⚖️ Second bail plea allowed after Supreme Court liberty to renew application
🏛️ Over 18 months in present case; total custody nearing 23 months
📜 7 charge-sheets, 51 accused, 1,111 witnesses; sanction pending, cognizance not taken
🧑⚖️ Bail granted solely on ground of delay and long incarceration, not on merits
Raipur/Bilaspur : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has granted regular bail to former bureaucrat Anil Tuteja in connection with Crime No. 04/2024 registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau in the alleged liquor scam case, holding that prolonged incarceration and the remote likelihood of early conclusion of trial warranted enlargement on bail.
The order, delivered on March 3, 2026 by Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, allows Tuteja’s second bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court noted that the earlier bail plea had been rejected, but liberty had subsequently been granted by the Supreme Court to renew the prayer after a stipulated period if no substantial progress occurred in investigation or trial.
The High Court recorded that the applicant has remained in custody for more than 18 months in the present case since August 21, 2024, and had earlier been in custody in proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate arising out of the same set of transactions. The cumulative incarceration, the Court observed, was approaching two years.
Significantly, although seven charge-sheets have been filed in the matter involving 51 accused persons, prosecution sanction has not yet been obtained qua the applicant. In the absence of sanction, the Special Court has not taken cognizance, and charges have not been framed. The High Court observed that trial has not commenced and remains indefinitely deferred.
The prosecution has cited 1,111 witnesses and voluminous documentary evidence running into thousands of pages. In this backdrop, the Court held that the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future and may reasonably take several years. Continued incarceration in such circumstances, it said, would transgress the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21.
The Court further observed that the case against the applicant is primarily based on documentary material already seized and secured. No recovery of unaccounted money, illegal liquor, counterfeit holograms or incriminating property was made from the applicant. The evidentiary record, being documentary in nature, was considered insulated from post-arrest tampering.
Referring to settled principles, the High Court reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” and that seriousness of allegations alone cannot justify indefinite detention when the trial is unlikely to commence or conclude within a reasonable time.
Allowing the application, the Court clarified that bail was being granted solely on the ground of prolonged incarceration and delay in completion of investigation and trial, and not on merits of the case. The earlier order rejecting bail on considerations of gravity and magnitude of allegations remains unaffected.
Tuteja has been directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including surrender of passport, cooperation with trial, and prohibition on influencing witnesses. The prosecution has been granted liberty to seek cancellation of bail in case of breach.
