ARUN PATI TRIPATHI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
- Court
- Chhattisgarh High Court
Digitally
signed by
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
1
CGHC010336692026 2026:CGHC:46852
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 8187 of 2026
Order Reserved on 30.10.2026
Order Delivered on 05.11.2026
1 - Arun Pati Tripathi S/o Shri Prakash Pati Tripathi, Aged About 58
Years R/o Quarter No 1-A, Street Sector- 09, Bhilai District Durg
Chhattisgarh, ----Presently Under Judicial Custody At Central Jail
Raipur
... Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Investigating Officer,
Economic Offence, Wing / Anti Corruption Bureau Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
...Non-applicant
(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)
For Applicant : Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Advocate
Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. A.G.
For State :
2
(Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)
C.A.V. Order
1.The Applicant has preferred the present application under
Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023, for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR No.
44/2024 dated 05.10.2024, registered at Police Station
Economic Offences Wing (EOW)/Anti-Corruption Bureau
(ACB), Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.), for the offences
punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 7(b) and 8 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2.The Applicant was arrested on 17.07.2025 and is presently in
judicial custody at Central Jail, Raipur.
3.The present case, as per the prosecution, originates from the
information shared by the Directorate of Enforcement with the
State Economic Offences Investigation and Anti-Corruption
Bureau, Raipur, under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of
Money Laundering Act, 2002, regarding alleged irregularities,
financial misappropriation and corruption in the affairs of
Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited (hereinafter
referred to as “CSMCL”). The prosecution alleges that during
the period from 2019 to 2023, certain manpower supply
3
agencies engaged by CSMCL for providing manpower at
liquor retail outlets across the State of Chhattisgarh received
inflated and excess payments through a mechanism allegedly
devised and operated by certain officials of CSMCL in
collusion with the representatives of the concerned agencies.
4.According to the prosecution, various manpower supply
agencies, including A2Z Infrasevices Limited, M/s Eagle
Hunter Solutions Limited, M/s Alert Commando Security
Services, M/s Summet Facilities and other agencies, were
entrusted with the work of supplying manpower for the
operation and management of liquor shops functioning under
CSMCL. The said agencies were required to provide
personnel, including salesmen, supervisors and helpers, at
different retail liquor outlets across the State. It is alleged that,
instead of restricting their claims to the actual wages and
statutory benefits payable to the deployed employees, the
agencies raised additional claims towards wages, bonus,
overtime, service charges and four additional working days,
resulting in alleged excess payments from CSMCL. The
prosecution further alleges that the excess amounts received
by the manpower supply agencies were not actually
disbursed to the employees concerned and were diverted for
purposes other than those for which the payments had been
4
sanctioned. According to the prosecution, the said amounts
were withdrawn in cash and distributed amongst various
persons allegedly associated with the arrangement, thereby
causing wrongful loss to the State exchequer and
corresponding wrongful gain to the persons involved. The
prosecution seeks to establish the alleged arrangement on
the basis of documentary records, financial transactions,
statements of witnesses and other materials collected during
the course of investigation.
5.So far as the role attributed to the present Applicant, namely
Arun Pati Tripathi, is concerned, the prosecution alleges that
during the relevant period he was serving as the Managing
Director of CSMCL and was instrumental in introducing and
facilitating the aforesaid mechanism of additional payments to
the manpower supply agencies. It is alleged that at the time of
the manpower tender process in the year 2019, the Applicant
participated in the planning of the said arrangement and
facilitated the inclusion and processing of claims towards
overtime, bonus and four additional working days, despite the
alleged non-payment of corresponding amounts to the
employees actually deployed at the liquor outlets. The
prosecution, principally relying upon the statements of certain
officials of CSMCL and the representatives/directors of the
5
manpower supply agencies, further alleges that the Applicant
instructed the concerned officials not to record objections in
the official files regarding the actual payment of overtime to
the employees and facilitated expeditious processing and
clearance of bills submitted by the manpower supply
agencies. On the basis of these allegations, the prosecution
seeks to attribute to the Applicant a role in enabling the
agencies to receive substantial additional amounts from
CSMCL. It is further alleged by the prosecution that a portion
of the additional amounts received by the manpower supply
agencies was withdrawn in cash and routed through certain
persons nominated by the alleged syndicate, ultimately
reaching the Applicant and thereafter Anwar Dhebar. The
prosecution has sought to rely upon the statements of
witnesses and the alleged flow of funds to establish the
Applicant’s involvement in the larger conspiracy. The
Applicant disputes the allegations and the inferences sought
to be drawn against him from the material collected during the
investigation.
6.The charge-sheet also seeks to connect the aforesaid
manpower-payment mechanism with the larger Part-B liquor
arrangement. However, the charge-sheet attributes the
subsequent continuation of the alleged commission
6
mechanism after the Applicant’s arrest, the alleged
enhancement of commission from 25% to 33%, and the
specific incident involving an amount of ₹28.80 lakh dated
29.11.2023, to Naveen Pratap Singh Tomar and the
subsequent period. Thus, the allegations relating to the
subsequent continuation and enhancement of the alleged
commission mechanism are attributed to the subsequent
period and not to the Applicant in the manner alleged in
respect of the earlier period. Upon completion of the
investigation, the prosecution filed the main charge-sheet
alleging commission of offences under Sections 467, 468,
471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections
7(b) and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as
amended. The main charge-sheet cites a total of 65
witnesses. However, the charge-sheet qua the present
Applicant has not yet been filed. No prosecution witness has
been examined so far. The prosecution has relied upon
statements of witnesses, official records, financial documents
and other materials collected during the investigation in
support of its allegations against the Applicant and other
accused persons.
7.The Applicant was arrested by the Economic Offences
Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, on
7
17.07.2025 in connection with the aforesaid FIR and has
remained in judicial custody since then. Thereafter, the
Applicant preferred an application for grant of regular bail
under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023, before the learned Special Court (Prevention
of Corruption Act), Raipur, which came to be rejected vide
order dated 03.08.2026. Hence, the Applicant is constrained
to approach this Hon’ble Court by way of the present
application seeking grant of regular bail.
8.Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the
present bail application has been preferred under Section 483
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking
grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No. 44/2024
registered by the EOW/ACB, Chhattisgarh, for the offences
punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the
IPC and Sections 7(b) and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. It is contended that the applicant was arrested on
17.07.2025 and has remained in custody since then. The
investigation has already been completed and the charge-
sheet has been filed before the competent Court, wherein 106
witnesses have been cited along with voluminous documents.
Therefore, the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future
and continued incarceration of the applicant would amount to
8
an infringement of his fundamental right to personal liberty
and speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. In support of his contention, learned
counsel places reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme
Court in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement,
(2024) 12 SCC 660 and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1
SCC 40 . Learned counsel further submits that the allegations
levelled against the applicant in the present crime
substantially overlap with those forming the subject matter of
Crime No. 4/2024, in which the applicant has already
undergone approximately ten months of incarceration and
has subsequently been enlarged on bail by the Supreme
Court. It is contended that both the FIRs arise out of the same
underlying allegations, transactions and alleged criminal
conspiracy and that registration of a subsequent FIR in
respect of the same occurrence and transaction, without any
distinct or independent cause of action, is impermissible in
law. In this regard, reliance is placed upon Babubhai v. State
of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254 . It is further submitted that the
applicant was not named in the FIR in the present crime and
that the alleged incident dated 29.11.2023, which forms the
basis of the present prosecution, occurred when the applicant
was already in judicial custody in connection with Crime No.
9
4/2024. No recovery or seizure has been made from the
applicant and the prosecution case is primarily based upon
the statements of co-accused persons, without any
independent incriminating material establishing his
involvement in the alleged offences.
9.Learned counsel also submits that the investigating agency
has adopted a pick-and-choose approach by treating Shri
Siddharth Singhania, who allegedly played a significant role in
the transactions, merely as a witness, while implicating the
applicant as an accused. It is further contended that other
persons who subsequently held the charge of Managing
Director of CSMCL, despite the continuation of the policy
relating to overtime payments during their respective tenures,
have not been arrayed as accused and have instead been
cited as witnesses. It is also contended that the applicant was
functioning as Managing Director of Chhattisgarh State
Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL) during the period
from 09.05.2019 to 16.04.2023 and that the prosecution was
required to examine the applicability of the statutory
requirement of prior approval under Section 17A of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, before proceeding against
him in respect of the alleged acts arising out of discharge of
his official functions.
10
10.Learned counsel further submits that the bills raised by the
manpower agencies were certified by the respective District
Managers of CSMCL and were thereafter scrutinised and
approved by the Accounts Branch before release of payment.
The aforesaid procedure has also been stated by the
concerned witnesses, namely, Shri Rakesh Kumar
Mandawali, Shri Jan Prasad Pathak and Shri Mahadev
Kawar. It is, therefore, contended that no specific role has
been attributed to the applicant in the certification or approval
of the bills. The statement of Shri Mahmood Ahmed is also
stated to be hearsay in nature and insufficient, by itself, to
establish the applicant's involvement. It is further argued that
no prima facie case is made out against the applicant for the
alleged offences, as there is no specific material
demonstrating that he forged any document, knowingly used
any forged document as genuine, or entered into a criminal
conspiracy with the other accused persons. Mere holding of
the post of Managing Director or association with the other
accused persons cannot be sufficient to establish his criminal
liability.
11.Learned counsel also submits that the applicant has been
implicated after an unexplained delay, although the FIR was
registered on 05.10.2024 and he was not named therein. His
11
subsequent implication and arrest, according to learned
counsel, are arbitrary and unnecessary. Reliance is placed
upon Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1994) 4
SCC 260 .
12.Lastly, learned counsel submits that the applicant is entitled
to grant of bail on the ground of parity, as several co-accused
persons have already been enlarged on regular bail by this
Court as well as by the Supreme Court, including persons
alleged to have played significant roles in the commission of
the offences. It is further submitted that the applicant has
already been granted bail in Crime No. 4/2024, has deep
roots in society, is not likely to abscond, and there is no
allegation that he has attempted to influence witnesses or
tamper with evidence. The investigation having been
concluded, the applicant satisfies the triple test for grant of
bail. Reliance is placed upon P. Chidambaram v. CBI, (2020)
13 SCC 337 . On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel
prays that the applicant be enlarged on regular bail. To
advance the argument, reliance has been placed on various
judgments :- Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40,
Manish Sisodiya v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 12
SCC 660, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat and Others (2010)
12 SCC 254.
12
13.Learned State counsel, opposing the prayer for grant of
regular bail, submits that the applicant has preferred the
instant first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking his release on
regular bail in connection with FIR No. 44/2024 dated
05.10.2024, registered by EOW/ACB, Chhattisgarh, for the
offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 120-B
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7(b) and 8 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is contended that
the allegations against the applicant are serious in nature and
relate to an organised mechanism allegedly operating within
the Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation Limited
(CSMCL) for preparation and processing of inflated
manpower bills towards overtime allowance, bonus and four
additional working days, resulting in excess payments to
various manpower supply agencies and subsequent
collection of illegal gratification. The applicant, while
functioning as Managing Director of CSMCL during the period
from 09.05.2019 to 16.04.2023, allegedly played an important
role in devising and facilitating the aforesaid mechanism and
in the collection and routing of illegal gratification through
various intermediaries for onward transmission to co-accused
Anwar Dhebar and other members of the alleged syndicate.
13
14.Learned State counsel further submits that during the course
of investigation, statements and memorandum statements of
several persons, including the applicant and various co-
accused persons, have been recorded, which prima facie
disclose the role attributed to the applicant in the alleged
illegal mechanism. It is contended that Shri N. Uday Rao, in
his memorandum statement, has stated that the applicant
convened a meeting of all manpower supply agencies and
compelled them to raise bills towards overtime payments,
despite the fact that such amounts were not actually payable
to the employees. He has further stated that the commission
generated through such bills was collected through the
applicant and forwarded to co-accused Anwar Dhebar.
Similarly, co-accused Shri Naveen Pratap Singh Tomar has
stated that the procedure for collection of funds from
manpower agencies was designed and instructed by the
applicant during his tenure as Managing Director of CSMCL.
Co-accused Shri Sanjeev Jain, Director of M/s Prime One
Work Force Private Limited, has also stated that the applicant
used to direct payment of amounts generated in the name of
overtime allowance to Siddharth Singhania.
15.It is further submitted that co-accused Shri Neeraj Kumar
Choudhary, in his memorandum statement, has alleged that
14
the applicant compelled various manpower supply agencies
to pay substantial amounts in the name of overtime and
bonus and that the commission so collected was routed
through Siddharth Singhania to co-accused Anwar Dhebar.
Shri Shrijish Pillai, an employee of CSMCL, has stated that
the applicant, while functioning as Managing Director, had
directed that the overtime payment bills should not be verified
and that the employees concerned were restrained from
examining the actual accounts of overtime payments. He has
further stated that after the arrest of the applicant in 2023, co-
accused Naveen Pratap Singh Tomar continued collecting
illegal gratification and commission. Similarly, Shri Ashish
Kosam, another employee of CSMCL, has attributed an
active role to the applicant in orchestrating the alleged
manpower scam and has stated that the functions earlier
performed at the instance of the applicant were subsequently
taken over by co-accused Naveen Pratap Singh Tomar.
16.Learned State counsel further submits that the statements of
co-accused Shri Amit Mittal and Shri Ajay Lohia, who were
directors of A-Z Infra Service Limited and Eagle Hunter
Solution Limited, respectively, also indicate that the applicant
convened meetings of the manpower supply agencies and
directed them to generate bills towards overtime payments,
15
from which the commission amounts were allegedly collected
and forwarded to co-accused Anwar Dhebar. The statement
of Shri Rajendra Singh, who was working as an accountant in
CSMCL, is also stated to contain similar allegations regarding
the applicant's direct involvement in the alleged transactions.
Apart from the aforesaid statements, the prosecution also
relies upon the statements of Shri Ambika Prasad and Shri
Sanjeev Jain, which indicate that in October 2019, the
applicant and other persons devised an arrangement
whereby overtime for work beyond eight hours was reflected
in the records without corresponding payment being made to
the employees. It is further alleged that pursuant to a meeting
convened by the applicant in 2019, the system of raising bills
for three additional hours of work was introduced. It is also
contended that the statements of Shri Amit Prabhakar
Salunkhe, Shri Ajit Darandale and Shri Rajiv Dwivedi disclose
the alleged routing of commission amounts generated
through inflated overtime, bonus and additional-day payments
to the applicant and thereafter to co-accused Anwar Dhebar.
The investigation has allegedly revealed a systematic flow of
funds from CSMCL to various manpower supply agencies,
followed by withdrawal of excess amounts in cash and
transmission thereof through local representatives,
16
employees and intermediaries to the concerned accused
persons. Learned State counsel further submits that an
amount of Rs.28.80 lakh was seized on 29.11.2023 from
other co-accused persons, which, according to the
prosecution, represented illegal gratification paid by one of
the manpower supply agencies and was being transported for
onward payment to co-accused Anwar Dhebar.
17.Learned State counsel further submits that the investigation
has revealed that, out of the total additional payments of
approximately Rs.182.98 crore made by CSMCL to various
manpower supply agencies, an amount of approximately
Rs.152.41 crore was paid during the tenure of the present
applicant as Managing Director. The aforesaid payments were
made under different heads, including overtime allowance,
bonus, payment for four additional days and service charges,
which, according to the prosecution, demonstrate the
magnitude and extent of the alleged financial irregularities
during the applicant's tenure. It is further contended that this
Court has already considered the role of senior officers of
CSMCL and the alleged mechanism of collection of illegal
gratification while rejecting the bail application of co-accused
Shri Naveen Pratap Singh Tomar, who was functioning as
Deputy General Manager of CSMCL, vide order passed in
17
M.Cr.C. No. 5010 of 2026. Learned State counsel submits
that in paragraphs 14 to 17 and 20 to 26 of the said order, this
Court has considered the alleged active participation of senior
officers in the commission of the offence. Reliance is also
placed upon the order passed in the bail application of co-
accused Anwar Dhebar in M.Cr.C. No. 2321 of 2026, wherein
the alleged systematic mechanism of extortion through
manpower agencies and the involvement of senior officers of
CSMCL have been considered.
18.Learned State counsel also submits that the applicant is
involved in other criminal proceedings, including Crime No.
04/2024 registered by EOW/ACB, Raipur,
ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 registered by the Directorate of
Enforcement and FIR No. 196/2023 registered at Police
Station Kasna, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
It is contended that the criminal antecedents of the applicant
are also relevant while considering his prayer for grant of
regular bail. Lastly, learned State counsel submits that, having
regard to the nature and gravity of the allegations, the specific
role attributed to the applicant, the magnitude of the alleged
financial irregularities and the material collected during
investigation, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged
on bail at this stage. It is further apprehended that,
18
considering the position previously held by the applicant and
his alleged influence over persons acquainted with the facts
of the case, his release may result in influencing witnesses or
interfering with the prosecution evidence. On the aforesaid
grounds, learned State counsel prays for rejection of the bail
application.
19.I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
20.Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of
the parties, the nature of the allegations, the role attributed to
the applicant and the material collected during investigation,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer for
grant of regular bail deserves consideration.
21.The allegations against the applicant primarily relate to his
alleged involvement in a larger criminal conspiracy
concerning the processing of additional payments to
manpower supply agencies engaged by the Chhattisgarh
State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL) and the
alleged collection and distribution of illegal gratification arising
therefrom. The prosecution has sought to establish the
applicant's involvement principally on the basis of statements
of witnesses and co-accused persons, official records and the
alleged flow of funds through various intermediaries.
19
22.At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the applicant has
been implicated in the alleged conspiracy on the basis of the
material collected during investigation. Although the
prosecution has attributed a specific role to the applicant in
devising and facilitating the alleged mechanism for making
additional payments to the manpower supply agencies, the
question as to whether the applicant was actually involved in
the alleged conspiracy and whether the statements relied
upon by the prosecution are sufficient to establish his criminal
culpability would require appreciation of the evidence during
trial. Nevertheless, the gravity of the allegations, by itself,
cannot be the sole consideration for denying bail, particularly
when the prosecution evidence is yet to be tested in
accordance with law.
23.It is also relevant to consider that the applicant was
functioning as Managing Director of CSMCL during the period
from 09.05.2019 to 16.04.2023, whereas the specific incident
concerning the seizure of an amount of ₹28.80 lakh from the
co-accused persons took place on 29.11.2023, after the
applicant had ceased to hold the said office. The prosecution
alleges that the seized amount formed part of the larger
commission mechanism and was intended for onward
transmission to other accused persons. However, the extent
20
to which the said incident establishes the applicant's
involvement in the alleged conspiracy, particularly in the
absence of his direct apprehension in connection with the
said recovery, is a matter that would require consideration of
the evidence during trial. The said circumstance, therefore,
cannot be treated as conclusive against the applicant at this
stage.
24.Further, the prosecution has relied upon statements of
several witnesses and co-accused persons to attribute a role
to the applicant in the alleged arrangement. The evidentiary
value of such statements, their consistency with the
documentary material and the alleged financial transactions,
and the extent to which they establish the applicant's
individual role in the commission of the offences are matters
for consideration during trial. This Court is conscious that the
allegations relate to an alleged organised mechanism
involving substantial public funds and that the applicant is
alleged to have occupied a position of responsibility in the
concerned corporation. However, the applicant's entitlement
to bail must be assessed on the basis of the totality of the
circumstances and not merely on the basis of the seriousness
of the accusations.
21
25.Another significant aspect requiring consideration is that the
applicant was arrested on 17.07.2025 and has remained in
judicial custody since then. The prosecution has relied upon
voluminous documentary material and cited a substantial
number of witnesses. Although the main charge-sheet has
been filed, the charge-sheet qua the present applicant is
stated to be yet to be filed, and no prosecution witness has
been examined so far. Having regard to the nature of the
allegations, the number of accused persons involved and the
volume of evidence to be considered, the trial is likely to take
considerable time. In these circumstances, the continued
detention of the applicant for an indefinite period, without
commencement of the evidentiary stage of the trial, assumes
significance while considering his prayer for regular bail.
26.It is well settled that the object of bail is neither punitive nor
preventive, and that an accused is not required to undergo
incarceration for an indefinite period merely because the
allegations against him are serious. The right to a speedy trial
forms an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
At the same time, the nature and gravity of the accusation,
the specific role attributed to the accused, the possibility of
influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, and the
likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice are relevant
22
considerations. In the present case, the apprehension
expressed by the prosecution regarding the possibility of the
applicant influencing witnesses or interfering with the trial can
be addressed by imposing appropriate and stringent
conditions while enlarging him on bail.
27.So far as the submission regarding parity with the co-
accused persons is concerned, the grant of bail to other
accused persons cannot, by itself, confer an automatic right
upon the applicant to seek the same relief. Each bail
application is required to be considered on its own facts,
having regard to the role attributed to the concerned accused
and the material available against him. It is also relevant to
note that the amount intercepted and seized from the persons
concerned was allegedly intended to be handed over to co-
accused Naveen Pratap Singh Tomar, the then Managing
Director of the Corporation. Further, at the initial stage, no
specific allegation appears to have been made against the
present applicant in connection with the said amount.
Nevertheless, the orders granting bail to the co-accused
persons, to the extent that their roles and the material relied
upon against them are comparable, may constitute a relevant
circumstance for consideration. The applicant's prayer,
23
therefore, requires independent consideration on the basis of
the material available against him.
28.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of V. Senthil
Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626 has held as under:-
“23………..53. The Court further observed that,
over a period of time, the trial courts and the
High 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”.
25. Considering the gravity of the offences in
such statutes, expeditious disposal of trials for
the crimes under these statutes is
contemplated. Moreover, such statutes contain
provisions laying down higher threshold for the
grant of bail. The expeditious disposal of the
trial is also warranted considering the higher
24
threshold set for the grant of bail. Hence, the
requirement of expeditious disposal of cases
must be read into these statutes. Inordinate
delay in the conclusion of the trial and the
higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go
together. It is a well-settled principle of our
criminal jurisprudence that “bail is the rule, and
jail is the exception.” These stringent provisions
regarding the grant of bail, such as Section
45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, cannot become a tool
which can be used to incarcerate the accused
without trial for an unreasonably long time.”
29.Also, in Prem Prakash v. Union of India (2024) 9 SCC 787 ,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“11. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of
India [Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of
India, (2023) 12 SCC 1] , this Court
categorically held that while Section 45 PMLA
restricts the right of the accused to grant of
bail, it could not be said that the conditions
provided under Section 45 impose absolute
restraint on the grant of bail. Para 302 is
extracted hereinbelow : (SCC p. 259)
“302. It is important to note that the twin
conditions provided under Section 45 of
the 2002 Act, though restrict the right of
the accused to grant of bail, but it
cannot be said that the conditions
provided under Section 45 impose
25
absolute restraint on the grant of bail.
The discretion vests in the court, which
is not arbitrary or irrational but judicial,
guided by the principles of law as
provided under Section 45 of the 2002
Act.”
These observations are significant and if read
in the context of the recent pronouncement of
this Court dated 9-8-2024 in Manish Sisodia v.
Enforcement Directorate [Manish Sisodia v.
Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC 660 :
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920] , it will be amply
clear that even under PMLA the governing
principle is that “Bail is the Rule and Jail is the
Exception”. In para 52 of Manish Sisodia
[Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate,
(2024) 12 SCC 660 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC
1920] , this Court observed as under:
“52. … 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 straightforward 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
26
Courts should recognise the principle
that “bail is rule and jail is exception.”
12. All that Section 45 PMLA mentions is that
certain conditions are to be satisfied. The
principle that, “bail is the rule and jail is the
exception” is only a paraphrasing of Article 21
of the Constitution of India, which states that
no person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to the
procedure established by law. Liberty of the
individual is always a Rule and deprivation is
the exception. Deprivation can only be by the
procedure established by law, which has to be
a valid and reasonable procedure. Section 45
PMLA by imposing twin conditions does not re-
write this principle to mean that deprivation is
the norm and liberty is the exception. As set
out earlier, all that is required is that in cases
where bail is subject to the satisfaction of twin
conditions, those conditions must be satisfied.
13. Independently and as has been
emphatically reiterated in Manish Sisodia
[Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate,
(2024) 12 SCC 660 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC
1920] relying on Ramkripal Meena v.
Enforcement Directorate [Ramkripal Meena v.
Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC 682 :
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2276] and Javed Gulam
Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra [Javed
Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra,
27
(2024) 9 SCC 813] , where the accused has
already been in custody for a considerable
number of months and there being no
likelihood of conclusion of trial within a short
span, the rigours of Section 45 PMLA can be
suitably relaxed to afford conditional liberty.
Further, Manish Sisodia [Manish Sisodia v.
Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC 660 :
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920] reiterated the
holding in Javed Gulam Nabi Sheikh [Javed
Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra,
(2024) 9 SCC 813] , that keeping persons
behind the bars for unlimited periods of time in
the hope of speedy completion of trial would
deprive the fundamental right of persons under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that
prolonged incarceration before being
pronounced guilty ought not to be permitted to
become the punishment without trial.”
30.Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
as well as the aforesaid dictums led by this Court, including
the period of custody undergone by the applicant, the stage of
the proceedings, the nature and volume of the evidence, the
fact that the prosecution evidence has not yet commenced,
and the constitutional requirement of a speedy trial, this Court
is of the considered opinion that further incarceration of the
applicant is not warranted at this stage. At this stage, except
for the statements of the co-accused persons and other
28
witnesses alleging the applicant's involvement as the main
conspirator, no other incriminating material or independent
evidence is available on record to establish his involvement in
the present case. The allegations against the applicant are
undoubtedly serious; however, the question of his guilt or
innocence can be determined only upon appreciation of the
evidence during trial. Without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the prosecution case, this Court is satisfied that the
applicant can be enlarged on regular bail subject to stringent
conditions to safeguard the interests of the prosecution and
ensure the fair conduct of the trial.
31.Accordingly, the present application under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is allowed . The
applicant- Arun Pati Tripathi, shall be released on regular bail
in connection with FIR No. 44/2024 dated 05.10.2024,
registered at Police Station Economic Offences Wing
(EOW)/Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Raipur, District Raipur
(C.G.), for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468,
471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections
7(b) and 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, upon
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹10,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lacs only) with two solvent sureties in the like
29
amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court,
subject to the following conditions:
“(i) The applicant shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade such
person from disclosing the facts before the
Court or any investigating authority.
(ii) The applicant shall surrender his
passport, if any, if not already surrendered,
before the concerned Trial Court and shall
not leave the territory of India without prior
permission of the said Court.
(iii) The applicant shall remain present
before the Trial Court on each and every
date fixed unless exempted in accordance
with law.
(iv) The applicant shall not indulge in any act
which may delay or prejudice the fair
conduct of the trial.
(v) The applicant shall furnish one active
telephone/mobile number to the concerned
authorities and shall keep the same
operational during the period he remains on
bail, so that his whereabouts may be
ascertained whenever required in
accordance with law.
30
(vi) The applicant shall cooperate with the
investigating agency, as and when required
in accordance with law.
(vii) In the event of violation of any of the
aforesaid conditions, it shall be open to the
State to seek cancellation of bail in
accordance with law.”
27.It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are
confined to the adjudication of the present application for
grant of regular bail and shall not be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The
concerned Trial Court shall proceed independently and
decide the case solely on the basis of the evidence adduced
before it, uninfluenced by any observation contained in this
order.
28.Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed in the
aforesaid terms.
Sd /-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha