Animesh Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

1 - Iqbal Ahmed Khan S/o Late Shri M.I. Khan, Aged About 57 Years R/o Yezdani Chowl. Near Chhattisgarh College, Byron Bazar, Raipur492001 Chhattisgarh

¶13

--- Applicant(s)

¶14

Versus

¶15

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

¶16

--- Respondent(s)

¶17

2

¶18

MCRCA No. 1137 of 2025

¶19

1 - Jethu Ram Mandavi S/o Late Nandlal Mandavi Aged About 65 Years R/o House No.1245, Bhatapara Charama, Uttar Bastar, Kanker DistrictKanker (C.G.)

¶20

--- Applicant(s)

¶21

Versus

¶22

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station ACB/EOW, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶23

--- Respondent(s)

¶24

MCRCA No. 1133 of 2025

¶25

1 - Gambhir Singh Nuruti S/o Dayaram Nuruti Aged About 63 Years R/o Vasundhara Nagar, Sabha Road Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶26

--- Applicant(s)

¶27

Versus

¶28

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station House Officer, Police Station ACB/EOW, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶29

--- Respondent(s)

¶30

MCRCA No. 1134 of 2025

¶31

1 - Nitin Kumar Khanduja S/o Shri Ravindra Khanduja Aged About 51 Years R/o Raguvir Badi, Near Durga Tample, Bemetara, DistrictBemetara (C.G.)

--- Applicant(s)

3

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station ACB/EOW, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶36

--- Respondent(s)

¶37

MCRCA No. 1186 of 2025

¶38

1 - Vedram Lahare S/o Late Jagatram Lahare Aged About 66 Years R/o Kushal Nagar, Barejbhatha, Sarangarh, Tehsil- Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh C.G.

¶39

--- Applicant(s)

¶40

Versus

¶41

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Thana- In-Charge, Thana- State Economic Crime Investigation And Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur District Raipur C.G.

¶42

--- Respondent(s)

¶43

MCRCA No. 1161 of 2025

¶44

1 - Nohar Singh Thakur S/o Shri Gautam Singh Thakur, Aged About 46 Years R/o Plot No. 01, Street No. 14, Ashish Nagar (W), Risali, Civic Centre, Bhilai, Durg- 490006 Chhattisgarh

¶45

--- Applicant(s)

¶46

Versus

¶47

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

¶48

--- Respondent(s)

¶49

4

¶50

MCRCA No. 1160 of 2025

¶51

1 - Mrs. Neetu Notani Thakur W/o Shri Piyush Thakur, D/o Shri Mohan Das Notani Aged About 46 Years R/o Flat No. 10 Wing-3 Capital Place, Shankar Nagar Raipur 492007 Chhattisgarh

¶52

--- Applicant(s)

¶53

Versus

¶54

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau / EOW, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶55

--- Respondent(s)

¶56

MCRCA No. 1158 of 2025

¶57

1 - Dinker Wasnik S/o Shri Panna Lal Wasnik Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 16 Gali No. 4 Mamta Nagar Tulsipur Rajnandgaon 491441 Chhattisgarh.

¶58

--- Applicant(s)

¶59

Versus

¶60

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau / EOW, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶61

--- Respondent(s)

¶62

MCRCA No. 1157 of 2025

¶63

1 - Vikas Kumar Goswami S/o Shri Vinod Goswami Aged About 45 Years R/o B-16, Rama Life City, Bilaspur -495001 Chhattisgarh

--- Applicant(s)

Versus

5

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

¶68

--- Respondent(s)

¶69

MCRCA No. 1156 of 2025

¶70

1 - Naveen Pratap Singh Tomar S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh Tomar Aged About 46 Years R/o House No. C-34, Krishnayan Colony (Chhuiya), Malgujari, Baloda-Bazaar-493332 Chhattisgarh

¶71

--- Applicant(s)

¶72

Versus

¶73

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

¶74

Respondent(s)

¶75

MCRCA No. 1155 of 2025

¶76

1 - Janardan Singh Kaurav S/o Shri Pancham Singh Verma Aged About 51 Years R/o 08, Srishti Garden, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, Raipur492006 Chhattisgarh.

