THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
—
Ranchi, April 24: The Jharkhand High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of Arvind Singh, a Chhattisgarh-based accused in the liquor scam being investigated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).
Arvind Singh, an employee of Bhilai Steel Plant, has been accused of being part of a syndicate involved in illegal activities linked to the liquor trade. The prosecution alleged that he acted as a key link in collecting and routing commission money and coordinating between officials in Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh.
Witness Statements Point to Involvement
The court noted that multiple witness and co-accused statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS indicate his active role. Statements suggest he pressured placement agencies to participate in tenders and was involved in handling commission payments and coordination within the network.
Non-Cooperation with Probe
The High Court observed that despite repeated notices, the petitioner failed to appear before the investigating officer in Jharkhand. His reasons for non-appearance were not supported by proper records, and the court held that he did not cooperate with the investigation.
ALSO READ: Jharkhand Liquor Scam: HC denies bail to Chhattisgarh ex-MD Arun Tripathi
Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary said custodial interrogation is necessary to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy and verify the roles of all accused persons. The court also noted the possibility of evidence tampering if relief is granted.
Serious Economic Offence: Court Observation
The court treated the case as a serious economic offence involving large-scale financial irregularities and public money. It observed that in such cases—especially those involving complex financial crimes and deep-rooted conspiracies—anticipatory bail should not be granted routinely.
Relying on Supreme Court judgments, including P. Chidambaram vs Directorate of Enforcement and Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy vs CBI, the court emphasised that economic offences have wider implications on public interest and require strict scrutiny.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the available evidence, and the lack of cooperation, the High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application.