant. During investigation, the coal
traders and transporters namely Vikash Agarwal, Ritesh Jain,
Talwinder Singh alias Aman Singh etc. stated in their statements that
after depositing delivery orders issued by SECL, in the SECL field
office of the mine, the DO was issued from there which was to be
deposited in the Mining Office Korba for Transport Permit NOC. On
contacting the Mining Office to inquire about the delay in providing
NOC from the Mining Office, Ajit Babu in the Mining Office told that
unless you pay Rs. 25/- per tonne coal levy to Suryakant Tiwari’s man
Moinuddin Qureshi, you will not get NOC and when, after paying Rs.
25/- per tonne, he went to Korba Mining Office for NOC, Rs. 2 per
tonne was collected from the applicant in the name of mining
expenses. In this way, the applicant- Shiv Shankar Naag has helped
the syndicate by forcing coal traders and transporters to pay Rs. 25/-
illegal coal levy.
10. Ashish Kumar Agrawal in his statement recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. before the State Economic Offenses Investigation Bureau,
Raipur and Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the concerned court has stated
that in addition to the illegal coal levy recovery of Rs 25/- per tonne,
illegal coal levy recovery of Rs 02 per tonne was done by the applicant
Page 10 of 32
for the then Collector Smt. Ranu Sahu. Ashish Agrawal had accepted
to have given illegal coal levy of Rs. 2/- per ton to co-accused Mrs.
Ranu Sahu through the present applicant.
The role of applicant- Roshan Kumar Singh (MCRC No. 7041/2024)
11. Applicant- Roshan Kumar Singh was working with Suryakant Tiwari
and his partners for a long time from beginning of illegal coal levy
collection in 2020 which was revealed during interrogation of the
applicant. He was involved in holding meetings of coal traders related
to coal levy collection in Korba, Raigarh, Surajpur Bilaspur districts.
After the coal collection started, he used to collect coal levy from big
coal traders while staying at Suryakant Tiwari’s house in Anupam
Nagar, Raipur and deposit it with Rajnikanth. He used to maintain the
accounts of all the money with Rajnikanth Tiwari. He used to prepare
the complete accounts of the distribution of money. In Korba, Raigarh,
Surajpur Districts, people like Moinuddin Qureshi, Parekh Kurre, Rahul
Singh, Matu alias Virendra Jaiswal used to bring the collected money
and deposit it with him, which he used to get counted by machine and
prepare the accounts by matching the money on the basis of coal DO
in computer excel sheet and then he or the people bringing the money
on his instructions used to deposit it with Rajnikanth Tiwari along with
the accounting slip. He was very close and trusted associate of
Suryakant Tiwari, who along with maintaining accounts of the money
collected by Suryakant Tiwari as illegal coal levy of Rs 25, used to
collect Rs 25 per tonne from big coal traders before getting NOC from
mining on coal DO (delivery order) either himself or through Nikhil
Chandrakar in Raipur and used to send message for NOC to the
members of his syndicate or to the Mining Officer in the concerned
Page 11 of 32
District. Apart from this, while staying at Suryakant Tiwari’s residence
in Anupam Nagar, on his instructions, he started collecting Rs. 100/-
per tonne on iron pellets from January 2022, for which he had
threatened the traders over the phone that if the illegal levy of Rs.
100/- per tonne on iron pellets is not paid, the supply of coal and raw
material to their respective company will be stopped and after
collecting Rs. 100/- per tonne, deposited it with Rajnikant Tiwari.
Diaries written by him, have also been recovered from the diaries
seized by the Income Tax Department. He had made illegal money
from coal levy collection for the year 2020-2022.
12. During this period, he has acquired plots near Ambuja Mall in Raipur,
land in Dharsiwa, land in Kapasada Raipur, flat in Rajiv Nagar, truck,
car, movable and immovable assets worth crores. These have been
investigated by Enforcement Directorate.
The role of applicant- Sheikh Moinnuddin Qureshi (MCRC No.
7093/2024)
13. Applicant- Sheikh Moinnuddin Qureshi is schoolmate and close
friend of Suryakant Tiwari and was working as petty contractor in
Suryakant Tiwari’s contracting firm M/s Ganga Construction. During
this time Suryakant Tiwari sent him to the coal mine in July 2020 to
collect coal levy from transporters and businessmen in Korba in the
name of transportation related work. Rs. 25/- per tonne levy was fixed
and present applicant was appointed as Suryakant’s representative in
Korba for illegal recovery. The amount of illegal coal levy collected by
himself was handed over to Suryakant Tiwari at House No. 1-34,
Anupam Nagar Raipur to Rajnikant Tiwari and Roshan Singh. He used
to deliver the goods. This was confirmed by various documents seized
Page 12 of 32
by the Income Tax Department. Diaries and witnesses Mukesh Kumar
Kedia, Ashish Kumar Agarwal, Gaurav Agarwal, Rupesh Garg and
Ritesh Jain. He was engaged in criminal conspiracy and acting as an
active associate in the syndicate of Suryakant Tiwari. The charges of
collection of coal levy and obtaining illegal benefits have been found to
be proved.
The role of applicant- Sandeep Kumar Nayak (MCRC No.
7210/2024)
14. Applicant- Sandeep Kumar Nayak was posted as Mining Officer in
Mining Department, Surajpur and neglected and misused his official
duties and in the initial stage of coal levy collection, cooperated by
organizing a meeting of coal transporters and traders with the head of
coal collection syndicate Suryakant Tiwari, Hemant Jaiswal and other
members. When the collection of illegal coal levy of Rs. 25/- per tonne
started, coal transporters and traders used to submit the coal DO
(delivery order) received from SECL to the mining department to
obtain NOC before transportation, but he in connivance with Rahul
Kumar Singh and Virendra Jaiswal alias Montu who are members of
Suryakant Tiwari’s syndicate operating in Surajpur district used to
collect the illegal coal levy of Rs. 25/- per tonne on DO and
handedover to Rahul Singh or Virendra Jaiswal, members of
Suryakant Tiwari’s syndicate, and thereafter they sent an OK message
to the present applicant who used to provide NOC on DO. Until the
illegal coal levy of Rs. 25/- was paid, NOC was not given by the mining
office, due to which coal transporters and traders had a fear of DO
lapse, due to which they used to pay illegal coal levy of Rs. 25. In this
way, the applicant has helped in making the collection of illegal coal
Page 13 of 32
levy easy.
15. During the investigation of the case, when the coal transporters and
traders of Surajpur area were questioned, the traders told in their
statements that apart from collecting illegal coal levy of Rs 25 from the
coal transporters and traders through the syndicate of Suryakant
Tiwari, Mining Officer i.e. present applicant also used to collect Rs. 1/-
separately from the traders for himself from the Mining Department. To
assist the syndicate, he was posted as In-charge Mineral Officer,
District Office, Surajpur from 27.02.2019. The applicant had become
very close to Rahul Singh, who was looking after the coal levy
syndicate of Surajpur, the proof of this is the WhatsApp chats between
the two which have been made available by the Enforcement
Directorate/Income Tax Department. It has been proved by
transporters Naresh Kumar Dubey and Vijendra Kumar Gupta of Jai
Durga Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd. Company and others that the applicant
used to pressurize the transporters for illegal collection of Rs. 25/- per
tonne and asked them to contact Rahul Singh and Virendra alias
Montu Jaiswal. The applicant used to issue NOC for online e-permit to
the transporters only after the transporters paid the cash amount of
Rs. 25/- per tonne levy to Rahul Singh and Virendra alias Montu
Jaiswal (depending on their availability). In Rahul Singh’s WhatsApp
chat, the applicant used to get instructions to issue e-permits after
receiving the levy from the transporters. A similar chat dated
22.07.2020 was sent by Rahul Singh to GSR Enterprises DO No.
02564 dated 14.07.2020, Grate G-8, quantity 500 metric tons, Mines
Gayatri and Maa Mangala Pvt. Ltd. DO No. 02625 dated 16.07.2020,
Grate G-5, quantity 1300 metric tons, Mine Rehar, both of these
Page 14 of 32
communications are clear wherein an “Ok Sir”. Prompt is seen on
which Sandeep Kumar Nayak sent a message of “Ok”. Later, their e-
permit NOC was issued. The chat is attached as evidence in the case.
Witness Shri Naresh Kumar Dubey related to Maa Vaishnavi Goods
Carrier and Shri Vijendra Kumar Gupta of Jai Durga Multi Trade Pvt.
Ltd.. Company have confirmed that Sandeep Kumar Nayak exerted
pressure for coal levy at the rate of Rs. 25/- per ton and demanded
illegal levy of Rs.1/- per ton for himself, as a result of which he
alongwith Suryakant Tiwari’s syndicate illegally collected Rs. 25/- per
ton from Rahul Singh and paid Rs. 1/- per ton to Sandeep Nayak and
only after that their e-permit NOC was issued. Witnesses have stated
that Rs. 15-20 lakh was paid to the syndicate and the applicant as
illegal levy. The statement is attached in the case as evidence. The
WhatsApp chats between Sandeep Nayak and syndicate member
Rahul Singh were seized by the Income Tax Department. It is also
clear from the above chats that the applicant used to help Suryakant
and his syndicate members in collecting coal and any delivery order
was cleared by him only when the illegal levy was paid by the
transporter to Suryakant and the people associated with his syndicate.
In this way, it has been proved against the applicant that he has
earned illegal and undue advantage by providing protection to the
members of the illegal coal levy collection syndicate by being involved
in the criminal conspiracy of Shri Suryakant Tiwari’s syndicate.
The role of applicant- Chandra Prakash Jaiswal (MCRC No.
7292/2024)
16. Applicant- Chandra Prakash Jaiswal is real younger brother of
Hemant Jaiswal. In the beginning of coal levy recovery, his elder
Page 15 of 32
brother Hemant Jaiswal and Suryakant Tiwari together used to recover
levy of Rs. 25/- from the coal businesses and he himself used to
directly cooperate by creating pressure, in return for which he has
obtained illegal economic benefits. The witness of the case Vikas
Agarwal, Tulvander Singh have also confirmed the above facts. From
the statement of Ashish Aggarwal resident at Korba, the fact of
recovery of coal levy by issuing DO is demonstrated that the applicant
has sent message through Whatsapp chat to clear delivery order and
the message retrieved from Ashish Agarwal’s mobile clarifies the
same. Thus, he had joined the criminal conspiracy of Suryakant Tiwari
as an active associate of his connection. The charge of working and
getting illegal benefits has been found to be certified. The present
applicant deploying its persons at Korba Office used to extort money in
name of coal levy and from whatsapp chat between Ashish Kumar
Agarwal and present applicant demonstrates that the present applicant
is main person of the syndicate and is working for syndicate and extort
money as coal levy.
The role of applicant- Hemant Jaiswal (MCRC No. 7419/2024)
17. Applicant- Hemant Jaiswal was involved in coal transportation
business. He has a partnership firm named as Mangalam Minerals
Movers, located at Anupam Nagar Raipur, in which Suryakant Tiwari is
also a partner. Both of them have been involved in coal transportation
work through the said firm since the year 2014. The applicant was an
equal partner in Suryakant Tiwari’s coal levy syndicate. The applicant
and Surykant Tiwari have taken meeting together in Raigarh, Korba,
Bilaspur & Surajpur with various transporters and pressurizing them
for illegal recovery of Rs. 25/- per tonne. The applicant has arranged
Page 16 of 32
persons and office for extorting coal levy amount from transporter for
Surykant Tiwari. The applicant is brother of another applicant namely
Chandrprakash Jaiswal who was also working in Surykant Tiwari coal
levy syndicate for Bilaspur District and arrested by the Economic
Offences Wing. The meeting regarding illegal coal levy recovery in
Bilaspur was held at Hemant Jaiswal’s residence. The applicant and
Surykant Tiwari were also partner in Maa Mandwarani Coal
Beneficiation Pvt. Ltd. and they have purchased Caol Washrey in the
name of Maa Mandwarani Coal Beneficiation Pvt. Ltd. for about Rs. 96
crores in the year 2022. In the ledger book of Maa Mandwarani seized
by the Income Tax Department, Suryakant Tiwari, Hemant Jaiswal,
Jogendra Singh, Anup Bansal and Rupesh Garg have been found to
be partners and the amount of their share in the firm is clearly
mentioned. The applicant has also invested a huge cash in purchasing
of this washeries. In the search operation conducted by the Income
Tax Department at the residence of Hemant Jaiswal on 30.06.2022,
about Rs 16.50 lakh cash was recovered. In this way, the allegation
against the applicant of acting as an active associate of Suryakant
Tiwari’s syndicate by joining the criminal conspiracy and obtaining
illegal benefits has been found to be proved. The whatsapp chat of
Hemant Jaiswal with syndicate members like Roshan, Nikhil has also
been seized during income tax raid which also shows his connection
with coal.
