1

2026:CGHC:27547

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MCRC No. 4981 of 2026

Order Reserved on 24.06.2026

Order Delivered on 03.07.2026

1 - Amit Mittal S/o Late Rajendra Kumar Mittal Aged About 58

Years R/o Flat No. T G - 2 B/4, Garden Estate, Near Guru

Dronacharya Metro Station, District Gurgaon, Haryana - 122002.

... Applicant

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station In-Charge Police

Station - A C B/ E O W Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

For Applicant:Mr. Sunil Otwani, Senior Advocate

appears along with Mr. Arun Gaur, Mr.

Atul Kumar, Mr. Himasnhu Pandey & Mr.

Mayank Sharma, Advocates

For State :Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate

General

2

(Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)

C.A.V. Order

1.The present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred on

behalf of the applicant seeking grant of regular bail in

connection with FIR No. 0044/2024 registered at Police

Station Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau

(EOW/ACB), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences

punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 and Section 7(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988. Subsequently, during the course of investigation,

Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC along with Section 8 of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were also added. The

applicant was arrested on 04.05.2026 and has remained in

continuous judicial custody since then.

2.The present application emanates from and assails the order

passed by the learned Special Judge (Prevention of

Corruption Act), Raipur, whereby the prayer of the applicant

seeking regular bail has been declined.

Case of Prosecution :

3

3.The prosecution case, as it unfolds from the material

collected during investigation, is rooted in allegations of a

well-organized and systematic corruption racket operating

within the functioning of the Chhattisgarh State Marketing

Corporation Limited (CSMCL), wherein the present applicant

is alleged to have played a influential role along with co-

accused person. It is the prosecution’s specific case that the

co-accused Anwar Dhebar, by virtue of his political stature

and influence, exercised undue control over the

administrative and financial processes of CSMCL and

misused such influence to orchestrate the clearance of bills of

certain manpower supply agencies in exchange for illegal

gratification.

4.According to the prosecution, the modus operandi of the

alleged conspiracy involved the imposition of a fixed

percentage of commission on the bills submitted by

manpower agencies engaged with CSMCL. It is alleged that

the person namely Anwar Dhebar, acting in concert with co-

accused persons, particularly Naveen Pratap Singh Tomar,

who was functioning as Deputy General Manager and in-

charge Managing Director of CSMCL, ensured that no bills

were cleared unless the concerned agencies paid the

demanded commission. The prosecution asserts that

4

Siddharth Singhania and Naveen Pratap Singh Tomar acted

as key intermediaries in this arrangement, facilitating the

collection, consolidation, and subsequent transfer of illegal

proceeds to the applicant. The entire process is alleged to

have been carried out in a clandestine yet structured manner,

thereby constituting a criminal conspiracy.

5.It is further alleged that the person namely Anwar Dhebar not

only received such commission amounts but also actively

influenced the escalation of the rate of commission beyond

what was previously prevalent. The prosecution contends

that, apart from the standard commission allegedly being

extracted, an additional portion of the service charges

payable to the manpower agencies was also siphoned off

under the guise of commission at the behest of the applicant.

This, according to the prosecution, demonstrates a deliberate

and calculated abuse of power aimed at deriving pecuniary

advantage through illegal means.

6.A significant development in the prosecution case arises from

the intervention of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which,

during the course of its investigation under the provisions of

the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, unearthed

substantial evidence pointing towards corrupt practices within

CSMCL. A formal communication dated 05.12.2023 (F. No.

5

ECIR/RPZO/05/2023/678) was addressed by the Deputy

Director of the Enforcement Directorate, Raipur, to the

Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, under Section 66(2)

of the PMLA, sharing details of predicate offences disclosed

during the money laundering investigation and requesting

registration of an FIR and initiation of action by the Anti-

Corruption Bureau.

7.The prosecution heavily relies upon the events dated

29.11.2023, when a search operation conducted by the

Enforcement Directorate under Section 17 of the PMLA led to

the interception of a cash transaction amounting to Rs. 28.80

lakhs near the office premises of CSMCL. It is alleged that

two individuals, namely Abhishek Kumar Singh and Tejram

Nirmalkar, employees of M/s Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited,

a manpower supplying agency, were apprehended while

attempting to hand over the said cash to Devansh Devangan

and Jitendra Kumar Nirmalkar. A detailed panchnama was

drawn at the spot, and the cash along with mobile phones

was seized.

8.During interrogation, the said individuals purportedly

disclosed that the amount constituted illegal gratification

demanded for facilitating the clearance of pending bills of

their company. It was revealed that Abhishek Kumar Singh

6

had been instructed by a senior employee, Neeraj Kumar, to

deliver the cash to representatives of Naveen Pratap Singh

Tomar. Further statements recorded under Section 50 of the

PMLA indicated that the bribe receivers were acting under the

directions of one Lokeshwar Prasad Sinha, proprietor of M/s

Fortune Buildcon, who in turn had been instructed by Tomar

to arrange for the collection of cash.

9.The prosecution case further elaborates that M/s Eagle

Hunter Solutions Limited had submitted bills amounting to

approximately Rs. 3.43 crores to CSMCL, and in order to

secure clearance of the same, they were compelled to pay a

bribe calculated at approximately 8% of the bill value, i.e., Rs.

29.40 lakhs. It is alleged that this demand was accompanied

by explicit threats that the bills would not be processed unless

the payment was made. In furtherance of this demand, the

amount was withdrawn from the company’s bank account on

29.11.2023, out of which Rs. 60,000 was retained by the

operations manager and the remaining Rs. 28.80 lakhs was

handed over for delivery to the designated recipients.

10.The prosecution also places reliance on electronic evidence

in the form of call detail records, chat transcripts, and other

digital communications retrieved from the seized mobile

devices, which allegedly corroborate the existence of a

7

coordinated network engaged in the collection and

distribution of illegal gratification. Statements of various

witnesses and accused persons, recorded in the presence of

independent witnesses, are stated to further substantiate the

allegations of extortion and abuse of official position. On the

basis of the material collected by the Enforcement

Directorate, it is the prosecution’s case that Naveen Pratap

Singh Tomar, being a public servant, abused his official

position to obtain undue pecuniary advantage, thereby

attracting provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988. The ED also indicated the possible involvement of

higher-level functionaries within CSMCL, suggesting that the

corruption was not isolated but systemic in nature.

Consequently, acting upon the information shared by the

Enforcement Directorate under Section 66(2) of the PMLA,

the State Economic Offences Investigation Bureau/Anti-

Corruption Bureau, Raipur, initiated further investigation into

the predicate offences. The present applicant is alleged to be

a principal beneficiary and key conspirator in the said illegal

scheme, having received or being intended to receive the

illicit proceeds generated through coercive extraction of

commission from manpower contractors.

8

11.In sum, the prosecution seeks to establish that the applicant,

in active connivance with co-accused public servants and

private intermediaries, engineered a corrupt mechanism

whereby official processes were subverted for personal gain,

thereby causing not only financial loss to the State exchequer

but also undermining the integrity of public administration.

Submission of Learned Counsel for the applicant :

12.Learned counsel for the Applicant, assailing the legality of the

prosecution and the continued incarceration of the Applicant,

has advanced elaborate and multifaceted submissions. It is

contended that the very institution of the present FIR

(commonly referred to as the “Manpower FIR”) constitutes a

gross abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that the

allegations, transactions, and factual substratum forming the

basis of the present FIR are substantially identical to those

already investigated in FIR No. 04 of 2024 (the “Liquor FIR”),

wherein multiple charge-sheets have been filed. The initiation

of a second FIR on the same set of facts is argued to be

impermissible in law and violative of the constitutional

protection against double jeopardy enshrined under Article

20(2) of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed upon

9

authoritative pronouncements including T.T. Antony v. State

of Kerala, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 and Amitbhai

Shah v. CBI, reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348, wherein it has

been unequivocally held that a second FIR on the same

cause of action is unsustainable.

13.Developing the said submission further, learned counsel

argues that the present FIR is not only based on the same

material, accused persons, and transactions, but is in fact a

mere offshoot or consequence of the earlier Liquor FIR. The

alleged commission from manpower agencies is intrinsically

linked to, and arises out of, the broader allegations of illegal

financial operations within the Chhattisgarh State Marketing

Corporation Limited (CSMCL), which are already under

investigation in the Liquor FIR. The doctrine of sameness of

transaction, as elucidated in C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil

Nadu, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 567, is invoked to contend

that no separate investigation or prosecution can be

sustained where the offences arise out of the same

transaction.

14.It is contended that the present applicant was called by the

concerned police on two occasions, and he duly appeared

before them for interrogation. After questioning, as no

incriminating material was found against him, he was neither

10

arrested nor detained and was permitted to leave. However,

when he was again called by the police on 04.05.2026, he

was arrested without there being any fresh material or

evidence against him. It is further submitted that the applicant

is one of the Directors of A2Z Infraservice Limited, which

was awarded the manpower supply contract by CSMCL. The

company has as many as five Directors, yet without assigning

any specific overt act or criminal role to the present applicant,

he has been arrayed as an accused. Learned counsel

submits that the entire work of the company at Raipur was

being managed by co-accused Mr. N. Uday Rao, who was

functioning as the authorised representative/agent of A2Z

Infraservice Limited. He was entrusted with the responsibility

of managing the entire affairs of the company in relation to

the CSMCL contract by virtue of a resolution passed by the

Board of Directors in its meeting held on 15.09.2020. As per

the said resolution, Mr. Sushil Kumar was the authorised

signatory, whereas Mr. N. Uday Rao was entrusted with the

responsibility of carrying out and supervising the entire work

relating to the CSMCL project. He was the key person

managing the entire gamut of operations. It is further

submitted that the bank account bearing No. 409001228831,

maintained for CSMCL operations, was exclusively operated

11

and controlled by Mr. N. Uday Rao. His mobile number and

email ID were registered with the bank, and no transaction

could be effected without his approval. The bills raised by Mr.

N. Uday Rao were duly certified by the officials of CSMCL.

Thus, according to the prosecution's own charge-sheet, the

entire work alleged therein appears to have been carried out

by Mr. N. Uday Rao.

15.It is also argued that despite the allegations being directed

against the functioning of the company, A2Z Infraservice

Limited itself has not been made an accused. Instead, for

reasons best known to the prosecution, only the Directors of

the company have been implicated in the present case

without attributing any specific criminal act to the applicant. It

is submitted that the allegation in the FIR is that, on the

pretext of making overtime payments for extra working hours

of the workmen, inflated bills were raised before CSMCL and

the amounts were allegedly diverted towards payment of

commission/bribes instead of being paid to the workers.

However, till date, no payment towards overtime has ever

been released by CSMCL to A2Z Infraservice Limited. There

is not a single document forming part of the charge-sheet

which demonstrates that any amount towards overtime

wages was paid by CSMCL to the company. It is further

12

submitted that, even assuming the prosecution allegations to

be correct for the sake of argument, the total working hours

would approximately work out to 40–41 days in a month.

However, the company raised bills only for 30 days in a

month, and there is no anomaly whatsoever in the bills

submitted. No overtime charges were ever claimed or

calculated by the company. It is also contended that the

record itself reflects that the company received only about

₹12 crores from NKJ, whereas CSMCL deducted

approximately ₹12 crores as penalty from the company's

dues. In addition, an amount of nearly ₹7 crores was

withdrawn by Mr. N. Uday Rao from the company's account,

as he was exclusively operating and maintaining the said

account. Consequently, the company did not derive any

financial benefit from the contract and, on the contrary,

suffered substantial financial losses running into several

crores of rupees in the execution of the aforesaid tender.

Considering the aforesaid financial losses suffered by the

company, it has already proposed to invoke arbitration

proceedings against CSMCL for recovery of its legitimate

dues.

16.It is further submitted that the present applicant was not

named in the FIR dated 05.03.2024. Subsequently, under the

13

guise of recording his statement during the course of

investigation, the applicant was repeatedly called by the

investigating agency and, at a later stage, was arrested

without there being any material to indicate his involvement in

the alleged offences. Learned counsel further submits that

the applicant has extended complete cooperation to the

investigating agency on five separate occasions—twice in

response to notices and thrice pursuant to summons—which

fact is duly reflected from the record. The applicant voluntarily

appeared before the ACB/EOW on 04.05.2026 despite being

fully aware of the possibility of his arrest, thereby

demonstrating his bona fide conduct and willingness to

cooperate with the investigation. Thus, there is no likelihood

whatsoever of the applicant absconding or evading the

process of law. It is also submitted that the applicant is a

Director of a duly registered company having its registered

office at Gurugram, Haryana. The company is engaged in

large-scale manpower operations and employs approximately

10,000 persons across various projects. Therefore, the

applicant is a permanent resident with deep social and

professional roots and there is no possibility of his fleeing

from justice.

14

17.It is further argued that the entire prosecution case rests upon

documentary evidence, including tender documents, bank

statements, invoices, contracts and other official records. At

present, all such documents are either in the custody of the

investigating agency or are otherwise part of the official

records. Whenever the applicant was called by the

ACB/EOW, he duly appeared and handed over all documents

sought by the investigating agency. Therefore, no purpose

would be served by his continued incarceration, as his

custodial interrogation is no longer required. It is further

submitted that there is no possibility of the applicant

influencing the prosecution witnesses or tampering with the

evidence. The applicant is a resident of Gurugram, Haryana,

whereas the witnesses are primarily situated in Raipur and

adjoining areas of the State of Chhattisgarh. Most of the

witnesses are public servants or official witnesses, and

therefore there is hardly any apprehension that the applicant

would be in a position to influence or intimidate them. It is

also submitted that the alleged offences pertain to the period

from 2019 to 2022, whereas the FIR came to be registered

only in the year 2024 after an unexplained delay of nearly two

years. Learned counsel further submits that, in another case

registered against the applicant under Section 406 of the IPC

15

read with Section 2(1)(b)/3 of the Essential Services

Maintenance Act, the applicant has already challenged the

FIR by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure before the Hon'ble High Court of

Allahabad. The said petition is pending consideration, and by

order dated 03.01.2025, the Hon'ble High Court has stayed

the further proceedings arising out of the said FIR.

18.Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that it is

pertinent to note that no FIR has been registered against A2Z

Infraservice Limited, the company which was awarded the

manpower supply contract by CSMCL. Likewise, none of the

officers or employees of the company who were directly

involved in the day-to-day execution of the contract or

preparation of the bills has been arrayed as an accused.

Instead, the prosecution has selectively implicated certain

Directors without attributing any specific overt act or criminal

role to the present applicant. It is further submitted that there

is hardly any cogent or legally admissible evidence on record

to establish that the present applicant either paid or facilitated

the payment of any commission or illegal gratification to any

official of CSMCL or to any member of the alleged syndicate.

The prosecution has failed to produce any bank transaction,

financial trail, accounting record, electronic evidence or any

16

other independent material connecting the applicant with the

alleged payment of commission. In the absence of any such

incriminating material, the prosecution's allegation against the

present applicant remains wholly speculative and

unsupported by credible evidence.

19.Lastly, it is submitted that the applicant is suffering from a

serious respiratory ailment, namely Obstructive Sleep

Apnoea, since the year 2013, which necessitates continuous

use of a CPAP machine during sleep. In the absence of such

respiratory support, the applicant is exposed to a high risk of

respiratory arrest, hypoxic brain injury and serious cardiac

complications. Owing to the deterioration of his medical

condition while in judicial custody, he has been shifted to the

ICU Ward of Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital,

Raipur, where he is presently on Non-Invasive Ventilation

(NIV). His health condition is progressively deteriorating, and

he requires constant specialised medical care.

20.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, particularly

the absence of any specific role attributed to the applicant,

the documentary nature of the evidence, his complete

cooperation with the investigation, the absence of any

likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence, and his

serious medical condition, it is respectfully prayed that this

17

Hon'ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the applicant on

regular bail on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit

and proper. The applicant undertakes to cooperate with the

trial and shall remain present before the Court as and when

required.

21.A detailed chronology of events has been placed on record to

demonstrate that each time the Applicant approached the

threshold of release, a fresh arrest was effected by another

agency or in another case. Such a practice, it is urged, has

been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter

of Arvind Kejriwal v. CBI, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine

SC 2550 and more recently in Binay Kumar Singh v. State

of Jharkhand 2026 SCC OnLine SC 208 wherein the Apex

Court cautioned against the misuse of arrest powers to defeat

the grant of bail. Reliance is placed upon the celebrated

judgment in the matter of Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.,

reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 as well as Mohd. Zubair v.

State (NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023) 16 SCC 764 and

Siddharth v. State of U.P., reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676, to

contend that arrest cannot be made in a routine or

mechanical manner. Reliance is placed upon Ram Sharan

Chaturvedi v. State of M.P., reported in (2022) 16 SCC

166, Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, reported in 1964

18

SCC OnLine SC 28, Prem Prakash v. UOI, reported in

(2024) 9 SCC 787.Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, reported in

(2012) 1 SCC 40 and Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State

of Punjab, reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565.

Submissions of Learned State Counsel :

22.Per contra, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the

prayer for grant of bail and submits that the present case

pertains to a large-scale economic offence involving

systematic siphoning of public funds through a well-

orchestrated criminal conspiracy. It is submitted that the

allegations are not confined to mere procedural irregularities

but disclose a deep-rooted conspiracy whereby huge

amounts of public money were fraudulently extracted in the

name of overtime wages, bonus and additional working days,

which were never actually paid to the employees. Learned

State Counsel submits that the present applicant is not a

mere sleeping Director of A2Z Infraservice Limited, but was

one of the persons in overall control and management of the

affairs of the company. Being a Director, he cannot escape

criminal liability merely by shifting the entire responsibility

19

upon co-accused N. Uday Rao. The role attributed to the

applicant is supported by documentary evidence collected

during investigation, statements of material witnesses

recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS and the

memorandum statements of the co-accused persons. It is

further submitted that the investigation has revealed that an

amount of approximately Rs.34.06 crores was received by

A2Z Infraservice Limited under the heads of overtime

allowance, bonus, payment for additional working days and

service tax, although the corresponding benefits were never

passed on to the employees. Out of the said amount,

approximately Rs.6.90 crores was paid as commission to the

illegal syndicate headed by the principal conspirators. Thus,

the applicant was an active participant in the illegal financial

arrangement and was a beneficiary of the proceeds of crime.

23.Learned State Counsel further submits that the contention

that no overtime payment was released by CSMCL is

contrary to the material collected during investigation. The

documentary evidence, bank records, financial transactions

and statements of the concerned officers clearly demonstrate

that huge amounts were released under different financial

heads and were subsequently diverted in furtherance of the

conspiracy. It is further argued that merely because the

20

applicant was not named in the FIR does not entitle him to

the benefit of bail. During investigation, sufficient material

surfaced disclosing his active role in the commission of the

offence and, therefore, he was rightly arrested after collection

of incriminating evidence. It is well settled that an FIR is not

expected to contain every minute detail regarding the role of

each accused and that the investigation may subsequently

reveal the involvement of other persons. Learned State

Counsel further submits that the plea that co-accused N.

Uday Rao was exclusively handling the affairs of the

company cannot absolve the applicant of his criminal liability.

The company acts through its Directors and responsible

office bearers, and the applicant, being one of the Directors,

was under a legal obligation to ensure that public funds

received by the company were utilized for the purposes for

which they were sanctioned. The attempt to shift the entire

liability upon another co-accused is a matter of defence,

which can only be adjudicated during trial.

24.It is further submitted that the investigation is still in progress

with regard to tracing the proceeds of crime, identifying other

beneficiaries, recovering diverted funds and unearthing the

larger conspiracy involving public officials and private entities.

Several financial transactions are still under scrutiny and

21

certain co-conspirators are yet to be apprehended. Therefore,

the custodial detention of the applicant is necessary to

facilitate an effective and unhindered investigation.

