Bail Denied to Alleged Coal Syndicate Member Due to Prolonged Absconsion and Intentional Evasion of Investigation

The applicant, Narayan Sahu, filed his first regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

He was arrested on February 24, 2026, in connection with Crime No. 03/2024 involving an alleged extortion syndicate in Chhattisgarh that collected an illegal levy of ₹25 per ton of coal transported.

The prosecution alleged that between July 2020 and June 2022, approximately ₹540 crores were collected by the syndicate.

Investigation revealed the applicant served as a trusted driver for co-accused Suryakant Tiwari and actively collected and distributed approximately ₹13 crore in illegal cash to various high-ranking officials and politicians.

The applicant remained absconding for nearly two years after the FIR was registered, surrendering only after his anticipatory bail pleas were rejected by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused persons who were granted bail by the Supreme Court.

2. Whether the delay in trial and the nature of evidence (statements under Section 161/164 Cr.P.C.) warrant the release of the applicant.

3. Whether the applicant's conduct of absconding and the gravity of the economic offence disentitle him from discretionary relief.

Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 regarding regular bail.

P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, which established that economic offences are serious and require a different approach in bail matters.

"Triple test" and factors for bail as laid down in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli), focusing on the gravity of the offence, the danger of the accused absconding, and the reasonable apprehension of witnesses being influenced.

The Court observed that while the applicant claimed to be a mere driver, the case diary indicated he was a "trusted" member of the syndicate involved in the active handling and distribution of proceeds of crime.

The Court rejected the applicant's plea of trial delay, noting that the delay was largely attributable to his own conduct in avoiding arrest and absconding for nearly two years.

Regarding parity, the Court distinguished the applicant's case from co-accused Saumya Chaurasia and others, noting those individuals were in custody for two years before receiving bail, whereas the applicant had only recently surrendered after exhausting all legal avenues to avoid arrest.

The Court found the statement of witness Ishwar Sidar under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which detailed the applicant's role in delivering cash to various properties, provided sufficient prima facie evidence for the stage of bail.

It held that the applicant failed to make out a case for parity and that his prior conduct of absconding/evading process created a reasonable apprehension that he might flee or influence witnesses if released.

The Court held that the gravity of the economic conspiracy outweighed the applicant's arguments regarding the nature of the evidence.

The application was dismissed with a direction that the trial court shall proceed without being influenced by these observations.