The role of applicant – Virendra Kumar Jaiswal @ Montu (MCRC
No. 7615/2024)
18. Applicant – Virendra Kumar Jaiswal @ Montu is close relative of
Hemant Jaiswal and in the year 2014-15, he used to work with Maa
Page 17 of 32
Jai Ambe Road Lines a joint firm of Hemant Jaiswal and Suryakant
Tiwari. Being a relative of Hemant Jaiswal and a trustworthy man, the
applicant, Suryakant Tiwari and Hemant Jaiswal were present in
Surajpur during the meeting of coal transporters/businessmen along
with his other employee Rahul Singh as a member of the syndicate to
collect Rs. 25/- per tonne from coal transporters and businessmen in
Surajpur District. He was given the responsibility of illegal collection of
Rs. 25/- per tonne. The applicant along with Rahul Singh and Mining
Officer Sandeep Nayak, put pressure on coal traders and coal
transporters and illegally collected Rs. 25/- per tonne from them, and
also provided active assistance in making arrangements for illegal
collection of additional Rs. 1/- per tonne for Mineral Officer Mr.
Sandeep Nayak. He used to discharge the responsibility of delivering
the illegal levy collected from Surajpur District to Moinuddin Qureshi
every week. The above facts were confirmed in their statements by the
witness of the case, coal transporter Naresh Kumar Dubey and
accused Moinuddin Qureshi, Parekh Kurre, Rahul Singh during
interrogation. Thus, the allegation against Virendra Jaiswal of joining
the criminal conspiracy of Suryakant Tiwari and acting as an active
associate of his syndicate and receiving illegal benefits has been
found to be proved.
The role of applicant- Parekh Kurre (MCRC No. 6919/2024)
19. Applicant- Parekh Kurre used to work with Hemant Jaiswal in illegal
coal collection in the year 2020 to 2022 and was a trusted person of
Hemant Jaiswal. When Suryakant Tiwari and Hemant Jaiswal started
illegal coal levy collection of Rs. 25/- per tonne on coal then their
former workers were deployed for recovery in coal-rich Districts Korba,
Page 18 of 32
Raigarh, Surajpur. During this period, the applicant and Moinuddin
Qureshi were deployed in Korba to collect illegal coal levy of Rs. 25/-
per tonne. The Illegal coal collection by the applicant during year 2020
to 2022 of Rs. 25/- per tonne on coal DO was done from coal
transporters and coal traders in Korba district in connivance with
Moinuddin Qureshi. The applicant used to collect illegal coal levy of
Rs. 25 per tonne on coal DO received from SECL from coal
transporters and coal traders by sitting in Mahamaya Juice Center
Transport Nagar Korba and used to call coal transporters and coal
traders to the juice center with money. After collecting the money for
coal DO per tonne, the applicant used to send an OK message with
the DO to the mining office then only the mining department provided
NOC to the DO of coal transporters and coal traders which is
confirmed by the statement of the operator of Mahamaya Juice Center
and coal traders. The applicant used to bring the money collected as
illegal coal levy of Rs. 25/- per tonne in Korba District when Moinuddin
Qureshi was not present, to the residence and office of Suryakant
Tiwari sitated at Anupam Nagar, Raipur once a week and deposit it
with Rajnikant Tiwari and Roshan Singh, which has been mentioned in
the diaries seized from the residence of Rajnikant Tiwari by the
Income Tax Department, which has been accepted by the applicant
himself and Roshan Singh during interrogation.
20. The applicant used to collect the money collected from illegal coal levy
in Korba and Surajpur, Raigarh Districts and after preparing
information in excel sheet on his laptop, he used to give it to
Moinuddin Qureshi along with money in pen drive or sometimes he
himself used to leave it with Rajnikant Tiwari and Roshan Singh at
Page 19 of 32
Raipur. The applicant along with Rahul Singh, Virendra Jaiswal alias
Montu had told about the same in their statements during
interrogation. Mangal Pandey, Gaurav Aggarwal, Talwinder Singh have
mentioned in their statements about payment of illegal coal levy
amount to the applicant.
21. Mr. Basant Dewangan, counsel for the applicant- Shiv Shankar
Naag in MCRC No. 6490 of 2024 would submit that the name of the
present applicant has been mentioned in the charge-sheet alleging
that the applicant while discharging his duty as Deputy Director in the
Mineral Department at Korba on 20/08/2019 and was working with the
syndicate due to his previous acquaintance with Suryakant Tiwari
whereby the actuality of the fact is that the present applicant was
posted as Deputy Director (Mineral Administration) who was appointed
by the Ministry of Mineral Resources Department, which is a
government recruitment process and the prosecution agency has not
filed any related document to show that the present applicant was
working with as alleged syndicate. He would further submit that the
prosecution is deliberately prosecuting the applicant by making him a
member of the syndicate and involving him in recovery and connecting
him with Hemant Jaiswal knowing to the fact that the applicant has no
relation with Hemant Jaiswal. He would further submit that the
prosecution has alleged that the applicant conspiring with Samir
Bishnoi the then Director and on his instructions, has forwarded letter
dated 06.07.2020 to the Directorate but the allegation has not been
proved by the prosecuting agency in this regard as the same has been
sent to the Director, Directorate Raipur and the Director issued a letter
on 15.07.2020 to delivery order for approval in which there is no
Page 20 of 32
reference of the note sheet regarding issuance of letter in the charge-
sheet and there is no reference or article of the said letter. He would
further submit that the delivery order approval was issued on
15.07.2020 i.e. two days before the receipt of the suggesting letter by
the Director, there is no evidence regarding the instruction given to the
applicant the prosecution agency has added the name of the applicant
in the charge-sheet without applying its own mind.
