Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J.
Sunil Dutt S/o Shri Gurudayal Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of chhattisgarh through dsp, eow/ACB Raipur, Chhattisgarh – Respondent
MCRC No. 188 of 2025
Decided on : 12.03.2025
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 12 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 - Bail application filed by the applicant, an accountant, arrested for alleged involvement in a criminal syndicate related to liquor supply and forgery - The applicant contends he was falsely implicated and acted under instructions as a salaried employee. (Paras 2-4, 8-10, 21-24)
(B) Criminal Conspiracy - The court emphasized that mere association with accused does not imply participation in conspiracy; evidence of a prior agreement is essential. (Paras 11-12)
(C) Bail Considerations - The court noted the applicant's lack of criminal antecedents, non-flight risk status, and the absence of direct involvement in the crime, leading to the conclusion that continued detention was unjustified. (Paras 23-24)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was arrested in connection with a large-scale corruption case involving illegal liquor sales and forgery, where he was alleged to have prepared fraudulent invoices while working for a hologram manufacturing company.
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence of the applicant's direct involvement in the alleged crimes and noted the disparity in treatment compared to co-accused who had been granted bail.
Issues: The main issues included the applicant's role in the alleged conspiracy, the legality of his arrest, and the justification for bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the applicant's actions as an accountant did not constitute criminal intent or conspiracy, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of participation in illegal activities.
Result: Bail application allowed.
Order :
(Arvind Kumar Verma, J.)
This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS, 2023 filed by the applicant for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 04/2024 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420,467,468,471,120-B and 34 IPC. The present bail application has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the Sessions Court, Raipur.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The applicant has been arrested by the police of Anti Corruption Bureau/Economic Offences Wing for the alleged offences under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 420, 467,468,471,120-B and 34 of the IPC. Prosecution case, in brief is that on receiving a letter by the Deputy Director bearing NO.ECIR/RPZO/11/2022/279 dated 11.07.2023 from the Enforcement Directorate, complaint has been registered by the respondent against various persons. It is alleged that Arunpati Tripathi, Arvind Singh, Anwar Dhebar, Trilok Singh Dhillon and several others have taken 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 liquor and the same is described as Part-A offence. The offence in part-B 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 government shops. This act was done with the help of distillery owners, bottle supply agency and by manufacturing duplicate holograms. The offence is committed from the year 2019 to 2023. It is alleged that the Director of M/s. Prizm Holograms and Security Pvt. Ltd. Vidhu Gupta has supplied duplicate holograms through its office at Raipur in which the present applicant was working as Accountant at Noida office and issued invoices. It is alleged that the applicant is indulged in forgery and criminal conspiracy.
3. The applicant was employed by Prizm Hologram and he was working in the office at Noida, UP as a salaried employee. As per the FIR , a criminal syndicate comprising of high level State government officials, private persons and political executives of the State government was operating in the State of CG which was making illegal bribe collections by controlling the high level management of important State departments and State Public Sector undertakings. The sale of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh was one of the major sources of illegal earning of the syndicate and one Anil Tuteja along with Anwar Dhebar and Arunpati Tripathi, MD CSMCL and other associates of Anwar Dhebar namely Vikas Agarwal @ Subbu, the present applicant, Sanjay Diwan and country liquor distillers, excise officials etc. were the main actors of the syndicate.
4. These syndicate collector illegal money in three different ways from the sale of liquor in the State which has been classified into three parts:
Part A- illegal commission charged from liquor supplier for official sale of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh.
Part B – Sale of unaccounted illicit countrymade liquor from State run shops done with the involvement of distillers, hologram manufacturers, bottle makers, transporters, man power management and District Excise Officials.
Part C – Annual Commission from distillers for allowing them to operate a syndicate and divide the market share amongst themselves.
5. The EOW has analyzed the information and the data shared by the Income Tax Department and on the basis of the said documents, it has been revealed that a well planned systematic conspiracy was executed by the syndicate to earn illegal commission in the sale and licensing of liquor. Accordingly. FIR bearing Crime No. 04/2024 was registered and investigation was initiated.
6. As per the investigation, the liquor was divided into two categories namely Country Liquor and Indian Manufactured Foreign Liquor. The country liquor was produced in the State of CG thr
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.
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, especially in serious economic offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, where the gravity of charges necessitates stringent scrutiny.
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; economic offences necessitate careful consideration due to their serious implications on public interest and the economy.
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
