PMLA | Unjustified Arrest, Prolonged Pre-Trial Incarceration Without Recovery: Chhattisgarh HC Grants Bail in Custom Rice Milling Scam Case

The Chhattisgarh High Court has granted regular bail in a high-profile economic offence case arising out of the alleged custom rice milling scam, holding that prolonged pre-trial incarceration without recovery, custodial necessity, or demonstrable justification for arrest violates the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21. The bench of Justice Arvind Kumar Verma was critical of the delayed arrest, observing that no summons or notice had been issued after registration of the FIR and that the remand application failed to record satisfaction of the statutory conditions justifying arrest. It reiterated the settled principle that the existence of power to arrest is distinct from the justification for its exercise. The prosecution alleged the existence of a large-scale conspiracy linked to the custom rice milling incentive scheme in Chhattisgarh, under which special incentives payable to rice millers were allegedly used as a conduit for illegal gratification. According to the prosecution narrative, the incentive amount was enhanced during the Kharif Marketing Year 2021–22, and a portion of the amount paid to millers was allegedly siphoned off through a systematic extortion mechanism involving association office bearers and public officials. The case against the accused seeking bail was largely based on WhatsApp chats and digital material recovered from devices seized in connection with another investigation. The prosecution claimed that these electronic communications indicated involvement in policy-level discussions, coordination with co-accused, and facilitation of alleged illegal collections. It was further alleged that significant amounts of illegal proceeds were generated and routed through intermediaries. Notably, the accused was not named in the FIR at the time of its registration and was arrested nearly one year and seven months later. No search or seizure was conducted at his premises, and no incriminating recovery—cash, property or documentary—was effected from his possession at any stage. The defence contended that the arrest was mechanical and unjustified, lacking any statutory or constitutional basis. It was argued that mere allegations of “influence” or communication with public officials, without any statutory role, decision-making authority or entrustment, could not justify custodial detention. The defence further submitted that the offences of criminal breach of trust and extortion were not prima facie made out, as there was no entrustment, demand, recovery or financial trail linking the accused to the alleged proceeds. With respect to conspiracy, it was argued that there was no cogent material demonstrating a meeting of minds or common design, and that mere association or communication could not constitute criminal conspiracy. It was also highlighted that the entire evidence relied upon by the prosecution was documentary and electronic in nature and already in the possession of the investigating agency. Investigation qua the accused had been completed and a supplementary charge-sheet had been filed, eliminating the need for further custodial interrogation. The defence relied on a long line of Supreme Court judgments, including Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, Siddharth v. State of U.P. and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, to contend that arrest must be an exception and not a rule, and that deprivation of liberty must be justified by demonstrable necessity. Opposing bail, the State argued that the allegations related to a grave economic offence involving systematic extortion, abuse of official machinery and deep-rooted conspiracy, having serious ramifications on public interest and governance. The prosecution relied on statements of witnesses, digital evidence and alleged money trails to submit that the accused played an active role in the conspiracy and wielded substantial influence. The State also expressed apprehension that release on bail could lead to tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, citing the alleged influence and connections of the accused. The High Court rejected the State’s objections, holding that vague and speculative apprehensions of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses cannot justify continued incarceration in the absence of concrete material. The Court noted that no recovery had been made from the accused, no custodial interrogation was shown to be necessary, and the investigation had already culminated in the filing of a supplementary charge-sheet. The Court also took note of parity, observing that several co-accused with allegedly similar or more significant roles were either not arrested or had already been granted bail. Continued incarceration of the present accused, in such circumstances, was held to be disproportionate and discriminatory. Emphasising that charges were yet to be framed and that the prosecution had cited numerous witnesses and voluminous documents, the Court held that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future. Prolonged pre-trial detention, it observed, would convert the presumption of innocence into punishment and offend the right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21. Relying on decisions such as Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, the Court held that even in serious economic offences, constitutional courts cannot permit liberty to be eclipsed merely due to the gravity of allegations when trials are likely to be long-drawn. Holding that bail is the rule and jail the exception, the Chhattisgarh High Court allowed the bail application, concluding that continued incarceration would serve no legitimate purpose of investigation or trial. The accused was directed to be released on regular bail, subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court. Case Details Case Title: Anwar Dhebar Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Case No.: MCRC No. 8136 of 2025 Date: 13.01.2026 Counsel For Applicant: Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate Counsel For Respondent: Dr. Saurabh Pande, Dy.AG Click Here To Read Order Read More: Free Health Check-Up Camp at CGST Noida Sees Enthusiastic Participation from Officers and Staff

PMLA | Unjustified Arrest, Prolonged Pre-Trial Incarceration Without Recovery: Chhattisgarh HC Grants Bail in Custom Rice Milling Scam Case

Membership Required

Latest articles

Construction of Flats Before July 2012 Not Taxable as Construction Service: CESTAT

18% GST Payable on Entire Hotel Booking Consideration: AAR

Separate Erection Contract Is Not Works Contract, CESTAT Denies Abatement but Excludes Free-Supply Material from Taxable Value

Consultancy Services to US Client Not Intermediary Services: CESTAT

More like this

Construction of Flats Before July 2012 Not Taxable as Construction Service: CESTAT

18% GST Payable on Entire Hotel Booking Consideration: AAR

Separate Erection Contract Is Not Works Contract, CESTAT Denies Abatement but Excludes Free-Supply Material from Taxable Value

About us

Company

Categories