22. He would further submit that the prosecution has also alleged that the
said members of the syndicate and Mining Officers pressurized the
transporters and D.O. holders by way of District Collectors that until
and unless they will not pay the levy amount of Rs. 25/- per tonne,
they will not be provided no objection certificate (NOC) for
transportation and under this pressure, the transporters have paid the
illegal levy amount of Rs. 25/- per tonne to the syndicate but no such
evidence has been placed on record by the prosecuting agency before
the learned trial Court. He would further submit that Mr. Ajit Sonwani,
was posted as F.M.S. appointed by the Directorate, in Korba who has
been posted in all other Districts of the State to resolve the errors in
the Mineral Online Portal from time to time, the prosecution has
pressurized Ajit Sonwani to record a statement before the learned trial
Court under section 164 of Cr.P.C. and no electronic and documentary
evidence has been submitted in the charge sheet. He would further
submit that there is no document on record to suggest that applicant
has played an active role in illegal collection of crores of rupees from
the transporters and earned undue profit and the statement of the
witnesses have been recorded by way of threatening, therefore,
statement of the witnesses brought by the prosecution cannot be
Page 21 of 32
relied upon in the court of law. He would further submit that
documents and evidence related to financial transactions of the
applicant with coal transporters and coal businessmen and written
complaint of illegal recovery, extortion by coal businessmen and
transporters has not been seized or recovered by the agency and no
such evidence has been annexed in the final report. He would further
submit that in the charge-sheet, it has been mentioned that other co-
accused persons namely Moinuddin Qureshi, Parekh Kurre and
Chandraprakash Jaiswal were taking illegal money from coal
transporters and coal traders at the rate of Rs. 25/- per tonne and after
receiving the amount collected by claiming coal levy, the above co-
accused persons sent a message to the applicant and after that D.O.
was approved and Rs. 2/- per tonne was taken but the applicant does
not know Moin Qureshi, Parekh Kurre, Chandraprakash Jaiswal, and
neither did he have any contact with these people. The coal traders
never met the applicant in the context of D.O. The applicant was
posted in Korba District as In-charge Officer Mineral and Deputy
Director. When the applicant does not know the accused, then the
question of sending a message and taking Rs. 2/- extra does not arise.
He would further submit that the applicant is in jail since 11.06.2024
and the trial will take more time to conclude and the applicant is ready
and willing to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court, hence, he
would pray for releasing the applicant on bail.
23. To substantiate his submission, he would rely upon the judgment
rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Pankaj Bansal Vs.
Union of India & others [Criminal Appeal No. 5857-3052/2023 SLD
(Crl.) No. 9220-9221/2023 (decided on 03.10.2023)], State of
Page 22 of 32
Maharashtra Vs. Nainmal Punjaji Shah & another reported in 1969
(3) SCC 904, Satinder Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & Anr., reported in
(2022) 10 SCC 51, Prem Prakash Vs. Enforcement Directorate
[SLP No. 5416/2024 (decided on 28.08.2024)], Sanjay Chandra Vs.
CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, Shiv Shankar Nag Vs.
Enforcement Directorate [SLP (Crl.) No. 11314/2024 (decided on
04.10.2024)], Union ofIndia Vs. K.A. Najeeb, reported in (2021) 3
SCC 713 & State of Kerala Vs. Raneef, reported in (2011) 1 SCC
784.
24. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the applicant- Roshan Kumar
Singh in MCRC No. 7041 of 2024 and applicant- Sheikh Moinuddin
Qureshi in MCRC No. 7093 of 2024 would submit the applicants are
innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime in question as
no role has been played by them in alleged offence and there is no
evidence to connect the present applicants with the alleged offence.
He would further submit that the applicants are neither government
servant nor hold any post. He would also submit that it has been
alleged by the prosecution that the applicant- Roshan Kumar Singh
used to look after the accounts of alleged main co-accused person ie.
Suryakant Tiwari but there is no evidence or material to connect the
applicants with the allegation as there is no seizure made from the
applicants with respect to alleged role played by them in commission
of offence. He would further submit that the applicant-Roshan Kumar
Singh was only looking after accounts and for filing of Income Tax
returns and was working under the instructions of Rajnikant Tiwari on
salary of Rs. 30,000/- per month. He would further submit that the
applicants were not made accused in the case/investigation before the
Page 23 of 32
Enforcement Directorate under the PMLA and were given clean chit
stating that they have no role to play in the instant crime. He would
further submit that the applicant- Roshan Kumar Singh is aged about
39 years and are getting eye treatment at Chennai (Tamilnadu) since
2016 and he is advised for continuous follow-ups by the doctors or he
might lose his eye-sight and they are in jail since 18.06.2024 and
would pray for releasing them on bail.
25. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment
rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Siddharth Vs.
State of U.P., reported in (2021) SCC OnLine SC 615, Amanpreet
Singh Vs. Republic of India [SLP (Crl.) No. 5234/2021], Satender
Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [SLP (Crl.) No.
5191/2021 (decided on 07.10.2021)], Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs.
State of Punjab, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565, Sushila Aggarwal
Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2020) 5 SCC 1 & Nathu Singh
Vs. State of U.P., reported in (2021) 6 SCC 64.
26. Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, counsel for the applicant- Sandeep Kumar
Nayak in MCRC No. 7210 of 2024 would submit that applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question as
there is no evidence produced by the prosecution to involve the
applicant in the alleged offence. He would further submit that the
applicant was bonafidely performing his duties in compliance of order
dated 15.07.2020 by issuing the delivery orders in capacity of
Assistant Mining Officer as he was bound to perform his duties as per
the instruction issued by the higher officials i.e. Director Geology and
Mining. He would further submit that the applicant is in jail since
18.06.2024 and trial will take some time for its final conclusion and
Page 24 of 32
would pray for releasing the applicant on bail.
27. Mr. Amrito Das, counsel for the applicant- Chandra Prakash
Jaiswal in MCRC No. 7292 of 2024 would submit that applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He
would further submit that the applicant is a coal transporter, therefore,
incriminating statement given by another business competitor cannot
be accepted as the sole ground for executing the present applicant.
He would further submit that the applicant is not an active part of the
illegal coal levy syndicate as no document has been placed by the
prosecution for his participation in the alleged offence. He would
further submit that the case of prosecution against the present
applicant is based on the fact that illegal coal levy was extorted by him
from the coal transporters for clearance of delivery orders but at the
time of filing of the FIR offence under Section 384 of Cr.P.C. was not
registered and the same has been included later in the charge-sheet.
He would further submit that the applicant is in jail since 13.06.2024
and trial will take some time for its final conclusion and would pray for
releasing the applicant on bail.
28. Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, senior counsel for the applicant- Hemant
Jaiswal in MCRC No. 7419 of 2024 would submit that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He
would further submit that the sole basis on which the FIR has been
registered by the Economic Offence Wing is the letter dated
11.01.2024 which is sent by the Directorate of Enforcement. In the said
letter there is not even a single whisper against the present applicant
and he has not been named as accused under the PMLA. 2002 and
there is no justification of roping the applicant automatically in the case
Page 25 of 32
of offence punishable under Indian Penal Code, Prevention of
Corruption Act. The investigating agency is solely relying upon the
investigation of the Directorate of Enforcement and has failed to
establish prima facie by way of legally admissible evidence that the
applicant is involved in the offence under IPC or Prevention of
Corruption Act. He would further submit that there is no possibility of
him fleeing away from the country and not being available for facing
the trial. In any case, conditions can be imposed to address the
concern of the State. He would further submit that the applicant is in
jail since 13.06.2024 and the trial will take some time for its final
conclusion and would pray for releasing the applicant in jail.
29. To substantiate his submission, he would refer to the judgment
rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Lalita Kumari Vs.
Government of Uttar Pradesh & others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1,
State Represented by Inspector of Police & others Vs. N.M.T. Joy
Immaculate, reported in 2004 INSC 334, V.T. Lazar & others Vs. The
Inspector of Police, Poonamallee Police Station [Crl. O.P. No.
