Allowed

Roshan Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC17 Jul 2025MCRC/2836/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought under BNSS Section 483 in an ACB extortion case alleging illegal kickback collection from rice millers on special incentive payments, involving conspiracy with MARKFED officials. Court granted bail citing long custody, filed charge sheet, 144 witnesses, triple test compliance, no recovery from applicant, and parity with co-accused already released.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on regular bail subject to stringent terms fixed by the trial court after hearing EOW/ACB, including surrender of passport and undertaking to attend trial.

Roshan Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Corruption | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:34178

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

ORDER RESERVED ON 16.06.2025

¶6

ORDER DELIVERED ON 18.07.2025

¶7

MCRC No. 2836 of 2025

¶8

1 - Roshan Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Homendra Chandrakar Aged About 44 Years R/o Sandha Chowk, Sanjay Nagar, Kurud, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Applicant(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Shri Shailendra Dubey, Advocate assisted by Shri Aditya Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Dr. Saurabh Pandey, Dy. AG assisted by Ms. Nupur Trivedi, PL

¶14

(Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma)

¶15

C A V Order

¶16

The applicant has filed this bail application u/s. 483 of BNSS, 2023 in connection with Crime No. 01/2024 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 11, 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of

¶17

¶18

Corruption Act and Sections 384, 409 and 120-B of IPC. The present bail application has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (PC Act), Raipur.

¶19

FACTUAL ASPECTS

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that confidential verification was done in the Bureau in relation to the report of letter No. ECIR/RPZO/04/2023/971 by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Regional Office, Raipur at police station EOW/ACB, Raipur and during investigation, it was found that MARKFED allocated different quantities of paddy to rice millers which, after milling was to be deposited to the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and Nagrik Aapurti Nigam (NAN) for which payment was made to the respective rice millers by MARKFED. Apart from this, incentive amount was also given by the MARKFED. Before Khariff marketing in the year 2021-22, incentive amount was provided to rice millers at the rate of Rs. 40 per quintal, increasing it from Rs. 40 to Rs. 120 per quintal. It was given to the MARKFED in two installments at the rate of Rs. 60/- per quintal each.

¶21

The prosecution case, as alleged, is that the applicant along with co-accused Manoj Kumar Soni (MD, MARKFED) after conspiring with the office bearers of the State as well as District Rice Millers’ association, hatched a plan to collect illegal kickback amounts from the rice millers in three stages:

¶22

Stage 1: On December 2021, a meeting was held wherein unofficial and illegal diktat was given to all rice millers to pay kick back amounts

¶23

¶24

of Rs. 40/- per quintal for clearance of their bills by MARKFED.

¶25

Stage 2 : Bills of only those rice millers who paid kick back amount were forwarded by DMOs to Manoj Kumar Soni for clearance. Stage 3 : The applicant collected the illegal kick back amount.

¶26

Search proceedings were carried out by the Income Tax Department and despite of that, there was no recovery of any unaccounted money or incriminating documents from the residence/office/firms premises was made. On 14.10.2023, ED registered ECIR based on the above prosecution complaint.

¶27

FIR No. 01/2024 was registered on 16.01.2024 against the applicant based on the ED’s letter dated 09.01.2024 under Section 66 of the PMLA. On 08.02.2024, the trial court took cognizance of some of the offences in the IT complaint ie. under Section 277, 181,191,193,417 and 418 IPC in which Sections 417 and 418 IPC are scheduled offences. The trial court had declined to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 383,384, 420, 120-B and 34 IPC however, no offence of extortion or cheating under Section 420 IPC is made out.

¶28

On 19.04.2024, ED had registered an addendum ECIR based on ACB FIR and on 05.05.2024, the applicant was arrested by the ED. On 04.06.2024, ED carried out another search at the resident of the applicant and no incriminating material or documents or any unaccounted cash was recovered. Thereafter on 26.06.2024, ED filed its prosecution complaint before the learned PMLA court. On 4.11.2024, applicant was arrested by the respondent who was already in judicial custody. On 01.02.2025, charge sheet was filed against the applicant

¶29

¶30

and 144 witnesses have been cited and about 27 documents have been relied upon by the respondent and the investigation is still going on. The bail application was filed by the applicant on 19.03.2025 before the learned trial court and was dismissed and against which the applicant has come before this Court under Section 483 of the BNSS for grant of regular bail.

¶31

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

¶32

Contention of Shri Shailendra Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the applicant is that on 18.07.2023, a search operation was carried out by the officials of the Income Tax Department at the residential as well as business premises of the firms owned and controlled by the applicant and his family members. During the search proceedings, the officials of the Income Tax Department recorded completely false statements inter alia the applicant under Section 132(4) of the IT Act and he was coerced to sign on the pre-typed statements and was not allowed to read. On 21.08.2023, the Income Tax department filed a complaint case through the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.) II, Raipur inter alia arraigning the applicant as one of the accused for the alleged commission of offence under Section 277 of the Income Tax Act and under Sections 181, 191, 193, 196, 200, 383, 384, 417, 418, 420,120B/34 IPC.

¶33

It is submitted that no assessment proceedings whatsoever were initiated by the Income Tax Department against the applicant nor any show cause notice was issued to the applicant. There is not even an allegation of ant evasion of tax or a finding of income tax evasion whatsoever in the IT complaint. This clearly shows the premature,

¶34

¶35

malafide nature of the complaint and the allegations of cheating and extortion have been included in the IT complaint. On 14.10.2023, the ED registered ECIR/RPZO/04/2023 treating the above complaint as scheduled offences. The competent court had not taken cognizance of the offences alleged in the IT complaint and thus the registration of the said ECIR itself was premature. It was well within the knowledge of the ED that Section 277 of the IT Act is a non-cognizable offence and therefore the ECIR could not have been registered before cognizance was taken by the competent court. Thereafter On 20.10.2023, a search under Section 17 of the PMLA was carried out at the resident of the applicant and two rooms were sealed. Thereafter, summons under Section 50 of the PMLA directing his personal appearance on 20.10.2023 itself was issued and since the applicant was not present in the house, certain documents including the search Panchnama, sealing notice and the summons were affixed outside his resident. Likewise twice the summons were affixed outside his resident for his personal appearance on 25.10.2023, 28.10.2023. The applicant replied to all the summons which were prepared by his lawyer and in the meanwhile, the co-accused persons filed certain objections to the IT complaint including its maintainability which was dismissed by the competent court on 26.12.2023 on the ground that the cognizance ha not yet been taken therefore they have no locus. Thereafter on 09.01.2024, the ED had issued a letter on 09.01.2024 under Section 66(2) of the PMLA to the ACB/EOW seeking registration of FIR in respect of the very same allegations and transactions which formed the subject matter of the IT complaint and on 16.01.2024, the ACB/EOW registered the subject FIR inter alia arraigning the applicant as an accused. However, while the

¶36

¶37

allegations of paying bribes have been made in the FIR, no proceedings under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been initiated against the individuals who have been alleged to have paid bribe in the case.

¶38

Contention of the counsel for the applicant is that every rice miller across the State of Chhattisgarh ought to have been made an accused in the FIR because as per the allegations of the ACB/EOW, all the rice millers have paid bribes in the instant case. It is further submitted that registering FIR under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not a discretion of the investigating agency but is mandatory under the Prevention of Corruption Act. On 19.04.2024, ED registered an addendum ECIR based on the subject FIR registered by ACB/EOW which in turn was registered on the EDs own complaint/letter dated 09.01.2024. On 15.05.2024 applicant once again appeared before the Investigating Officer and his statement was recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA. On 04.06.2024 the ED carried out another search in the residence of the applicant and no incriminating material or documents were recovered by the ED. On 4.11.2024, when the applicant was in judicial custody in the ECIR and his bail application was pending before this Court, the ACB moved an application seeking seeking issuance of a production warrant to the applicant for affecting his arrest in the subject FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that for almost 10 months of the registration of the FIR, the ACB did not find it necessary to arrest the applicant and his arrest was nothing but a backup to ensure that the applicant is in custody regardless of the outcome of bail application filed by the

¶39

¶40

applicant in the said ECIR. On 04.11.2024, the said application was allowed and the applicant was remanded to police custody of the ACB till 14.11.2024 and thereafter on 01.02.2025, the respondent filed charge sheet under Section 384,409,120-B IPC read with Section 11, 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the PC Act and on the same day, the trial court had taken cognizance of the offence mentioned in the charge sheet.

¶41

Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant has already suffered a long period of pre-trial custody and the trial has not yet commenced. He submits that time and again it has been reiterated by the Apex court that the right to Speedy Trial is a facet of the fundamental right to life of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He has referred to the judgment in the matter of Manish Sisodia Vs. CBI & ED, (2023) SCC Online SC 1393 in para 27 citing with approval, the judgments in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (20220 10 SC 51; Surinder Singh @ Shingara Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2005) 7 SCC 387 and Kashmira Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1977) 4 SCC 291 Manish Sisodia Vs. Ed and CBI (2024) SCC Online SC 920 (Manish Sisodia 3”) @ Para 50; Prem Prakas Vs. ED, Judgment dated 28.08.2024 in SLP (Crl.) No. 5416 of 2024.

¶42

He further submits that in cases where the fundamental right to speedy trial of the accused is violated, the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. He has referred to the judgment of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC

¶43

¶44

Online SC 1693 .

¶45

He submits that detention or jail before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not become punishment without trial. He has referred to the judgment in the matter of Manish Sisodia 1, (2023) SCC OnLine SC1393 . He submits that under the BNSS, Section 479 has further reduced the period of pretrial incarceration for eligibility of statutory bail to 1/3^rd of maximum period of imprisonment for first time offenders. Acknowledging this as a beneficial provision, the Apex Court in Re: Inhuman conditions in 1382 prisons, Order dated 23.08.2024 in WPC No. 406/2013, has recently held that Section 479 BNSS will have retrospective applicability.

¶46

He submits that if the trial gets protracted and it is clear that the case will not be decided within a foreseeable time, the accused persons is entitled for bail. In number of cases, the Apex Court has been pleased to grant bail to accused persons solely on the ground of delay in trial coupled with long pre-trial incarceration, despite the alleged gravity of offences and even under statutes which contain special onerous bail conditions for grant of bail. He has referred to the judgment in the matter of Bibhav Kumar Vs. State of NCT of Delhi in SLP (Crl.) No. 9817 of 2024 wherein the incarceration was 100 days. In Vijay Nair Vs. ED, 22 months of custody (SLP (Crl.) Dy. NO. 22137 of 2024; Neeraj Singal Vs. ED SLP (Crl.) No. 8439 of 2024 16 months custody; Kavalkunta Kavitha Vs. ED 5 months custody, SLP (Crl.) No. 10778 of 2024; Prem Prakash Vs.ED, SLP (Crl.) No. 5416 of 2024, 1 year custody; M anish Sisodia 3 (2024) SCC OnLine SC 920, 17 months of custody; Ramkripal Meena Vs. ED, SLP (Crl.) No.

¶47

¶48

3205 of 2024, 1 year custody; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC Online SC 1693 , more than 4 years of custody; Jainam Rathod Vs. State of Haryana, 2022 OnLine SC 1506, more than 2.5 years of custody and Sujay U Desai Vs. SFIO, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1507, more than 2.5 years of custody.

¶49

It is well settled that the object of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. The primary purpose of bail in a criminal case is to ensure that the accused would submit to the jurisdiction of the court and would remain present whenever required. He submits that deprivation of liberty must be considered punishment unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand trial when called upon.

¶50

He submits that even if the allegation is one of the grave economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be denied in every case. The primary object is to secure the presence of the accused to stand trial. He has referred to the judgment of P. Chidambaram Vs. ED, (2020) 13 SCC 791. He submits that the applicant shall be severely prejudiced and pre-judged if he is continually remanded to custody. It is imperative for the proper and effective defense of the applicant and as a step to ensure the fair trial of the applicant that he be on bail unless there are overwhelming considerations otherwise. It is submitted that the denial of bail shall cause grave prejudice to the applicant. He has referred to the judgment of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. StAte of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565. He submits that in the matter of Manish Sisodia 3 , the Apex Court has observed as under:

¶51

The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High

¶52

¶53

Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception".

¶54

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the instant case, the applicant is in custody since 04.11.2024 in the subject FIR and the ACB/EOW and ED are being conducted with the same alleged transaction and occurrence. The allegations, material, witnesses and documents being relied upon by the ED in the prosecution complaint filed by it and by the prosecuting agency in the charge sheet are mostly common. He submits that the trial is likely to commence and the investigation in the alleged offence is still going on against other accused persons. There are 144 cited witnesses and hundreds of documents running into thousands of pages.

¶55

The next submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the investigation against the applicant is complete and the charge sheet has been filed, therefore there is no necessity for the applicant’s continuous incarceration. It is trite law that once the investigation against the applicant is complete and charge sheet has been filed, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. He has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Bibhav Kumar Vs. State

¶56

¶57

of NCT of Delhi in SLP (Crl.) No. 9817 of 2024 ; Kalvakunta Kavita Vs. ED in SLP (Crl.) No. 10778 of 2024 and Krishnan Subramanian Vs. State NCT of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1384.

¶58

18 . He submits that if bail is denied to the applicant at this stage, he will remain in custody for an indefinite period. On this issue, the Apex Court in Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40 held as under:

¶59

“ It is not in the interest of justice that accused should be in jail for an indefinite period. No doubt, the offence alleged against the appellants is a serious one in terms of alleged huge loss to the State exchequer, that, by itself, should not deter us from enlarging the appellants on bail when there is no serious contention of the respondent that the accused, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence. We do not see any good reason to detain the accused in custody that too, after the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet.”

¶60

In the present case, the applicant has already undergone 14 days of police custody and during which period, a thorough investigation was conducted by the investigating agency and the applicant has cooperated in the same. Next submission on behalf of the applicant is that there is no recovery of any incriminating material or documents from the applicant. Extensive search was carried out at the residential premises of the applicant by the IT Department from 18.07.2023 to 23.07.2023 as also by the ED on 20.10.2023 and 04.06.2024 however nothing incrimination has been recovered from the applicant despite allegations of serious financial crimes and generation and possession of huge amounts in the form of receipt of cash kickbacks from rice miller, no cash amount or any undisclosed assets were recovered.

¶61

¶62

It is submitted that the applicant fulfills the triple test for grant of bail. It is trite law that once the investigation qua an accused is complete and charge sheet has been filed, there is no apprehension of violation of triple test. Hence he may be granted bail. He has placed his reliance in the matter of Kavalakunta Kavita Vs. ED in SLP (Crl.) No. 10778 of 2024, wherein it has been observed as under:

¶63

On perusal of the record, we find that in CBI case charge-sheet has been filed and in ED case complaint has been filed. As such, the custody of the appellant herein is not necessary for the purpose of investigation.

¶64

The appellant has been behind the bars for the last five months. As observed by us in the case of Manish Sisodia(supra), taking into consideration that there are about 493 witnesses to be examined and the documents to be considered are in the range of about 50,000 pages, the likelihood of the trial being concluded in near future is impossible.

¶65

Relying on the various pronouncements of this Court,we had observed in the case of Manish Sisodia (supra) that the prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial.

¶66

We had also reiterated the well-established principle that “bail is the rule and refusal is an exception”. We had further observed that the fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution is superior to the statutory restrictions.

¶67

21. Further in the case of Krishnan Subramanian Vs. State NCT of

¶68

Delhi, 20-22 SCC OnLine Del 1384 , it has been observed that :

¶69

A perusal of record shows that charge sheet has already been filed, all materials have been collected by the investigating authorities and the evidence against the applicant is documentary in nature. In the considered opinion of this Court, the applicant is neither a flight risk, nor can there be any propensity on his part to tamper with any evidence or influence any witness inasmuch as

¶70

¶71

the entire domain of evidence is documentary in nature, which exists as it is from the year 2008 onwards, unhindered, and untampered. The applicant is a permanent resident of Delhi and has clean antecedents. He has been languishing in jail since 8th December 2021. In that background considering the charge sheet, first supplementary charge sheet and second supplementary charge sheet as well as the fact that other co-accused persons having been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench which stand confirmed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court; and the facts and circumstances and discussion as aforesaid, this Court is inclined to allow the instant bail application seeking regular bail.”

¶72

The applicant does not have the propensity to evade the process of law and no such allegation has been made against the applicant seeking police/judicial custody. He contended that in catena of judgments including the recent one of P. Chidambaram Vs. CBI 2020 13 SCC 337, that while dealing with the bail application it is not in dispute that ‘three factors’ or the ‘triple test’ must be seen /satisfied viz. (I) flight risk; (ii) likelihood of tampering with evidence and (iii) likelihood of influencing witnesses. Pertinently all the three facts are satisfied by the applicant and as such the applicant may be granted bail.

¶73

He submits that the applicant is a businessman by profession and is engaged in the business of custom rice milling and he is a permanent resident of Kurud, CG, has no criminal antecedents. There is no likelihood of tampering with evidence or influencing the witnesses. Another paramount consideration for grant of bail is that there is no likelihood of the applicant to tamper with the evidence. He submits that the investigation is concluded and the prosecution complaint has been filed.

¶74

¶75

Counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is prima facie not guilty of the offences as alleged in the FIR and charge sheet. He submits that without prejudice to the above,it is well settled in law that the merits of a case ought not be gone into at the time of adjudication of bail application. In Niranjan Singh & another Vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others (1980) 2 SCC 559, it has been held that :

¶76

“Detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits should be avoided while passing orders on bail applications. No party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. To be satisfied about a prima facie case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.”

¶77

He submits that the subject FIR was registered without conducting any preliminary enquiry which is evident from the fact that the subject FIR was registered on 16.01.2024 even though the information of the alleged offence was received by the ACB/EOW on 17.01.2024 ie. after registration of the FIR. The entire case of prosecution is based on the allegations of extortion and illegal collection of money by the applicant from the rice millers in the State of Chhattisgarh. While taking cognizance of the offences in the IT complaint, it declined to take cognizance of the offence of extortion. At the time of registration of subject FIR , on the basis of the ED’s letter under Section 66 of the PMLA, the ACB did not include extortion as an offence and the same was added later ie. at the time of filing of charge sheet.

¶78

¶79

The allegation against the applicant is that he was involved in running the alleged extortion racket wherein an amount of Rs. 20+20=Rs. 40/- was extorted per quintal of custom milled rice out of the special incentive price of Rs. 120/- payable by the State government of Chhattisgarh to the custom rice millers. However, the offence of extortion under Sections 383 and 384 IPC were not found to be made out against the applicant by the competent court and sine no cognizance was taken of the alleged offence of extortion.

¶80

He contended that the alleged material being relied upon by the Prosecuting Agency against the applicant is in the form of statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C which are not admissible and the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and 50 of the PMLA cannot be considered at the stage of bail. He has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Parasmal Lodha Vs. Ed (2017) SCC OnLine Del 8676 and Chandra Prakash Khandelwal Vs. ED, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1094 . Even otherwise, the statements being relied upon by the ACB are the ones where the persons have implicated themselves. It is submitted that the statements of the co-accused persons is a weak type of evidence and cannot be treated as substantive evidence as against the other co-accused persons. As per the statements relied upon by the ACB, all the rice millers who have admitted to have paid bribes ought to have been implicated under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He submits that none of the persons allegedly involved in the alleged scam have been charge sheeted which goes to show that the ACB/EOW is operating in a pick and choose manner.

¶81

¶82

Lastly, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is suffering from several ailments and during his custody by the ED in the said ECIR, he has been referred to Medical College Raipur. He submits that the applicant has been charged with Section 384 IPC and the maximum punishment is for 3 years and is triable by the Magistrate. So far as Section 409 IPC is concerned, it is not applicable in the case of the applicant.

¶83

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF STATE/RESPONDENT

¶84

Opposing the submissions made on behalf of the counsel for the applicant, it has been argued by Dr.Sourabh Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent/State that as per prosecution case, on 16.01.2024, the ACB/EOW, Raipur had registered the subject FIR under Crime No. 01/2024 for commission of the offences under Sections 384, 409 and 120-B IPC read with Section 11,13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the applicant.

¶85

The present applicant who is a rice miller, has been given the charge of Treasurer in the syndicate and by putting pressure on rice millers in the State of Chhattisgarh for milling and payment of incentive amount, rice millers got Khariff Marketing Season done. Illegal recovery has been made at the rate of Rs. 20/- per quintal from the quantity of paddy lifted in 2021-22. On the basis of the report received from the ED, confidential verification and source information, FIR No. 01/2024 was registered against the applicant. In the month of November 2021, the applicant, along with Kailash Rungta, President and General Secretary, Pramod Agrawl, Anil Tuteja agreed at Udyog Bhawan, Raipur that special incentive would be increased by Rs. 120/- per

¶86

¶87

quintal and out of that illegal money at the rate of Rs. 40/- per quintal will be returned to the party fund. Before the raid by income tax department, special incentive amount of Rs. 120/- per quintal was to be given in two installments at the rate of Rs. 60/- per quintal and illegal recovery was to be made @ 20/- per quintal and after the IT raid, illegal recovery could not be made. It is submitted that the collection of illegal money from rice millers was made possible due to criminal nexus between the applicant and the MD of MARKFED and District Marketing Officers by keeping the payment of special incentive amount pending at the stage of final approval by the office of DMO and MD. The present applicant used to put undue pressure on the rice miller and delayed payment of special incentive amount adversely affected the business cycle of the rice milers. Apart from this, the rice millers had to pay necessary interest on cash credit limit due to delayed payment. After the raids by the Central Agencies, the applicant contacted Anil Tuteja and Anwar Dhebar through Siddarth Singhania and found that R. 20-22 crore was illegally collected from the rice miller of different districts.

¶88

The present applicant arranged the meetings with rice millers in different districts and threatened them to pay illegal amount of Rs. 20/per quintal. Thereafter he sent the money Mr. Manoj Soni and to the list of names of rice millers firms. It is submitted that on the observation of the payment file of MARKFED and the panchnama prepared by the MARKFED officers, despite there being sufficient funds to provide special incentive amount to 13 districts on special incentive payment. However, the files which were forwarded to MARKFED headquarters for payment of special incentive amount without illegal collection of money from the districts were returned for various reasons ie.

¶89

¶90

recalculation of item wise details of rice millers or payment in the file or re-approval of the same after forwarding it to the Chief Accountant after approval as has been mentioned in the scrutiny file.

¶91

It is alleged that when the IT raid was conducted at various places in connection with custom milling on 18.07.2023, illegal collection of money in payment of special incentive amount was found. About Rs. 3.4 crores of illegal recovery was done by the rice miller Mahasamund and delivered to the present applicant in two installments. Out of the amount collected from 26 rice millers in Rajim, district, Raipur, Rs 4 crores were given to the associate of the present applicant and the remaining 1.53 lacs was given to the applicant in his rice mill at Kurud District, Dhmatari. During the raid conducted by the IT department, information has been prepared from the seized mobile data of DMO Korba, Preetika Pooja Kerkatta wherein information related to the mill’s registration number, name of the mill, amount paid to RC, amount received, Pan number etc. and registered Usna Milling capacity have been maintained. It is submitted by learned counsel for the State that the District Marketing Officer, Korba did not sent the bills of those rice millers in the dues of 09.05.2023 whose PDF was prepared from the seized mobile data. It is also alleged that under pressure from rice millers of different districts the applicant and his associates collected illegal money from various places in Raipur (VIP Road, Telibandha, VY Canyon Kamal Vihar Road, Palm Belizio, Shankar Nagar and BTI Ground Shankar Nagar). During investigation, it was found that the applicant himself collected illegal money from a group of rice millers at some places in Chandi Rice Mill, Kurud and Dhamtari. On 01.02.2023, charge sheet No. 05/2025 under Section

¶92

¶93

173(8) Cr.P.C. has been filed before the Special Court for Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶94

Dr. Pandey, counsel for the State submits that the Sections of Prevention of Corruption Act would apply to the applicant even though he is not a public servant. The reason for attracting Sections of PC Act against the applicant is because he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the then Managing Director of Markfed Manoj Soni to obtain special permission from the rice millers in contravention of the official duties of Shri Manoj Soni. The rice millers were economically pressurized and the illegal money from the rice millers at the rate of Rs. 20/- per quintal from the quantity of paddy lifted for payment of special incentive amount was given to Manoj Soni.

¶95

When no rice miller had reported the matter to the police, Section 384 Cr.P.C would be applicable to the applicant. The rice millers in their statements have stated that due to the political and administrative influence of the applicant, the rice millers did not made complaint to the police station regarding illegal extortion. The rice millers have fear that if they made a complaint, they can suffer permanent loss in their business in future. The present FIR has been registered upon sharing the information by Enforcement Directorate. As per the law laid down by the Apex Court in the matter of Lalita Kumari (supra), a police officer is duty bound to register an FIR and carry on investigation.

¶96

Further contention of the State counsel is that the question as to when no property was formally handed over to the applicant, then how can Section 409 IPC apply?

¶97

¶98

To this, it has been stated that MARKFED is a state controlled cooperative institution, which falls under Section 2(c) (VIII) of IPC and its Managing Director is a Public Service under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. The said MD misusing the power to approve/reject special incentive fund, made payments to ricemillers who paid bribes to the applicant. Thus, the applicant was playing a key role in the crime by conspiring/instigating Manoj Soni.

¶99

So far as Sections 8, 11 and 12 of the PC Act and Sections 384, 409 and 120-B IPC are concerned, they come under the category of crime. Section 409 IPC was invoked against the applicant because he along with then MD, MARKFED took a policy decision as per 6 (II) A on the note sheet to increase the special incentive amount from Rs. 40 per quintal to Rs. 120 per quintal and the special incentive amount will be paid on the first come first serve basis. The fact that when neither cash was recovered nor any bank entry or any transaction was found recorded in the account book then how can the prosecution be proved? To this, the judicial statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C and presumption of truthfulness of the statement under Section 114(d) IPC could be taken into consideration. The applicant has taken money directly from the Rajim Rice Miller, M/s. Radheshyam Rice Mill Paragaon, Girdhar Gopal Rice Product, Maa Durga Rice Mill. The rice millers of Korba, on the instructions of the applicant, gave money to the rice millers at Kurud. In compliance with Section 114, illustration (d) of the IPC, the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C can be imposed against the accused after conclusion of the judicial work. The investigation is pending and the details of bank accounts by which the amount given by the rice millers in connection with the illegal extortion

¶100

¶101

and information regarding withdrawal of money was collected. It is further submitted that property worth crores was purchased in the name of the applicant, his wife and his firm Mahamaya Foods whose market value and registry value were found to have a difference of more than 50 lacs. Thus, it is submitted that from the evidence collected during investigation it has been found that Sections 11 12(1)(a) and 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 as amended and Sections 384,409 and 120B of IPC are attracted against the applicant.

¶102

Even though if the applicant is not a public servant, he can still be charged under Sections 384, 409, and 120-B of the IPC and Sections 11, 13(1)(a), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) if is found to have abetted or conspired with a public servant in committing these offenses, or if his actions fall under the ambit of the PC Act. In summary, while the Prevention of Corruption Act primarily targets public servants, its provisions can extend to private individuals who are involved in corrupt activities with public servants. The specific applicability will depend on the individual's role and the nature of their involvement in the alleged offence.

¶103

The principle of equal application of the law is fundamental to a just legal system. If there is evidence that the PCA is being selectively enforced, it could raise serious concerns about fairness and the integrity of the justice system

¶104

CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION FOR BAIL

¶105

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶106

¶107

The crux of the matter is that the applicant was working as a Treasurer in the rice millers association and he was involved in running an extortion racket by way of Rs. 20+20=Rs. 40/- per quintal of custom milled rice out of the special incentive price of Rs. 120/- payable by the State of Chhattisgarh to the custom rice millers. As alleged, he along with the members of rice millers association and the MD of Markfed Manoj Kumar Soni had a nexus to facilitate the collection of extortion amount from the rice millers.

¶108

The applicant is facing charges under Sections 384, 409, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 11, 13(1)(a), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The ACB (Anti-Corruption Bureau) has filed the charges. The applicant's request for bail or other relief depends on the specific facts of the case and the applicable laws.

¶109

The question is whether the applicant has to be granted bail will depend on various factors, including the severity of the offence, the strength of the evidence, and the risk of the applicant absconding or tampering with evidence. The court will also consider the applicant's background and the potential impact of the alleged offences.

¶110

Further it appears that none of the rice millers had ever made complaint against the applicant for extortion and illegal collection of money. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no prima facie case made out against the applicant under Sections 384,409 IPC and Sections 11, 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The applicant is not a public servant, therefore the Act, specifically its sections related to corruption offences,

¶111

¶112

may not directly apply. However, at the time of consideration of bail application it can not be taken into account as to what charges would be framed against the applicant as it is the duty of the trial court to decide and frame charges after taking into consideration the fact of the case. However, it is clear that none of the rice miller or any of the persons related have made any complaint before the EOW that the applicant has extorted money and caused a huge loss to the State exchequer.

¶113

As has been alleged by the counsel for the applicant that there was a pick and choose policy by the prosecution. The claim of "pick and choose" implies discriminatory application of the law, which needs to be substantiated with evidence of selective prosecution.

¶114

CONCLUSION

¶115

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the long incarceration of the applicant in custody, ie. for a period of about six months in the present FIR, charge sheet has already been filed before the trial court but the prosecution has failed to produce any document with regard to the previous antecedents of the accused and had also failed to produce evidence that the applicant, if released on bail, would interfere with the trial or tamper with evidence, 144 witnesses have been cited and about hundreds of documents running to thousands of pages, he also fulfills the triple test, there is no recovery of any bribe amount made from the applicant and the fact that the co-accused Manoj Kumar Soni has been granted bail by this Court,

¶116

¶117

the role of the present applicant is also similar to that of the co-accused and the applicant is facing charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) ie. Sections 384 (extortion), 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant, etc.), and 120 B (criminal conspiracy), as well as sections 11, 13(1)(a), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, therefore, on the ground of parity the applicant may also be granted similar benefit. Even though charges were not framed against the applicant, there is no progress in the trial and investigation is going on, the trial is not likely to commence in the near future, and in similar situation, in liquor scam case, the Apex Court has granted bail to the applicants in Cr. A. No. 1263 of 2025 (Arunpathi Tripathi Vs. State of CG) and Others arising out of SLP (Crl. No. 14646 of 2024; SLP (Crl.) No. 14697 of 2024 (Trilok Singh Dhillon Vs.The State of Chahttisgarh), Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.3148/2025 (Anil Tuteja Vs. Directorate of Enforcement), Cr.A. No. 2699 of 2025 arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2608 of 2025 (Arvind Singh Vs.The State of Chhattisgarh) and therefore, I am of the view that the bail application of the present applicant may also be considered for grant of regular bail.

¶118

Thus, the applicant deserves to be granted regular bail. The concerned trial court shall enlarge the applicant on bail subject to stringent terms and conditions as may be fixed after hearing the EOW/ACB/respondent. The condition shall include (a) surrender of passport if any (b) furnishing an undertaking on oath to the concerned court that he will regularly and punctually attend the trial court and shall cooperate with the trial court for early disposal of the case and (c) in the event it is found that the applicant is not cooperating with the concerned court for early disposal of the case or commits a breach of any of the

¶119

¶120

conditions of bail, it will be open for the respondent to apply for cancellation of bail before the concerned court.

¶121

Sd/-

¶122

(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶123

Digitally signed by SUGUNA SUGUNA DUBEY DUBEY Date:2025.07.21 14:12:46 +0530

Roshan Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshan Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Bindal Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bank of India

Kumar Sahu Vs Radhe Shyam

Harish Mugri Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kawasi Lakhma Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Sima Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Development Consulants Private Limited (Dcpl) Vs State of Chhattisgarh