‘Public funds pilfered’: Chhattisgarh High Court denies bail to ex-IAS officer in Rs 50 crore mineral scam case

Considering the fact that the petitioner was holding an influential position previously, there exists a strong likelihood that the applicant may tamper with evidence, influence witnesses, and obstruct the course of investigation if he is released on bail by this court, the order added.

Corruption allegation

• The case stems from an investigation by the Economic Offences Wing/ Anti-Corruption Bureau, initiated following a 2024 information report from the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding corruption in the use of DMF funds in Kobra district.
• Tuteja was arrested on February 23, 2024, for his alleged involvement in multiple financial irregularities, including the DMF, rice milling, and liquor scams.
• The prosecution alleged before the Chhattisgarh High Court that between 2019 and 2022, while serving as an additional secretary in the Industry Department, Tuteja acted as a “central position coordinator and influencer”.
• It is alleged that the applicant played a pivotal role, misusing his official position to manipulate the allocation and execution of works under the DMF fund.
• The applicant, using his position, allegedly provided undue advantage to select private entities by influencing district-level administrative authorities and thereby orchestrated illegal allotment of works in return for pecuniary benefits.
• Various developmental works, such as smart classes, mini science labs, RO systems, furniture supply, etc, are undertaken under the DMF scheme, it was claimed.

FIR registered

Based on the information/complaint, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the applicant for commission of offence under sections 420 (cheating), 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc), 468 (forgery for cheating), 471 (using forged document as genuine) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sections 7 (bribery of public servant) and 12 (abetment) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

During the investigation, it was revealed that the accused deliberately ensured allocation of such works to favoured individuals, namely Vinod Rathi, Kishan Tuteja and Lalit Bhansali.

It was further alleged that Lalit Bhansali and Ashish Rathi were facilitated with DMF works exceeding Rs 50 crore through their firms, namely Maa Ganga Enterprises and Yash Enterprises, on account of misuse of official position.

The prosecution alleged before the Chhattisgarh High Court that during the investigation, a memorandum of the co-accused Satpal Singh Chhabra was recorded wherein he specifically disclosed that since 2019, he was facilitating supply works in the Agricultural Department after being approached by Mandeep Chawla, who proposed securing such departmental works through the influence of the applicant.

Trial delay gives no right to bail: Court

• Perusal of the case diary as well as the FIR and the statement of Chhabra, prima facie, establishes involvement of the applicant in the commission of the offence, the Chhattisgarh High Court noted.
• It is apparent that Chhabra received Rs 16 crore as illegal commission from the firms whose names have already been detailed in the foregoing paragraph, and out of which it has been paid to the applicant. Thus, prima facie, the involvement of the applicant in the crime in question cannot be ruled out.
• Further considering that public funds have been misused by private enterprises due to systematic abuse of official position by the applicant – causing grave prejudice to public interest – the investigation is still in progress.

• Therefore, to elicit the truth regarding Chhabra’s allegations, the applicant’s custody is required and the bail application deserves to be rejected, and it is rejected.
• The delay of the trial does not always give any right to the accused to be released on bail.
• Considering that an economic offence is committed with deliberate design and an eye on personal profit, without considering the adverse effect that the economic offenders ruin the economy of the state, this court cannot lose sight of the fact that an economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit.
• The consequences to the community and damages to the national economy and national interest were not considered, so the matter needs to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI.