Chhattisgarh Anti-Corruption Bureau Under Fire for Alleged Fabrication of Judicial Evidence

Raipur, Chhattisgarh – The integrity of Chhattisgarh's premier anti-corruption agency is under intense judicial scrutiny after the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Raipur issued notices to several senior officers, including the director of the State Economic Offences Investigation/Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). The action follows a damning complaint alleging a sophisticated scheme to fabricate a witness statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and pass it off as genuine evidence before the Supreme Court.

The complaint, filed by Advocate Girish Chandra Dewangan on October 10, 2025, targets Amresh Mishra, Director of the State ACB; Rahul Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police; and Chandresh Thakur, Additional Superintendent of Police. It accuses them of conspiring to create and use forged judicial documents to influence the outcome of bail proceedings in two of the state's most high-profile corruption cases: the District Mineral Foundation (DMF) case and the Chhattisgarh Coal Scam.

This development raises profound questions about the procedural sanctity of evidence collection and the potential for abuse of power by investigative agencies, sending ripples through the state's legal and political circles.

---

The Core of the Allegations: A 'Pre-Recorded' Judicial Statement

The controversy centers on a statement purportedly recorded under Section 164 CrPC of Nikhil Chandrakar, a co-accused in the ongoing corruption investigations. This section of the CrPC is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system, allowing a Metropolitan or Judicial Magistrate to record a person's confession or statement during an investigation. The procedure is designed with stringent safeguards to ensure voluntariness and to insulate the individual from police coercion, thereby lending the statement significant evidentiary value.

According to Adv. Dewangan's complaint, the process in Chandrakar's case was a sham. The ACB allegedly used the statement to counter a general interim bail order from the Supreme Court that benefited several accused, including one Suryakant Tiwari. To strengthen its application seeking the cancellation of Tiwari's bail, the ACB annexed Chandrakar's Section 164 statement.

The complaint alleges a flagrant subversion of the legally mandated procedure. It claims that on the instructions of Director Amresh Mishra, Nikhil Chandrakar—who was incarcerated in a different case at the District Jail, Dhamtari—was brought before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Kamini Verma in Raipur. However, instead of the Magistrate meticulously recording Chandrakar's statement as required by law, the accused officers allegedly executed a pre-planned deception.

The complaint states that the officers "plugged a pen drive containing the pre-recorded statements into the computer system placed before the Presiding Officer, and thereafter printed the fabricated documents and later obtained signatures from both, the Presiding Officer and Nikhil Chandrakar."

If proven, this act represents a grave assault on the judicial process. The complaint powerfully articulates the alleged malice:

"That the accused were aware from the very beginning that the document related to Section 164 Cr.P.C. was fabricated and false and such fabricated and false document was prepared with the intention of using it as evidence and false evidence was fabricated conspiratorially."

---

Forensic Evidence and the 'Mixed Font' Anomaly

The allegations are not based on mere suspicion. The complainant has bolstered the case with forensic evidence. A report dated October 9, 2025, from forensic consultant Imran Khan, was submitted as part of the complaint. This report allegedly found significant discrepancies between the document in question and the standard court records.

The forensic analysis concluded that "mixed font had been used in the document prepared under Section 164 CrPC in respect of Nikhil Chandrakar." Crucially, the font was found to be different from that used in the official order books of the same court. This technical finding lends substantial weight to the assertion that the document was prepared externally and was not generated through the court's standard judicial process.

This piece of evidence transforms the case from a procedural dispute into one of potential forgery and evidence tampering. It directly challenges the authenticity of the document's origin, suggesting it was an external implant into the court's records rather than an organic product of its proceedings.

---

Legal Implications and the Sanctity of Section 164

The legal implications of these allegations are far-reaching. The integrity of a Section 164 statement is paramount, as it is often one of the earliest pieces of sworn testimony in a criminal case. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have repeatedly emphasized the need for strict adherence to the procedural safeguards embedded within this section. These safeguards are not mere technicalities; they are the bedrock of fairness, designed to protect the accused from duress and ensure the reliability of the evidence.

The alleged actions of the ACB officers, if true, constitute a multi-pronged attack on the rule of law:

1. Fabrication of False Evidence (Section 192, IPC): The creation of a document with the intent that it may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding as something it is not, is a classic case of fabricating false evidence.
2. Forgery for the Purpose of Cheating (Section 468, IPC): Creating a false document to deceive the court and gain a legal advantage (cancellation of bail) could attract charges of forgery.
3. Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120B, IPC): The coordinated effort alleged among senior officers to execute this plan points towards a criminal conspiracy.
4. Contempt of Court: Knowingly presenting a fabricated document before the Supreme Court is a serious act of contempt, undermining the authority and dignity of the apex court.

By taking cognizance and issuing notices, the CJM of Raipur has signaled that the complaint has merit for judicial consideration. The court's next steps will be critical. The complainant has specifically requested the preservation of CCTV footage from the courtrooms and premises for the relevant dates, which could provide incontrovertible proof of the alleged procedural violations.

For the legal community, this case serves as a chilling reminder of the potential for the misuse of investigative powers. It casts a shadow over the evidence presented by the ACB in the wider DMF and coal scam cases, potentially giving defence counsels grounds to challenge the entirety of the investigation's credibility. The outcome of this inquiry will not only determine the fate of the accused officers but will also have a lasting impact on the trust between the bar, the bench, and the law enforcement agencies in Chhattisgarh.