Page 1 of 15

2026:CGHC:14779

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MCRC No. 868 of 2026

Reserved on : 20.03.2026

Delivered on : 30.03.2026

Devendra Dadsena s/o Shri Dashrath Prasad Dadsena, aged about 54

years, resident of Avanti Vihar, A-17, Basant Corner, Sector-2, Raipur, District

Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

... Applicant

versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through Anti Corruption Bureau (Economic Offfences

Wing), near Jai Jawan Petrol Pump, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

--- Respondent

For Applicant :Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate.

For State :Dr. Sourbh Kumar Pande, Dy. Advocate General.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

CAV ORDER

1.This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the

applicant who has been arrested on 18-7-2025 in connection with

Crime No. 03/2024 registered at Police Station- Anti Corruption

Bureau/ Economic Offence Wing Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District- Raipur

(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 420, 120-B,

467, 468 and 471 of IPC and Sections 7, 7-A, 12 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988.

Page 2 of 15

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.01.2024, complainant

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 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, Shivshankar

Nag, Suryakant Tiwari, Manish Upadhyay, Roshan Kumar Singh, Nikhil

Chandrakar, Rahul Singh, Parekh Kurre, Moinuddin Qureshi, Virendra

Jaiswal, Rajnikant Tiwari, Hemant Jaiswal, 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, Chandraparakash Jaiswal, Laxmikant Tiwari & others.

3.Further case of the prosecution is that a syndicate comprised of private

individuals and other State Government functionaries like Smt.

Saumya Chaurasiya, Director, Geology & Mining Department with the

backing of some political executives, managed to make deliberate

policy changes. As part of the well-planned conspiracy, the applicant

with the active support of the politicians and some of the senior State

Page 3 of 15

Government functionaries managed to influence 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 ton 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 the applicant in running the extortion racket. Smt.

Soumya Chourasiya while working as Deputy Secretary in Chief

Minister’s Office, had assisted the applicant 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 close association with the applicant and helped his associates in

collecting extortion money from the coal transporters and other

businessmen.

4.It is also case of the prosecution that in the coal rich areas of the State

like Raigarh, Korba, Surajpur, District Mineral Officers made illegal

recovery of Rs.25/- per tonne from coal transporters on the basis of

the above manual, DO and permit related orders were issued from the

Mineral Directorate. Investigation of the Enforcement Directorate that

information received from sources revealed that illegal levy of

approximately Rs.540/- crores have been collected by the above

syndicate between July, 2020 and June 2022. On the basis of the

Page 4 of 15

report received from the Enforcement Directorate, its confidential

verification and source information in relation to above incident was

done in the Bureau and Crime No.03/2004 for commission of offence

under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of IPC read with Sections 7, 7A & 12

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018 (for

short “the PC Act”) was registered against the applicant.

5.From the case diary and the material so collected by the ACB/EOW,

the role of present applicant is that the accused-Devendra Dadsena

served as an accountant with the Chhattisgarh Pradesh Congress

Committee (PCC) from 2000 to 2023 and later on became personal

assistant to accused Ramgopal Agrawal, Treasurer of Chhattisgarh

Pradesh Congress Committee and was working directly under his

supervision and control. As per the prosecution case, the applicant was

not only handing the accounts but also engaged in political and illegal

financial activities. It is also case of the prosecution that from 2019,

Ramgopal Agrawal specifically assigned him the responsibility of

collecting money and introduced him to accused Suryakant Tiwari for

this purpose and from July 2020 to June 2022, the illegal coal levy

collected from coal-rich districts of Chhattisgarh State was collected by

Suryakant Tiwari's associates, Nikhil Chandrakar, Rajnikant Tiwari and

Roshan Singh, on applicant’s instructions the extorted money was

handed over to Devendra Dadsena at Congress Bhawan, who

accepted it, knowing that the money was extorted from coal traders

and transporters. The said funds were then distributed for political

purposes and election expenses under Ramgopal Agrawal's

instructions.

Page 5 of 15

6.The investigation also revealed that handwritten diaries seized during

the Income Tax Department's search on 30

th

June, 2022, contained

entries titled "Bhavan" or "Congress Bhawan," which corroborated the

fact that the recovered funds were deposited at Congress Bhawan,

Raipur. Furthermore, witness statements have established that

Devendra Dadsena not only received this illegal money but was also

actively involved in its distribution and he was also involved in

collection of money received from liquor scam and paddy scam on the

instructions of Ramgopal Agarwal. He also collected these illegally

collected funds and handed over them to Congress Bhawan, Raipur.

The statements of witnesses Deepen Chavda and Pappu Bansal

confirm that Dadsena collected the money related to these scams and

handed it over directly to Ramgopal Agarwal.

7.In the present case, it was established that in June 2022, when the

Income Tax Department (IT) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED)

began raids related to the coal levy scam, accused Ramgopal Agarwal

instructed accused/Devendra Dadsena to switch off his mobile phone

and flee away from Chhattisgarh. This clearly indicates his involvement

and guilt in the crime in question. The case was established by entries

in diaries seized by the Income Tax Department, statements from

witnesses and analysis of financial flows, indicating that approximately

₹52 crore (approximately 520 million) of illegal funds were deposited at

Congress Bhawan, Raipu, and were directly managed and distributed

by Devendra Dadsena. Thus, his role was not only that of a collector of

illegal funds, but also that of a key operator and facilitator of this

organized crime network.

Page 6 of 15

8.The details of the entries in the diary are as follows:-

S.

No

.

Diary

named as

Date Outgoing

amount

Exact wordings written

in the diary

1.BS 01 30.03.202250000000Gave it in the Bhawan.

2.BS 02 06.05.202280000000Bhawan Mai Kikhil RKT

Dwara

3.BS 02 07.06.202287000000Bhawan C

4.BS 05 29.12.20225500000 C Party Ko.

5.BS 05 20.01.202135000 C Party Kam Tha

6.BS 05 08.02.202110000000C Party Bhawan Mai.

7.BS 05 01.03.202122000000Bhawan Mai Jama Rajni

Nikhil

8.BS 08 27.09.202140000000Bhhawan Mai Diye+1 Cr

Company 4+1(Total

Bhawan Mai Jama).

9.BS 09 27.01.202120000000Bhawan Mai Jama

10BS 09 27.01.202260000000LKT se Laya Sham ko

Bhawan Mai Diya.

11.BS 09 27.01.202220000000SKT se Diya Bhawan

Mai.

12.BS 14 17.07.20211950000 Bhawan Aur Company ka

Jama Nikhil.

13.BS 14 17.07.202120500000Bhawan Mai Surya Ka

Jama.

14BS 25 10.06.202120000000Bhawan/Nikhil/Roshan

15BS 25 10.06.202110000000Bhawan Mai Diye.

16.BS 30 29.12.202019200000C Party.

17BS 30 20.01.202135000 C Party Ka tha

Page 7 of 15

18.BS 41 02.03.202240000000Bhawan May Diya

19.BS 41 02.03.202220000000Bhawan May Jama

TOTAL 52,62,20,000/-

9.The material collected during investigation, including seized

handwritten diaries, corroborative witness statements and connected

disclosures, clearly indicates that the quantum involved is extremely

high and runs into crores and the role attributed to the applicant is

serious in nature. In such serious economic offences involving

organized conspiracy and huge cash movement, grant of bail at this

stage would defeat the ends of justice, especially when the applicant is

shown to be an essential link in the chain of receipt, custody and

further transmission of the illegally collected funds.

10.Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is

innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He

would further submit that arrest of the applicant is illegal and mala fide.

The only allegation leveled against the applicant is that the applicant

being Personal Assistant of Shri Ram Gopal Agrawal, was allegedly

money to be given to Shri Agrawal. This is the only allegation leveled

against the applicant by the prosecution based on the statement of the

co-accused person. He would further submit that the applicant has

been falsely implicated in this case only to pressurize him. There is

neither any participation on part of the applicant in the alleged crime

nor is the applicant alleged to have participated by way of any covert

act on his part. The applicant has been falsely implicated only on the

strength of the statement given by the co-accused and there is no

corroborating material demonstrating against the applicant to indicate

Page 8 of 15

the involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence. The applicant is

innocent and has been falsely implicated for no reason.

11.He would further submit that the applicant had never collected any

money relating to any alleged scam on behalf of Shri Ram Gopal

Agrawal nor given any money to any other person on the instructions

of Shri Ram Gopal Agrawal. The applicant never had any relationship

with any of the accused persons in the past nor did the applicant have

any financial relationship with them in any manner. The applicant had

never received any money from any person at any place. The applicant

is being made a scapegoat.

12.He would further submit that despite a long drawn investigation for over

more than 3 years, there is no incriminating material collected against

the applicant except for the alleged statement of the co-accused, which

is otherwise inadmissible in law. There has not been any recovery of

any amount from the applicant. There is no cogent material having

reference to the involvement of the applicant except for the

inadmissible statement of the co-accused, and on the basis of such an

inadmissible material, the applicant has been arrested on 18.07.2025

as such he remained incarceration for more than 6 months. He would

further submit that the statement of a co-accused is inadmissible in law

and this is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kashmira Singh v.

State of Madhya Pradesh (1952) 1 SCC 275; Haricharan Kurmi v.

State of Bihar 1964 SCC OnLine SC 28; Somasundaram v. State

(2020) 7 SCC 722. The statement of the co-accused cannot be made

the foundation for implicating the applicant.

Page 9 of 15

13.He would further submit that it is evident that the number of witnesses

in the list of witnesses presented by the prosecution is large in number

and therefore, the possibility of inordinate delay in completion of the

trial cannot be ruled out. It shall also be pertinent to mention that the

other co-accused persons have already been released on interim bail

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the alleged crime. He would further

submit that there are no other criminal antecedents against the present

applicant and this is the first F.I.R. registered against the applicant. No

criminal case at any point of time was registered against the present

applicant or is pending before any court. The Applicant has been

languishing in jail since 18.07.2025 and he is the only bread earner of

the family. Due to his, incarceration, the family of the applicant is

finding it difficult to earn a livelihood for the family. The applicant is a

permanent resident of above-mentioned address and as such there is

no chance of him absconding.

14.He would further submit that there is delay in trial coupled with long

period of pre-trial incarceration as the applicant was illegally arrested

on 18.07.2025 and has already undergone more than 6 months and

there is no likelihood of the trial concluding any time soon and in as

much the investigation in the alleged offence is still ongoing qua other

accused persons. He would further submit that the proceedings are

going on at a snail's pace and is still at the stage of further

investigation, even after a passage of over six months since the

registration of the said FIR.

15.He would further submit that the co-accused namely Ranu Sahu,

Suryakant Tiwari, Sameer Vishnoi and Saumya Chaurasiya have

Page 10 of 15

already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order

dated 29-5-2025 passed in SLP (Cri) No. 15941 of 2024, therefore, the

present applicant may be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. He

would further submit that the applicant is ready and willing to furnish

adequate surety and shall abide by all the directions which may be

imposed by this Court and would pray for releasing the applicant on

bail.

16.Per contra, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy Advocate General for

the ACB/EOW opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for

the applicant and referring to the FIR and the case diary would submit

that the applicant is involved in the economical offence which is not

only heinous offence but also against the economy of the nation. The

custodial interrogation of the applicant is required as the applicant has

not disclosed the distribution of fund which has been received by him.

He would further submit that the learned Special Judge (Prevention of

Corruption Act), Raipur while dismissing the bail application filed by the

applicant has observed that the applicant has been charged for

receiving the illegal extorted money from coal transporters and also

played active role in distribution of the same, thus, prima facie

involvement of the applicant is reflected in the crime in question and

the same has not been rebutted by the applicant while making this

submission before this Court. He would further submit that there is a

strong prima facie case against the present applicant and the matter is

under further investigation with the department and the Police will file

the supplementary charge-sheet after collection of fresh evidences

against other co-accused persons involved in the crime at a later stage

Page 11 of 15

and looking to the conspiracy and crime committed by the applicant in

connivance with the other co-accused, the instant bail application

deserves to be rejected.

17.He would further submit that the offences in the present case are

economic offences involving systematic illegal collection and routing of

funds which have serious impact on public confidence, governance,

and integrity of public administration and from the record and material

collected by the prosecution, it is quite vivid that the applicant has

played active role in handling the illegal cash proceeds. He would

further submit that in view of the gravity of offence, magnitude of illegal

funds, strong prima facie evidence including seized diaries and

corroborative statements, active and crucial role of the applicant,

likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses, risk of

absconding and the requirement of continued investigation into the

complete money trail and beneficiaries, the applicant is not entitled to

be released on bail and the present bail application deserves to be

dismissed.

18.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary

with utmost circumspection.

19.The submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the trial will

take longer time for disposal, therefore, the case of the applicant may

be considered for grant of bail. This submission is opposed by learned

counsel for the respondent/State by contending that not only the

applicant but the other co-accused persons have adopted delay tactics

by moving various applications causing delay in conclusion of trial,

therefore, it cannot be said that only the prosecution is contributed in

Page 12 of 15

delay disposal of trial. As such, he would pray for rejection of the bail

application on the count that the trial may take longer time for its

conclusion. The submission made by learned counsel for the applicant

for releasing the applicant on bail on the count of delayed trial,

deserves to be rejected as the applicant has not placed any material

on record to demonstrate that the trial has been delayed because of

the prosecution only.

20.The further submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the

applicant was arrested illegally as there is no direct evidence against

the applicant. This submission cannot be considered at this stage as it

is the defence of the accused to declare the arrest as illegal which can

be determined during the trial. It is pertinent to mention here that the

applicant has nowhere stated in the bail petition regarding source of

income which has been shown in the final report and distributed the

same by him which clearly shows that the ACB/EOW has collected

certain material against the applicant which cannot rule out prima facie

involvement of the applicant. As such, from perusal of FIR and the

material available in the case diary, involvement of the applicant in

commission of offence under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of IPC read

with Sections 7, 7A & 12 of the PC Act in economic offence, is prima

facie reflected.

21.It is well settled position of law as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court

in various judgment that economic offence is committed with deliberate

design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to

the community. It is also well settled position of law that the entire

community will be aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the

Page 13 of 15

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. It is also well settled position of law that 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.

22.Considering the law that 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.

23.Thus, considering the law and material collected by the prosecution, it

is quite vivid that while granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the

nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the

severity 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.

24.Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of P. Chidambaram Vs.

Directorate of Enforcement [(2019) 9 SCC 24] and Ramesh Bhavan

Page 14 of 15

Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) & another [(2021)

6 SCC 230] has held that economic offence constitutes a class apart

and need to be visited with a different approach. Hon’ble the Supreme

Court has also held that while releasing the applicant on bail, this Court

has to see whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to

believe that the accused had committed the offence; nature and gravity

of the accusation; severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;

danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;

character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

likelihood of the offence being repeated; reasonable apprehension of

the witnesses being influenced; and danger, of course, of justice being

thwarted by grant of bail, which is not available in the present case,

therefore, the bail application is liable to be rejected.

25.The applicant cannot claim parity with other accused persons who

remained in the custody for about two years and have been granted

bail by Hon’ble the Supreme Court as the applicant has been recently

arrested on 18.07.2025. Considering the FIR and other material placed

on record which prima facie shows involvement of the applicant in

crime in question. As such, I am of the view that it is not a fit case

where the applicant should be granted regular bail.

26.Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section 483 of the

Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is liable to be and is hereby

rejected.

27.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

Page 15 of 15

influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while

deciding present bail application.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

Judge

Raju