SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
SAMUND RAM SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
MCRC 1075/2021



Advocates:
['Sabyasachi Bhaduri', '', 'PANKAJ SINGH', 'A G']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

Order Reserved on 27.7.2021

Order Delivered on 5-8-2021

MCRC No. 1039 of 2021

• Samund Ram Singh S/o Late Shri Nankun Singh Aged About

71 Years Retired O.S.D Excise Commissioner Office Raipur

Chhattisgarh R/o Mig- 21, Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (CG)

---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. State Economic Offences

Wing/anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur (CG)

---- Non-applicant

MCRC No. 1075 of 2021

• Samund Ram Singh S/o Late Shri Nankun Singh, Aged About

71 Years Retired O.S.D. Excise Commissioner Office Raipur

(C.G.), R/o. - Peepal - 1/172, Housing Board Colony,

Boriakala, Raipur, District Raipur (CG)

---- Applicant

Versus

• State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station State Economic

Offences Wing / Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur (CG)

---- Non-applicant

For Applicant

:

Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate

with Mr. Pankaj Singh, Advocate

For Non-applicant

:

Mr. V.R. Tiwari, Additional Advocate

General with Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai,

Government Advocate

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

C A V Order

1. M.Cr.C. No.1039/2021 is preferred by applicant against the

order dated 19.11.2020 passed by learned Special Judge

(Prevention of Corruption Act) -cum- 1st Additional Sessions

Judge, Raipur denying regular bail to applicant who is in

custody in connection with Crime No.14/2019 registered

against him at Anti Corruption Bureau/ Economic Offences

2

Wing, Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 13 (1)

(b) & 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and

Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. M.Cr.C. No.1075/2021 is preferred by the applicant against

the order dated 12.1.2021 passed by the learned Sessions

Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) -cum- 1st Additional

Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.2/2020

refusing to grant regular bail to applicant in connection with

Crime No.12/2019 registered at Anti Corruption Bureau /

Economic Offences Wing, Raipur for the offence under

Section 7 (C) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and

Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the IPC.

3. As above two applications for grant of regular bail have been

preferred by one and same applicant, the same were heard

together and are being disposed of by this common order.

4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.3.1979 present

applicant was appointed as 'Excise Officer' and he retired as

'Additional Commissioner (Excise)' in the year 2009. After

retirement, applicant was re-appointed as 'Officer on Special

Duty' on contract basis for a period of one year i.e. from 2009

to 2010. The period of contract was extended from time to

time and lastly it was extended upto December, 2018. After

verification of 'source information' received by the Anti

Corruption Bureau, Crime No.12/2019 was registered against

present applicant. Source Information was registered on

3

24.9.2019, the Station House Officer got the source

information verified by the Inspector and thereafter Crime

No.12/19 is registered. Allegation against present applicant in

this crime is that between the year 2012 & 2017 present

applicant while working as Officer on Special Duty had

misused his office, entered into criminal conspiracy with liquor

contractors and caused loss of Rs.1400 Crores to the State

Government. While fixing sale price of country-made liquor for

the year 2012-13, 2013-14, 60% profit on the lending price

was provided to the liquor contractors / licensee and in the

year 2014-15 & 2015-16, 50% profit was provided. For

providing such profit, no reason has been assigned by present

applicant in the files. Further, interpolation was made in files

of proposal, it was not forwarded to the office of the then

Minister In-charge and the decision was taken at the office

level. It is present applicant who initiated proceedings for

fixing of price of country-made and foreign

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top