1

CGHC010221612026 2026:CGHC:30855

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MCRC No. 5219 of 2026

Order Reserved on 16.07.2026

Order Delivered on 21.07.2026

•Sanjeev Jain, S/o Late Dalchand Jain, aged about 59 Years,

R/o E02/151 Arera Colony, District Bhopal M.P.

---Applicant

versus

•State of Chhattisgarh, Through Investigating Officer,

Economic Offence Wing/ Anti Corruption Bureau

Chhattisgarh, Headquarter At Telibandha, Infront of Jai

Jawan Petrol Pump, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

---Non-applicant

MCRC No. 5220 of 2026

•Rajeev Dwivedi, S/o Late Premnarayan Dwivedi, aged about

69 Years, R/o 33 Phase- I Shree Golden City, Hoshangabad

Road, District- Bhopal (M.P.)

2

---Applicant

Versus

•State of Chhattisgarh, Through Investigating Officer

Economic Offence Wing/ Anti Corruption Bureau

Chhattisgarh, Headquarter At Telibandha, Infront of Jai

Jawan Petrol Pump, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

...Non-applicant

(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)

For Applicants:Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate

appears along with Mr. Rishabh Gupta

& Mr. Arpan Verma, Advocates

For State :Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate

General along with Mr. S.S. Choubey,

Govt. Advocate

(Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)

C.A.V. Order

1.Since both these bail applications arise out of the same

Crime No.44/2024 registered by the Economic Offences

Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau, Chhattisgarh, involve identical

allegations, common questions of fact and law and the

applicants are similarly situated, they are being disposed of

by this common order.

3

2.The present applications have 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, initially for offences punishable under

Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7(b)

and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, wherein

subsequently, after filing of the charge-sheet, offences under

Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code have

also been incorporated.

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

governing consideration of bail under Section 483 of the

BNSS. At the stage of considering an application for bail, the

Court is neither expected to meticulously appreciate the

entire evidence nor record findings on the merits of the

prosecution case. The Court is required to examine whether

a prima facie case exists, the nature and gravity of

accusation, the role attributed to the accused, the possibility

of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, the

requirement of custodial interrogation and the constitutional

guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India.

4

4.In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC

528, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that while

considering an application for bail, the Court is required to

consider the nature of accusation, severity of punishment,

character of evidence, possibility of securing the presence of

the accused during trial and the likelihood of witnesses being

influenced. The Apex Court has further held that although a

detailed appreciation of evidence is not required at the stage

of bail, the Court must indicate reasons which persuaded it to

exercise discretion one way or the other.

5.The prosecution case, in brief, is that the present crime has

been registered pursuant to information received from the

Directorate of Enforcement under Section 66(2) of the

Prevention of Money Laundering Act alleging large-scale

irregularities in the affairs of Chhattisgarh State Marketing

Corporation Limited (CSMCL). According to the prosecution,

during the period between 2019 and 2023, certain manpower

supply agencies, in conspiracy with officers of CSMCL,

allegedly inflated attendance records, manipulated overtime

and incentive payments, prepared false bills and obtained

excess payments from CSMCL, which were thereafter

allegedly diverted for payment of illegal gratification to certain

public servants.

5

6.The applicants are stated to be Directors of Primeone

Workforce Private Limited, which was awarded a contract for

supply of manpower to liquor outlets operated by CSMCL.

The allegation against them is that the company received

payments from CSMCL towards overtime/incentive payable

to deployed manpower and instead of disbursing the entire

amount to the employees, the excess amount was allegedly

diverted and utilized for payment of illegal gratification to

officials of CSMCL.

7.Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the applicants submits that both the applicants have been

falsely implicated and that their names do not find place in

the original FIR dated 05.10.2024. It is contended that the

FIR specifically attributes the alleged movement of cash to

certain other persons and no overt act whatsoever has been

attributed to the present applicants in the foundational

allegations. It is further submitted that both the applicants

have merely been implicated during investigation on account

of their position as Directors of the company and there exists

no independent material showing their personal involvement

in any conspiracy, demand or payment of illegal gratification.

