Page 1 of 16

2026:CGHC:23390

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

MCRCA No. 476 of 2026

Reserved on : 13-05.2026

Delivered on : 19.05.2026

Sh. Anil Tuteja S/o Late HL Tuteja Aged About 63 Years R/o House No.

35/1396, Beside Farishta Nursing Home, Katora Talab, Civil Lines,

District Raipur (C.G.) . --- Applicant.

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through ACB (EOW), Raipur --- Respondent.

For Applicant :Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana with Mr. Ankush

Borkar, Advocate.

For State :Mr. Praveen Das, Additional Advocate General

along with Mr. Anant Bajpai, Panel Lawyer

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 anticipatory bail to the

applicant who apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.

03/2024 registered at Police Station- ACB (EOW) Raipur, District-

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

the IPC and Sections 7, 7-A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988.

Page 2 of 16

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

complainant 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 made

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.Immediately after registration of the FIR, the Police duly investigated

the matter. From the investigation conducted so far, it has been

revealed that confidential verification was done in the Bureau Police

Station EOW/ACB, Raipur, in relation to the report bearing Letter No.

ECIR/RPZO/09/2022/801 dated 11.01.2024 shared by Shri Sandeep

Page 3 of 16

Ahuja, Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Zonal Office, Raipur.

During investigation, it was found that Shri Suryakant Tiwari S/o Late

Shri Shashibhushan Tiwari used his political domination to influence

Chhattisgarh State Government officials viz. Smt. Saumya Chaurasia,

the then Deputy Secretary, Chief Minister's Office, Government

Chhattisgarh, Shri Sameer Vishnoi, IAS, Mineral Department, Smt.

Ranu Sahu, the then Collector, Korba and other associates. A criminal

conspiracy was hatched under the protection of political personalities

and officials. By working as a syndicate with Shri Sameer Vishnoi, the

then Director, Directorate of Mines and Minerals, Government of

Chhattisgarh, an order dated 15.07.2020 was passed to issue mineral

DO and transport permit through manual method instead of online, the

reason assigned being error in the online system. In the coal-rich areas

of the State like Raigarh, Korba and Surajpur, District Mineral Officers

made illegal recovery of Rs. 25/- per tonne from coal transporters on

the basis of the aforesaid order. Investigation by the Enforcement

Directorate and information received from sources revealed that illegal

levy of approximately Rs. 540 crores was collected by the aforesaid

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

report received from the Enforcement confidential verification and

source information, Crime No. 03/2024 under Sections 420, 120-B and

384 IPC and Sections 7, 7-A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988 as amended in 2018 came to be registered. Directorate. In

the investigation so far, after detailed questioning of the accused and

witnesses, prima-facie involvement of Shri Anil Tuteja in the coal levy

case is reflected from the following facts.

Page 4 of 16

Role played by the applicant.

4.Based on an anonymous complaint filed by Shri Anil Tuteja in July 2020

regarding errors in the online coal transportation system, pressure was

exerted upon co-accused Shri Sameer Vishnoi to issue an order

directing arrangement of manual checking along with the online coal

transportation system and to have mining officers/employees conduct

physical checking. On this basis, the Director, Directorate of Geology

and Mining, issued an order on 15.07.2020 making it mandatory for

coal traders and transporters to obtain NOC from the District Mineral

Office before transporting coal from SECL mines. Through this order,

the process of collecting illegal coal levy of Rs. 25/- per tonne was

initiated by pressuring coal traders and transporters. By exerting

pressure and influence upon officials of the Commercial Tax

Department, Shri Anil Tuteja caused GST raids to be conducted on

various firms/institutions of coal traders and transporters, thereby

forcing them to pay illegal coal levy of Rs. 25/- per tonne. Thus, the

illegal coal levy mechanism continued smoothly and without

obstruction.

5.It is also the case of the prosecution that the applicant was an

administrative officer and was working as Deputy Secretary in the

Industry Department Government of Chhattisgarh. He played an active

and influential role in various meetings and discussions and, using his

position and influence, effectively protected and strengthened the

illegal coal levy collection mechanism. Through his influence, he

maintained control over the operational process of illegal coal levy

collection in coal-rich districts of the State and ensured that the said

Page 5 of 16

illegal mechanism continued without obstruction. Therefore, on the

basis of the overall circumstances and available evidence, it is prima-

facie clear that the role of Shri Anil Tuteja is evident in the form of

active cooperation, coordination and influence in the collection of illegal

coal levy of Rs. 25/- per tonne from coal traders and coal transporters,

as such he has played direct role in Crime No. 1 of 2024, 02/2024 and

04/2024 registered with the State Economic Offences Investigation

Bureau on the basis of which he arrested in those cases and final

report was submitted.

6.It is also case of the prosecution that in the present Crime Number the

investigation is underway. It is also case of the prosecution that Samir

Vishnoi co-accused in his supplementary statement has stated that on

the reference by Soumya Chaurasia he contracted with the applicant

and whereupon the present applicant clearly told him that if he wants

good posting he should work as desired by this Government without

considering its merit. Accordingly, Samir Vishnoi was posted as CEO

CHiPS and shortly he was posted as Director, Mining. Mr. Samir

Vishnoi has further stated that at the instance and instruction of present

applicant and Smt. Soumya Chaurasia, he has issued the order

relating to manual checking of coal/transport permit. Mr. Samir Vishnoi

has further stated that the applicant has explained the draft of the order

and the reasons to be mentioned there. He has also stated that the

order has been issued even without moving the note sheet as per

instruction of present applicant which clearly suggests that the entire

illegal levy of Rs. 25/- per tone from transporters was commenced

under the involvement of the present applicant. It has been further

Page 6 of 16

contended by Mr. Samir Vishnoi that Whats app chat between him and

the applicant would clearly demonstrate intervention of the applicant.

7.Learned counsel for the applicant while referring to the rejoinder and

contentions raised in the bail application would submit that the

applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in

question. He would further submit that FIR, is wholly devoid of any

allegation against the Applicant as no role, overt-act, or involvement of

the Applicant is disclosed in the said FIR in respect of the offences

alleged therein. He would further submit that in reply the State has

taken the stand in para 7 that anonymous complaint filed by Shri Anil

Tuteja in July 2020 regarding errors in the online coal transportation

system, is incorrect. As such, the complaint cannot be used against the

present applicant, therefore, the case projected by the prosecution has

no legs to stand. He would further submit that there is no complaint

placed on record by the prosecution to substantiate their stand. Thus,

the prosecution case is totally false and imaginary.

8.He would further submit that the submission made in para 8 of reply

filed by the State regarding allegations that the present applicant is

influential official and he was responsible for GST raids to be

conducted on various firms/institutions of coal traders and transporters,

thereby forcing them to pay illegal coal levy of Rs,.25/- per tonne is

without foundation laid down by the prosecution and totally imaginary

case has been projected by the prosecution against the applicant.

9.He would further submit that the submission made in para 13 of the

reply of the State against the present applicant that Sameer Vishnoi

was assured that he will be posted as per his choice and if he fulfills

Page 7 of 16

the direction of the present applicant and accordingly he has been

posted as Director of Mining and also posted as Chief Executive

Officer to show that Sameer Vishnoi was working under the direction

and wisdom of the present applicant, is also incorrect submission as it

is choice of the Government to place and post the employee according

to their own convenience. He would further submit that even if the

disclosure statement made by Sameer Vishnoi is taken as its face

value, it has no legs to stand as disclosure statement of the co-

accused is weak piece of evidence and cannot be taken the shape of

reasonable doubt, thus the submission made by the State counsel

deserves to be rejected. Thus, the allegations made by the State

cannot be taken into consideration. He would further submit that no

recovery has been made from the present applicant and the agencies

have been acting in the utmost mala-fide manner and has been

following a disturbing trend whereby the Applicant is being arrested in

one case after the other at a time when he is on verge of getting

released in a previously arrested case. The said act has happened

twice now, and the agencies are in effect frustrating the bail orders

being granted by this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

other cases, rendering them paper-bails.

10.He would further submit that the agencies have been committing ever

greening of the Applicant's arrest has become apparent now. Firstly,

the arrest of the Applicant in the Rice Scam FIR was consciously timed

at point when the Applicant was about to be released in the

Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR, the only case where he remained in custody.

Secondly, even the arrest in the DMF scam was timed at a point when

Page 8 of 16

the bail application of the Applicant, in the only case he was in custody,

was reserved for Orders by this Hon'ble Court. He would further submit

that the manner of arrests to evergreen the pre-trial incarceration of

persons is directly in violation of principles laid down in Arvind

Kejriwal v. Central Bureau of Investigation Crl. App. No. 3816/2024,

Uday Chand v. Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah, Chief Minister J&K, (1983)

2 SCC 417 and Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand W.P. (Crl.)

No. 55/2026.

11.He would further submit that inaction on part of the ACB/EOW, Raipur

after registering the Coal Levy FIR in January 2024 and actually

investigation being carried out since 2022 reveal their true intention to

hold the Coal Levy FIR in reserve to ensure the Applicant's arrest the

moment, he secures bail in any existing matter. The agencies are using

these cases as an 'insurance arrest' mechanism to perpetuate and

evergreen his custody without trial. Applicant has serious anticipation

and apprehension that the Coal Levy will now be used as back-up tool

in order to evergreen the arrest of the Applicant. He would further

submit that the co-accused persons namely Ranu Sahu, Suryakant

Tiwarii, Sameer Vishnoi and Saumya Chaurasiya have 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 is entitled to get anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.

12.He would further submit that it is well settled provisions of law that the

statements recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of the Cr.P.C. are not

admissible in law. He would further submit that the statement of co-

accused person is an extremely weak piece of evidence and cannot be

Page 9 of 16

treated as substantive evidence as against the other co-accused

persons as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Prem

Prakash Vs. ED [SLP (Crl.) No. 5416 of 2024, decided on

28.08.2024], Haricharan Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC

1184], Sanjay Jain Vs. ED [2024 SCC OnLine SC 656].

13.He would further submit that in the present case, there is also no

evidence showing any physical manifestation of agreement between

the applicant and other co-accused for committing the alleged crime for

making out a case of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the

IPC. It is well settled that there must be cogent evidence to show that

the co-accused are acting as per a common agreement or a common

design. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ram Sharan Chaturvedi v. State of

M.P., (2022) 16 SCC 166.

14.He would further submit that there is no apprehension of violation of

the triple test by the applicant, therefore, the applicant is entitled to get

anticipatory bail as it is well settled law that mere apprehension of

influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence can never be a

ground to decline bail to any accused, unless there is cogent

supporting material as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of P.

Chidambaram Vs. CBI [2020 13 SCC 337], Manish Sisodia Vs. ED

& CBI [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 1920], Manish Sisodia Vs. CBI & ED

[(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1393].

15.On the other hand, Mr. Praveen Das, learned Additional Advocate

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

counsel for the applicant, referring to the FIR and the case diary would

Page 10 of 16

submit that the applicant is involved in the economical offence which is

not only heinous offence but also against the economy of the nation.

He would further submit that present applicant played a direct role in

Crime Nos. 01/2024, 02/2024 and 04/2024 registered with the State

Economic Offences Investigation Bureau, Raipur, on the basis of which

he was arrested in those cases and final report was submitted. Since

the present case is still under investigation and evidence collection on

several points remains pending, investigation is underway.

16.He would further submit that the involvement of the present applicant in

several serious economic offence cases is not merely a matter of

criminal antecedents, but reflects a continuing pattern of misuse of

public policy, administrative influence, departmental machinery and

private intermediaries for unlawful financial gain. The material collected

in relation to other serious scams, including NAN scam, DMF scam,

coal levy scam, liquor scam, manpower-related scam and Mahadev

App scam, prima-facie indicates that the applicant was not an

occasional or isolated participant, but was allegedly one of the central

administrative figures around whom different illegal mechanisms were

operated. This aspect is highly relevant for considering the present

anticipatory bail application, as it shows the applicant's influence over

official channels, his capacity to affect witnesses and records, and the

possibility of obstruction in further investigation.

17.He would further submit that supplementary statement of co-accused

Shri Sameer Vishnoi, IAS, materially strengthens the prosecution case

against the present applicant and prima facie reveals that the present

applicant was not a mere peripheral officer, but was exercising deep

Page 11 of 16

and unlawful influence over postings, functioning and decision-making

of key officers of the State Government. Shri Sameer Vishnoi has

specifically stated that on the reference of Smt. Soumya Chaurasia he

contacted and met the present applicant, whereupon the present

applicant clearly told him that if he wanted a good posting, he would

have to work in the manner desired by the Government without

considering whether the act was right or wrong. It has further come in

his statement that shortly thereafter he was posted as CEO, CHIPS

and later given additional charge of Director, Mining, and during such

tenure he continued to act only after consulting the present applicant

and Smt. Soumya Chaurasia.

18.He would further submit that the aforesaid supplementary statement is

materially corroborated by the seized Whats App chats exchanged

between Shri Sameer Vishnoi and the present applicant, which

discloses regular contact, meeting coordination, follow-up and

intervention in administrative matters. The digital material shows

continuous communication regarding meetings, place and time

coordination, sharing of contact details of Shri Ramgopal Agrawal and

follow-up in CHiPS/project/subsidy related matters, thereby lending

electronic corroboration to the statement that the present applicant was

actively influencing official functioning from behind the scenes. These

chats are significant as they substantiate the prosecution case that the

present applicant was not acting as a detached or formal functionary,

but was maintaining active and continuing coordination with key

officers in matters having administrative and operational

consequences. Thus, the role of the present applicant is not based on

Page 12 of 16

vague or bald allegations, but stands supported by a detailed

supplementary statement coupled with corresponding electronic

material, and therefore no discretionary protection in the nature of

anticipatory bail deserves to be granted to him.

19.He would further submit that in view of the above, it is clear that the

present applicant is involved in the aforesaid crime. The investigation in

the matter is going on and in the present case huge amount of public

money is involved. The proceeds generated from the illegal levy on

coal transportation were further dealt with and layered by the officials of

the State Government in connivance and conspiracy with the other

accused persons, thereby also disclosing the money laundering angle.

The police, after due further investigation in the matter, shall file

appropriate supplementary charge-sheet before the Court having

competent jurisdiction.

20.He would further submit that the grounds urged by the applicant is false

and frivolous, and the applicant is not entitled to the relief as prayed

for. The instant application is liable to be dismissed as the same is

devoid of merit and substance. The applicant has not made out any

ground on which the instant anticipatory bail application of the present

applicant under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 can be allowed. It is further submitted that there is a

strong prima facie case against the present applicant/accused and the

matter is under further investigation, and the police shall file

supplementary charge-sheet after collection of further evidence against

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

Looking to the conspiracy and crime committed by the applicant in

Page 13 of 16

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

to be rejected.

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

with utmost circumspection.

22.From perusal of FIR and the material available in the case diary,

involvement of the applicants in commission of offence under Section

7, 7A & 12 of the PC Act, is prima facie reflected. The applicant being

Senior Administrative Officer and as per the memorandum

statement of Sameer Vishnoi wherein he has stated about the

influential position in the administration of the applicant particularly with

regard to coal scam by switching from online system to off line system.

His further statement wherein he has stated that though the Mining

Department was with the Hon’ble Chief Minister but it was control and

operated by Smt. Soumya Chaurasia and the applicant, as such he

played pivotal role in commission of coal scam, therefore, to confront

these memorandum statements of Sameer Vishnoi and other material

collected by the prosecution against the applicant, his custodial

interrogation is very much necessary, therefore, the application for

grant of anticipatory bail deserves to be rejected.

23.Further submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the

coordinate Bench of this Court in MCRC No. 480 of 2026 has granted

the anticipatory bail to the applicant, therefore, this bail application is

also deserves to be allowed, is being considered by this Court.

24.From bare perusal of the order, particularly paragraph-27 of the order, it

is quite vivid that the Coordinate Bench while considering the

anticipatory bail has recorded its finding that from perusal of the FIR

Page 14 of 16

the offence alleged in the FIR is stated to have been committed within

the territory of the State of Jharkahd and the Police of Jharkhand have

already registered crime against the accused persons responsible for

excise scam in Jharkhand and the applicant herein has not been

arrayed as an accused in the crime registered by the Police of

Jharkhand accordingly the Coordinate Bench has allowed the said bail

application whereas the facts of the present case is altogether different

as the alleged offence has been committed within the territory of State

of Chhattisgarh and the prosecution has registered the offence against

the accused who are involved in the said offence are residents of

Chhattisgarh only and investigation is going on against the applicant.

Thus, the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant that

the applicant has been granted bail in other scam, therefore, his

anticipatory bail should be allowed in the present scam in

misconceived and deserves to be rejected and accordingly it is

rejected.

25.Also considering the fact that the allegation has also been levied

against the applicant for his involvement in various cases like Rice

Milling case, DMF case, Liquor scam, NAN scam and Mahadev Betting

App scam, which is sufficient ground for rejection of present

anticipatory bail as it denotes the criminal antecedents of the applicant.

26.From the above stated factual and legal matrix and also considering

that the economical offence is committed with deliberate design with an

eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to the community

and also considering that it ruins the economy of the State with cool

calculation and deliberate design. The economic offences having deep-

Page 15 of 16

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.

27.Again Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod

Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) & another [(2021) 6 SCC

230] has held that for declining bail application, the Court should

consider 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 or

reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced. From

submission made by the parties, it is quite vivid that prima facie these

conditions are available on record.

28.Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the

applicant is entitled to claim parity as other accused persons have

been granted bail by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, deserves to be

rejected as other accused who remained in the custody for about two

years have been granted bail by Hon’ble the Supreme Court whereas

in the present case, the applicant has prayed for grant of anticipatory

bail. Considering the FIR and other material placed on record, which,

prima facie, shows involvement of the applicant in crime in question, I

am of the view that it is not a fit case where benefit of Section 482 of

BSNN should be extended to the applicant.

Page 16 of 16

29.Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section 482 of the

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

rejected.

30.The observation made by this Court is not bearing any effect on the trial

of the case. The learned trial court will decide the criminal trial in

accordance with evidence, material placed on record, without being

influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while

deciding present bail application.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

Judge

Raju