25.Learned State Counsel also submits that the applicant is a

resident of Gurugram, Haryana, whereas the offence has

been committed within the State of Chhattisgarh. In the event

of his release, there is every likelihood that he may evade the

process of law, influence witnesses, tamper with documentary

evidence or coordinate with other accused persons who are

yet to be apprehended. The possibility of obstructing further

investigation cannot be ruled out. It is further submitted that

economic offences involving public money constitute a

distinct class of offences and are required to be viewed with

greater seriousness. Such offences undermine public

confidence in governmental institutions and have far-reaching

consequences upon the financial health of the State. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI

2013 (7) SCC 439, Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI 2013 (7)

SCC 466, P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement

(2020) 13 SCC 791 and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar 2020 (2)

SCC 118 has consistently held that economic offences

involving deep-rooted conspiracies require a different

approach while considering applications for bail.

22

26.So far as the medical condition of the applicant is concerned,

learned State Counsel submits that adequate medical

treatment is being provided by the State authorities. The

applicant is presently admitted in a Government Super

Speciality Hospital and is receiving all necessary medical

care under the supervision of specialist doctors. Therefore,

his medical condition cannot be made a ground for grant of

regular bail.

27.Learned State Counsel lastly submits that considering the

magnitude of the financial scam, the substantial loss caused

to the public exchequer, the gravity of the allegations, the

prima facie evidence collected during investigation and the

active role attributed to the applicant, no case for grant of bail

is made out. It is, therefore, prayed that the present bail

application deserves to be rejected.

28.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and

perused the case diary, charge-sheet and other material and

the relevant documents placed on record.

29.The present application has been preferred under Section

483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking

regular bail in connection with Crime No. 44/2024 registered

by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau,

Chhattisgarh, for offences punishable under Section 120-B

23

IPC and Sections 7(b) and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988, wherein subsequently, after filing of charge-sheet,

offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and

Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act have also been

incorporated.

30.At the outset, this Court is conscious of the settled principles

governing consideration of bail under Section 483 BNSS.

While adjudicating a prayer for bail, the Court is not expected

to undertake a meticulous examination of evidence as would

be done during trial; nevertheless, the Court is required to

assess whether a prima facie case exists, the nature and

gravity of accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the

possibility of tampering with evidence, likelihood of

influencing witnesses and the larger societal impact of the

alleged offence.

31.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Kalyan Chandra

Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528

has authoritatively held that while considering bail, the Court

must take into account the nature of accusation, severity of

punishment, character of evidence, possibility of securing

presence of the accused and reasonable apprehension of

witnesses being influenced. The Apex Court observed that

24

grant of bail is a matter involving judicial discretion to be

exercised cautiously and not mechanically. It was held thus :

“11. The law in regard to grant or

refusal of bail is very well settled.

The court granting bail should

exercise its discretion in a judicious

manner and not as a matter of

course. Though at the stage of

granting bail a detailed examination

of evidence and elaborate

documentation of the merit of the

case need not be undertaken, there

is a need to indicate in such orders

reasons for prima facie concluding

why bail was being granted

particularly where the accused is

charged of having committed a

serious offence. Any order devoid of

such reasons would suffer from non-

application of mind. It is also

necessary for the court granting bail

to consider among other

circumstances, the following factors

also before granting bail; they are:

(a) The nature of accusation

and the severity of punishment

in case of conviction and the

nature of supporting evidence.

25

(b) Reasonable apprehension

of tampering with the witness or

apprehension of threat to the

complainant.

(c) Prima facie satisfaction of

the court in support of the

charge.”

32.The allegations in the present case disclose a deep-rooted

and systematic corruption network allegedly operating within

the functioning of the Chhattisgarh State Marketing

Corporation Limited (CSMCL). The material collected during

investigation, prima facie, indicates that manpower supply

agencies were allegedly compelled to pay illegal commission

for clearance of their legitimate dues and bills.

33.Having bestowed anxious consideration to the rival

submissions and upon careful perusal of the FIR, the charge-

sheet, the case diary and the documents forming part of the

investigation, this Court finds that the allegations against the

present applicant require to be examined keeping in view the

settled principles governing grant of bail under Section 483 of

the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. At the stage

of consideration of bail, the Court is not expected to conduct

a meticulous appreciation of evidence as would be

undertaken during trial. The Court is only required to examine

26

whether a prima facie case exists, the specific role attributed

to the accused, the necessity of continued custodial detention

and whether his release is likely to prejudice the investigation

or the trial.

34.It is not in dispute that the alleged transactions pertain to the

period between 2019 and 2021, whereas the FIR came to be

registered only on 05.10.2024. More importantly, the present

applicant was admittedly not named in the FIR. Even after

registration of the FIR, the investigating agency repeatedly

summoned the applicant on several occasions. The record

reveals that the applicant appeared before the Investigating

Officer on 06.01.2026, 27.01.2026, 06.03.2026 and thereafter

pursuant to further notices. On every occasion, he

cooperated with the investigation, furnished the information

sought and was permitted to leave without being arrested.

Ultimately, the applicant was arrested only on 04.05.2026

when he voluntarily appeared before the Investigating Officer

pursuant to summons. The conduct of the applicant

throughout the investigation clearly demonstrates that he

neither attempted to evade the investigation nor absconded

from the process of law. His repeated appearance before the

Investigating Agency substantially negatives the

apprehension that he is likely to flee from justice.

27

35.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharth v. State of Uttar

Pradesh, (2022) 1 SCC 676, has categorically held that

arrest is not mandatory merely because it is lawful to do so.

The power to arrest and the necessity to arrest are two

distinct concepts. The Court observed that where an accused

has cooperated throughout the investigation and custodial

interrogation is not required, arrest should not be resorted to

as a matter of routine. Similar principles were reiterated in

Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260,

wherein the Apex Court held that no arrest can be made

merely because it is lawful for the police officer to do so; the

arrest must be justified by necessity.

36.Another important circumstance which persuades this Court

to consider the applicant's prayer favourably is the manner in

which the arrest has been effected. Learned counsel for the

applicant has specifically contended that the mandatory

constitutional requirement regarding communication of

grounds of arrest was not complied with.

37.In the matter of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and

another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 269, the Hon’ble

Court has held the following in para 41 & 41 with respect to

the communication of the grounds of arrest :

“41. The issue on the requirement of

28

communication of grounds of arrest to the

person arrested, as mandated under Article

22(1) of the Constitution of India, which

has also been incorporated in the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

under Section 19 thereof has been

succinctly reiterated in this judgment. The

constitutional mandate of informing the

grounds of arrest to the person arrested in

writing has been explained in Pankaj

Bansal [Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India,

(2024) 7 SCC 576 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri)

450] so as to be meaningful to serve the

intended purpose which has been

reiterated in Prabir Purkayastha [Prabir

Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi),

(2024) 8 SCC 254 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri)

573] . The said constitutional mandate has

been incorporated in the statute under

Section 50CrPC (Section 47 of the BNSS).

It may also be noted that the aforesaid

provision of requirement for communicating

the grounds of arrest, to be purposeful, is

also required to be communicated to the

friends, relatives or such other persons of

the accused as may be disclosed or

nominated by the arrested person for the

purpose of giving such information as

provided under Section 50-ACrPC. As may

be noted, this is in the addition of the

requirement as provided under Section

29

50(1)CrPC.

42. The purpose of inserting Section 50-

ACrPC, making it obligatory on the person

making arrest to inform about the arrest to

the friends, relatives or persons nominated

by the arrested person, is to ensure that

they would be able to take immediate and

prompt actions to secure the release of the

arrested person as permissible under the

law. The arrested person, because of his

detention, may not have immediate and

easy access to the legal process for

securing his release, which would

otherwise be available to the friends,

relatives and such nominated persons by

way of engaging lawyers, briefing them to

secure release of the detained person on

bail at the earliest. Therefore, the purpose

of communicating the grounds of arrest to

the detenue, and in addition to his relatives

as mentioned above is not merely a

formality but to enable the detained person

to know the reasons for his arrest but also

to provide the necessary opportunity to him

through his relatives, friends or nominated

persons to secure his release at the

earliest possible opportunity for actualising

the fundamental right to liberty and life as

guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution. Hence, the requirement of

communicating the grounds of arrest in

30

writing is not only to the arrested person,

but also to the friends, relatives or such

other person as may be disclosed or

nominated by the arrested person, so as to

make the mandate of Article 22(1) of the

Constitution meaningful and effective

failing which, such arrest may be rendered

illegal.”

38.Recently, in the matter of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. State of

Maharashtra and another reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that if an

accused is arrested for any cognizable offence, the

concerned Investigating Officer is required to inform the

arrestee of the grounds of arrest in writing. The following was

held in para 64, 65, 66 and 67 :

“64. In view of the above, we hold with

regard to the second issue that non-supply

of grounds of arrest in writing to the

arrestee prior to or immediately after

arrest would not vitiate such arrest on the

grounds of non-compliance with the

provisions of Section 50CrPC (now

Section 47 of BNSS 2023) provided the

said grounds are supplied in writing within

a reasonable time and in any case two

hours prior to the production of the

arrestee before the Magistrate for remand

proceedings.

31

65. It goes without saying that if the

abovesaid schedule for supplying the

grounds of arrest in writing is not adhered

to, the arrest will be rendered illegal

entitling the release of the arrestee. On

such release, an application for remand or

custody, if required, will be moved along

with the reasons and necessity for the

same, after the supply of the grounds of

arrest in writing setting forth the

Explanation for non-supply thereof within

the above stipulated schedule. On receipt

of such an application, the Magistrate shall

decide the same expeditiously and

preferably within a week of submission

thereof by adhering to the principles of

natural justice.

66. In conclusion, it is held that:

66.1. The constitutional mandate of

informing the arrestee the grounds of

arrest is mandatory in all offences under

all statutes including offences under IPC,

1860 (now BNS 2023);

66.2. The grounds of arrest must be

communicated in writing to the arrestee in

the language he/she understands;

66.3. In case(s) where, the arresting

officer/person is unable to communicate

the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon

after arrest, it be so done orally. The said

grounds be communicated in writing within

32

a reasonable time and in any case at least

two hours prior to production of the

arrestee for remand proceedings before

the Magistrate.

