Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arvind Kumar Verma, J.
Arun Pati Tripathi S/o Lt. Sh. Prakash Pati Tripathi - Applicant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through ACB/EOW - Respondent
MCRC No. 5081 of 2024
Decided On : 30-09-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 12 – Bail application – The applicant, an officer in the Excise Department, was arrested in connection with serious allegations of corruption and conspiracy involving a criminal syndicate in Chhattisgarh – The court found substantial evidence indicating the applicant's involvement in illegal activities causing significant financial loss to the State – The application for bail was rejected due to the gravity of the charges and ongoing investigations. (Paras 1-34)
(B) Bail – Principles governing – The court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, but in cases involving serious economic offences, the nature and gravity of the charges must be carefully considered. (Paras 14-20)
(C) Corruption – The court reiterated that corruption undermines human rights and poses a serious threat to the economy, necessitating strict action against offenders. (Paras 27-29)
ORDER :
Arvind Kumar Verma, J.
This is the first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail filed by the applicant as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.04/2024 dated 12.04.2024 (arrested on 12.04.2024) registered by the Anti Corruption Bureau District Raipur, Chhattisgarh for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420,467,468,471 & 120(B) of the IPC and Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2.It is the case of the applicant that he was an erstwhile Special Secretary of the Excise Department in the State of Chhattsigarh and Managing Director of M/s. Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporate Limited (CSML). He is an Indian Telecom Service (ITS) Officer of Department of Telecom, Ministry of Communication. He was working under the Government of Chhattisgarh on deputation and was relieved for joint parent department ie. Department of Telecommunication, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, New Delhi on 22.12.2023. He does not have any criminal antecedents. It is alleged that in between 26.02.2020 to 01.03.2020, an attempt to harras the applicant and his family the Income Tax department carried out search and seizure operation on several premises owned by the applicant and his family however nothing incriminating was recovered from the premises of the applicant.
3.Subsequently, the Income Tax Department recorded statements of various individuals alleged to be part of an imaginary liquor syndicate in the State of Chhattsigarh. It is pertinent to mention that none of these individuals had given any incriminating statement against the applicant. Every person whose statement was recorded by the Income Tax Department had completely denied any criminality in relation to the way the liquor trade was carried out in State of Chhattisgarh. There was no where mentioned about the payment or receipt of any bribe amount by either of the distillers or other stakeholders in the liquor business in the State of Chhattisgarh. There was no allegation of any discrepancy in awarding tenders to any of the stakeholders in the liquor business in the State of Chhattisgarh.
4.Pursuant to the above raids and despite the fact that no incriminating statement was given by any individual against the applicant, the Income tax Department filed a completely false and frivolous complaint against the applicant in the form of a Complaint Case bearing Complaint case No. 1183/2022 under Sections 276(C)(1)/277/278/278E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Sections 120-B/191/199/200/204 of the IPC for the Annual Year 2020-21 before the learned ACMM, Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi. Though the complaint alleges the existence of a fictitious illegal liquor syndicate in the State of Chhattisgarh and payment of bribe to various Government officials by certain distillers and other individuals, none of these alleged bribe givers/distillers have been made accused in the said complaint nor any proceeding has been initiated against these persons by the IT Department.
5.On 18.11.2022, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) in a completely illegal manner and against all principles of settled law, illegally registered an ECIR bearing ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 wherein the alleged offence of Sec. 120-B IPC was alleged. Notably the liquor EECIR was registered even though the IT complaint was pending at the stage of cognizance before the ACMM. This act of registration of the liquor ECIR was completely illegal.
6.On 29.03.2023-30.03.2023, search and seizure proceedings were carried on the premises of the applicant by the ED and nothing incriminating was seized. It is alleged that the officers of the ED entered the premises, threatened and harassed the applicant to give false statement implicating various individuals on the directions of the ED. Thereafter on 31.03.2023, 01.04.2023, 03.04.2023, 08.04.2023, 19.04.2023 and 20.04.2023, multiple statements of the applicant were recorded by the officers of the ED. On 28.04.2023, t
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 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 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.
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.
In economic offences, bail is not a right; the burden rests on the applicant to show no risk of interference with justice or likelihood of guilt, reinforced by the position of the accused.
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
