9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate. For Applicant (in MCRC No. 7615 of 2024) : Ms. Juhi Jaiswal, Advocate. For Applicant (in MCRC No. 6919 of 2024) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Advocate. For State/ACB/EOW : Dr. Saurbh Kumar Pande, Dy. A.G. CAV ORDER 1. Since all the bail applications have arisen out of same crime number, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order but the role played by each of the applicants has been considered separately. 2. All the bail applications are first bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the applicants (Shiv Shankar Naag), (Chandra Prakash Jaiswal, Virendra Prakash Jaiswal @ Montu & Hemant Jaiswal) (Parekh Kurre, Roshan Kumar Singh, Sheikh Moinuddin Qureshi & Sandeep Kumar Nayak) who have been arrested on 11.06.2024, 13.06.2024 & 18.06.2024 respectively in connection with Crime No. 03/2024 registered at Police Station-Anti-Corruption Bureau/ Economic Offence Wing Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of IPC and Section 7, 7-A, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irectorate revealed that other senior bureaucrats viz., Smt. Saumya Chaurasia and Smt. Ranu Sahu, IAS were also involved in this conspiracy and were providing assistance to Suryakant Tiwari in running the extortion racket. Smt Saumya Chaurasia, Deputy Secretary and working in Chief Minister Office, had assisted Suryakant Tiwari and his associates in collecting the extortion money by posting pliable officers of mining department in the coal mining areas. Smt.. Ranu Sahu IAS, who worked as District Collector in coal rich Districts viz., Korba & Raigarh, had closed association with Suryakant Tiwari and helped his associates in collecting extortion money from the coal transporters and other businessmen. 5. It is also case of the prosecution that by this system of extortion, a huge amount of cash started accumulating with the syndicate and with this money, Suryakant Tiwari has purchased benami assets and a huge amount of money was transferred to Saumya Chaurasia, spent on political funding and transferred as per the instructions of higher powers. The Enforcement Directorate investigation further established that Smt. Ranu Sahu had aided and abetted Suryakant Tiwari in collection of ill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t") read with Sections 420 & 120-B of IPC. 7. From the case diary and the material so collected by the ACB/EOW, the role played by each of the applicants is given in brief separately. The role of applicant-Shiv Shankar Naag (MCRC No. 6490/2024) 8. Applicant-Shiv Shankar Naag during his posting as Deputy Director Mining in District Korba, was collecting Rs. 2/- per tonne of coal from coal transporters/coal traders for issuing no objection certificate (NOC) for coal transportation, which was collected from coal transporters/coal traders as per instructions of the present applicant by one Ajit Sonwani, a trusted operator appointed to monitor the mineral online portal working under the applicant at that time. The applicant also used to collect illegal money of about Rs. 1 lakh per month. He also used to collect Rs. 2/- per tonne from him at Korba, which has also been confirmed by coal trader Ashish Agarwal in his statement that he has paid illegal money of Rs. 2 per tonne to the applicant. He used to provide support to Suryakant Tiwari's syndicate for this illegal levy collection. 9. During investigation, it has been found that the applicant -Shiv Shankar Naag has neither conduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ying Rs. 25/- per tonne, he went to Korba Mining Office for NOC, Rs. 2 per tonne was collected from the applicant in the name of mining expenses. In this way, the applicant-Shiv Shankar Naag has helped the syndicate by forcing coal traders and transporters to pay Rs. 25/- illegal coal levy. 10. Ashish Kumar Agrawal in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. before the State Economic Offenses Investigation Bureau, Raipur and Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the concerned court has stated that in addition to the illegal coal levy recovery of Rs. 25/- per tonne, illegal coal levy recovery of Rs 02 per tonne was done by the applicant for the then Collector Smt. Ranu Sahu. Ashish Agrawal had accepted to have given illegal coal levy of Rs. 2/- per ton to co-accused Mrs. Ranu Sahu through the present applicant. The role of applicant-Roshan Kumar Singh (MCRC No. 7041/2024) 11. Applicant-Roshan Kumar Singh was working with Suryakant Tiwari and his partners for a long time from beginning of illegal coal levy collection in 2020 which was revealed during interrogation of the applicant. He was involved in holding meetings of coal traders related to coal levy collection in Korba, Raigar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;s contracting firm M/s Ganga Construction. During this time Suryakant Tiwari sent him to the coal mine in July 2020 to collect coal levy from transporters and businessmen in Korba in the name of transportation related work. Rs. 25/- per tonne levy was fixed and present applicant was appointed as Suryakant's representative in Korba for illegal recovery. The amount of illegal coal levy collected by himself was handed over to Suryakant Tiwari at House No. 1-34, Anupam Nagar Raipur to Rajnikant Tiwari and Roshan Singh. He used to deliver the goods. This was confirmed by various documents seized by the Income Tax Department. Diaries and witnesses Mukesh Kumar Kedia, Ashish Kumar Agarwal, Gaurav Agarwal, Rupesh Garg and Ritesh Jain. He was engaged in criminal conspiracy and acting as an active associate in the syndicate of Suryakant Tiwari. The charges of collection of coal levy and obtaining illegal benefits have been found to be proved. The role of applicant-Sandeep Kumar Nayak (MCRC No. 7210/2024) 14. Applicant-Sandeep Kumar Nayak was posted as Mining Officer in Mining Department, Surajpur and neglected and misused his official duties and in the initial stage of coal levy coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u Jaiswal (depending on their availability). In Rahul Singh's WhatsApp chat, the applicant used to get instructions to issue e-permits after receiving the levy from the transporters. A similar chat dated 22.07.2020 was sent by Rahul Singh to GSR Enterprises DO No. 02564 dated 14.07.2020, Grate G-8, quantity 500 metric tons, Mines Gayatri and Maa Mangala Pvt. Ltd. DO No. 02625 dated 16.07.2020, Grate G-5, quantity 1300 metric tons, Mine Rehar, both of these communications are clear wherein an "Ok Sir". Prompt is seen on which Sandeep Kumar Nayak sent a message of "Ok". Later, their e-permit NOC was issued. The chat is attached as evidence in the case. Witness Shri Naresh Kumar Dubey related to Maa Vaishnavi Goods Carrier and Shri Vijendra Kumar Gupta of Jai Durga Multi Trade Pvt. Ltd.. Company have confirmed that Sandeep Kumar Nayak exerted pressure for coal levy at the rate of Rs. 25/- per ton and demanded illegal levy of Rs. 1/- per ton for himself, as a result of which he alongwith Suryakant Tiwari's syndicate illegally collected Rs. 25/- per ton from Rahul Singh and paid Rs. 1/- per ton to Sandeep Nayak and only after that their e-permit NOC was issued. Witnesses have st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m have been involved in coal transportation work through the said firm since the year 2014. The applicant was an equal partner in Suryakant Tiwari's coal levy syndicate. The applicant and Surykant Tiwari have taken meeting together in Raigarh, Korba, Bilaspur & Surajpur with various transporters and pressurizing them for illegal recovery of Rs. 25/- per tonne. The applicant has arranged persons and office for extorting coal levy amount from transporter for Surykant Tiwari. The applicant is brother of another applicant namely Chandrprakash Jaiswal who was also working in Surykant Tiwari coal levy syndicate for Bilaspur District and arrested by the Economic Offences Wing. The meeting regarding illegal coal levy recovery in Bilaspur was held at Hemant Jaiswal's residence. The applicant and Surykant Tiwari were also partner in Maa Mandwarani Coal Beneficiation Pvt. Ltd. and they have purchased Caol Washrey in the name of Maa Mandwarani Coal Beneficiation Pvt. Ltd. for about Rs. 96 crores in the year 2022. In the ledger book of Maa Mandwarani seized by the Income Tax Department, Suryakant Tiwari, Hemant Jaiswal, Jogendra Singh, Anup Bansal and Rupesh Garg have been found to be p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llection in the year 2020 to 2022 and was a trusted person of Hemant Jaiswal. When Suryakant Tiwari and Hemant Jaiswal started illegal coal levy collection of Rs. 25/- per tonne on coal then their former workers were deployed for recovery in coal-rich Districts Korba, Raigarh, Surajpur. During this period, the applicant and Moinuddin Qureshi were deployed in Korba to collect illegal coal levy of Rs. 25/- per tonne. The Illegal coal collection by the applicant during year 2020 to 2022 of Rs. 25/- per tonne on coal DO was done from coal transporters and coal traders in Korba district in connivance with Moinuddin Qureshi. The applicant used to collect illegal coal levy of Rs. 25 per tonne on coal DO received from SECL from coal transporters and coal traders by sitting in Mahamaya Juice Center Transport Nagar Korba and used to call coal transporters and coal traders to the juice center with money. After collecting the money for coal DO per tonne, the applicant used to send an OK message with the DO to the mining office then only the mining department provided NOC to the DO of coal transporters and coal traders which is confirmed by the statement of the operator of Mahamaya Juice Center ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been proved by the prosecuting agency in this regard as the same has been sent to the Director, Directorate Raipur and the Director issued a letter on 15.07.2020 to delivery order for approval in which there is no reference of the note sheet regarding issuance of letter in the charge-sheet and there is no reference or article of the said letter. He would further submit that the delivery order approval was issued on 15.07.2020 i.e. two days before the receipt of the suggesting letter by the Director, there is no evidence regarding the instruction given to the applicant the prosecution agency has added the name of the applicant in the charge-sheet without applying its own mind. 22. He would further submit that the prosecution has also alleged that the said members of the syndicate and Mining Officers pressurized the transporters and D.O. holders by way of District Collectors that until and unless they will not pay the levy amount of Rs. 25/- per tonne, they will not be provided no objection certificate (NOC) for transportation and under this pressure, the transporters have paid the illegal levy amount of Rs. 25/- per tonne to the syndicate but no such evidence has been placed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iate his submission, he would rely upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Pankaj Bansal Vs. Union of India & others [Criminal Appeal No. 5857-3052/2023 SLD (Crl.) No. 9220-9221/2023 (decided on 03.10.2023)], State of Maharashtra Vs. Nainmal Punjaji Shah & another reported in 1969 (3) SCC 904, Satinder Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & Anr., reported in (2022) 10 SCC 51, Prem Prakash Vs. Enforcement Directorate [SLP No. 5416/2024 (decided on 28.08.2024)], Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, Shiv Shankar Nag Vs. Enforcement Directorate [SLP (Crl.) No. 11314/2024 (decided on 04.10.2024)], Union ofIndia Vs. K.A. Najeeb, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713 & State of Kerala Vs. Raneef, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 784. 24. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for the applicant-Roshan Kumar Singh in MCRC No. 7041 of 2024 and applicant-Sheikh Moinuddin Qureshi in MCRC No. 7093 of 2024 would submit the applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the crime in question as no role has been played by them in alleged offence and there is no evidence to connect the present applicants with the alleged offence. He would further submit that the applicants are neither g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submit that the applicant is in jail since 18.06.2024 and trial will take some time for its final conclusion and would pray for releasing the applicant on bail. 27. Mr. Amrito Das, counsel for the applicant-Chandra Prakash Jaiswal in MCRC No. 7292 of 2024 would submit that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. He would further submit that the applicant is a coal transporter, therefore, incriminating statement given by another business competitor cannot be accepted as the sole ground for executing the present applicant. He would further submit that the applicant is not an active part of the illegal coal levy syndicate as no document has been placed by the prosecution for his participation in the alleged offence. He would further submit that the case of prosecution against the present applicant is based on the fact that illegal coal levy was extorted by him from the coal transporters for clearance of delivery orders but at the time of filing of the FIR offence under Section 384 of Cr.P.C. was not registered and the same has been included later in the charge-sheet. He would further submit that the applicant is in jail since 13.06.2024 and tri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jab, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 291, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1693, Gudikanti Narasimhulu Vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240, P. Chidambaram Vs. Enforcement Directorate, reported in (2020) 13 SCC 791, Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. State (NCT of India), reported in (2001) 4 SCC 280 & Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. 30. Ms. Juhi Jaiswal, counsel for the applicant-Virendra Kumar Jaiswal @ Montu in MCRC No. 7615 of 2024 would submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She would further submit that the applicant is a coal transporter, therefore, incriminating statement given by another business competitor/coal transporter cannot be accepted as the sole ground for executing the applicant, therefore, investigating officer has failed to consider the entire case and has arrested the applicant only on the basis of statement of witnesses. She would further submit that the applicant was not an active part of the illegal coal levy syndicate and the allegation regarding collec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ronic records which were used for the purpose of cheating. He would further submit that the investigating agency has failed to show complete the chain of evidence to establish that the applicant has accepted gratification as a motive or reward to favour of dis-favour to any particular group of persons. He would further submit that the ingredients of Section 7 and 7 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not attracted against the applicant. The applicant is neither government servant nor there is any allegation of inducement done by him for taking bribe. The applicant is working as Data Operator under Hemant Jaiswal who has multiple business across the state of Chhattisgarh and there is no nexus with the aforesaid crime but the prosecution has wrongly mentioned him as an employee of Suryakant Tiwari which is factually incorrect as he has never worked for Suryakant Tiwari. The applicant is in jail since 18.06.2024 and trial will likely to take time for conclusion, hence, would pray for grant of bail to the applicant. 33. Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, counsel for the ACB/EOW opposing the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and referring to the FIR and the case diary w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations." [underlining added] 80. Referring to Dukhishyam Benupani, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria (1998) 1 SCC 52, in Enforcement Officer, Ted, Bombay v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora and others (1999) 5 SCC 720, while hearing an appeal by the Enforcement Directorate against the order of the Single Judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal..." 47. The considerations which must weigh with the Court in granting bail have been formulated in the decisions of this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashish Chatterjee (noted earlier). These decisions as well as the decision in Sanjay Chandra (supra) were adverted to in a recent decision of a two judge Bench of this Court dated 19 March 2021 in The State of Kerala v. Mahesh where the Court observed: "22...All the relevant factors have to be weighed by the Court considering an application for bail, including the gravity of the offence, the evidence and material which prima facie show the involvement of applicant for bail in the offence alleged, the extent of involvement of the applicant for bail, in the offence alleged, possibility of the applicant accused absconding or otherwise defeating or delaying the course of justice, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being threatened or influenced or of evidence being tempered with, and danger to the safety of the victim (if alive), the complainant, their relatives, friends or other witnesses...." Similarly, the Court held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
