Gravity Of Offence Alone Not Ground To Deny Bail: Chhattisgarh High Court Grants Bail In Rice Custom Milling Scam Case
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Chhattisgarh Single Bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma has granted regular bail to businessman Anwar Dhebar in the alleged rice custom milling scam being investigated by the State EOW/ACB, observing that the material presently relied upon does not warrant further custody, particularly as the investigation in relation to him is complete. Hearing his plea under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court noted that the prosecution allegations invoke offences including extortion, criminal breach of trust, conspiracy and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Bail was allowed on a personal bond of ₹1 lakh with two local sureties, subject to conditions such as surrender of passport, cooperation with proceedings and non-interference with witnesses or evidence.
The proceedings arose from a regular bail application filed by the applicant seeking release in connection with a case registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau, Chhattisgarh, alleging offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution case was founded on allegations that illegal levies were extracted from rice millers under the custom rice milling incentive scheme and that the proceeds were routed through a network of individuals, including public officials and private persons.
The applicant was not named in the FIR at the time of its registration and was arrested more than one year and seven months later. No search or seizure was conducted at his premises, and no recovery was affected from him. The prosecution relied primarily on statements of co-accused and digital material, including WhatsApp chats obtained during investigation in a separate matter, to allege conspiracy and money flow.
The applicant contended that he was not a public servant, that no entrustment or demand of illegal gratification was attributed to him, and that continued incarceration was unjustified as investigation qua him stood completed and a supplementary charge-sheet had already been filed. The State opposed the bail application, asserting gravity of allegations, economic impact, and apprehension of witness influence.
The Court recorded that “while adjudicating a bail application, the Court is not expected to undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence or enter into a roving inquiry into the merits of the prosecution case.” It noted that the scope at the bail stage was confined to assessing the necessity of continued deprivation of liberty in light of the nature of allegations, stage of investigation, and constitutional safeguards.
It observed that “the Applicant was not named in the FIR, nor in the original charge-sheet,” and that his implication emerged subsequently, primarily on the basis of statements of co-accused. The Court further noted that “no notice or summons was issued to him” during the interregnum and that “no search or seizure has been conducted at his premises and no recovery of any incriminating material has been effected from his possession.”
On arrest, the Court stated that “the power to arrest does not ipso facto confer a right to arrest,” and that arrest must be justified by necessity. Referring to settled precedent, it recorded that “arrest cannot be made in a routine manner and must be justified by necessity,” and found substance in the submission that the applicant’s arrest after prolonged delay, without demonstrable custodial requirement, appeared disproportionate.
With respect to the evidentiary material, the Court recorded that “the prosecution case against the Applicant rests substantially on statements of co-accused,” and reiterated that such statements are not substantive evidence and require corroboration. It observed that “the evidentiary material presently relied upon does not justify continued detention, particularly when investigation qua the Applicant is complete.”
The Court also noted that “the Applicant is not a public servant,” and that no act of official decision-making or entrustment had been attributed to him. On parity, it recorded that “co-accused, against whom allegations of a more direct and substantial nature are levelled, have already been enlarged on bail,” and found no distinguishing feature warranting differential treatment.
On delay, the Court observed that “the prosecution proposes to examine hundreds of witnesses and rely upon voluminous documentary evidence,” and that the likelihood of early conclusion of trial appeared remote. Relying on Article 21 jurisprudence, it stated that prolonged pre-trial incarceration without prospect of early trial would offend constitutional guarantees.
The Court observed: “This Court is conscious of the gravity of the allegations and the societal interest involved. However, gravity alone cannot be the sole ground to deny bail. The Court must balance the need to ensure a fair trial with the fundamental right to personal liberty. Apprehensions regarding absconding, tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses have not been substantiated by any concrete material. Such apprehensions can be adequately addressed by imposing stringent conditions.”
The Court ordered that “the Applicant shall be released on regular bail in connection with the subject crime, upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) along with two local sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.”
“The Applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, before the learned Trial Court forthwith,” and clarified that “in case he does not possess a passport, an affidavit to that effect shall be filed.”
“The Applicant shall cooperate fully with the investigation and the trial proceedings, and shall make himself available before the Court or the Investigating Agency as and when required, in accordance with law.”
“The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, nor shall he attempt to influence any witness or tamper with the evidence in any manner whatsoever. The Applicant shall not commit any offence of a similar nature or otherwise during the period he remains on bail.”
“In the event of any change in residential address and/or mobile number, the Applicant shall intimate the same to the learned Trial Court by way of a sworn affidavit within a reasonable time. The Applicant shall comply with any other condition that may be imposed by the learned Trial Court in accordance with law.”
“The observations made herein are strictly limited to the consideration and disposal of the present bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case,” and that “the learned Trial Court shall adjudicate the matter independently, on the basis of the evidence adduced before it, and without being influenced in any manner by the observations recorded in this order.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Harshwardhan Parganiha, Shri Mayank Jain, Shri Madhur Jain, Shri Arpit Goel, Shri Deepak Jain, Shri Harshit Sharma and Ms. Manubha Shankar, Advocates
For the Respondents: Dr. Saurabh Pande, Deputy Advocate General
Case Title: Anwar Dhebar v. State of Chhattisgarh
Neutral Citation: 2026: CGHC:2095
Case Number: MCRC No. 8136 of 2025
Bench: Justice Arvind Kumar Verma