¶77

--- Petitioner(s)

¶78

Versus

¶79

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through S H O Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau / EOW, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶80

Respondent(s)

¶81

6

¶82

MCRCA No. 1154 of 2025

¶83

1 - Arvind Kumar Patley S/o Shri Nawal Singh Patley Aged About 50 Years R/o House A-4, Street No. 06, Ashish Nagar (W), Risali, Civic Centre, Bhilai, Durg - 490006 Chhattisgarh

¶84

--- Applicant (s)

¶85

Versus

¶86

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

¶87

--- Respondent(s)

¶88

MCRCA No. 1152 of 2025

¶89

1 - Prakash Pal S/o Late Shri Sapan Kumar Pal Aged About 44 Years Assistant Excise Commissioner, R/o House No. 169 Uni Home, Bhatagaon, Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶90

2 - Alekh Ram Sidar S/o Shri Murlidhar Sidar Aged About 34 Years Assistant Excise Commissioner, R/o Village Kanta Hardi, Dist. Raigarh Chhattisgarh

¶91

3 - Ashish Kosam S/o Shri Brijlal Kosam Aged About 50 Years Assistant Excise Commissioner, R/o House No. 50 Humming Coterie, Kachna, Raipur Dist. Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶92

4 - Rajesh Jaiswal S/o Late Shri Hariprasad Jaiswal Aged About 42 Years Assistant Excise Commissioner, R/o House No. C/02, Dwarikapuri Colony, Borsi Distt. Durg Chhattisgarh

--- Applicant(s)

Versus

7

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station ACB/ EOW Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶97

--- Respondent(s)

¶98

MCRCA No. 1141 of 2025

¶99

1 - Animesh Netam S/o Late Dr. Anand Netam Aged About 50 Years R/o Near Shivam School, Satyam Vihar Colony Raipura, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶100

--- Applicant(s)

¶101

Versus

¶102

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station

¶103

ACB/EOW, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶104

--- Respondent(s)

¶105

MCRCA No. 1140 of 2025

¶106

1 - Garibpal Singh Dardi S/o Late Dilbag Singh Dardi Aged About 60 Years R/o 501- Sanskar Heights, Jagarnath Temple Road, Gaytri Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.

¶107

--- Applicant(s)

¶108

Versus

¶109

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police StationACB/EOW, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.

¶110

--- Respondent(s)

¶111

MCRCA No. 1139 of 2025

¶112

8

¶113

1 - Vijay Sen Sharma S/o P.C. Sen Sharma Aged About 48 Years R/o Sen Sharma Niwas, Gali No. 02, Basera Colony, Bhartiya Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G.

¶114

--- Applicant(s)

¶115

Versus

¶116

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police StationACB/EOW, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G.

¶117

--- Respondent(s)

¶118

MCRCA No. 1138 of 2025

¶119

1 - Ramkrishna Mishra S/o Shailendra Mishra Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 09, Brahminpara, Ambagarh Chowki District - Mohla Manpur Ambagarh - Chowki (C.G.)

¶120

--- Applicant(s)

¶121

Versus

¶122

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station ACB/EOW, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶123

--- Respondent(s)

¶124

MCRCA No. 1136 of 2025

¶125

1 - Anant Kumar Singh S/o Late Akhileshwar Singh Aged About 63 Years R/o MIG - 400, Padmanabhpur, Durg (C.G.)

--- Applicant(s)

Versus

9

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station ACB/ \EOW, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶130

--- Respondent(s)

¶131

MCRCA No. 1135 of 2025

¶132

1 - Lakhan Lal Dhruw S/o Late Moti Singh Dhruw Aged About 68 Years R/o Vidhyanak Niwas Nagri District- Dhamtari Chhattisgarh.

¶133

--- Applicant(s)

¶134

Versus

¶135

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station ACB/ EOW, Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgrh.

¶136

--- Respondent(s)

¶137

MCRCA No. 1132 of 2025

¶138

1 - Pramod Kumar Netam, S/o Shyamlal, Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Chhuri, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba (C.G.)

¶139

--- Applicant(s)

¶140

Versus

¶141

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station

¶142

ACB/EOW, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)

¶143

--- Respondent(s)

¶144

MCRCA No. 1131 of 2025

¶145

1 - Saurabh Buxy S/o Rajeev Buxy Aged About 41 Years R/o M 680, Padamanabhpur, Durg District Durg C.G.

