Sh. Anil Tuteja vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

This case concerns an anticipatory bail application filed by Shri Anil Tuteja under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No. 03/2024, registered at Police Station ACB (EOW) Raipur, for offences under Sections 420, 120-B of the IPC and Sections 7, 7-A, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution alleges that the applicant, an administrative officer, played an active role in a criminal conspiracy to facilitate illegal coal levy collection. This involved influencing government officials to switch from an online to a manual system for coal transportation permits, leading to an alleged illegal levy of approximately Rs. 540 crores between July 2020 and June 2022. The applicant's alleged involvement stems from an anonymous complaint he filed regarding issues with the online coal transportation system, which purportedly led to the issuance of an order for manual checking.

Held

The Court held that the applicant is not entitled to anticipatory bail. On Issue 1 and 2, the Court found that the applicant's involvement in the commission of offences under Sections 7, 7A, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is prima facie reflected in the FIR and the case diary. The Court noted that the applicant, as a Senior Administrative Officer, played a pivotal role in the coal scam, particularly in switching the system from online to offline, as per the memorandum statement of co-accused Sameer Vishnoi. The Court emphasized that Vishnoi's statement indicated the applicant's influential position and his role in controlling the Mining Department, along with Smt. Soumya Chaurasia. The Court deemed custodial interrogation of the applicant necessary to confront him with these statements and other collected evidence. Regarding Issue 3, the Court held that the allegations of the applicant's involvement in various other cases, including the Rice Milling case, DMF case, Liquor scam, NAN scam, and Mahadev Betting App scam, are sufficient grounds for rejecting the present anticipatory bail application, as they denote his criminal antecedents. The Court also distinguished the present case from a previous order of a coordinate bench that granted anticipatory bail in a different matter concerning an excise scam in Jharkhand, noting that the present alleged offence occurred within Chhattisgarh and involved residents of the state. The Court concluded that economic offences, with their deep-rooted conspiracies and potential for huge loss of public funds, must be viewed seriously. Therefore, the application for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Key Issues

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, given the allegations of his involvement in a criminal conspiracy for illegal coal levy collection. 2. Whether the applicant's role in influencing the shift from an online to a manual system for coal transportation permits constitutes an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Indian Penal Code. 3. Whether the applicant's alleged involvement in other cases, such as the Rice Milling case, DMF case, Liquor scam, NAN scam, and Mahadev Betting App scam, constitutes sufficient grounds for rejecting his anticipatory bail application. Contentions of the Petitioner (Applicant): The applicant contends that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He argues that the FIR is devoid of any specific allegations against him, and no overt act or involvement is disclosed. He also sought parity with other accused persons who were granted bail by the Supreme Court. Contentions of the Respondent (State): The State argues that the applicant played a pivotal role in the commission of the coal scam by influencing the shift to an offline system for coal transportation permits. They rely on the statement of co-accused Sameer Vishnoi, who allegedly stated that the applicant, along with Smt. Soumya Chaurasia, controlled the Mining Department and that the applicant explained the draft order and reasons for its issuance. The State also highlights the applicant's alleged involvement in multiple other cases as indicative of his criminal antecedents.