GST Superintendent’s Second Bail Plea Rejected in ₹34 Lakh Bribery Case: Chhattisgarh HC Cites Active Role in Conspiracy [Read Order]
Chhattisgarh High Court rejected a CGST Superintendent’s second bail plea in a Rs. 34 lakh bribery case, observing his active role and prior bail rejection
In a recent order, the Chhattisgarh High Court rejected the second bail plea of a CGST Superintendent arrested in a Rs. 34 lakh GST bribery case. The Court observed that there was prima facie material showing his active role in the conspiracy and explained that his earlier bail was already rejected on merits and even the Supreme Court had dismissed his SLP.
Bharat Singh was arrested in connection with a CBI case registered on 31 January 2025 under Section 61(2) of the BNS and Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. As per the prosecution, a raid was conducted at the shop of the complainant on 28 and 29 January 2025. It was alleged that the applicant, along with co-accused Vinay Rai and one Mishra, demanded Rs. 34,00,000 to settle the GST liability, which was later reduced to Rs. 10,00,000.
The complainant approached the CBI and after verification, a trap was laid. Co-accused Vinay Rai was allegedly caught while accepting Rs. 5,00,000 as bribe. The prosecution also claimed that the applicant removed a CCTV hard disk during the raid.
The applicant’s counsel argued that there was change in circumstances because charge sheet was filed and other co-accused were granted bail. They also argued that he did not directly demand or accept bribe and he is in custody since 1 February 2025.
The Union of India’s counsel argued that the applicant had active involvement in the offence and sanction for prosecution was already granted. They also pointed out that the Supreme Court, while granting bail to another accused, had observed that the role of the present applicant was different.
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha observed that the applicant’s earlier bail was rejected on merits and the Supreme Court had also dismissed his plea. The Court explained that material on record shows his active participation and pointed out that parity with other accused cannot be claimed as their roles were different.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the earlier rejection of bail, the Court held that no sufficient ground was made out to grant bail. The second bail application was rejected.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