66.4. In case of non-compliance of the

above, the arrest and subsequent remand

would be rendered illegal and the person

will be at liberty to be set free.

67. After having come to the above

conclusion, it is pertinent to note that the

provision of law under Section 50CrPC

(Section 47 of BNSS 2023) does not

provide for a specific mode of or time-

frame for communication of the grounds of

arrest to the person arrested. This Court

in Prabir Purkayastha [Prabir

Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi),

(2024) 8 SCC 254 : (2024) 3 SCC (Cri)

573] , held that the grounds of arrest be

conveyed to the arrestee in writing in all

offences at the earliest, which means it

need not be given at the time of arrest but

within a reasonable time thereafter, for

offences under all the statutes, which

period would be as has been laid down

above in this order.”

39.Coming to the factual matrix, this Court finds that the

prosecution itself has placed sufficient material demonstrating

that the day-to-day functioning of A2Z Infraservice Limited in

33

the State of Chhattisgarh was not being supervised by the

present applicant.

40.The Board Resolution placed on record shows that one Mr. N.

Uday Rao had been specifically authorised to supervise and

conduct the entire business relating to the CSMCL contract.

The documents annexed with the charge-sheet further reveal

that he was the authorised representative operating the

Company's bank account, dealing with CSMCL authorities,

coordinating with government officials and managing financial

transactions. The bank account through which the alleged

financial transactions were routed admittedly carried the

mobile number and operational control of N. Uday Rao.

41.The prosecution itself further alleges that approximately

Rs.12 crores were deducted by CSMCL as penalty from the

dues payable to the Company and that nearly Rs.7 crores

were withdrawn by N. Uday Rao from the Company's

account. These circumstances prima facie indicate that the

operational and financial control of the contract rested

substantially with the said authorised representative.

42.Equally significant is the fact that the alleged recovery of

Rs.28.80 lakhs was not effected from the possession of the

present applicant. The recovery was admittedly made from

other co-accused persons at Raipur. No recovery whatsoever

34

has been made from the applicant. Likewise, there is no

allegation that the applicant personally demanded, accepted

or received any amount of illegal gratification.

43.Another significant circumstance noticed by this Court is that

one Siddharth Singhania, who according to several

statements recorded during investigation appears to have

acted as the principal intermediary between manpower

agencies and government officials, has subsequently been

cited as a prosecution witness. Without expressing any

opinion on the evidentiary value of such statements, this

circumstance undoubtedly assumes relevance while

evaluating the comparative role attributed to the present

applicant at the stage of bail.

44.The investigation, so far as the present applicant is

concerned, already stands concluded. The charge-sheet has

admittedly been filed. The entire evidence sought to be relied

upon by the prosecution is documentary in nature consisting

of contracts, invoices, tender records, bank statements,

official correspondence and electronic records, all of which

already stand seized by the investigating agency.

45.The prosecution has not pointed out any further custodial

interrogation which remains necessary. No recovery remains

to be effected from the applicant. There is no material to

35

indicate that he attempted to influence any witness during the

long period when he remained at liberty despite repeated

appearance before the Investigating Officer.

46.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI,

(2012) 1 SCC 40, has held that once investigation is

complete and the evidence is primarily documentary in

nature, continued incarceration of an accused cannot be

justified merely because the allegations are serious. The

object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused during

trial and not to inflict punishment before conviction.

47.Likewise, in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC

51, the Supreme Court has reiterated that personal liberty

under Article 21 must receive primacy once investigation is

complete and the accused has cooperated throughout the

investigation.

48.In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC

22, the Apex Court once again emphasized that grant of bail

is the rule whereas refusal is the exception and every

accused continues to enjoy the presumption of innocence till

conviction.

49.The prosecution has sought to fasten criminal liability upon

the applicant primarily because he was one of the Directors of

36

A2Z Infraservice Limited. However, criminal jurisprudence

does not recognise automatic or vicarious criminal liability

merely on account of holding a corporate office unless the

statute specifically provides so or unless specific overt acts

are attributed to the individual concerned.

50.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Small Industries

Corporation Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, (2010) 3 SCC

330, has categorically held that every Director of a company

cannot automatically be prosecuted merely because of his

designation. Criminal liability can arise only against those

persons who were actually in charge of and responsible for

the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant

time. Merely holding the office of Director does not create

criminal liability.

51.The same principle has subsequently been reiterated in Sunil

Bharti Mittal v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4

SCC 609, wherein the Supreme Court held that criminal

liability is personal and cannot be inferred merely from one's

corporate designation. Unless the complaint or the

prosecution material specifically attributes active participation

or individual role to the concerned Director, prosecution

cannot proceed merely on the basis of his official position.

37

52.In the present case, apart from the applicant being one of the

Directors of the Company, no independent material has been

pointed out demonstrating that he personally instructed

payment of illegal commission, prepared forged documents,

handled the alleged cash transactions or participated in the

alleged conspiracy.

53.This Court also cannot ignore the serious medical condition of

the applicant. The medical reports placed on record indicate

that the applicant is suffering from Obstructive Sleep Apnoea

Syndrome, Type-II Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension,

Hypothyroidism and respiratory complications. The reports

submitted by the Medical Officer of the Central Jail further

indicate complaints relating to breathlessness, urinary

complications and kidney-related ailments requiring

specialised treatment from different medical departments. A

perusal of the report submitted by the Medical Officer, Central

Jail, Raipur, states the following :

"

वर्तमानमेंमरीजकोपेशाबसंबंधीसमस्याएं

,

कमरमेंदर्द

तथासांसलेनेमेंतकलीफ

(Breathlessness) की

शिकायतहै। उक्तलक्षणोंकेकारणमरीजकायूरोलॉजी

विभागमेंउपचारजारीहै।साथहीमरीजकीसमग्र

चिकित्सकीयजांचएवंउपचारहेतुमेडिसिनविभाग

,

रेस्पिरेटरीमेडिसिनविभाग

,

ऑर्थोपेडिकविभागएवं

न्यूरोसर्जरीविभागसेभीपरामर्श

(Consultation) लिया

जानाप्रस्तावित

/

आवश्यकहै।

"

38

54.The record further shows that the applicant has repeatedly

been referred to Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital

and DK Super Speciality Hospital for specialised treatment.

Though adequate medical facilities may be available within

the State machinery, the deteriorating medical condition of

the applicant remains an additional circumstance which

deserves consideration while balancing the competing

considerations governing grant of bail.

55.Having regard to the cumulative effect of the aforesaid

circumstances, namely, that the applicant was not named in

the FIR; he appeared before the Investigating Officer on

every occasion pursuant to summons and fully cooperated

with the investigation; he was arrested after several months

despite such cooperation; the investigation already stands

concluded and the charge-sheet has been filed; the evidence

is predominantly documentary in nature; no recovery remains

to be effected from him; the operational control of the

Company appears, prima facie, to have been exercised by

Mr. N. Uday Rao; criminal liability cannot be fastened merely

because the applicant held the office of Director; and the

applicant is suffering from serious medical ailments requiring

continuous treatment, this Court is of the considered opinion

39

that further custodial detention of the applicant would not

serve any useful purpose.

56.Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent matter

of Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement 2026 SCC

OnLine SC 30 has held as under:-

“16. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in V.

Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director,

Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine

SC 2626 case has held that under the

statutes such as PMLA, where maximum

sentence is seven years, prolonged

incarceration pending trial may warrant grant

of bail by Constitutional Courts, if there is no

likelihood of the trial concluding within a

reasonable time. Statutory restrictions

cannot be permitted to result in indefinite

pretrial detention in violation of Article 21.

17. A three Judge Bench of this Court in

Padam Chand Jain (supra), reiterated that

prolonged incarceration cannot be allowed

to convert pretrial detention into punishment

and that documentary evidence already

seized by the prosecution eliminates the

possibility of tampering with the same.

18. The right to speedy trial, enshrined

under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not

eclipsed by the nature of the offence.

Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial,

40

without commencement or reasonable

progress of trial, cannot be countenanced,

as it has the effect of converting pretrial

detention into form of punishment. Economic

offences, by their very nature, may differ in

degree and fact, and therefore cannot be

treated as homogeneous class warranting a

blanket denial of bail.”

57.Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Arvind Dham (Supra), Joginder Kumar (Supra),

Siddharth (Supra), Sanjay Chandra (Supra), Dataram

Singh (Supra), Satender Kumar Antil (Supra), National

Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (Supra), Sunil Bharti

Mittal (Supra), Vihaan Kumar (Supra), and Mihir Rajesh

Shah (Supra), and without expressing any opinion on the

merits of the prosecution case, this Court is satisfied that the

applicant has succeeded in making out a fit case for grant of

regular bail.

58.Accordingly, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on

his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-

(Rupees Ten Lakhs only) with two sureties in the like

amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court,

subject to the following conditions:

(i) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly

make any inducement, threat or promise to

41

any person acquainted with the facts of the

case so as to dissuade such person from

disclosing the facts before the Court or any

investigating authority.

(ii) The applicant shall surrender his passport,

if any (if not already surrendered), before the

concerned Trial Court and shall not leave the

territory of India without prior permission of

the said Court.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before

the Trial Court on each and every date fixed

unless exempted in accordance with law.

(iv) The applicant shall not indulge in any act

which may delay or prejudice the fair conduct

of the trial.

(v) The applicant shall continue to cooperate

with the investigating agency as and when

required in accordance with law.

(vi) In the event of violation of any of the

aforesaid conditions, it shall be open to the

State to seek cancellation of bail in

accordance with law.

(vii) In addition, the appellant will provide one

telephone/mobile No. on which he can be

contacted by the concerned Officials to

ascertain his whereabouts while he is on bail.

42

59.It is clarified that the observations recorded hereinabove are

purely for the limited purpose of adjudicating the present

application for grant of bail and shall not be construed as an

expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The

concerned Trial Court shall proceed independently and

decide the case solely on the basis of the evidence that may

be adduced before it, uninfluenced by any observation

contained in the present order.

60.Accordingly, the bail application is disposed of in the

aforesaid terms.

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge

Vishakha