Anil Tuteja S/o Late H. L Tuteja Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (Chhattisgarh High Court)
Conclusion: Having regard to the gravity of the allegations, the ongoing investigation, the requirement of further probe into digital and financial evidence, and the possibility of influencing witnesses or obstructing the investigation, the applicant had failed to make out a case for the exercise of the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.
Held: Applicant, a retired IAS officer, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in a CBI case arising from the transfer of an FIR registered by the ACB/EOW concerning alleged corruption, criminal conspiracy, manipulation of official records, interference in investigations relating to the NAN case, and influencing witnesses. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, along with other senior public officials, abused his official position to obtain undue advantages in pending criminal proceedings. The case was primarily founded on WhatsApp chats and other electronic material recovered during Income Tax searches. The applicant had earlier obtained anticipatory bail in connected proceedings under the PMLA and approached the High Court pursuant to liberty granted by the Supreme Court. Applicant contended that he had been falsely implicated due to political vendetta and was subjected to successive prosecutions solely to prolong his custody. He argued that the FIR contained vague and omnibus allegations without attributing any specific overt act to him, and that the electronic evidence was unreliable owing to illegal seizure, non-compliance with statutory safeguards governing digital evidence, discrepancies in hash values, and an alleged break in the chain of custody. He further submitted that WhatsApp chats, without independent corroboration, could not justify custodial interrogation and relied upon parity with a co-accused who had been granted anticipatory bail. CBI opposed the application, contending that the applicant played a central role in a deep-rooted criminal conspiracy involving abuse of public office, manipulation of official records, and attempts to influence judicial proceedings and witnesses. It submitted that the investigation had been lawfully transferred to the CBI after obtaining statutory approvals, that searches had yielded incriminating material, and that further investigation involving digital and financial evidence was still underway. The prosecution argued that the issues raised by the applicant concerned the evidentiary value of the material, which could only be examined during trial, and that anticipatory bail in corruption cases should be granted only in exceptional circumstances. High Court held that the allegations disclosed serious offences involving corruption, criminal conspiracy, abuse of official position, and interference with the administration of justice. Questions regarding the admissibility, authenticity, and alleged tampering of WhatsApp chats and other electronic evidence were matters for trial and could not be conclusively examined at the anticipatory bail stage. The Court further held that parity with a co-accused was unavailable because the applicant’s alleged role was distinct, and that the ongoing investigation, seizure of incriminating material, and the need for further examination of digital and financial evidence justified denial of pre-arrest protection. Considering the applicant’s influential position, the possibility of interference with the investigation or witnesses could not be ruled out. Relying on Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab and settled principles governing economic and corruption offences, the Court held that anticipatory bail was an exceptional remedy and no exceptional circumstances had been established.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
