NAViN PRATAP SINGH TOMAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1

CGHC010214112026 2026:CGHC:38965
NAFR
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
Digitally signed
by VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRC No. 5010 of 2026
Order Reserved on 25.08.2026
Order Delivered on 03.09.2026
1 - Navin Pratap Singh Tomar S/o Bhagwan Singh Tomar Aged
About 50 Years R/o. E-6, Ram Krishna Nagar, Rajnandgaon,
District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
... Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Investigating Officer,
Economic Offence Wing/anti-Corruption Bureau Chhattisgarh,
Head Quarter At Telibandha, In Front Of Jai Jawan Petrol Pump,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001.
...Non-applicant
(Cause-title is taken from Case Information System)
For Applicant : Mr. Harshwardhan Parganiha,
Advocate
Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. A.G.
For State :
(Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge)

2
C.A.V. Order
1. The present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been preferred by the
applicant seeking grant of regular bail in connection with
Crime No.44/2024 registered at Police Station EOW/ACB,
Raipur, for 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 18.02.2026. The investigation
has since been completed and charge-sheet has been filed
on 18.05.2026. It is stated that charges have not yet been
framed and the trial is yet to commence.
3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the present crime
originated on the basis of information shared by the
Directorate of Enforcement under Section 66(2) of the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 regarding alleged
irregularities and corruption in the affairs of Chhattisgarh
State Marketing Corporation Limited (CSMCL). According to
the prosecution, during the period from 2019 to 2023, a
systematic mechanism was allegedly operating in CSMCL
whereby manpower supply agencies engaged for providing

3
manpower at liquor outlets were allegedly paid amounts in
excess of the amounts legitimately payable to them.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that various manpower supply
agencies, including M/s Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited and
M/s Alert Commandos Security Services, were engaged by
CSMCL for providing salesmen, supervisors, helpers and
other manpower at liquor shops operated under CSMCL.
5. According to the prosecution, inflated attendance records
were prepared and excess manpower was shown in the
records. It is further alleged that the calculations relating to
wages, overtime and bonus were manipulated and, on the
basis of such inflated records, bills were submitted by the
concerned manpower agencies. The prosecution alleges that
such bills were processed and excess payments were
released to the agencies, pursuant to which the excess
amount was allegedly withdrawn in cash and distributed
amongst persons connected with the alleged arrangement.
6. The prosecution has attributed a specific role to the present
applicant. It is alleged that, at the relevant point of time, the
applicant was functioning as Deputy General Manager in
CSMCL and was associated with the processing and
clearance of manpower bills submitted by different agencies.
According to the prosecution, the applicant exercised effective

4
control in relation to the processing and clearance of such
bills and facilitated the collection of illegal gratification from
the manpower agencies for clearance of their pending bills.
7. It is further alleged that the applicant, in connivance with other
co-accused persons, participated in the alleged criminal
conspiracy and, by virtue of his official position, facilitated the
alleged illegal collection. The prosecution has relied upon
documentary records, financial transactions, statements of
persons connected with the alleged transactions,
communication records and other material collected during
investigation to substantiate the allegations against the
applicant.
8. The prosecution has further alleged that certain bills of M/s
Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited amounting to approximately
Rs.3.43 crores were pending for clearance in November,
2023. It is alleged that illegal gratification was demanded in
connection with clearance of the said bills. According to the
prosecution, an amount of Rs.29.40 lakhs was withdrawn
from the bank account of the said company on 29.11.2023.
Out of the said amount, Rs.60,000/- was allegedly retained
and the remaining amount of Rs.28.80 lakhs was allegedly
arranged for delivery to persons connected with the applicant.

5
9. The prosecution further alleges that on 29.11.2023, certain
persons were intercepted by the Enforcement Directorate
near Labhandi, Raipur and cash amounting to Rs.28.80 lakhs
was recovered from their possession. According to the
prosecution, the said cash represented illegal gratification
allegedly arranged in connection with clearance of the
pending manpower bills. Statements of persons connected
with the transaction, communication details and other material
collected during investigation are stated to have been relied
upon for connecting the aforesaid recovery with the alleged
conspiracy.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the
applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. It is submitted that no amount has been
recovered either from the possession of the applicant or at his
instance. According to learned counsel, the alleged amount of
Rs.28.80 lakhs was recovered from third parties and there is
no direct recovery from the applicant. Learned counsel for the
applicant further submits that the investigation has already
been completed and charge-sheet has been filed. It is
contended that the evidence relied upon by the prosecution is
substantially documentary in nature and the same is already
in possession of the investigating agency. Therefore, there is

