Anil Kumar Gupta Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Chhattisgarh High Court)
Conclusion: Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the prima facie material indicating the applicant’s involvement in the conspiracy to demand illegal gratification, the Court found no ground to grant bail and there were no substantial change in circumstances had been shown. Accordingly, the second bail application was rejected.
Held: Applicant filed a second bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in connection with a case registered by CBI/ACB, Raipur for offences under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleged that a raid conducted by CGST officials at the complainant’s shop resulted in a demand of illegal gratification to settle an alleged tax liability of ₹70 lakhs. The demand was allegedly reduced to ₹45 lakhs, out of which ₹11 lakhs was to be paid as tax and ₹34 lakhs as bribe. During trap proceedings, co-accused Vinay Rai was caught red-handed while accepting ₹5 lakhs. Applicant was alleged to have impersonated himself as “Commissioner Mishra”, participated in negotiations at a meeting held in a Starbucks outlet at Raipur, and conspired with other accused persons to demand illegal gratification. His earlier bail application had been rejected on merits. Applicant contended that he was a private individual and not a public servant, and that there was no direct evidence showing receipt of bribe by him. The case against him was said to be based on disputed electronic evidence, including voice recordings and CCTV footage, which had not yet been forensically proved. It was further argued that the applicant had been in custody since 10.07.2025, had no criminal antecedents, had voluntarily surrendered before the court, and that several co-accused had already been granted bail. The prosecution opposed the application, submitting that investigation had revealed the applicant’s active role in the conspiracy, including impersonating a CGST Commissioner and negotiating the bribe amount. CCTV footage of the Starbucks meeting, voice recordings, witness identifications and call detail analysis allegedly corroborated his presence and involvement. It was further contended that the applicant had evaded investigation and ignored notices, and that no new circumstance had arisen since rejection of the earlier bail application. It was held that the allegations against the applicant were serious and supported by prima facie material, including CCTV footage, witness identification and recorded conversations indicating his participation in the conspiracy. The material on record suggested that the applicant played a central role by impersonating a senior GST official and facilitating the demand of illegal gratification. The Court further observed that the earlier bail application had already been rejected on merits, and a successive bail application could be entertained only when there was a substantial change in circumstances, which had not been demonstrated in the present case. The investigation had been completed and the charge sheet as well as supplementary charge sheet had been filed, and the collected evidence prima facie indicated the applicant’s involvement. In view of the gravity of allegations, nature of evidence and absence of any new circumstances, the Court held that no case for grant of bail was made out. Accordingly, the second bail application was rejected.
1. This is the Second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested in connection with Crime No. RC1242025A0002 of 2025 registered at Police Station – A.C.B./C.B.I. Raipur (C.G.), for the offence punishable under Sections 61(2) of BNS and Section 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