8.The work of the Company was being handled by one

Siddharth Singhania, who was key person in the realm of

6

affairs of manpower contract. But instead of making him

accused, he has been made as witness. In Crime no. 4/2024

pertaining to liquors scam case Applicant Sanjeev Jain was

arrayed as witness whereas in the present matter which is

offshoot of Crime No. 4/2024, he has been made accused. It

is further submitted that the investigation already stands

concluded and the charge-sheet has been filed on

18.05.2026. All documentary evidence including invoices,

bank records, accounting records, attendance registers and

electronic evidence are already in the custody of the

investigating agency. No recovery has been effected from

either of the applicants and no further custodial interrogation

is required. It is also contended that both the applicants

appeared before the investigating agency on every occasion

pursuant to notices and summons issued by EOW/ACB and

cooperated throughout the investigation and were ultimately

arrested only on 04.05.2026, nearly eighteen months after

registration of the FIR.

9.Learned counsel further submits that the present applicants

stand on a much better footing particularly in view of the fact

that this Court, by order passed in MCRC No.5181 of 2026

dated, has already granted regular bail to co-accused- Ajay

Lohia, who is also alleged to have been associated with one

7

of the manpower agencies forming part of the very same

alleged conspiracy. It is submitted that the role attributed to

the present applicants is neither distinguishable nor more

serious than that attributed to the said co-accused. It is,

therefore, argued that the principle of parity squarely applies

and the present applicants are entitled to the same relief.

10.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes

the applications and submits that the present case concerns

a large-scale economic offence involving corruption in the

functioning of CSMCL and substantial wrongful loss to the

public exchequer. It is contended that the applicants, being

Directors of the manpower agency, actively participated in

the preparation of inflated bills and wrongful claims relating to

overtime and incentive payments and thereby facilitated

payment of illegal gratification to public servants. It is further

submitted that economic offences constitute a distinct class

and deserve a strict approach while considering bail.

11.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after

perusing the case diary, charge-sheet and other material

available on record, this Court finds that the present

applications require consideration on the basis of the

material presently available.

8

12.It is not in dispute that neither of the present applicants was

named in the FIR dated 05.10.2024. The FIR, which

constitutes the foundation of the prosecution, primarily refers

to alleged movement of cash through certain named

individuals after interception dated 29.11.2023. The present

applicants do not figure in the foundational allegations and

no allegation of demand, acceptance, transportation or

delivery of illegal gratification has been directly attributed to

either of them in the FIR.

13.The subsequent implication of the applicants appears to have

arisen during investigation mainly because they were

Directors of Primeone Workforce Private Limited, which had

entered into contractual arrangements with CSMCL for

supply of manpower. Whether such contractual relationship

by itself establishes criminal conspiracy, forgery or

commission of offences under the Prevention of Corruption

Act is a matter which necessarily requires appreciation of

documentary evidence during trial. At this stage, the Court is

only required to examine whether continued custodial

detention is justified.

14.What assumes considerable significance is that this Court,

while considering MCRC No.5181 of 2026 (Ajay Lohia v.

State of Chhattisgarh) arising out of the very same Crime

9

No.44/2024, has already granted regular bail after taking

note of the completion of investigation, filing of charge-sheet,

documentary nature of evidence, absence of custodial

necessity and the specific role attributed to the said accused.

Judicial discipline requires that where the role attributed to

similarly situated co-accused is substantially comparable,

parity assumes considerable importance unless there exist

distinguishing circumstances justifying a different view.

15.This Court has carefully considered its earlier orders passed

in MCRC No.5181 of 2026 (Amit Prabhkar Salunke and

another v. State of Chhattisgarh), MCRC No.5063 of 2026

(Ajay Lohia vs. State of Chhattisgarh) and MCRC No.4981 of

2026 (Amit Mittal v. State of Chhattisgarh) arising out of the

same Crime No.44/2024. While deciding the said bail

application, this Court, after considering the entire

prosecution case, noticed that the applicant therein was not

named in the FIR; the investigation had been completed; the

charge-sheet had already been filed; the evidence was

predominantly documentary in nature; no further custodial

interrogation was required; and the allegations principally

arose from his association with the concerned corporate

entity. Upon cumulative consideration of the aforesaid

10

circumstances, this Court found it appropriate to enlarge the

said accused on regular bail.

16.The present applicants, prima facie, stand on substantially

the same footing. The material placed before this Court does

not disclose that either of the present applicants has been

assigned a role graver than that attributed to the aforesaid

co-accused. The State has also not been able to

demonstrate any distinguishing feature warranting a

departure from the view already taken by this Court in

respect of the same crime. Though the principle of parity is

not to be applied mechanically, similarly situated accused are

ordinarily entitled to similar treatment in the absence of

distinguishing circumstances. Consistency in judicial

approach is an important facet of the administration of

criminal justice and promotes certainty, fairness and equality

before law.

17.This Court further notices that the allegations against the

present applicants essentially arise from the functioning of

Primeone Workforce Private Limited, which had entered into

contractual arrangements with CSMCL for supply of

manpower. The prosecution alleges that excess payments

obtained towards overtime and incentive components were

not fully disbursed to employees and were thereafter utilized

11

for payment of illegal gratification. However, whether the

payments represented statutory overtime, incentive, handling

charges or contractual remuneration and whether the

invoices were inflated or otherwise are matters which

necessarily depend upon appreciation of voluminous

documentary evidence, contractual clauses, accounting

records, departmental approvals, audit material and oral

evidence to be adduced during trial.

18.Upon perusal of the record and consideration the submission

advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, it appears

that the work of the Company was being handled by one

Siddharth Singhania, who was key person in the realm of

affairs of manpower contract. But instead of making him

accused, he has been made as witness. In Crime no. 4/2024

pertaining to liquors scam case Applicant Sanjeev Jain was

arrayed as witness whereas in the present matter which is

offshoot of Crime No. 4/2024, he has been made accused. It

is further submitted that the investigation already stands

concluded and the charge-sheet has been filed on

18.05.2026. All documentary evidence including invoices,

bank records, accounting records, attendance registers and

electronic evidence are already in the custody of the

investigating agency. No recovery has been effected from

12

either of the applicants and no further custodial interrogation

is required. It is also contended that both the applicants

appeared before the investigating agency on every occasion

pursuant to notices and summons issued by EOW/ACB and

cooperated throughout the investigation and were ultimately

arrested only on 04.05.2026, nearly eighteen months after

registration of the FIR.

19.At this stage, this Court also finds that no material has been

brought on record to prima facie demonstrate that either of

the present applicants personally demanded illegal

gratification, personally handed over any illegal amount to

any public servant or personally received any illegal

pecuniary benefit. No recovery has been effected from either

of the applicants. No cash trail directly connecting the

applicants with receipt or distribution of the alleged illegal

gratification has been pointed out during the course of

hearing.

20.Equally significant is the fact that although offences under

Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code have

subsequently been incorporated after filing of the charge-

sheet, the prosecution has not, at this stage, identified any

particular forged document allegedly prepared, signed or

executed by either of the applicants. There is also no

13

material presently brought to the notice of this Court

indicating that either of the applicants knowingly used any

forged document as genuine. Whether the invoices and

supporting records constitute forged documents or merely

give rise to disputed questions regarding contractual

interpretation and accounting treatment is an issue which can

only be adjudicated after appreciation of evidence during

trial.

21.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunil Bharti Mittal v. Central

Bureau of Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609, has

categorically held that criminal liability is personal in nature

and directors or officers of a company cannot be prosecuted

merely because of the office held by them unless there exists

material demonstrating their individual role and active

participation in the commission of the offence. Vicarious

criminal liability cannot ordinarily be inferred unless

specifically provided by statute. Prima facie, the allegations

against the present applicants substantially arise from their

position as Directors of the company and whether such

material ultimately establishes their criminal culpability is a

matter to be examined during trial.

22.Another circumstance which cannot be ignored is that the

investigation already stands concluded and the charge-sheet

14

has admittedly been filed on 18.05.2026. The prosecution

has cited as many as 64 witnesses. Admittedly, no witness

has yet been examined. Having regard to the number of

witnesses and the nature of documentary evidence involved,

it appears that conclusion of trial is likely to consume

considerable time. The prosecution has also not pointed out

any further custodial interrogation which remains necessary.

23.The applicants were arrested on 04.05.2026, nearly eighteen

months after registration of the FIR. During the interregnum,

they admittedly responded to notices and summons issued

by the investigating agency and cooperated with the

investigation. The prosecution has not placed any material

indicating that either of the applicants attempted to abscond,

evade investigation or influence witnesses during the entire

period they remained at liberty.

24.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. Central

Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40, observed that

the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused

during trial and not to inflict punishment before conviction.

The Court further held that where investigation has been

completed and the accused is no longer required for

custodial interrogation, continued incarceration should not

15

ordinarily be resorted to unless compelling circumstances

exist.

25.Likewise, in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh,

(2018) 3 SCC 22, the Apex Court reiterated that grant of bail

is the rule and refusal is an exception and that every accused

is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Court

emphasized that personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21

of the Constitution cannot be curtailed except for substantial

and compelling reasons.

26.In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of

Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court exhaustively considered the law relating to arrest and

bail and reiterated that once investigation is complete and

the charge-sheet has been filed, unnecessary pre-trial

incarceration should ordinarily be avoided unless justified by

compelling circumstances. Similar principles were reiterated

in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020)

13 SCC 791, wherein it was held that even in serious

economic offences, the gravity of allegations alone cannot be

the sole ground for denial of bail and the Court must strike a

balance between the interests of investigation and the

valuable right to personal liberty.

16

27.Recently, in Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement,

2026 SCC OnLine SC 30, the Hon’ble Supreme Court again

emphasized that prolonged incarceration of an undertrial,

particularly where the evidence is substantially documentary

in nature and already secured by the investigating agency,

cannot be permitted to convert pre-trial detention into

punishment. The Apex Court reiterated that the constitutional

guarantee under Article 21 continues to operate even in

prosecutions involving economic offences.

28.In the present case, the documentary evidence has already

been seized by the investigating agency. The prosecution

has not pointed out any material indicating that release of the

applicants on bail would result in tampering with

documentary evidence, which admittedly is already in the

custody of the investigating agency. Similarly, no material has

been brought on record indicating any likelihood of the

applicants fleeing from justice or influencing prosecution

witnesses, particularly when they had cooperated throughout

the investigation before their arrest.

29.Having considered the rival submissions and upon

cumulative evaluation of the material presently available on

record, this Court finds that the present applicants were not

named in the original FIR; their implication has arisen during

17

the course of investigation; the investigation already stands

concluded; the charge-sheet has been filed; the prosecution

case is substantially founded upon documentary evidence

which already stands secured; no recovery has been

effected from either of the applicants; no further custodial

interrogation is required; both the applicants admittedly

cooperated with the investigating agency pursuant to the

notices and summons issued during investigation; and there

is no material indicating that they either attempted to

abscond or obstruct the investigation.

30.It is true that the allegations pertain to an economic offence

involving public funds and such offences are undoubtedly

required to be viewed seriously. However, seriousness of

accusation, by itself, cannot constitute the sole ground for

continued incarceration once the investigation has been

completed, the evidence has been collected and the

prosecution has failed to demonstrate any continuing

necessity for custodial detention. The object of bail is to

secure the presence of the accused during trial and not to

impose punishment before adjudication of guilt. Whether the

prosecution ultimately succeeds in proving the allegations

against the applicants is a matter which shall be determined

only after appreciation of evidence during trial.

18

31.Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

prosecution case and having regard to the nature of

allegations, the documentary character of the evidence,

completion of investigation, filing of the charge-sheet,

absence of any requirement of further custodial interrogation,

the conduct of the applicants during investigation and the fact

that this Court has already granted bail to a similarly situated

co-accused in MCRC No.5181 of 2026 (Amit Prabhkar

Salunke and another v. State of Chhattisgarh), MCRC

No.5063 of 2026 (Ajay Lohia vs. State of Chhattisgarh) and

MCRC No.4981 of 2026 (Amit Mittal v. State of Chhattisgarh)

arising out of the same crime, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the present applicants have made out a fit case

for grant of regular bail.

32.Accordingly, both the applications, namely MCRC No.5219 of

2026 and MCRC No.5220 of 2026 are allowed.

33.It is directed that the applicants- Sanjeev Jain and Rajeev

Dwivedi be released on regular bail in connection with Crime

No.44/2024 registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-

Corruption Bureau, Chhattisgarh, upon each of them

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

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

19

amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court,

subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The applicants shall not directly or

indirectly make any inducement, threat or

promise to 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 applicants shall surrender their

passports, 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 applicants shall remain present

before the Trial Court on each and every

date fixed unless exempted in accordance

with law.

(iv) The applicants shall not indulge in any

act which may delay or prejudice the fair

conduct of the trial.

(v) The applicants shall continue to

cooperate with the investigating agency as

and when required in accordance with law.

(vi) In addition, the applicants will provide

one telephone/mobile No. on which they can

be contacted by the concerned Officials to

ascertain their whereabouts while they are

on bail.

20

(vii) 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.

34.It is clarified that the observations recorded hereinabove are

purely for the limited purpose of adjudicating the present

applications 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.

35.Accordingly, both the bail applications stand disposed of in

the aforesaid terms.

Sd/-

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

Judge

Vishakha