6
no requirement of further custodial interrogation of the
applicant.
11. It is further submitted that the applicant was posted in
CSMCL only for a limited period and did not have exclusive
authority either to sanction or to finally clear the bills
submitted by the manpower agencies. According to the
applicant, the payments in question had already been
sanctioned before the alleged recovery of cash on
29.11.2023. It is, therefore, contended that the allegation
regarding demand of illegal gratification by the applicant is
highly doubtful. Learned counsel for the applicant also
submits that there is no direct evidence showing that the
applicant made any demand of illegal gratification or that he
personally received any amount. It is further contended that
the material on record does not establish any meeting of
minds between the applicant and the other co-accused so as
to constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy.
12. It is also submitted that the applicant has already been
granted anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.04/2024
and has duly complied with the conditions imposed therein.
Learned counsel submits that the applicant has deep roots in
society, there is no likelihood of his absconding and there is
no material to demonstrate that he has either attempted to

7
tamper with the prosecution evidence or influenced any
witness. Learned counsel for the applicant has also pressed
the ground of parity, submitting that several co-accused
persons have already been granted bail. It is argued that the
applicant is similarly situated and, therefore, is also entitled to
the benefit of bail.
13. To advance the argument, reliance has been placed on
various judgments :- Chidambaram v. Directorate of
Enforcement (2020)13 SCC 791(1), Sanjay Chandra v. CBI
(2012) 1 SCC 40, Preeti Chandra v. Enforcement
Directorate (2023) 3 HCC (Del) 1, P. Chidambaram v. CBI
(2020) 13 SCC 337, Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994)
4 SCC 260, Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate
2024 SCC OnLine SC 7920, Ramkripal Sisodia v.
Directorate of Enforcement SLP (Crl.) No. 3205/2024,
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, Javed
Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024) 9 SCC
813, T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181,
Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI (2013) 6 SCC 348,
Paras Mal Lodha v. Assistant Director 2017 SCC OnLine
Del 8676, Krishnan Subramanian v. State (NCT of Delhi)
2022 SCC OnLine Del 1384, Zuhur Haider Zaidi v. Central
Bureau of Investigation (2019) 20 SCC 404, Pankaj Bansal

8
v. Union of India (2024) 7 SCC 576, Haricharan Kurmi v.
State of Bihar (1964) SCC OnLine SC 28, Prem Prakash v.
Union of India through Directorate of Enforcement (2024)
9 SCC 787, Surinder Kumar Khanna v. DRI (2018) 8 SCC
271, Amit Mittal v. State of Chhattisgarh MCRC No.
4981/2026 and Ajay Lohia v. State of Chhattisgarh MCRC
No. 5063/2026 .
14. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed
the application. It is submitted that the allegations against the
applicant are not in the nature of an isolated transaction, but
relate to an organized and systematic mechanism allegedly
operating within Chhattisgarh State Marketing Corporation
Limited (CSMCL), involving inflated manpower bills, excess
payments, manipulation of overtime/bonus claims and
collection of illegal gratification from various manpower supply
agencies. Learned State counsel submits that the applicant,
while functioning as Deputy General Manager in CSMCL, had
an important and effective role in the processing and
clearance of manpower bills and was not merely discharging
a routine ministerial function. Learned State counsel further
submits that the investigation has collected material prima
facie indicating that the applicant was acting as an
intermediary between the manpower supply agencies and the

9
principal accused Anwar Dhebar for collection of illegal
gratification. It is submitted that on 29.11.2023, an amount of
Rs.29.40 lakhs was withdrawn from the account of M/s Eagle
Hunter Solutions Limited, out of which Rs.28.80 lakhs was
allegedly arranged for delivery towards illegal gratification and
was subsequently intercepted and seized. According to
learned State counsel, the statements/memorandum
statements of Abhishek Kumar Singh, Neeraj Kumar
Choudhary, Lokeshwar Prasad Sinha, Jitendra Kumar
Nirmalkar and Tijau Ram Nirmalkar, along with the statements
of persons connected with CSMCL, prima facie connect the
applicant with the aforesaid transaction and the larger
conspiracy.
15. It is further submitted that the investigation has disclosed a
specific commission mechanism operating in respect of the
bills submitted by the manpower supply agencies. According
to the State, commission was being collected at the rate of
3% on the main bills, 25% on overtime bills and Rs.1 lakh per
month in respect of security agency bills and, in October,
2023, the commission on overtime bills was allegedly
enhanced from 25% to 33% pursuant to the instructions of the
principal accused. Learned State counsel submits that the
seized amount of Rs.28.80 lakhs was not an isolated or

10
unexplained cash transaction, but was allegedly connected
with the aforesaid commission mechanism. Learned State
counsel has also relied upon the statement of Shri Shrijish
Pillai, stated to be an employee of CSMCL, as well as the
statements of Shri Rajendra Singh, Financial Advisor of
CSMCL, Shri Ashish Kosam, an officer of CSMCL, and Shri
Shashank Barwe, Assistant Grade-III in the Excise
Department, to submit that the applicant was consciously and
actively involved in the alleged arrangement. It is contended
that when objection was raised regarding payment of
overtime amounts to manpower agencies despite non-
payment of such amounts to the actual employees, the
applicant directed continuation of the existing arrangement,
which, according to the State, is a circumstance requiring
consideration at the stage of trial.
16. Learned State counsel further submits that the prosecution
has collected material showing that the alleged illegal
collection was not confined to one agency or one transaction.
The charge-sheet refers to illegal commission allegedly
collected from various manpower supply agencies, including
M/s Sumeet Facilities Limited, M/s Primeone Workforce
Private Limited, M/s A-2-Z Infraservices Limited and M/s
Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited, involving a quantified amount

11
of approximately Rs.50.64 crores. It is submitted that the
aforesaid circumstance demonstrates the alleged organized
nature and magnitude of the offence. Learned State counsel
has also pointed out that the applicant is arrayed as an
accused in Crime No.04/2024 registered by ACB/EOW,
Raipur, relating to the alleged liquor scam. It is submitted that
the applicant was holding an important position in CSMCL
and, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the
material collected during investigation, there is a reasonable
apprehension that, if enlarged on bail, he may influence
witnesses connected with CSMCL, the Excise Department
and the manpower supply agencies or otherwise interfere
with the evidence. It is further submitted that the investigation
has also disclosed material relating to the alleged
parking/utilization of proceeds through a firm styled as "New
Vision Construction", stated to have been constituted in the
names of the applicant's father Bhagwan Singh Tomar,
Pannalal Wasnik and Lokeshwar Prasad Sinha. Learned
State counsel submits that the aforesaid circumstance, along
with the material relating to the alleged illegal commission
and other unlawful collections, indicates a further money trail
which is required to be tested during trial. It is, therefore,
contended that the applicant cannot claim bail merely on the

12
ground that the investigation has been completed and the
charge-sheet has been filed.
17. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the
conduct of the applicant subsequent to the seizure of
Rs.28.80 lakhs on 29.11.2023, particularly his alleged
switching off of the mobile phone and remaining
unavailable/on leave, is also a circumstance which, though
subject to proof during trial, cannot be completely ignored
while considering the overall circumstances of the case. In
reply to the plea of parity, learned State counsel submits that
parity is not to be considered mechanically and the applicant's
entitlement to bail has to be examined with reference to the
specific role attributed to him and the material collected
against him. It is submitted that the applicant was holding the
post of Deputy General Manager in CSMCL and the
prosecution has attributed to him a specific role in relation to
the processing and clearance of manpower bills and the
alleged collection of illegal gratification. Learned State
counsel, therefore, submits that having regard to the nature
and gravity of the allegations, the alleged organized nature of
the conspiracy, the substantial financial magnitude involved,
the recovery of Rs.28.80 lakhs, the statements of witnesses
and co-accused persons, the specific role attributed to the

13
applicant, the material relating to the alleged money trail and
his antecedents, no case for grant of bail is made out.
18. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as
learned State counsel and have perused the material
available on record.
19. At the outset, it is required to be kept in mind that at the
stage of consideration of bail, this Court is not required to
conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence or undertake a
mini-trial. The Court is, however, required to take into
consideration the nature and gravity of the accusation, the
specific role attributed to the accused, the material collected
during investigation, the possibility of the accused fleeing
from justice, the likelihood of tampering with evidence or
influencing witnesses and the other attending circumstances
of the case.
20. In the present case, the allegation against the applicant is
not confined to a solitary or individual transaction. The
prosecution case is that a systematic mechanism was
allegedly operating in CSMCL in respect of manpower supply
bills, whereby inflated attendance and manpower figures were
reflected, resulting in submission of inflated bills and release
of excess amounts. The prosecution further alleges that the
excess amounts were thereafter withdrawn in cash and a part

14
thereof was distributed by way of illegal
gratification/commission amongst persons involved in the
arrangement.
21. The applicant has been attributed a specific role in the
aforesaid mechanism. He was functioning as Deputy General
Manager in CSMCL and, according to the prosecution, was
associated with the processing and clearance of manpower
bills. The State has placed reliance not merely upon his
official designation but upon statements of persons connected
with CSMCL and the alleged transactions, financial records,
communication details and other material collected during
investigation. At this stage, this Court cannot finally determine
the evidentiary worth of each individual statement;
nevertheless, the cumulative nature of the material is relevant
for determining whether a prima facie case requiring
consideration during trial is disclosed.
22. One of the significant circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution is the transaction dated 29.11.2023. The
prosecution case is that Rs.29.40 lakhs was withdrawn from
the account of M/s Eagle Hunter Solutions Limited and that,
after retaining Rs.60,000/-, an amount of Rs.28.80 lakhs was
arranged for delivery and was subsequently recovered from
persons intercepted near Labhandi, Raipur. It is true that the

15
said amount was not recovered from the personal possession
of the applicant. However, at the stage of bail, absence of
recovery from the physical possession of the accused cannot,
by itself, be treated as conclusive where the prosecution
relies upon other material and circumstances to establish the
alleged connection of the accused with the transaction.
23. The further submission of learned counsel for the applicant
that there is no direct evidence of demand or personal receipt
of gratification also cannot, at this stage, be accepted as
sufficient to discard the prosecution case altogether. The
prosecution case is based upon a combination of
documentary, financial, oral, communication and
circumstantial material. Whether such material ultimately
establishes the necessary ingredients of the offences,
including the alleged conspiracy and illegal gratification, is a
matter which has to be determined upon appreciation of
evidence during trial.
24. The material relating to the alleged commission mechanism
and the statements of the persons connected with CSMCL
also assumes significance. The prosecution alleges that the
commission was being collected at specified rates in respect
of manpower bills and that the rate applicable to overtime bills
was enhanced in October, 2023. The alleged seizure of

16
Rs.28.80 lakhs is stated by the prosecution to be connected
with this mechanism. Whether the said amount was in fact
illegal gratification and whether the applicant had any role in
determining, facilitating or collecting such amount are matters
which cannot be conclusively adjudicated upon at the stage of
bail. Nevertheless, the material relied upon by the prosecution
cannot be said to be wholly irrelevant for consideration of the
present application. The contention that the applicant did not
have exclusive authority to sanction or finally clear the bills
and that the payments had already been sanctioned before
the alleged recovery are essentially matters relating to the
appreciation of the evidence and the respective roles of the
officers involved. The absence of exclusive sanctioning
authority, by itself, does not necessarily exclude the possibility
of participation in a larger conspiracy, particularly when the
prosecution attributes to the applicant a role in processing,
facilitating and allegedly collecting illegal gratification. The
ultimate effect of the documents relied upon by the parties is,
however, left open for determination by the trial Court.
25. The plea that investigation has been completed and charge-
sheet has already been filed has also been considered.
Completion of investigation is undoubtedly a relevant
consideration in an application for bail. However, the same

17
does not create an automatic right to bail. In the present case,
the allegations relate to an organized mechanism involving
multiple agencies, several transactions, substantial amounts
and alleged illegal gratification in connection with public
financial transactions. The material relating to the alleged
money trail and the statements of witnesses connected with
the concerned departments and agencies are matters which
are yet to be tested during trial.
26. The plea of parity also does not persuade this Court at this
stage. The principle of parity cannot be applied mechanically
merely because some co-accused have been granted bail.
The role attributed to the particular accused, the nature of the
material available against him and the circumstances in which
the co-accused were granted bail are required to be
examined. In the present case, a specific and active role has
been attributed to the applicant in relation to the processing
and clearance of manpower bills and the alleged collection of
illegal gratification.
27. This Court has also considered the applicant's submission
that he has roots in society, has complied with the conditions
of anticipatory bail granted in Crime No.04/2024 and that
there is no material showing any attempt on his part to
influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. These

18
circumstances are relevant, but they cannot be considered in
isolation from the nature of the allegations and the material
collected during investigation. The prosecution has
specifically pointed out that the witnesses include persons
connected with CSMCL, the Excise Department and the
manpower supply agencies and that the applicant had
occupied an important position in CSMCL during the relevant
period.
28. There can be no quarrel with the general principles emerging
from the judgments relied by the counsel for the applicant that
personal liberty is an important consideration while deciding
an application for bail, that bail cannot be withheld as a
measure of punishment, that prolonged incarceration and
delay in trial may in an appropriate case constitute relevant
considerations, and that the Court should not undertake a
mini-trial at the stage of bail. However, the said decisions do
not dispense with the requirement of examining the facts and
circumstances of each individual case. The judgments relied
upon by learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable
on the facts and circumstances of the present case. The
present prosecution alleges an organized and systematic
mechanism involving manipulation of manpower bills, excess
payments, collection of illegal gratification and routing of

19
substantial amounts through intermediaries. The prosecution
has also attributed a specific role to the applicant on account
of the position held by him in CSMCL and has relied upon
statements of persons connected with the transactions,
documentary and financial records, communication details
and the circumstances surrounding the recovery of Rs.28.80
lakhs. Thus, the present case cannot be treated as one where
the accused is sought to be detained merely on the basis of a
vague or general allegation. The reliance upon the judgments
concerning the importance of personal liberty, completion of
investigation or delay in commencement of trial also does not,
in the facts of the present case, outweigh the other relevant
circumstances. The applicant was arrested on 18.02.2026
and the charge-sheet has already been filed on 18.05.2026.
Charges have, however, not yet been framed and the trial is
yet to commence. The present application, therefore, has to
be considered on the basis of the material presently available
and the seriousness of the allegations, without prejudging the
ultimate outcome of the trial.
29. Likewise, the judgments relied upon on the aspect of
criminal conspiracy or appreciation of statements of co-
accused do not require this Court, at the stage of bail, to
conclusively determine the admissibility, reliability or final

20
probative value of the statements relied upon by the
prosecution. The prosecution has relied upon a combination
of circumstances and material, and whether the same
ultimately establishes the alleged meeting of minds or the
participation of the applicant is a matter for trial.
30. As regards the orders passed by this Court in Amit Mittal v.
State of Chhattisgarh , MCRC No.4981/2026 and Ajay Lohia v.
State of Chhattisgarh , MCRC No.5063/2026, the grant of bail
in another case or to another accused cannot, by itself,
determine the present application. Each bail application is
required to be decided on the basis of the role attributed to
the concerned accused and the material available against
him. In the present case, the applicant has been attributed a
specific role in the processing and clearance of manpower
bills and the alleged collection of illegal gratification, and
therefore the said orders do not entitle the applicant to bail as
a matter of parity.
31. It is reiterated that the observations made herein are only for
the purpose of deciding the present bail application. This
Court is not required to record a finding of guilt or conclusively
determine the truthfulness of the prosecution witnesses, the
legality of the alleged commission mechanism, the ownership
or utilization of the alleged proceeds, or the ultimate

21
connection of the applicant with the recovered amount. All
such questions are left open for consideration by the trial
Court on the basis of evidence led before it.
32. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, this
Court finds that the prosecution has attributed a specific and
active role to the applicant in an alleged organized
mechanism involving corruption and illegal gratification in
connection with public financial transactions. The material
collected during investigation, including the statements of
persons connected with the transactions, documentary and
financial records, communication details and the
circumstances surrounding the recovery of Rs.28.80 lakhs,
raises matters which require consideration during trial.
33. The magnitude of the alleged financial irregularities, the
nature of the alleged conspiracy, the position held by the
applicant in CSMCL, the specific role attributed to him, the
material relating to the alleged money trail and the
prosecution's apprehension regarding influence over
witnesses are circumstances which, when considered
cumulatively, weigh against the grant of bail at this stage. The
pendency of another criminal case, Crime No.04/2024, is also
a circumstance placed before this Court by the State, though

22
no final opinion is expressed with regard to the allegations
therein.
34. Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the
specific role attributed to the applicant, the alleged systematic
and organized nature of the offence, the substantial financial
magnitude involved, the circumstances relating to the
recovery of Rs.28.80 lakhs, the material collected during
investigation and the overall circumstances of the case, this
Court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in
favour of the applicant at this stage.
35. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that no
sufficient ground is made out for grant of regular bail to the
applicant at this stage.
36. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed.
37. It is, however, made clear that the observations made in this
order are confined strictly to the adjudication of the present
bail application and shall not prejudice the applicant or the
prosecution during the trial. The trial Court shall decide the
case independently on the basis of the evidence led before it.
Sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha