Back
Granted to Former Chhattisgarh Excise Commissioner in UP Liquor Scam Case by
In a significant relief for the former Excise Commissioner of Chhattisgarh, Niranjan Das, the
has granted him
in connection with a case registered in Uttar Pradesh linked to the alleged ₹2,161 crore liquor scam. Presided over by Justice Vikram D. Chauhan, the court underscored the fundamental principle that
"
is a rule, and jail is an exception
"
while addressing the complex allegations involving
.
The Genesis of the Case
The legal entanglement of Niranjan Das stems from his tenure as the Excise Commissioner of Chhattisgarh, where he was accused of orchestrating an and tendering process that allegedly benefited The Uttar Pradesh authorities initiated an FIR following information provided by the , alleging that the holograms used in the Chhattisgarh liquor scam were manufactured in Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
The applicant had previously been arrested in connection with the main FIR registered by the in Raipur and had subsequently secured from the in for both the and the charges.
Arguments Across the Bar
Counsel for the applicant contended that the current UP-based case is an extension of the primary Chhattisgarh investigation for which he was already granted . It was argued that the had been filed, detailing a list of 22 witnesses, making the completion of a a long-term prospect. Furthermore, the defense highlighted that co-accused individuals, including Arunpati Tripathi, had already been released on .
Conversely, the State’s Additional Advocate General opposed the application, asserting that the manufacturing of holograms within the jurisdiction of Uttar Pradesh constitutes a distinct , separate from the core scam in Chhattisgarh. They emphasized the applicant's criminal history, arguing that it should be weighed heavily against any release.
Legal Analysis and Judicial Reasoning
Justice Vikram D. Chauhan, while deliberating on the plea, analyzed the necessity of detention. Relying on settled precedents, including the landmark cases of and , the Court observed that alone cannot function as a bar to .
The Court noted that the State failed to provide material evidence suggesting the applicant poses a , or that he would engage in or tamper with evidence. Crucially, the Court recognized the jurisdictional reality that the main nexus of the crime resided in Chhattisgarh, where the applicant had already been cleared for interim release by the .
Key Observations
Highlighting the importance of judicial liberty, Justice Chauhan remarked:
"It is settled principle of law that the object of is to secure the attendance of the accused at the . No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice... have been shown by learned AGA for the State."
Regarding the argument over the applicant's history, the court articulated:
"If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to , he cannot be denied only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of have been shown to deny to accused."
Implications of the Decision
The ’s order serves as a reminder that procedural rights remain paramount even in complex, multi-state economic fraud cases. By granting to Das, the Court reaffirmed that the investigative machinery must justify continued detention with concrete evidence, such as the potential to subvert justice, rather than relying on the severity of the charges alone.
Niranjan Das is now set to be released subject to stringent conditions, including the requirement to cooperate with the ongoing proceedings, refraining from tampering with evidence, and maintaining his presence before the court as mandated.
