Bharat Singh vs. Union Of INDIA
Facts
The petitioners, Bharat Singh (Superintendent, CGST) and Vinay Rai, are seeking bail in connection with Crime No.RC1242025A0002 registered at the Anti Corruption Branch, CBI, Raipur. The case stems from a complaint filed by Lalchand Athwani, proprietor of 'M/s. The World of Beauty'. Athwani alleged that on January 28, 2025, Bharat Singh, along with co-accused Vinay Rai and absconding Mr. Mishra (identified as Anil Gupta), raided his shop and demanded a bribe of Rs. 34,00,000, later reduced to Rs. 10,00,000. Athwani lodged a complaint, and Vinay Rai was apprehended red-handed while receiving Rs. 5,00,000. The petitioners were arrested on February 1, 2025. The prosecution contends that the CGST team, led by Subrato Pal, conducted the raid, and the petitioners were involved in the conspiracy and demand for bribe. The petitioners argue they were merely assisting officers and punch witnesses, with no direct involvement in the demand or conspiracy.
Held
The Court held that the bail applications of Bharat Singh and Vinay Rai are rejected. The Court considered the facts that Bharat Singh, the then Superintendent of CGST, Raipur, allegedly raided the complainant's shop and, in conspiracy with Vinay Rai and Mr. Mishra (identified as Anil Kumar Gupta), demanded a bribe. Vinay Rai was caught red-handed accepting Rs. 5,00,000/- as bribe. The Court noted that the charge-sheet has been filed, and sanction for prosecution against Bharat Singh has been obtained. The Court also took into account the seizure of bill books, CCTV footage, and identification of the accused. The Court found active participation of Bharat Singh in the commission of the crime and that Vinay Rai was caught red-handed, with voice recordings from his mobile phone substantiating the bribe allegations. The Court relied on the dictum in Devinder Kumar Bansal (supra) and concluded that the applicants have committed offences punishable under Section 61(2) of BNS, 2023, and Sections 7 & 7A of the P.C. Act. Therefore, it is not a fit case for granting bail. The trial court is at liberty to proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Key Issues
1. Whether the applicants, Bharat Singh and Vinay Rai, are entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considering the allegations of demanding and accepting a bribe under Section 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? Petitioner's arguments: The applicants contend there is no evidence connecting them to the crime. They assert that the raid was conducted by Shri Subrato Pal, and they were only assisting officers and punch witnesses. They claim the demand was made by the absconding co-accused Mishra, and the bribe money was handed to Vinay Rai on Mishra's instructions. They also argue there was no telephonic conversation between the complainant and the applicants, nor any evidence of conspiracy with Mishra. They highlight their cooperation with the investigation and the filing of the charge-sheet, stating that further trial will take time and there's no risk of tampering with evidence. They rely on the Supreme Court judgment in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI. Non-applicant's arguments: The Union of India opposes the bail applications, stating that Bharat Singh, as Superintendent CGST, raided the complainant's shop and, in conspiracy with Vinay Rai and Mishra, demanded a bribe. They assert that Vinay Rai was caught red-handed accepting a bribe, and the charge-sheet has been filed. Sanction for prosecution against Bharat Singh has been received. They also mention the seizure of bill books and CCTV footage, and identification of accused persons.
Sections Cited
Section 483, Section 61(2), Section 7, Section 7A, Section 193(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1
2025:CGHC:22222 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRC No. 2981 of 2025 Bharat Singh S/o Shri Khuman Singh Aged About 41 Years Presently R/o House No. A-232, Uni-Homes Bhatagao, Raipur (C.G.) And Permanent R/o Near Kisan Rice Mill, Neora, Distt.- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Applicant versus Union Of India Through Superintendent Of A.C.B/ C.B.I, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Non-applicant MCRC No. 3345 of 2025 Vinay Rai S/o Shri Akhilesh Rai Aged About 33 Years R/o Room No. 07, Block No. 06, Road No. 15b, Sector 02, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh.
---Applicant Versus Union Of India Through Superintendent Of A.C.B. / C.B.I., Raipur Chhattisgarh.
--- Non-applicant
2
For Applicants : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate For Non-applicants : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Standing Counsel
Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 20/05/2025
Since both the bail applications arise out of one and the same crime number, they have been clubbed together, heard togethe
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Chhattisgarh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.