Prima Facie Role in Coal Levy Scam & Gravity of Economic Offence Defeat Parity Plea: Chhattisgarh HC Rejects Bail to Applicant [Read Order]

The Chhattisgarh High Court has rejected bail to the applicant in acse of Coal levy scam, holding that his role was prima facie established and the economic offences are treated with much more gravity. This also celery defeated his parity plea.

The case stems from an FIR registered at the Anti-Corruption Bureau/Economic Offences Wing, Raipur, based on information shared by the Enforcement Directorate under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The FIR had named 35 accused, which also included senior bureaucrats and politically connected individuals. They were all alleged of conspiracy to impose an illegal levy of ₹25 per tonne on coal transported across Chhattisgarh.

The investigations into the matter suggested that between July 2020 and June 2022, the syndicate collected approximately ₹540 crore through this extortion system.

According to the prosecution, the applicant, Jaychand Koshale, then an assistant grade II, became a trusted aid of co-accused Saumya Chaurasia, who later served as Deputy Secretary in the Chief Minister’s Secretariat. He allegedly acted as her operative in the illegal network, using a government vehicle allotted irregularly to collect and deliver extortion money.

Handwritten diaries seized during the searches contain entries marked JAI, which investigators linked to Koshale, indicating his involvement in handling around ₹7 crore.

The applicant's counsel argued that he was falsely implicated. It was also submitted that there was no direct evidence connecting the applicant to gratification or wrongful loss. Counsel stressed that statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC were weak evidence, and no material was established conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC.

The applicant further argued on the grounds of parity. It was noted that the Supreme Court had granted bail to the co-accused, Ranu Sahu, Suryakant Tiwari, Sameer Vishnoi, and Saumya Chaurasia. It was further argued that the trial would take considerable time, and the applicant had been in custody since September 21, 2025, with no pending investigation against him.

Highlighting the seriousness of the offence and the applicant’s role in a conspiracy, the state also opposed the bail. It was argued that custodial interrogation was necessary to trace the source of properties linked to him.

Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas examined the case diary and submissions. After which, it was held that prima facie evidence reflected the applicant’s role in the offence under Sections 420, 120-B, and 384 IPC read with Sections 7, 7A, and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Court noted that the accused persons themselves had contributed to delays by filing multiple applications. It reiterated that delay alone is not a ground for bail when serious allegations exist.

On parity, the Court distinguished the applicant’s case, observing that the co-accused granted bail by the Supreme Court had already spent nearly two years in custody, whereas Koshale was arrested only in September 2025. The Court concluded that parity did not apply and that the applicant’s involvement was sufficiently established to deny bail.

As a result, the bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was rejected. The Court clarified that its observations would not affect the trial, which must proceed independently on the basis of evidence.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates