Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1548
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT, MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ
RANU SAHU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
SLP(Crl) No.-015941 - 2024
Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, Adv., Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR, Ms. Somaya Gupta, Adv., Ms. Arshiya Ghosh, Adv., M/S. Pba Legal, AOR, Ms. Mukta Gupta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anuj P. Agarwala, Adv., Mr. Tushar Gupta, Adv., Ms. Nitya Gupta, Adv., Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Mr. Akshat Gupta, Adv., Ms. Sakshi Tikmany, Adv., Ms. Yoothica Pallavi, AOR, Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR, Mr. Kaustubh Shukla, AOR, Mr. Praveen Singh, Adv., Ms. Pushpanjali Singh, Adv., Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR, Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav, Adv., Mr. Shreyash Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pallavi Sharma, AOR, Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Adv., Ms. Juhi Jaiswal, Adv., Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv., Mr. Harshit Sharma, Adv., Ms. Arundhati Mukherjee, Adv., Mr. Nayan Dham, Adv., Ms. Arundhati Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR, Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv., Ms. Palak Mathur, Adv., Dr. Sangeeta Verma, Adv., Ms. Priyanka Shrivastava, Adv., Mr. Rohan Trivedi, Adv., Mr. Mohit Singh, Adv., Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Sr. Adv., Ms. Vidula Mehrotra, Adv., Mr. Chirag Madan, Adv., Mr. Utsav Saxena, Adv., Mr. Kartikey Singh, Adv., Mr. Shubhankar Singh, Adv., Ms. Manisha Ambwani, AOR, Dr. Ranjit Singh, Adv., Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv., Mr. Onkar Nath Sharma, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Adv., Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR, Mr. Sriram P., AOR, Mr. Rajwant Kaur, Adv., Mr. Akshat Gupta, Adv., Ms. Sakshi Tikmany, Adv., Mr. Shrey Nautiyal, Adv., Ms. Yoothica Pallavi, AOR, M/S. Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR, Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv., Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha, Adv., Mr. S.k Pandey, Adv., Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv., Mr. Chandrashekhar A. Chakalabbi, Adv., Mr. Harshit Sharma, Adv., Mr. Ravilochan Daliparthi, Adv.
Interim bail granted to petitioners in corruption case, balancing their liberty against the need for ongoing investigation, subject to conditions to prevent interference.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 7A, 12 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 120B, 384 - Allegations of extortion and corruption against petitioners holding official positions - Petitioners arrested by Anti-Corruption Bureau and Directorate of Enforcement for facilitating extortion from coal transporters - Ongoing investigation revealed incriminating material against petitioners. (Para 7)
(B) Bail - Consideration for interim bail granted due to lengthy investigation process and time spent in custody - Conditions imposed on petitioners to prevent witness tampering or evidence influencing - Interim bail granted to balance liberty and fair investigation. (Paras 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were arrested on allegations of corruption and extortion related to coal transporters, with ongoing investigations indicating their complicity in the offences.
Findings of Court:
The court deemed it appropriate to grant interim bail to the petitioners, subject to conditions, while acknowledging the lengthy investigation process.
Issues: The main issues included the prolonged custody of petitioners and the need to balance their liberty with the integrity of the ongoing investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of not rushing investigations and allowed interim bail to avoid undue hardship to the petitioners, provided they did not interfere with the investigation.
Result: Interim bail granted under specified conditions.
O R D E R
SLP(Crl) No. 1657/2025 and SLP(Crl) No. 1899/2025
1. Learned counsel for Directorate of Enforcement seeks and is granted one week time to file counter affidavit, if any.
2. List on 24.03.2025.
SLP(Crl) No. 1680/2025 and SLP(Crl) No. 1896/2025 (II-C)
3. Learned State counsel seeks and is granted one week time to file counter affidavit, if any.
4. List on 21.04.2025.
SLP(Crl) No. 3138/2025, SLP(Crl) No. 3355/2025 and SLP(Crl)
No. 3303/2025
5. Issue notice, returnable on 21.04.2025.
6. The respondent(s) be served through Standing Counsel also.
SLP(Crl) No. 15941/2024, SLP(Crl) No. 16406/2024, SLP(Crl) No. 18075/2024, SLP(Crl) No. 145/2025, SLP(Crl) No. 172/2025, SLP(Crl) No. 167/2025, SLP(Crl) No. 66/2025, SLP(Crl) No. 944/2025, SLP(Crl) No. 1080/2025 and SLP(Crl)
No. 1114/2025
7. The petitioners in the above-mentioned cases have been arrested by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur in the Case FIR No. 3/2024. The allegations are of committing the offence under Sections 420 , 12 0B of IPC and Sections 7 , 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 . While filing the chargesheet, offence under Section 384 IPC has also been added. In sum and substance, the allegations are that some of the petitioners who were holding official position helped the main accused Suryakant Tiwari and his associates in collecting extortion money from coal transporters and they have been working in tandem with one Roshan Singh, a close associate of the main accused. The petitioners are alleged to have invested illicit money in acquiring the assets, the source of income for which they have not been able to satisfactorily explained. It may be mentioned that the petitioners were initially arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement in ECIR/RPZ0/09/2022 dated 29.09.2022 for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 read with Sections 384 and 120B of IPC . While the petitioners were in custody of Directorate of Enforcement, a report was sent to the State Police to register the subject FIR, which came to be registered on 17.01.2024.
8. We are informed that though the chargesheet has been filed, however, on further investigation, the State has been able to unearth variety of incriminating material hinting towards complicity of the petitioners. According to the State counsel, further investigation is on-going and there is likelihood of filing of a supplementary chargesheet within two months or so. He does not dispute that hundreds of witnesses have been cited and keeping in view that a supplementary chargesheet will also be filed, there is no likelihood of concluding the trial within a reasonable time. 9. Learned State counsel, to some extent, may be right in contending that most of the petitioners have enjoyed either high official positions or political patronage and due to their collusion and connivance, the public exchequer has suffered huge loss or that in the event of their release, the petitioners might cause impediment in the on-going further investigation.
10. On the other hand, learned senior counsel(s) for the petitioners submit that most of them are in custody for last more than 2 years or so (barring a few, who have less than one year custody in the subject FIR only as they were not arrested by the Director of Enforcement).
11. Taking into consideration the time consuming process of further investigation and without putting any burden on the investigating agency to conclude the on-going investigation in a hasty manner, we deem it appropriate, at this stage, to release the petitioners on interim bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the investigating agency as well as the trial court. This interim arrangement is made with a clear direction that if any of the petitioners is found involved in influencing the witnesses and/or tampering with the evidence or causing any impediment in the on-going investigation, the State will be at liberty to bring such instance on record along with suppor