-- -Applicant(s)

10

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police StationACB/EOW, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

¶150

--- Respondent(s)

¶151

MCRCA No. 1130 of 2025

¶152

1 - Manjushri Kaser W/o Ramchandra Saras Aged About 47 Years R/o Priyadarshani Nagar, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶153

--- Applicant(s)

¶154

Versus

¶155

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police StationACB/ EOW, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.)

¶156

--- Respondent(s)

¶157

MCRCA No. 1129 of 2025

¶158

1 - Mohit Kumar Jaiswal S/o Ramlal Jaiswal Aged About 47 Years R/o Village And Post - Khandsara, Thana- Bemetara, District Bemetara, C.G.

¶159

--- Applicant(s)

¶160

Versus

¶161

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police StationACB/EOW, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G.

¶162

--- Respondent(s)

¶163

11

¶164

MCRCA No. 1128 of 2025

¶165

1 - Sonal Netam W/o Jasveer Singh Maravi Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Barihapali, Post Bhukel, Block Basna District Mahasamund C.G.

¶166

-- -Applicant(s)

¶167

Versus

¶168

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police StationACB/ EOW, Raipur, District Raipur C.G.

¶169

--- Respondent(s)

¶170

For Applicants (s)	: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Sr. Counsel assisted by Shri Sourabh Sahu, Advocate, Shri Abhishek Sinha, Sr. Counsel assisted by Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate, Shri Gautam Khetrapal assisted by Shri Gaurav Singhal and Shri Rajendra Kumar Patel, Advocates
For Respondent/State	: Shri Vivek Sharma, Addl. Advocate General

¶171

(HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR VERMA)

¶172

Order on Board

¶173

18/08/2025

¶174

The above batch of applications under Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth ‘the BNSS’) have been filed by the applicants apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 04/2024 registered at Police Station ACB/EOW, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code,1860 and Sections 7 & 12 of

¶175

12

¶176

the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.

¶177

The facts, as projected in the instant case, in brief, are that the applicants are working as Deputy Commissioners, Excise Commissioners, District Excise Officers, Assistant Excise Commissioners, District Excise officers (Retired) respectively. On 8.11.2024, notice were received by the applicants respectively from the State Economic Offence Wing/Anti Corruption Bureau (hereinafter referred as the ‘EOW/ACB’ for brevity) for questioning with respect to the FIR bearing Crime No.04/2024 registered for the commission of the offence punishable under the aforementioned Sections. In compliance of the said notice, the applicants appeared before the ACB on 9.11.2024 and it was informed that the FIR bearing Crime No. 04/2024 was registered on the allegations that from the period of February 2019 to June 2022 there was illegal sale of liquor by the syndicate after increasing the landing price and sale by duplicate holograms and that the applicants being Excise Officials, had received the commission from the sale of Part-B liquor.

¶178

Contention of Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned Sr. Counsel for the applicants in M.Cr.C.A Nos.1126/2025, 1128/2025, 1129/2025, 1130/2025, 1131/2025, 132/2025, 1133/2025, 1134/2025, 1135/2025, 1136/2025, 1137/2025, 1138/2025, 1139/2025, 1140/2025 & 1141/2025, submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the offence and there is no iota of evidence against them. During questioning/query by the ACB./EOW, the applicants had replied as sought for and in the present case, charge sheets have been filed against the applicants

¶179

13

¶180

after issuance of notices under Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. It is contended that during the investigation, investigation agency did not deem it proper to arrest the applicants and now after the charge sheets have been filed, notices were issued.

¶181

Contention of Shri Shrivastava, learned Sr. Counsel is that at the time of filing of charge sheet against the applicants, the prosecution has specifically mentioned in the charge sheet that the applicants had cooperated with the prosecution and after issuance of notices, there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicants. He contended that for consideration of Section 170 Cr.P.C. it does not impose an obligation on the officer in charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the charge sheet. He has placed his reliance in the matter of Siddharth Vs. State of UP (2022) 1 SCC 676, wherein it has been held as under:

¶182

“We re in agreement with the aforesaid view of the High Courts and would like to give our imprimatur to the said judicial view. It has rightly been observed on consideration of Section 170 Cr.P.C. that it does not impose an obligation on the officer-in-chargee to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the charge sheet. We have, in fact, come across cases where the accused has cooperated with the investigation throughout and yet on the charge sheet being filed nonbailable warrants have been issued for his production premised on the requirement that there is an obligation to arrest the accused and produce him before the court. We are of the view that if the Investigating Officer does not believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons he/she is not required to be produced in custody. The word “custody”

¶183

14

¶184

appearing in Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does not contemplate either police or judicial custody but it merely connotes the presentation of the accused by the Investigating Officer before the court while filing the charge sheet. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it.4 If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.

¶185

It has been further contended that the applicants satisfy the triple test necessary for grant of bail as described in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI, (20220 10 SCC 51, wherein the Apex court has emphasized on the importance of personal liberty as the same is one of the cherished objects of the Indian Constitution and deprivation of the same can only be in accordance with law and inconformity with the provisions thereof as stipulated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and it was held that :

¶186

“43. The scope and ambit of Section 170 has already been dealt with this Court in Siddarth Vs. State of UP (2022) 1 SCC 676:(2022) 1 SCC (Cri)

¶187

15

¶188

423]. This is a power which is to be exercised by the court after the completion of investigation by the agency concerned. Therefore, this is a procedural compliance from the point of view of the court alone and thus the investigating agency has got a limited role to play. In a case where the prosecution does not require custody of the accused, there is o need for an arrest when a case is sent to the Magistrate under Section 170 of the code. There is not even a need for filing a bail application, as the accused is merely forwarded to the court for the framing of charges and issuance of process for trial. If the court is of the view that there is no need for any remand, then the court can fall back upon Section 88 of the code and complete the formalities required to secure the presence of the accused for the commencement of the trial. Of course there may be a situation where a remand may be required, it is only in such cases that the accused will have to be heard. Therefore, in such a situation, an opportunity will have to be given to the accused persons, if the court is of the prima facie view that the remand would be requited. We make it clear that we have not said anything on the cases in which the accused persons re already in custody for which, the bail application has to be decided on its own merits. Suffice it to state that for due compliance of Section 170 of the Code, there is no need for filing of a bail application.”

¶189

He contended that the case of the applicants are squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Aman Preet Singh Vs. CBI (2022) 13 SCC 764, wherein it has been held as under:

¶190

16

¶191

“The said paragraph deals with directions issued to the criminal Courts and we would like to extract the portion of the same as under:

¶192

“26. Arrest of a person for less serious or such kinds of offence or offences those can be investigated without arrest by the police cannot be brooked by any civilized society. Directions for Criminal Courts :

¶193

(i) Whenever officer-in-charge of police station or Investigating Agency like CBI files a charge-sheet without arresting the accused during investigation and does not produce the accused in custody as referred in Section 170, Cr.P.C. the Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused shall accept the chargesheet forthwith and proceed according to the procedure laid down in Section 173, Cr.P.C. and exercise the options available to it as discussed in this judgment. In such a case the Magistrate or Court shall invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest.

¶194

(ii) In case the Court or Magistrate exercises the discretion of issuing warrant of arrest at any stage including the stage while taking cognizance of the charge-sheet, he or it shall have to record the reasons in writing as contemplated under Section 87, Cr.P.C. that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him.

¶195

(iii) Rejection of an application for exemption from personal appearance on any date of hearing or even at first instance does not amount to nonappearance despite service of summons or absconding or failure to obey summons and the Court in such a case shall not issue warrant of

¶196

17

¶197

arrest and may either give direction to the accused to appear or issue process of summons.

¶198

(iv) That the Court shall on appearance of an accused in a bailable offence release him forthwith on his furnishing a personal bond with or without sureties as per the mandatory provisions of Section 436, Cr.P.C.

¶199

(v) The Court shall on appearance of an accused in non-bailable offence who has neither been arrested by the police/Investigating Agency during investigation nor produced in custody as envisaged in Section 170, Cr.P.C. call upon the accused to move a bail application if the accused does not move it on his own and release him on bail as the circumstance of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. Reason is simple. If a person has been at large and free for several years and has not been even arrested during investigation, to send him to jail by refusing bail suddenly, merely because charge-sheet has been filed is against the basic principles governing grant or refusal of bail.”

¶200

It is further contended that the applicants are permanent residents of the State of Chhattisgarh and there is no possibility of the applicants fleeing away from justice and moreover they are government servants. The trial is likely to take long time and since they were not arrested during investigation, therefore keeping the applicants in custody after filing of the charge sheets would only amount to pre-trial punishment. The personal liberty is most sacrosanct right and liberty of a person may not be curtailed unless there are compelling reasons and circumstances justifying the same. He has placed his reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa

¶201

18

¶202

Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 and Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat, (2016) 1 SCC 152.

¶203

Contention of Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel on behalf of applicants in M.Cr.C. A. Nos. 1154/2025, 1155/2025, 1156/2025, 1157/2025, 1158/2025, 1159/2025, 1160/2025 & 1161/2025 submits that the applicants are apprehending their arrest as the charge sheet has been filed under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.,1973 before the learned Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Raipur, District Raipur, CG and the learned Special Judge has issued summons for appearance of the applicants on 20.08.2025. It is contended that the allegations in the charge sheet against the applicants are unsubstantiated by any admissible piece of evidence. Neither the illicit liquor nor any amount from its sale thereafter, has been recovered from the present applicants which may substantiate the allegations of the prosecution and connect the applicants with the alleged crime. He submits that the allegations are yet to be proved against the applicants and it is the prosecution case itself that the applicants have duly participated and cooperated with the investigating agency throughout the investigation and therefore their custody is not required as they were not arrested during the course of investigation. He contended that the prosecution has cited more than 225 witnesses in the present charge sheet against the applicants and the documents are voluminous which would definitely result in a long trial and therefore seeks protection from being taken in custody during trial. Further contention of the counsel for the applicants is that the Special Judge after filing

¶204

19

¶205

charge sheet against the applicants had issued summons and fixed the case on 20.08.2025 for their appearance. There is no recovery from the possession of the applicants of any unaccounted liquor or the amount alleged to be received from its sale by the investigating agency. It is contended that the applicants have cooperated with the investigation and there is no chance of their fleeing away and tampering with the evidence. The prosecution agency has not arrested the applicants during investigation and not sought their custody and after completion of investigation charge sheets have been filed without arresting the applicants therefore there is no likelihood of absconding and the evidence collected is documentary in nature and there is no possible to tamper with the evidence or witnesses. It is contended that most of the applicants are government employees therefore there is no likelihood that they will not participate in trial or cause undue delay. He therefore contended that while granting or refusing the anticipatory bail, the sole consideration must be with a view to balance the two competing interests viz. Protecting the liberty of the accused and the sovereign power of the police to conduct a fair investigation. He has placed his reliance in the matter of Aman Preet Singh Vs. State of CG, MCRCA No. 328/2023 dated 31.03.2023, wherein this Court has been held thus:

¶206

“20. Though, the term “anticipatory bail” has not been defined in the Code, however, it means “bail in anticipation of arrest”. Anticipatory bail can be applied for at pre-investigation stage as well as post-investigation stage and after exercising the discretion judiciously, the Sessions Court or the High Court grants “anticipatory bail” and that too after hearing the

¶207

20

¶208

prosecution in this regard. However, while granting or refusing the anticipatory bail the sole consideration must be with a view to balance the two competing interests viz. protecting the liberty of the accused and the sovereign power of the police to conduct a fair investigation. The discretion of the Sessions Court and the High Court is absolute, and no limitations whatsoever have been imposed by the legislature. The object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial; otherwise on his failure to appear so, the sureties will be bound to produce him before the court.”

¶209

It has been further contended by Shri Sinha, learned counsel for the applicants that in the matter of Dataram Singh Vs. State of UP and Another (2018) 3 SCC 22, the Apex Court has held that :

¶210

While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be considered is whether the accused was arrested during investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being victimized, it would be a factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct.”

¶211

21

¶212

He has further placed reliance in the matter of Siddharth Vs. State of UP (2021) SCC OnLine SC 615, wherein it has been held as under:

¶213

“We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it.4 If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.”

¶214

The principle laid down in Siddharth (supra) has been subsequently followed in Amanpreet Singh Vs. Republic of India SLP (Crl.) No. 5234/2021 wherein the Apex Court has held thus:

¶215

“Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 Cr.P.C., the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody is itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has

¶216

22

¶217

been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this.”

¶218

He next contended that the Apex Court while dealing with the matters related to grant of anticipatory bail, has laid down the parameters for consideration in the matter of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2011 (1) SCC 694 which was against reiterated in the matter of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat, 2016(1) SCC 152 and observed as under:

¶219

While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

¶220

The arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case.”

¶221

Lastly, he contended that the High Court of Uttarakhand in the matter of Saubhagya Bhagat Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another (ABA 76/2021, dated 05.07.2023 ) has clarified that application for anticipatory bail is maintainable even after filing of charge sheet.

¶222

Contention of Shri Gautam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the

¶223

23

¶224

applicants in M.CR.C.A. Nos. 1152/2025 and 1186/2025 is that the applicants are Excise Officers and they have only performed their duties assigned to them. He contended that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the applicants. It is further contended that the applicants have cooperated in the investigation and it has also been specifically mentioned in the charge sheet that the applicants had cooperated with the investigation. It is submitted that the applicants are government servants and there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicants as charge sheet has already been filed. He has placed his reliance in the matter of Siddharth Vs. State of UP, (2022) 1 SCC 676, wherein it has been observed as under:

¶225

“ We are in agreement with the aforesaid view of the High Courts and would like to give our imprimatur to the said judicial view. It has rightly been observed on consideration of Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. that it does not impose an obligation on the Officer-in-charge to arrest each and every accused at the time of filing of the charge sheet. We have, in fact, come across cases where the accused has cooperated with the investigation throughout and yet on the charge sheet being filed non-bailable warrants have been issued for his production premised on the requirement that there is an obligation to arrest the accused and produce him before the court. We are of the view that if the Investigating Officer does not believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons he/she is not required to be produced in custody. The word

¶226

24

¶227

“custody” appearing in Section 170 of the Cr.P.C. does not contemplate either police or judicial custody but it merely connotes the presentation of the accused by the Investigating Officer before the court while filing the charge sheet.

¶228

We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate. The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the Investigating Officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.”

¶229

It is contended that the applicants satisfy the triple test necessary

¶230

for grant of bail as described in the matter of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51, wherein the Apex Court emphasized on the importance of personal liberty as the same is one of the cherished objects of the Indian Constitution and deprivation of the same can only be in accordance with law and in conformity with the provisions thereof as stipulated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the matter of Aman Preet singh (supra). Lastly, he submits that the applicants are permanent residents of the State of Chhattisgarh and are government

¶231

25

¶232

servants, therefore there is no possibility of fleeing away from justice. The investigation is underway, more than 400 witnesses have been arrayed as witnesses, the applicants were not arrested during investigation, therefore keeping the applicants in custody after filing of the charge sheets would only amount to pre-trial punishment. The personal liberty is the most sacrosanct right and the liberty of a person may not be curtailed unless, there are compelling reasons and circumstances justifying the same. Thus, learned counsels for the applicants seek the indulgence of this Court seeking protection by way of anticipatory bail to the applicants.

¶233

Per contra, Shri Vivek Sharma, learned State Counsel, submits that after receiving communication from the Enforcement Directorate dated 11.07.2023 and after due verification, prima facie cognizable offence for commission of the offences under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420, 467,468, 471 & 120-B of the IPC was made out and therefore FIR vide Crime No. 04/2024 was registered. As per the FIR, a criminal syndicate comprising of high level State Government officials, private persons and political executives of the State Government were operating in the State which was making illegal bribe collections by controlling the high level management of important State departments and State public sector undertakings. It is submitted that a total of Rs. 3200 crores of earning was made by the syndicate from the financial year 2019-20 to 2022-23 causing a loss to the State exchequer.

¶234

26

¶235

Contention of the learned State counsel is that after registration of crime, charge sheets and four supplementary charge sheets have been filed before the Court. The charge sheet 03/2024 has been prepared against 4 accused on 29.06.2024 and presented before the Special Court on 01.07.2024. Charge sheet 03(A)/2024 has been prepared against 4 accused on 26.09.2024 and filed before the Special Court (PC Act) on 27.09.2024. Charge sheet 03(B)/2024 was filed against 2 accused persons and 1 absconded accused on 17.11.2024 and filed before the Special Court on 18.11.2024. Supplementary charge sheet No. 03(C)/2025 dated 27.06.2025 was filed against one accused and filed before the special Court on 30.06.2025. Supplementary Charge sheet 03(D)/2025 was filed on 07.07.2025 against 29 Excise officers in the case before the Special Court.

¶236

It is submitted that in the State of Chhattisgarh, liquor shops were managed by the State Excise Department and for control of liquor shops in the districts, various District Excise Officers/Assistant Commissioner Excise/Deputy Commissioner Excise were deputed who used to manage the sale of the liquor and control the illegal sale of the liquor in the State. In the instant case, the applicants are employees of the Excise Department and posted at different capacity. However, in connivance with the co-accused persons of the syndicate, instead of performing their legal duties they involved themselves in the sale of Part-B liquor through duplicate holograms and sold off the record from government shops and the amount so collected by the agent was handed over to the syndicate causing a huge financial loss to the State

¶237

27

¶238

Exchequer and in that process received huge financial gain for themselves.

¶239

It is further contended that after investigation, the ACB has filed the final report against 29 Excise Officers on 07.07.2025. In the final report, there are details of allegations and the evidence collected against the accused persons. The main ground urged by the learned counsels for the applicants is that they had fully cooperated in the investigation and the prosecution agency has not arrested the applicants during the investigation, therefore they are entitled for anticipatory bail. To this, it has been replied that the filing of final report under Section 173 is also part of the investigation though the applicants have initially cooperated in the investigation but at the time of filing of final report they failed to appear before the Special Court despite of receiving the notices. He submits that the presence of the applicants is not only required for the purpose of investigation but for the purpose of smooth trial. However, the the applicants failed to appear before the Court without seeking any exemption from the Court therefore, the trial court has rightly issued the summons for their appearance and the matter has been fixed on 20.08.2025. He therefore submits that the instant anticipatory bail application preferred on behalf of the the applicants deserves to be dismissed.

¶240

I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and duly perused the material on record.

¶241

It is admitted fact that during the course of investigation, the

¶242

28

¶243

investigating agency did not arrest the applicants on the ground that they have cooperated with the investigation agency and in view thereof, no occasion arose for their arrest. Now that the charge sheet has been filed before the competent court, the applicants have filed applications under Section 482 of the BNSS before the Special Court (PC ACT) and the bail applications were rejected. The gravity of the offence is an important factor to be taken into consideration while granting anticipatory bail. In these batch of applications filed on behalf of the applicants, total of Rs. 3200 crores illegal earning was made by the syndicate from the financial year 2019-20 to 2022-23 causing immense loss to the State exchequer. The applicants were associated with the syndicate acting hand-in-gloves, indulging in extorting illegal money in different ways from the sale of liquor by selling off the record unaccounted country liquor from State run shops and each of the applicant was given the commission of Rs.140 per box in the illegal sale of Part-B liquor which is under investigation. Such activities not only undermine the public order but also strike at the very root of the rule of law. It is most important and well established Principle of Law that the powers conferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 1973 or Section 482 of the BNSS are extraordinary in nature hence it should be used in exceptional circumstances of the case only and cannot be invoked routinely. On the one hand, the Investigating Agency has not arrested the applicants during investigation on the basis that initially they have cooperated in the investigation and on the other hand, the State has vehemently opposed the applications for grant of anticipatory bail for the reasons best known to him. The applicants did not demonstrate any

¶244

29

¶245

such compelling reasons or exceptional circumstances in their cases that would qualify as "exceptional" enough to justify granting anticipatory bail. As a result, the applicants failed to meet the high threshold of exceptional circumstances required for anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS, hence, their applications are rejected.

¶246

Sd/(Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge

¶247

suguna

Animesh Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Animesh Netam v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D. Trinath Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anwar Hussain and Other Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Harishchand Yadav Vs Manoj Kumar Singh

Shri Akhileshwar Das Vs The State Information Commission

Saurabh Buxy Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sonal Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh