NARAYAN SAHU vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Page 1 of 14


2026:CGHC:21379
NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 3120 of 2026
Reserved on : 23.04.2026
Delivered on : 07.05.2026
 Narayan Sahu s/o. Shri Hariram Sahu, aged about 46 years, r/o.
Village Ichha, District Mahasamund (CG). ...Applicant.
Versus
 State of Chhattisgarh through ACB (EOW), Raipur. --- Respondent
For Applicant : Mr. Gagan Tiwari and Mr. Shashank Mishra,
Advocates.
For State : Dr. Sourbh Kumar Pande, Dy. Advocate General.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
CAV ORDER
1. This is the first bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the
applicant who has been arrested on 24-02-2026 in connection with
Crime No. 03/2024 registered at Police Station- Anti Corruption
Bureau/ Economic Offence Wing Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District- Raipur
(C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B and 384,
of IPC and Sections 7, 7-A, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

Page 2 of 14
1988.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.01.2024, one Mr.
Sandeep Ahuja, Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Raipur
through Mr. Farhan Qureshi, Deputy Superintendent of Police lodged a
complaint before the Director General of Police Anti Corruption Bureau
& Economic Offences Wing, Chhattisgarh pertaining to predicate
offence discovered during money laundering in investigation File No.
ECIR/RPZO/09/2022 was done under Section 66(2) of the Prevention
of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “the PMLA”). Thereafter, an
offence bearing FIR No. 03/2024 has been registered on 17.01.2024 at
Police Station ACB/EOW Raipur (C.G.) against 35 accused persons
namely Smt. Saumya Chaurasiya, Sameer Bisnoi, Smt. Ranu Sahu,
Sandeep Kumar Nayak, Shivshankar Nag, Suryakant Tiwari, Manish
Upadhyay, Roshan Kumar Singh, Nikhil Chandrakar, Rahul Singh,
Parekh Kurre, Moinuddin Qureshi, Virendra Jaiswal, Rajnikant Tiwari,
Hemant Jaiswal, Joginder Singh, Nawneet Tiwari, Deepesh Taunk,
Devendra Dadsena, Rahul Mishra, Ramgopal Agrawal, Devendra
Singh Yadav, Shishupal Sori, Rampratap Singh, Vinod Tiwari, Amarjeet
Bhagat, Chandradeo Prasad Rai, Brashpat Singh, Idrish Gandhi,
Gulab Kamro, Shri U.D. Minj, Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Jai,
Chandraparakash Jaiswal, Laxmikant Tiwari & others.
3. Further case of the prosecution is that a syndicate comprised of private
individuals and other State Government functionaries like Smt.
Saumya Chaurasiya, Director, Geology & Mining Department and with
the backing of some political executives, managed to make deliberate
policy changes. As part of the well-planned conspiracy, the applicant

Page 3 of 14
with the active support of the politicians and some of the senior State
Government functionaries managed to influence the then Director of
Geology & Mining and got issued a Government Order dated
15.07.2020 which became the fountain head of this extortion system by
converting the online system of issuance of Transport Permits into a
manual system. They started a network of extortion to collect Rs. 25
per ton of coal transported in the State of Chhattisgarh. The
investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate revealed that
other senior bureaucrats viz., Smt. Saumya Chaurasia and Smt. Ranu
Sahu, IAS were also involved in this conspiracy and were providing
assistance to the applicant in running the extortion racket. Smt.
Soumya Chourasiya while working as Deputy Secretary in Chief
Minister Office, had assisted the applicant and his associates in
collecting the extortion money by posting pliable officers of mining
department in the coal mining areas. Smt. Ranu Sahu IAS, who
worked as District Collector in coal rich Districts viz., Korba & Raigarh,
had close association with the applicant and helped his associates in
collecting extortion money from the coal transporters and other
businessmen.
4. It is also case of the prosecution that in the coal rich areas of the State
like Raigarh, Korba, Surajpur, District Mineral Officers made illegal
recovery of Rs.25/- per tonne from coal transporters on the basis of
the above manual, DO and permit related orders were issued from the
Mineral Directorate. Investigation of the Enforcement Directorate that
information received from sources revealed that illegal levy of
approximately Rs.540/- crores have been collected by the above

Page 4 of 14
syndicate between July, 2020 and June 2022. On the basis of the
report received from the Enforcement Directorate, its confidential
verification and source information in relation to above incident was
done in the Bureau and Crime No.03/2004 for commission of offence
under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of IPC read with Sections 7, 7A & 12
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as amended in 2018 (for
short “the PC Act”) was registered against the applicant.
5. From the case diary and the material so collected by the ACB/EOW,
the role of present applicant is that during investigation, it was found
that accused Narayan Sahu was the trusted driver of co-accused
Suryakant Tiwari and was an active member of the illegal coal levy
collection network. Investigation further revealed that on 30.06.2022,
during search proceedings conducted by the Income Tax Department
at the residence and office premises of accused Suryakant Tiwari and
his associates, handwritten diaries relating to illegal coal levy collection
were seized. The seized diaries contained entries in the name of
"Narayan", which, during investigation, have been found to relate to the
present applicant Narayan Sahu. It has further come on record that on
the instructions of Suryakant Tiwari, the applicant used to collect illegal
cash from coal traders and coal transporters in Raipur district and other
places and deposit the same with Rajnikant Tiwari. The applicant also
used the proceeds arising out of the illegal coal levy collection for
meeting day-to-day expenses of Suryakant Tiwari and his family.
6. The analysis of the diaries seized by the Income Tax Department
revealed that approximately Rs.13 crore in illegal cash was collected
on behalf of the coal syndicate being run by accused Suryakant Tiwari.

Page 5 of 14
Investigation further revealed that out of the said proceeds of crime,
approximately Rs.7.5 crore in cash was delivered/transferred by the
present applicant to Smt. Saumya Chaurasia, Shri Sameer Vishnoi,
Shri Jaiprakash Maurya, Shri Vinod Tiwari, Shri Devendra Yadav, Shri
Rampratap Singh and other persons connected with the conspiracy.
7. The investigation so far clearly shows that the present applicant was
not a mere driver or peripheral person, but was actively involved in
collecting illegal cash generated through illegal coal levy, transporting
the same, and distributing such cash to various beneficiaries at the
instance of Suryakant Tiwari and other members of the syndicate.
Thus, the applicant knowingly and actively participated in the
acquisition, transfer, handling and use of proceeds of crime arising
from the illegal levy.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He
would further submit that FIR, is wholly devoid of any allegation against
the Applicant as no role, overt-act, or involvement of the Applicant is
disclosed in the said FIR in respect of the offences alleged therein. He
would further submit that the Applicant has not even been arraigned as
an accused in the subject FIR and subsequent 5 charge-sheets also,
therefore, any attempt to connect the Applicant with the subject FIR is
manifestly untenable in law and appears to be nothing but an abuse of
process intended solely to harass the Applicant.
9. He would further submit that since the registration of the said FIR, the
Respondent Agency arrested many individuals and has filed 5 charge-
sheets on 18.07.2024, 07.10.2025, 15.12.2025, 26.05.2025, and

Page 6 of 14
10.03.2026 against 27 accused persons in total. The Directorate of
Enforcement has taken FIR No. 03/2024 as the scheduled offence and
has filed 4 Prosecution Complaints 10 against 35 persons. He would
further submit that the Applicant has not been named as an accused in
any of the charge-sheets, prosecution complaints, or even in the FIRs,
including the Bangalore FIR, and no allegation whatsoever has been
made against him in any of the said proceedings. The absence of the
Applicant's name from all such charge-sheets, prosecution complaints
and FIRs clearly demonstrates that there is no substantive or legally
sustainable material connecting the Applicant with the alleged offences.
10. He would further submit that the manner in which the Respondent has
proceeded in the present matter itself discloses a wholly arbitrary,
unfair and malafide exercise of investigative powers. The allegation
against the Applicant is primarily that he was associated with or had
knowledge of the functioning of the alleged syndicate just because he
was the driver of one of the co-accused Suryakant Tiwari, and that he
allegedly acted as a link or facilitator in the larger chain of events. He
would further submit that the investigation is being driven not by
credible and independent material, but by statements allegedly
extracted from persons having a direct interest in 13 shifting blame and
securing benefit for themselves.
11. He would further submit that the modus operandi and trend 2 of the
Respondent Agency wherein despite there being lack of any
admissible or incriminating material, bogus material is fabricated by the
Agencies. He would further submit that the statements of persons who
themselves are prime accused/complicit/accomplice are relied upon by

Page 7 of 14
the Agency but these statements are obtained by the agencies as a
quid pro quo from those individuals wherein in lieu of falsely implicating
the Applicant, they are given immunity/protection from further
arrests/cases. He would further submit that there is no allegation of any
demand or any acceptance by the Applicant but there is no recovery
whatsoever from him. As such there can be no case of invocation of
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act that is made out. He would
further submit that no evidence has been produced to connect the
applicant with the alleged offence and his name appears in the final
report merely on the basis of presumption, without any direct or indirect
material.
12. He would further submit that in order to establish a prima facie case,
the prosecution agency was required to place cogent evidence
showing that someone has been put to wrongful loss solely on account
of the acts of the present applicant. However, no such material has
been brought on record in the final report and in absence of any prima
facie evidence against the applicant, no offence under the provisions of
Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita or the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out
against the applicant. He would further submit that it is settled law that
the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 & 164 of
the Cr.P.C. are not admissible in law. He would further submit that the
statement of co-accused person is an extremely weak piece of
evidence and cannot be treated as substantive evidence as against the
other co-accused persons as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in
case of Prem Prakash Vs. ED [SLP (Crl.) No. 5416 of 2024, decided
on 28.08.2024], Haricharan Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 1964 SC

Page 8 of 14
1184] & Sanjay Jain Vs. ED [2024 SCC OnLine SC 656].
13. He would further submit that there is no apprehension of violation of the
triple test by the applicant, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be
released on bail as it is well settled law that mere apprehension of
influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence can never be a
ground to decline bail to any accused, unless there is cogent
supporting material as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of P.
Chidambaram Vs. CBI [2020 13 SCC 337], Manish Sisodia Vs. ED
& CBI [(2024) SCC OnLine SC 1920] , Manish Sisodia Vs. CBI & ED
[(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1393]. He would further submit that the
applicant has not made any attempt to suborn witnesses, tamper with
the evidence, or in any manner pollute or obstruct the judicial process.
Further, the applicant undertakes that he shall not tamper with the
evidence or/and influence witnesses, nor there is any reasonable or
justifiable apprehension thereof. He would further submit that the entire
evidence relied upon the non-applicant is documentary in nature which
already stands seized and placed on record. There are no ocular
witnesses requiring confrontation with the applicant while in custody,
thereby negating the need for further custodial interrogation. He would
further submit that permanent arrest warrant was issued against the
present applicant on 7-5-2025 and he himself surrendered on
24-2-2026 as such, it cannot be presumed that the applicant was not
cooperating with the investigation agency.
14. He would further submit that the co-accused persons namely Ranu
Sahu, Suryakant Tiwarii, Sameer Vishnoi and Saumya Chaurasiya
have already been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide

Page 9 of 14
order dated 29-5-2025 passed in SLP (Cri) No. 15941 of 2024,
therefore, the present applicant may also be enlarged on bail on the
ground of parity. He would further submit that the applicant is ready
and willing to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the
directions which may be imposed by this Court. He would further
submit that now the challan of the case has been presented before the
trial Court and no investigation is pending, the accused is in custody
since 24-2-2026 and trial of the case will take sufficient time to be
concluded, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the present
applicant.
15. On the other hand, Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande , Deputy Advocate
General for the ACB/EOW opposing the submissions made by learned
counsel for the applicant, referring to the FIR and the case diary would
submit that the applicant is involved in the economical offence which is
not only heinous offence but also against the economy of the nation.
The custodial interrogation of the applicant is required as the applicant
has not disclosed the source of income from where these properties
have been detailed in the final report and if the accused remained in
the custody, the sources of purchased of property can be traced out.
He would further submit that the learned Special Judge (Prevention of
Corruption Act), Raipur while dismissing the bail application filed by the
applicant has observed that there is involvement of the applicant in the
crime in question, which has not been rebutted by the applicant while
making this submission before this Court. He would further submit that
the investigation in the matter is still continuing and several material
witnesses connected with the collection, handling and delivery of illegal

Page 10 of 14
cash are yet to be fully examined. If the present applicant is enlarged
on bail at this stage, there is every likelihood that he may influence or
intimidate witnesses, tamper with evidence and adversely affect the
course of further investigation, particularly when he was closely
associated with the principal accused and was entrusted with collection
and delivery of proceeds of crime as such his custody is required.
16. He would further submit that the present applicant remained
absconding and avoided joining the investigation for nearly two years
after registration of the FIR. This conduct clearly establishes deliberate
non-cooperation and intentional evasion of the due process of law. The
said conduct is a material circumstance against the applicant, as it
indicates that if he is enlarged on bail, there is every likelihood of his
again absconding, evading trial, influencing the course of investigation
and frustrating the administration of justice. A person who has
consciously remained away from investigation for such a long period
does not deserve the discretionary relief of bail. He would further
submit that the present case is not an ordinary offence but forms part
of a deep-rooted economic conspiracy involving illegal levy collection
on coal transportation on a massive scale, causing serious prejudice to
public interest and undermining the integrity of the administrative
system. Such offences have wide societal impact and therefore
deserve a strict approach at the stage of consideration of bail. In view
of the facts stated herein-above, it is clear that the present applicant is
involved in the aforesaid crime. Investigation in the matter is still going
on and, after completion of due investigation, the Police shall file
appropriate supplementary charge-sheet before the Court having

Page 11 of 14
competent jurisdiction. The grounds urged by the applicant are false,
frivolous and devoid of merit. The applicant has not made out any
ground on which the present bail application under Section 483 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 can be allowed. There is a
strong prima facie case against the present applicant/accused and,
therefore, looking to the evidence collected by the prosecution, the
conspiracy and crime committed by the applicant in connivance with
the other co-accused, the instant application deserves to be rejected.
17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary
with utmost circumspection.
18. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the trial will
take longer time for disposal, therefore, the case of the applicant may
be considered for grant of bail, is being considered by this Court. From
perusal of the order-sheet of the trial Court which has been produced
by learned State counsel in Special Criminal Case No. 02/2024
wherein it is revealed that on 06.05.2025 an application for issuance of
arrest warrant was moved against Navneet Tiwari, Ramgopal Agrawal,
Devendra Dadsena and Narayan Sahu and the same was allowed by
the learned trial Court by observing that the accused are avoiding their
arresting accordingly, it has issued indefinite/undated warrant of arrest.
The other accused except the applicant after issuance of warrant of
arrest by the trial Court on 06.05.2025 have been arrested on
24.02.2026 and during intervening period the applicant has filed
anticipatory bail application before this Court which has been rejected
on 16.10.2025 and thereafter he has preferred Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) before Hon’ble the Supreme Court for grant of anticipatory

Page 12 of 14
bail which has been rejected on 24.02.2026, thereafter only he has
surrendered before the trial Court. This conduct of the applicant clearly
indicates that he intend to avoid the proceedings and to delay the trial.
Thus, it can be held that the applicant is also attributed for delaying the
trial, thus, his submission for grant of bail on the count of delay of trial,
is liable to be rejected, accordingly, it is rejected.
19. The further submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant was arrested illegally as there is no direct evidence against
the applicant, is being considered by this Court. The other accused
Ishwar Sidar in his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
has stated that the applicant is driver of Suryakant Tiwari and when
Narayan Sahu is not available, he used to take money on instruction of
Rajnikant who is elder brother of Suryakant Tiwari to deliver the money
in the house of Saumya Chaurasia at Bhilai and also give money to
Manish Upadhyay at his resident Surya Apartment. Though the
statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. is weak piece of
evidence but this statement cannot ignore at this juncture while prima
facie recording opinion regarding involvement of the applicant in the
crime in question. Thus, from perusal of FIR and the material available
in the case diary, involvement of the applicant in commission of offence
under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of IPC read with Sections 7, 7A & 12 of
the PC Act, which is economic offence, is prima facie reflected. Hon’ble
the Supreme Court while considering the gravity of economic offence in
case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, [(2019) 9
SCC 24] has held that the economic offence is a serious offence and
need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail.

Page 13 of 14
20. Again Hon’ble the Supreme Court in case of Ramesh Bhavan
Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) & another
[(2021) 6 SCC 230] has held that for declining bail application, the
Court should consider whether there is any prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the
offence; nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the
punishment in the event of conviction, danger of the accused
absconding or fleeing, if released on bail or reasonable
apprehension of the witnesses being influenced. From submission
made by the parties, it is quite vivid that prima facie these
conditions are available on record as the applicant after issuance of
indefinite warrant of arrest on 06.05.2025 has surrendered on
24.02.2026 after exhausting all these attempt to escape from the
clutches of the prosecution.
21. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the
applicant is entitled to claim parity as other accused persons have
been granted bail by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, deserves to be
rejected as other accused who remained in the custody for about two
years have been granted bail by Hon’ble the Supreme Court whereas
the applicant has been surrendered on 24-2-2026 after issuance of
warrant of arrest. Considering the FIR and other material placed on
record, it prima facie shows involvement of the applicant in crime in
question. As such, I am of the view that it is not a fit case where the
applicant should be granted regular bail.

Page 14 of 14
22. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section 483 of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is liable to be and is hereby
rejected.
23. The observation made by this Court is not bearing any effect on the trial
of the case. The learned trial court will decide the criminal trial in
accordance with evidence, material placed on record, without being
influenced by any of the observations made by this Court while
deciding present bail application.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Raju
Digitally signed by
RAVVA
SATYANARAYANA
RAJU
Date: 2026.05.07
17:04:23 +0530
RAVVA
SATYANARAYANA
RAJU