2026:CGHC:2095 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ORDER RESERVED ON 19.12.2025 ORDER DELIVERED ON 13.01.2026 ORDER UPLOADED ON 13.01.2026 MCRC No. 8136 of 2025

1 - Anwar Dhebar S/o Late Hazi Zikar Dhebar Aged About 51 Years R/o Dhebar House, Pension Bada, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Currently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Raipur C.G.)

... Applicant(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Investigating Officer, Economic Offence Wing/anti-Corruption Bureau Chhattisgarh, Head Quarter At Telibandha, In Front Of Jai Jawan Petrol Pump, Raipur, Chhattisgarh-

492001.

... Respondent(s)

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA)

C A V Order

The present application has been preferred by the Applicant seeking grant of regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with FIR No. 01 of 2024 dated 16.01.2024 registered by the Economic Offences Wing / Anti-Corruption Bureau, Chhattisgarh, for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 11, 13(1)

(a) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

BRIEF FACTUAL CONTEXT :

2. As per the prosecution narrative:

a. It is alleged that the Applicant exercised considerable influence in the erstwhile Government of the State of Chhattisgarh and was involved in the functioning of various Government departments.

b. Reliance is placed on certain WhatsApp chats retrieved from digital devices seized in connection with another alleged liquor scam, suggesting that the Applicant was in communication with co-accused Anil Tuteja, allegedly discussing policy formulation, tender processes and postings of officers.

c. It is further alleged that the Applicant conspired with co-accused Roshan Chandrakar and Anil Tuteja to illegally extract levies from special incentives granted for custom milling of rice, and that one Siddharth Singhania was engaged to facilitate the alleged scheme.

d. The prosecution claims that the alleged syndicate generated approximately Rs. 20–22 crores, which ultimately reached to co-

accused Anil Tuteja through the Applicant and another co-accused.

3. The Applicant was not named in the FIR and no role was attributed to him at the time of its registration. He was arrested on 09.07.2025, after a lapse of nearly one year and seven months, without any fresh incriminating material emerging in the intervening period. The Applicant has remained in custody since his arrest and has undergone more than four months of pre-trial incarceration. Investigation qua the Applicant now stands completed and a first supplementary charge-sheet dated 06.10.2025 has already been filed. No search or seizure was conducted at the premises of the Applicant and no incriminating recovery has been effected from his possession at any stage.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submit that the present application seeks enforcement of the applicant’s fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

A. Allegations of “Influence” and “Policy Involvement” Do Not Justify Custodial Detention The allegation that the Applicant exercised “influence” or had communications concerning governmental functioning is, at its highest, descriptive and inferential, not incriminatory.

Mere communication with public officials or co-accused persons, without proof of decision-making authority, statutory role, or execution of any official act, does not constitute an offence, much less justify pre-trial incarceration.

Significantly, the charge-sheet does not attribute any policy-

making authority, statutory power, or formal governmental position to the Applicant. He is not a “public servant” within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the Applicant is not a public servant, and therefore no offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out against him.

It is further submitted that no entrustment has b