The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in a high-stakes economic conspiracy involving illegal coal levies, holding that even in the absence of direct naming in the FIR or charge sheets, prima facie involvement established through circumstantial evidence and conduct justifies continued custody.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Narayan Sahu, was arrested on 24.02.2026 in connection with Crime No. 03/2024 registered at the Anti-Corruption Bureau/Economic Offence Wing (ACB/EOW), Raipur. The case stems from a large-scale syndicate that allegedly imposed an illegal levy of Rs. 25 per tonne on coal transporters across Chhattisgarh between July 2020 and June 2022, generating approximately Rs. 540 crores. The syndicate allegedly manipulated government policy through a Government Order dated 15.07.2020 to convert the online transport permit system into a manual one, enabling systematic extortion.
Key Facts
- The Enforcement Directorate’s investigation under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 uncovered the syndicate’s operations.
- Handwritten diaries seized from the residence of co-accused Suryakant Tiwari on 30.06.2022 contained entries in the name of "Narayan", identified by investigators as the applicant.
- The applicant, described as the trusted driver of Suryakant Tiwari, allegedly collected cash from coal transporters in Raipur and other districts and delivered it to senior beneficiaries including Smt. Saumya Chaurasia, Sameer Bisnoi, and Rajnikant Tiwari.
- Approximately Rs. 13 crore in illegal proceeds were collected by the syndicate, of which Rs. 7.5 crore was transferred by the applicant to various co-conspirators.
- The applicant was not named as an accused in the original FIR dated 17.01.2024 or in any of the five charge sheets filed on 18.07.2024, 07.10.2025, 15.12.2025, 26.05.2025, and 10.03.2026.
- No recovery of cash or property was made from the applicant.
- The applicant was not arraigned in any prosecution complaint filed by the Directorate of Enforcement against 35 accused persons.
Procedural History
- 17.01.2024: FIR No. 03/2024 registered against 35 accused persons, excluding Narayan Sahu.
- 30.06.2022: Seizure of diaries containing "Narayan" entries during Income Tax search at Suryakant Tiwari’s premises.
- 06.05.2025: Special Judge (PC Act), Raipur, issued an indefinite arrest warrant against Narayan Sahu for avoiding summons.
- 16.10.2025: High Court rejected the applicant’s anticipatory bail application.
- 24.02.2026: Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s SLP for anticipatory bail.
- 24.02.2026: Applicant surrendered before the trial court and was arrested the same day.
- 23.04.2026: Bail application under Section 483 BNSS heard by the High Court.
- 07.05.2026: Judgment delivered rejecting bail.
The Parties' Positions
Applicant’s Position:
- No direct allegation or overt act attributed to him in FIR or charge sheets.
- Name appears only in seized diaries and uncorroborated statements of co-accused.
- No recovery, no demand, no acceptance alleged against him.
- Statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC are inadmissible as substantive evidence.
- Co-accused like Saumya Chaurasia and Suryakant Tiwari have been granted bail by the Supreme Court.
- No risk of witness tampering; all documentary evidence is seized.
- Surrendered after exhausting legal remedies, indicating cooperation.
Respondent’s Position:
- Applicant played an active role in collecting, transporting, and distributing proceeds of crime.
- Conduct of evading arrest for over two years after issuance of warrant demonstrates flight risk.
- Economic offences demand strict bail scrutiny per P. Chidambaram v. ED.
- Investigation ongoing; key witnesses yet to be examined.
- Prima facie involvement established through diary entries and Section 164 statements.
- Parity argument rejected as other accused had been in custody for two years before bail.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, with undertakings to not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and willingness to furnish surety.
The Legal Issue
Can an accused be denied bail under Section 483 BNSS on the basis of prima facie involvement inferred from circumstantial evidence and conduct, despite absence from the FIR and charge sheets, in a case involving serious economic offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel argued that the absence of his name in the FIR and all five charge sheets rendered the prosecution’s case legally unsustainable. He relied on Prem Prakash v. ED, Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, and Sanjay Jain v. ED to contend that statements of co-accused under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC cannot constitute substantive evidence. He emphasized that no recovery, no demand, and no direct link were established against him. He invoked P. Chidambaram v. CBI and Manish Sisodia v. ED to argue that mere apprehension of witness tampering is insufficient without cogent material. He also invoked the principle of parity, citing bail granted to co-accused by the Supreme Court.
For the Respondent/State
The State, through the Deputy Advocate General, contended that the applicant’s role as a key facilitator in the movement of illicit funds, as evidenced by the seized diaries and Section 164 statements, established prima facie involvement. He relied on P. Chidambaram v. ED and Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana to argue that economic offences warrant stringent bail standards. He highlighted the applicant’s two-year evasion of arrest as proof of flight risk and obstruction of justice. He rejected parity on grounds that other accused had been in custody for over two years before bail, whereas the applicant surrendered only after exhausting all legal remedies.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed review of the case diary, seized diaries, and the Section 164 statement of co-accused Ishwar Sidar, who deposed that the applicant, when unavailable, collected money on behalf of Rajnikant Tiwari and delivered it to Saumya Chaurasia and Manish Upadhyay. While acknowledging that Section 164 statements are weak evidence, the Court held they cannot be entirely disregarded at the bail stage when forming a prima facie opinion.
"From perusal of FIR and the material available in the case diary, involvement of the applicant in commission of offence under Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of IPC read with Sections 7, 7A & 12 of the PC Act, which is economic offence, is prima facie reflected."
The Court emphasized the gravity of economic offences, citing P. Chidambaram v. ED (2019) 9 SCC 24, and applied the test laid down in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (2021) 6 SCC 230, which requires consideration of: (i) prima facie involvement, (ii) nature and gravity of accusation, (iii) severity of punishment, (iv) risk of absconding, and (v) likelihood of witness tampering.
The Court found all five factors satisfied. The applicant’s conduct of remaining absconding for over two years after issuance of an indefinite warrant on 06.05.2025, followed by surrender only after rejection of anticipatory bail by both the High Court and Supreme Court, was deemed indicative of deliberate evasion. The Court rejected the argument that the trial’s delay justified bail, noting that the applicant himself contributed to the delay.
The Court also dismissed the parity argument, observing that the co-accused granted bail had been in custody for approximately two years prior to their release, whereas the applicant had not been in custody at all until his surrender on 24.02.2026.
The Verdict
The bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was rejected. The applicant shall remain in custody pending trial. The Court held that there is a strong prima facie case against him based on circumstantial evidence, his active role in the syndicate’s financial operations, and his conduct of prolonged evasion. No monetary relief or conditional bail was granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prima Facie Involvement Can Be Inferred Without Direct Naming
- Practitioners must now argue that absence from an FIR or charge sheet does not automatically entitle an accused to bail if circumstantial evidence (e.g., seized documents, witness statements) establishes a plausible link to the offence.
- Courts may rely on Section 164 statements, even if weak, to form a prima facie opinion at the bail stage in complex economic cases.
Conduct of Evasion Overrides Claims of Innocence
- Delayed surrender after issuance of an arrest warrant, especially after exhausting anticipatory bail remedies, will be viewed as a strong adverse factor against bail.
- Courts are likely to treat prolonged absence from investigation as evidence of flight risk, irrespective of claims of innocence.
Parity in Bail Grants Requires Comparable Custody History
- Bail granted to co-accused cannot be claimed as a right unless the applicant has served a comparable period in custody.
- Applicants must demonstrate not just similarity in role, but also parity in custodial treatment to invoke the principle effectively.
Economic Offences Demand Stricter Bail Standards
- The judgment reinforces that economic conspiracies involving public funds, corruption, and systemic fraud are treated with heightened seriousness.
- Courts will prioritize investigative integrity over procedural technicalities when the scale of loss is substantial (e.g., Rs. 540 crores).
No Automatic Right to Bail Even When Documentary Evidence Is Seized
- The fact that all documentary evidence is already seized and in custody does not negate the risk of witness intimidation or influence.
- Courts may still deny bail if the accused is perceived as a key link in a broader criminal network, even without direct recovery or confession.
