Case Law Details
Bharat Singh Vs Union of India (Chhattisgarh High Court)
The Chhattisgarh High Court considered the second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by a GST Superintendent arrested in connection with Crime No. RC1242025A0002 registered at A.C.B./C.B.I., Raipur, for offences under Section 61(2) of the BNS and Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. His earlier bail application had been rejected on merits on 20.05.2025, and the Supreme Court had also dismissed his Special Leave Petition on 04.08.2025.
The prosecution case is that on 28–29.01.2025, the applicant, while posted as Superintendent, CGST, Raipur, conducted a raid at the premises of M/s The World of Beauty. It is alleged that, in conspiracy with co-accused Vinay Rai and one Mishra (identified as Anil Kumar Gupta), he demanded a bribe of ₹34,00,000 to settle GST liability, later reduced to ₹10,00,000. Upon refusal, the complainant approached the CBI on 30.01.2025. After verification, an FIR was registered on 31.01.2025 and a trap was laid the same day. Co-accused Vinay Rai was allegedly caught red-handed accepting ₹5,00,000 as bribe. During investigation, bill books were seized, CCTV footage was recovered, and multiple identification memos were prepared identifying the co-accused. It was further alleged that the applicant removed a hard disk from a Digital Voice Recorder during the raid.
The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, was merely a team member acting under the directions of the team leader, and that similarly placed co-accused had been granted bail. He argued that the supplementary charge sheet did not disclose evidence against him, transcripts did not show demand or acceptance of bribe by him, and his continued detention violated Articles 14 and 21. He also relied on parity with co-accused and long incarceration since 01.02.2025.
The Union of India opposed bail, asserting that the applicant actively participated in the conspiracy and played a significant role. It was submitted that sanction for prosecution had been granted on 11.04.2025 and that the charge sheet had been filed in Special Case No. 04/25, with further investigation kept open. The prosecution emphasized CCTV identification, seizure of material, WhatsApp call records, and the applicant’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
The Court noted that this was the second bail application, the earlier one having been rejected on merits, and the SLP having been dismissed. It also observed that while the Supreme Court granted bail to co-accused Vinay Rai, it specifically recorded that the present applicant’s role and status differed. The High Court found from the record that the applicant had actively participated in the alleged offence and played a significant and instrumental role. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, prior rejection of bail, and the distinction between the applicant’s role and that of co-accused, the Court held that no sufficient grounds existed to grant bail.
Accordingly, the second bail application was rejected.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
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 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.
2. The earlier bail application of the applicant being MCRC No. 2981 of 2025 was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.05.2025, on merits.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.01.2025 an FIR was registered on the basis of a complaint made by Lalchand Athwani, proprietor of M/s The World of Beauty, situated at Station Road, Durg, alleging that the present applicant, while posted as Superintendent in Central Goods & Services Tax, Raipur, conducted a raid at his shop on 28.01.2025 and 29.01.2025 and thereafter, in criminal conspiracy with co-accused Vinay and one Shri Mishra (absconding), demanded a bribe of ₹ 34,00,000 to settle the GST liability of the complainant; upon his request for negotiation, the bribe amount was allegedly reduced to ₹10,00,000, but as the complainant was unwilling to pay, he submitted a written complaint on 30.01.2025 to the Central Bureau of Investigation, whereupon the CBI verified the allegations and registered an FIR under Section 61(2) of the BNS read with Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; on 31.01.2025 a trap was laid after completing pre-trap formalities and at about 06:00 PM the complainant received a call from co-accused Vinay Rai asking him to reach outside Currency Tower at VIP Chowk, Raipur, where the bribe money was handed over to Vinay Rai and he was apprehended by the investigating agency with the tainted money, and it is further alleged that the present applicant was thereafter called by an Inspector to the CGST office, where his mobile phone and one green file containing 72 pages relating to the search conducted on 28.01.2025 at the premises of the said firm were seized along with two bill books and two hard disks from the CGST office at Raipur, and a copy of the FIR is annexed as Annexure A/2.
4. The applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated by the investigating agency despite having no role in the commission of the alleged offence. The present second bail application is being filed on account of a significant change in circumstances after rejection of the earlier bail application and dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court of India on 04.08.2025, inasmuch as the investigating agency has filed a Supplementary Final Report (charge sheet) on 06.09.2025 and similarly placed or higher-ranked co-accused persons have been granted bail by the trial court; notably, the main officer and team leader of the raid, Shri Subrato Pal, along with seven other co-accused, has already been enlarged on bail, whereas the applicant was merely a member of the team acting under his directions as per the search authorization. The co-accused Subrato Pal, who was responsible for determining the tax liability, has been granted bail and therefore continued detention of the applicant amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the Supplementary Final Report dated 06.09.2025 does not disclose any evidence against the applicant showing his involvement in the alleged offence. The transcripts of conversations relating to the demand verification dated 30.01.2025 and the trap dated 31.01.2025 also do not indicate that the applicant either demanded or accepted any bribe, and the allegations against him are based solely on the statements of the complainant and unverified third-party witnesses, which are matters of trial. The earlier rejection of bail on the allegation that the applicant removed a DVR hard disk was based only on the statements of Lalchand Athwani and Mohit Athwani, which stand contradicted in the supplementary charge sheet and therefore cannot be relied upon. The allegation that the applicant conspired with Mishra and Vinay Rai to demand ₹ 34,00,000/- and accepted ₹10,00,000/- as an instalment is untenable, as the determination of tax liability was carried out by the team leader only after issuance of a show-cause notice, following which the complainant allegedly lodged a false complaint and arranged the trap. The applicant was working under the Directorate General Analytics and Risk Management (DGARM), an apex analytical body under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, whereas the co-accused Subrato Pal belonged to the Preventive/Anti-Evasion wing, and therefore implicating the applicant in the present crime is unjustified. The applicant has been in judicial custody since 01.02.2025, the prosecution has cited about 65 witnesses, and the trial is likely to take considerable time; he has cooperated with the investigation throughout and never attempted to abscond.
Though sanction for prosecution has been obtained against the applicant after filing of the charge sheet, sanctions against other co-accused named in the supplementary charge sheet are still awaited, reflecting inconsistency in the prosecution. The presumption of innocence operates in favour of the applicant until proven guilty, and even on the basis of the prosecution case, there was no justification for his arrest; rather, he has been made a scapegoat. The applicant’s aged mother, about 70 years old, is suffering from serious ailments and is dependent on him, and his prolonged incarceration has caused severe hardship to his family, including his wife and two children. The rejection of bail of co-accused Mishra @ Anil Kumar Gupta does not apply to the applicant due to differences in role, conduct and period of custody, and similarly, though the applicant’s earlier bail and SLP were rejected, he has now undergone more than one year of incarceration while other co-accused, including Vinay Rai and several GST officers, have been granted bail subsequently on the principle of parity. The applicant is a permanent resident, there is no likelihood of absconding, and he is ready to furnish adequate surety and abide by all conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court; therefore, in view of the changed circumstances, long custody, lack of evidence, and parity with co-accused, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.
5. Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent/Union of India, opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the applicant and contends that Crime No. RC1242025A0002 was registered on 31.01.2025; he further submits that, whereas the first bail application had already been considered and dismissed on merits by the High Court, it is pertinent to note that the applicant thereafter approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (SLP) No. 10762 of 2025, which was also dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2025. The record indicates that the applicant, Bharat Singh, actively participated in the commission of the alleged offence and played a significant and instrumental role in its execution, thereby demonstrating his direct involvement and responsibility in the matter. In this context, it is further relevant to refer to the bail granted by the Apex Court to the co-accused, Vinay Rai, in SLP No. 20004 of 2025 vide order dated 11.01.2026. The Supreme Court, while granting bail to the co-accused, specifically observed that the present applicant’s bail had already been rejected by the High Court, and that the facts and circumstances concerning the role and status of the co-accused differed significantly from those of the present applicant, it is further submitted that the case was registered on the basis of a written complaint dated 30.01.2025 submitted by Lal Chand Athwani, proprietor of M/s The World of Beauty, alleging that on 28–29.01.2025 the applicant Bharat Singh, Superintendent, CGST, Raipur, conducted a raid at his shop and, in conspiracy with Vinay Rai and Mishra, demanded a bribe of ₹ 34,00,000/-, which was later reduced to ₹ 10,00,000/-, and when the complainant refused to pay, he approached the Central Bureau of Investigation on 30.01.2025; upon verification of the complaint in the presence of an independent witness, an FIR under Section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered on 31.01.2025 and a trap was laid the same day at VIP Chowk, Raipur, where Vinay Rai was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting ₹ 5,00,000/- as bribe, and during the trap one person arrived on a scooter, snatched his mobile phone and fled; the tainted money was recovered from Vinay Rai in the presence of independent witnesses and the present applicant Bharat Singh was thereafter arrested from his office and is presently in judicial custody; it is further contended that after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed in Special Case No. 04/25 against the accused persons while further investigation has been kept open under Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and that sanction for prosecution against the applicant, the then Superintendent, CGST, Raipur, was duly granted by the competent authority on 11.04.2025 by the office of the Principal Commissioner, Central Tax (CGST & Central Excise), thereby justifying the action taken against the applicant.
6. It has been argued by Mr. Goverdhan that on 28.01.2025, a search was conducted by the CGST Raipur team of 08 members consisting of Shri Subrato Pal, Supdt. Shri Bharat Singh, Shri Yogesh Moria, Inspector Shri Suraj Rawat, Inspector Shri Arvind Kumar Sisodiya, Inspector Shri Nandini Rajput, Inspector Ms. Kirti Gajbhiye, TA, Shri Shivangi Singh, Hawaldar and led by Shri Subrato Pal, Superintendent at the official premises i.e. M/s The World of Beauty, of the complainant on the strength authorization for search issued by Shri Prabhat Dandotiyaa, Additional Commissioner vide No. GEXCOM/AE/INV/GST/353/2025-AE-0/0 Principal Commissioner dated 28.01.2025 in presence of independent witness Shri Diggi Bhoi @ Durgesh Kumar Bhoi and Shri Bhagwat Sahu. The CGST team seized the two bill books vide order of seizure dated 28.01.2025 and drew the Panchnama Mated 28.01.2025 for the search proceedings conducted by them. hereafter, on 29.01.2025 when the complainant along with his brother returned from Prayagraj to his aforesaid shop, accused Bharat Singh, Superintendent who was one of the members of search team told the complainant that he should meet his senior Shri Mishra for settling of his tax matter. The complainant along with his brother visited in the car of CGST to Starbucks situated at Currency Tower, near VIP chowk, Raipur and met one person who was introduced by Vinay Rai as Mishra Ji, Commissioner of CGST, Raipur. During discussion, such person namely Mishra Ji informed him about his tax liability towards GST and further informed that the liability of tax would by settled in Rs, 11,00,000/-, he has to pay Rs.34,00,000/-. It has been further argued that on 28.01.2025, the accused Bharat Singh had removed the hard disk from the Digital Voice Recorder containing recording of the CCTV installed of the official premises of ‘The World of Beauty’ in presence of Mohit Athwani kept the same in the bag carried by him. He handed over the aforesaid hard disk of the CCTV footage installed at the search spot to Durgesh Kumar Bhoi @ Diggi Bhoi while the search team of CGST left the aforesaid search spot with instructions to keep the same in the hall at preventive branch of CGST office. The said hard disk was kept by him in the said hall on 29.01.2025. During the examination, Mr. Pal has stated that he was not aware whether any hard disk containing recordings of the CCTV installed in the official premise of ‘The World of Beauty’ was removed and taken by Bharat Singh. He had not instructed any of the search team members of the CGST to take the said hard disk.
7. It has been submitted by Mr. Goverdhan that one Vivek Dewangan was deputed for the cleaning work in the office Central Tax (CGST) from April 2024 to May 2024, he was deputed by M/s. Special Management Service and his name was not in the pay-roll of CGST Department Raipur. He was exclusively engaged by one Saurav Singhal and accused Bharat Singh on private basis and they used to provide him cash for the work done by him on monthly basis. Shri Dewangan had worked related to Data Entry with respect to DGARM cell in the computer assigned by the Superintendents including accused Bharat Singh and Saurav Singhal, who are the Superintendents. During post trap proceedings, Vinay has informed that the person who ran away with his phone is named as Vivek and he worked as private worker in CGST office and sometimes drives office vehicles. It has been further submitted that the CCTV footage dated 29.01.2025 of Starbucks was seized by the CBI and the accused Mishra was identified by Ms. Pragya Mishra an ex-employee of ARPEE Group as a person “Anil Kumar Gupta vide CCTV identification memo dated 19.03.2025 in presence of independent witness Shri Akhilesh Roshan Gajbhiye. Ms. Pragya Mishra also identified the voice of accused Shri Mishra as a person Shri Anil Kumar Gupta vide voice identification memo dated 19.03.2025 from the IO copy of the conversations recorded by the CBI during verification and trap proceedings in presence of aforesaid independent witness. The accused Vinay Rai was identified by Shri Laxman Kumar Biswal vide identification memo dated 11.03.2025 in presence of independent witness Shri RoshanKumar Sahu as also from the voice identification from the 10 copy of the conversations recorded by the CBI during verification and trap proceedings. It is further submitted that the accused Mishra was identified by Shri Anurag Gupta as well as Shri Kamlesh Kumar Sahu as the voice of person Shri Anil Kumar Gupta vide CCTV identification memo dated 08.03.2025. Similarly, the complainant and his brother Shri Naveen Kumar Athwani identified the accused Shri Mishra as well as accused Shri Vinay from the IO copy of the CCTV footage dated 29.01.2025.
8. Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for the respondent/Union of India, submits that the investigation has revealed that a WhatsApp call was made on 30.01.2025 by the complainant from Mobile No. 9827181835, belonging to his brother Naveen Kumar Athwani, to Mobile No. 8305001283 of co-accused Mishra, and screenshots of the WhatsApp call log were voluntarily produced by Naveen Kumar Athwani in the presence of independent witnesses vide mobile operation and data retrieval memo dated 08.03.2025; these facts, according to the prosecution, disclose that the present applicant Bharat Singh, then Superintendent (DGARM Cell), entered into a criminal conspiracy with co-accused Vinay Rai and Mishra, identified as Anil Kumar Gupta, and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (as amended in 2018) and Sections 319(2) and 204 of the BNS, 2023; it is lastly argued that considering the gravity of the offence, the strength of the prosecution case, and the potential impact on ongoing proceedings and further investigation, the present applicant is not entitled to be released on bail and the instant bail application deserves to be rejected as being devoid of merits.
9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the case diary.
10. Considering the matter in its entirety as well as taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence and further considering the fact that Crime No. RC1242025A0002 has been registered on 31.01.2024 on the basis of the written complaint dated 30.01.2025 of Shri Lal Chand Athwani, who owns M/s The World of Beauty and on 28 – 29.01.2025, Shri Bharat Singh, Superintendent, CGST, Raipur. raided the shop of Shri Lal Chand Athwani and, in conspiracy with Shri Vinay and Shri Mishra, demanded Rs.34,00,000/- as bribe, which was later reduced to Rs. 10,00,000/- and the complainant unwilling to pay, had filed a complaint with CBI on 30.01.2025 as well as on the basis of verification of the complaint dated 30.01.2025, an FIR under Section 61(2) of BNS, 2023 as well as Sections 7, 7A of the P.C. Act was registered on 31.01.2025. It transpires from the record that after investigation of the case, charge-sheet has been filed vide Special Case No.04/25 against the accused persons and the sanction order for prosecution against accused Bharat Singh, the then Superintendent, CGST, Raipur, was issued by the competent authority on 11.04.2025 to remove the accused from office as well as a search was conducted by the CGST Raipur team of 08 members and the CGST team seized the two bill books vide order of seizure dated 28.01.2025 and drawn the Panchnama dated 28.01 2025 for the search proceedings. It also transpires that the accused Bharat Singh had removed the hard disk from the Digital Voice Recorder and the CCTV footage dated 29.01.2025 of Starbucks was seized by the CBI and the accused Mishra was identified by Ms. Pragya Mishra an ex-employee of ARPEE Group as a person “Anil Kumar Gupta vide CCTV identification memo dated 19.03.2025 as well as by Shri Akhilesh Roshan Gajbhiye. The accused Vinay Rai was identified by Shri Laxman Kumar Biswal vide identification memo dated 11.03.2025 and accused Mishra was identified by Shri Anurag Gupta as well as Shri Kamlesh Kumar Sahu. It has been also reflected that applicant/accused Vinay Rai was caught red-handed while he was receiving bribe amount of Rs.5,00,000/-from the complainant.
11. Taking into account the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and considering that this is the second bail application filed by the applicant whereas the first bail application had already been considered and dismissed on merits by the High Court, it is pertinent to note that the applicant thereafter approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (SLP) No. 10762 of 2025, which was also dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2025. The record indicates that the applicant, Bharat Singh, actively participated in the commission of the alleged offence and played a significant and instrumental role in its execution, thereby demonstrating his direct involvement and responsibility in the matter. In this context, it is further relevant to refer to the bail granted by the Apex Court to the co-accused, Vinay Rai, in SLP No. 20004 of 2025 vide order dated 11.01.2026. The Supreme Court, while granting bail to the co-accused, specifically observed that the present applicant’s bail had already been rejected by the High Court, and that the facts and circumstances concerning the role and status of the co-accused differed significantly from those of the present applicant. The distinction in the nature of participation, involvement, and role in the offence was expressly noted, thereby justifying a different approach in the consideration of bail for the co-accused as opposed to the present applicant. In view of the above considerations, the Court finds that no sufficient or compelling grounds exist to justify the grant of bail to the present applicant. Consequently, having regard to the applicant’s active involvement in the offence, the prior dismissal of his earlier bail applications, and the distinction in facts regarding the co-accused, the present second bail application is liable to be, and is hereby, rejected.
12. Accordingly, the second bail application of the applicant – Bharat Singh, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, involved in Crime No. RC1242025A0002 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, is rejected.
Author Bio
