2026:CGHC:11112 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ORDER RESERVED ON 06.02.2026 ORDER DELIVERED ON 03.03.2026 ORDER UPLOADED ON 03.03.2026 MCRC No. 10421 of 2025

1 - Anil Tuteja S/o Late H.L. Tuteja Aged About 62 Years R/o House No.35/1396, Beside Farishta Nursing Home, Katora Talab, Civil Lines, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Applicant Details Wrongly Mentioned In Copy Of Impugned Order Annexure A/1)

... Applicant(s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. P.S. EOW/ACB. District- Raipur C.G. (Respondent Details Wrongly Mentioned As State In Copy Of Impugned Order Annexure A/1)

... Respondent(s)

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA)

C A V Order

The present is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No. 04/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered at Police Station ACB/EOW, Raipur for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC read with Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pertaining to the alleged liquor scam in the State of Chhattisgarh.

2. The applicant is in custody in connection with the present FIR since 21.08.2024 and, prior thereto, was already in custody in proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate arising out of the same set of transactions. Thus, the applicant has undergone prolonged incarceration approaching two years in relation to the same alleged transaction.

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. At the heart of the prosecution's narrative lies an alleged criminal conspiracy orchestrated by certain public servants, excise officials, and private players to subvert the State's excise policy, liquor procurement, distribution, and revenue mechanisms—purportedly engineering wrongful loss to the public exchequer and illicit gains through a shadowy parallel system of commissions. FIR No. 04/2024 was lodged on 17.01.2024 against unknown persons and select accused; tellingly, the applicant—a retired senior government officer of unblemished service, was conspicuously absent from its array. His subsequent implication rests on post-FIR witness statements and documents, despite his unequivocal non-involvement: never posted in the Excise Department, never wielding statutory authority over liquor matters, and never touching a single file germane to excise administration. Exemplifying utmost cooperation, the applicant dutifully complied with investigative summons well before arrest. He had earlier invoked this Court's extraordinary jurisdiction for FIR quashing, securing interim protection only for arrest to follow on 21.08.2024 (post-vacation) by ACB/EOW, Raipur. Critically, this came atop prior custody by the Enforcement Directorate for identical scam allegations, forging an unbroken chain of pre-trial detention: nearly two years across agencies, exceeding 1.5 years under this FIR alone.

4. The prosecution's case sprawls across multiple charge-sheets and supplements, with the applicant belatedly named not in the initial filings and investigation still meandering in segments. It ensnares over 50 accused (public servants and privates alike), cites 1000+ witnesses, and buries the record under lakhs of pages, a colossus underscoring trial delay and the applicant's peripheral role. These facts, viewed through the prism of twin bail touchstones non-tampering risk and flight absence compel release, lest Article 21's guarantee against punitive pre-trial bondage be rendered hollow. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid factual matrix, prolonged custody, subsequent implication, filing of charge-sheets, parity with co-accused, absence of recovery, documentary nature of evidence and inevitable delay in trial—that the applicant seeks enlargement on bail. CONTENTION OF THE APPLICANT

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, while assailing the continued detention of the applicant and seeking his enlargement on bail, advanced elaborate submissions touching upon factual,le