14796 of 2022], Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India & others
[Criminal Appeal No. 3051-3052 of 2023], Prabir Purkayastha Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi) [D.No. 42896 of 2023], Sheikh Javed Iqbal @
Ashfaq Ansari @ Javed Ansari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
[Criminal Appeal No. 2790 of 2024], Manish Sisodia Vs. CBI & ED,
reported in (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1393, Satender Kumar Antil Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51,
Surinder Singh alias Shingara Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported
in (2005) 7 SCC 387, Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported
in (1977) 4 SCC 291, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of
Page 26 of 32
Maharashtra, reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1693, Gudikanti
Narasimhulu Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra
Pradesh, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240, P. Chidambaram Vs.
Enforcement Directorate, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 791, Sanjay
Chandra Vs. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, Prahlad Singh Bhati
Vs. State (NCT of India), reported in (2001) 4 SCC 280 & Arnesh
Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.
30. Ms. Juhi Jaiswal, counsel for the applicant- Virendra Kumar
Jaiswal @ Montu in MCRC No. 7615 of 2024 would submit that the
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She
would further submit that the applicant is a coal transporter, therefore,
incriminating statement given by another business competitor/coal
transporter cannot be accepted as the sole ground for executing the
applicant, therefore, investigating officer has failed to consider the
entire case and has arrested the applicant only on the basis of
statement of witnesses. She would further submit that the applicant
was not an active part of the illegal coal levy syndicate and the
allegation regarding collection of illegal coal levy is based on the
statements given by co-accused and witnesses which are yet to be
examined in trial. She would further submit that the applicant is in jail
since 13.06.2024 and is ready to abide by all the conditions imposed
upon him while granting bail and would pray for grant of bail to the
applicant.
31. To substantiate her submission, she would refer to the judgment
rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Sanjay Chandra
Vs. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, Dipak Shubhashchandra
Mehta Vs. CBI, reported in (2012) 4 SCC 134, Satender Kumar Antil
Page 27 of 32
Vs. CBI, reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, Prem Prakash Vs. Union of
India, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2270, Arvind Kejriwal Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
2550, Haricharan Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1964 SC
1184 & Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC
273.
32. Mr. Soumya Rai, counsel for the applicant- Parekh Kurre in MCRC
No. 6919 of 2024 would submit that investigating agency is acting
arbitrary in order to prosecute the applicant, which is nothing but an ill-
motivated, malafide intention to rope the applicant at the whims of
Investigating agencies. He would further submit that the contents of
FIR clearly show that the allegations were mostly against the
Suryakant Tiwari, Soumya Chaurasiya, Hemant Jaiswal, Sameer
Vishnoi and other politically influential persons and the present
applicant has only been named because he was working in the office
of Hemant Jaiswal. He would further submit that no official including
coal businessman has named the present applicant that he had any
contact with them or he used to collect money from them. He would
further submit that the respondents have failed to establish link of the
applicant with the alleged offence and merely on presumption, his
name has been included in final report otherwise there is no whisper of
what so ever against the applicant for committing any act to establish
prima facie case, the prosecution agency ought to have placed the
evidence whether someone has been put to wrongful loss due to act of
the applicant. There is no evidence brought on record by way of final
report that someone has been cheated which has resulted into
wrongful loss by the applicant. There is no complaint by any person
Page 28 of 32
that the applicant has intentionally created documents or electronic
records which were used for the purpose of cheating. He would further
submit that the investigating agency has failed to show complete the
chain of evidence to establish that the applicant has accepted
gratification as a motive or reward to favour of dis-favour to any
particular group of persons. He would further submit that the
ingredients of Section 7 and 7 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is
not attracted against the applicant. The applicant is neither
government servant nor there is any allegation of inducement done by
him for taking bribe. The applicant is working as Data Operator under
Hemant Jaiswal who has multiple business across the state of
Chhattisgarh and there is no nexus with the aforesaid crime but the
prosecution has wrongly mentioned him as an employee of Suryakant
Tiwari which is factually incorrect as he has never worked for
Suryakant Tiwari. The applicant is in jail since 18.06.2024 and trial will
likely to take time for conclusion, hence, would pray for grant of bail to
the applicant.
33. Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, counsel for the ACB/EOW opposing the
submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and referring
to the FIR and the case diary would submit that all the applicants are
involved in the economical offence which is not only heinous offence
but also against the economic of the Nation. The custodial
interrogation of the applicants are required as the applicants have not
disclosed the source of income from where these properties which
have been detailed in the final report and if the accused remained in
the custody, the sources of purchase of property can be traced out. As
such, he would pray for rejection of the bail applications filed by them.
Page 29 of 32
34. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants and the respondents
as well as considered the case diary.
35. The prosecution has collected the material regarding active
involvement of the applicants in the syndicate and main accused-
Suryakant Tiwari has extorted money, which has been utilized for
purchase of properties. Thus, involvement of the applicants in
commission of offence under Section 7, 7A & 12 of the PC Act, is
prima facie reflected. Hon’ble the Supreme Court while considering the
gravity of economic offence in case of P. Chidambaram Vs.
Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 24 has held
at paragraph 78 to 81 as under:-
“78. Observing that economic offence is committed with
deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the
consequence to the community, in State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal
Jitamalji Porwal and others (1987) 2 SCC 364, it was held as
under:-
“5. ….The entire community is aggrieved if the economic
offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to
book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon
passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with
cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal
profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A
disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested
only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in
the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner
without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar
crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to
the national economy and national interest…..”
79. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart
and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of
bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI (2013) 7 SCC 439, the
Supreme Court held as under:-
“34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be
visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The
economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and
involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously
and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the
country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the
financial health of the country.
35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature
of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the
Page 30 of 32severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the
character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to
the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of
the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the
witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the
public/State and other similar considerations.” [underlining
added]
80. Referring to Dukhishyam Benupani, Assistant Director,
Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria (1998) 1
SCC 52, in Enforcement Officer, Ted, Bombay v. Bher Chand
Tikaji Bora and others (1999) 5 SCC 720, while hearing an
appeal by the Enforcement Directorate against the order of the
Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granting anticipatory bail
to the respondent thereon, the Supreme Court set aside the
order of the Single Judge granting anticipatory bail.
81. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may
frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused
and in collecting the useful information and also the materials
which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation
would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the
order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in
economic offences would definitely hamper the effective
investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been
collected by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate and
considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that
it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.”
36. Again Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod
Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) & another reported in 2021
(6) SCC 230 has held in paragraph 23 as under :-
24. The principles governing the grant of bail were reiterated by a
two judge Bench in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee
(2010) 14 SCC 496:
“9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an
order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the
accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to
exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in
compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of
decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among
other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while
considering an application for bail are:
(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
Page 31 of 32
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on
bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the
accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced;
and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.
“10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these
relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said
order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind,
rendering it to be illegal…”
47. The considerations which must weigh with the Court in
granting bail have been formulated in the decisions of this Court
in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh13 and Prasanta
Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee14(noted earlier). These
decisions as well as the decision in Sanjay Chandra (supra) were
adverted to in a recent decision of a two judge Bench of this
Court dated 19 March 2021 in The State of Kerala v. Mahesh
where the Court observed:
“22…All the relevant factors have to be weighed by the Court
considering an application for bail, including the gravity of the
offence, the evidence and material which prima facie show the
involvement of applicant for bail in the offence alleged, the extent
of involvement of the applicant for bail, in the offence alleged,
possibility of the applicant accused absconding or otherwise
defeating or delaying the course of justice, reasonable
apprehension of witnesses being threatened or influenced or of
evidence being tempered with, and danger to the safety of the
victim (if alive), the complainant, their relatives, friends or other
witnesses….” Similarly, the Court held that the grant of bail by
the High Court can be set aside, consistent with the precedents
we have discussed above, when such grant is based on non-
application of mind or is innocent of the relevant factors for such
grant.
37. The prosecution has collected sufficient material to demonstrate that
the applicants have active participation in the syndicate which has
collected illegal money as per the directions of the main accused
Suryakant Tiwari by extorting money which has also been utilized for
purchase of properties by the accused persons and in the bail petition,
Page 32 of 32they have contended that they are falsely implicated in the crime by
taking the stand which is required to be ascertained by the trial Court
only during the trial and the applicants have not placed any material to
demonstrate that they are not prima facie involved in the commission
of offence. The accused persons have nowhere stated that they are
unknown to the main accused and there is no linkage between them
for commission of offence by the main accused- Suryakant Tiwari with
the add of government officers. The prosecution is investigating the
matter and if the accused are released on bail they may tamper with
the evidence, as such also, their custodian remand is necessary.
Therefore, looking to the involvement of the applicants, gravity of the
offence which is economic offence, the applicants are not entitled to
get bail. As such, I am of the view that it is not a fit case where the
applicants should be granted regular bail.
38. Accordingly, all the bail applications filed under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C. are liable to be and are hereby rejected.
39. The observation made by this Court is not bearing any effect on the
trial of the case. The learned trial Court will decide the criminal trial in
accordance with evidence, material placed on record, without being
influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while
deciding the present bail applications.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
JudgeArun