Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dilip Pandey S/o Chote Lal Pandey – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
MCRC No. 6597 of 2024
Decided on : 25-10-2024
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 12 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B – Bail application – Applicant seeks bail in connection with serious economic offences involving a criminal syndicate in the liquor trade – The court emphasizes the gravity of the charges and the applicant's role in facilitating illegal activities – The applicant's long incarceration and lack of direct evidence against him were considered, but the court ultimately denied bail due to the serious nature of the allegations and potential flight risk. (Paras 1-23)
Facts of the case: The applicant, employed by Prizm Holography, was arrested for alleged involvement in a conspiracy to sell illegal liquor using duplicate holograms, causing significant revenue loss to the State.
Findings of Court: The court found that the applicant's involvement in a criminal syndicate warranted denial of bail, given the serious nature of the charges and the potential for tampering with evidence.
Issues: The main issues included the applicant's role in the alleged conspiracy, the seriousness of the charges, and the appropriateness of granting bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's long incarceration and lack of direct evidence did not outweigh the gravity of the charges and the risk of tampering with evidence.
Result: Bail application rejected.
ORDER :
ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J.
By way of present application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), the applicant seeks grant of regular bail in case arising out of Crime No. 4/2024 registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW), Raipur on 17.01.2024 of the offence punishable under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the EOW has received a communication from the Enforcement Directorate dated 11.07.2023 and after due verification, prima facie a cognizable offence for commission of the offence under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120(B) of IPC was made out and FIR was registered under Crime No. 04/2024.
3. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant is employed by the Prizm Holography for the last five years. Initially he was appointed for a salary of Rs. 25,000/- and gradually it increased to Rs. 50,000/-. The employer/company has engaged the applicant to maintain and manage data. The applicant has been arrested on 09.07.2024 by the police of ACB/EOW, Raipur, District Raipur for the alleged offences under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the applicant while working as supervisor/operator/production manager in the M/s. Prism Holography Security Films Pvt. Limited Raipur unit was an accomplice and used to carry out the instructions and assisted in providing duplicate hologram due to which illegal liquor has been sold and therefore, the charge sheet has been filed on 26.09.2024 against the present applicant. It is alleged that on a confidential letter of Deputy Director, Hemant Gahlot having Sl. No,. ECIR/RPZO/11/2022/279 dated 11.07.2023, complaint has been registered by the respondent against one of the major sources of illegal earning of the syndicate ie. Anil Tuteja along with Anwar Dhebar, Arunpati Tripathi, MD CSMCL and his associates namely Vikas Agrawal @ Subbu, Arvind Singh, Mr. Sanjay Diwan and distillers of Country liquor, Excise Officials etc. for taking commission from the distillery owners of country liquor namely M/s. CG Distillery Limited, M/s. Bhatia Wines Merchant Pvt. Ltd and Welcome distillery Pvt. Ltd. for supply of country made liquor and the same is described as Part A Offence.
4. Further the prosecution has bifurcated the offence in Part B offence inter alia alleging that the above named persons have created parallel mechanism for selling liquor. The liquor has been manufactured and sold off the record from the Government shops with the help of distillery owners, bottle supply agency and by manufacturing duplicate holograms from the year 2019 to 2023. It is further alleged that the Director of Prizm Hologram and Security Pvt. Limited namely Vidhu Gupta has supplied the duplicate hologram through its office at Raipur in which the present applicant was working as In charge and caused heavy loss to the State Exchequer. Further allegation is that the applicant is indulged in forgery, cheating and criminal conspiracy and was having knowledge of pre-printed holograms and played a key role in facilitating duplicate holograms for their fraudulent use and offence in Part C, it has been alleged that the annual commission was paid to allow the distillers to operate in the State of CG.
5. The EOW has analyzed the information and the date shared by the Income Tax Department on the basis of which it is established that a well planned systematic conspiracy was executed by the syndicate to earn illegal commission in the sale and licensing of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh. Accordingly, FIR bearing Crime No. 04/2024 was registered and investigation was initiated. As per the investigation conducted by the EOW, liquor was divided into two categories namely, Country Liquor (CL) and Indian Ma
The court emphasized that bail is the exception, not the rule, particularly in serious economic offences, where the risk of tampering with evidence and flight is significant.
The court emphasized that bail is not a right in cases involving serious economic offences, particularly where substantial evidence of corruption exists.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception; economic offences necessitate careful consideration due to their serious implications on public interest and the economy.
The court emphasized that in economic offences, especially under the PMLA, bail should not be granted unless the accused demonstrates they are not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
The court held that mere employment and routine tasks do not establish criminal intent or conspiracy, emphasizing the necessity of clear evidence for such charges.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially in serious economic offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, where the gravity of charges necessitates stringent scrutiny.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
