'Conduct Not In Accordance With Dignity Of AG's Office': Chhattisgarh HC Denies Anticipatory Bail To Ex-Advocate General In 'NAN Scam' Case

While finding prima facie case against the applicant, Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed –

“From the WhatsApp chats, extracted from the mobile phone of the accused persons, it is clear that he was closely connected with the accused persons and regularly in touch with the progress of the case. At that time, he was the Advocate General of the State and he ought not to indulge in such process but he actively engaged himself in relevant chatting with the accused persons who are the highest officers of the State.”

Case Background

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) shared some information about the commission of the offence in connection with a large-scale scam known as 'NAN scam' to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB)/Economic Offence Wing (EOW) in accordance with Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) through a memo dated 02.04.2024.

The said information was shared along with certain documents and digital evidence collected by the Income Tax Department under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the accused Anil Tuteja and Alok Shukla in connection to a criminal case registered against them with the ACB/EOW.

On the basis of such information, an ECIR was registered by the ED. While investigating the case, it was found that the accused Anil Tuteja and Alok Shukla, both top IAS officers, not only tried to obstruct the investigation of the case but also attempted to influence the trial of the offence, which is pending before the Special Court at Raipur, with the connivance of bureaucrats of the Chhattisgarh Government and the officers holding constitutional posts. After receiving the information from the ED, the ACB/EOW confidentially verified the information on their sources.

The applicant Satish Chandra Verma was posted as Advocate General during the relevant period, i.e. 2019-2020. A perusal of the WhatsApp chats and the documents attached to the information and confidential verification revealed that from the year 2019 to 2020, by misusing their respective position, the two accused persons gave undue advantage to the present applicant in order to influence the officers of ACB/EOW and get their reply prepared in their (accused person) favour, so that the accused persons may get anticipatory bail in the case.

Accordingly, an FIR was registered and the ACB/EOW started an investigation in the case. Apprehending his arrest, the present applicant filed this application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking a grant of anticipatory bail.

Court's Observations

The Court, at the outset, examined the law relating to grant of anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS and precedential enumerations through judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi).

Justice Agrawal took note of the allegation that while anticipatory bail applications of the two accused persons were pending for consideration, the applicant tried to manipulate the persons who were in the process of defending the bail application, to mould relief in favour of the accused.

After grant of anticipatory bails to the accused persons, the ED challenged the same before the Supreme Court, in which the agency submitted certain chats gathered from the IT department which led to registration of the instant case against the applicant.

“On the verification of the complaints and the WhatsApp chats it reveals that while the accused persons were in the highest post of the State, they gave undue advantage to the applicant and got him appointed as Advocate General and asked for favour for them in the case. Although the applicant himself did not appear in the proceeding of the bail application but being the head of the institution, he had overall control over the management of the Advocate General office. From a perusal of the WhatsApp chats available in the case diary, it appears that the applicant is actively and knowingly involved in the manipulation of the proceeding of the case.”

The Court said that although the applicant is a former Advocate General of the State and a reputed and designated senior lawyer and there is no chance of his absconding or evading his appearance before the ACB/EOW in interrogation, he ought not have indulged in such activities which maligned the institution and the constitutional post he held at the relevant time.

“He being the highest law officer of the State, has to protect and safeguard the interests of the State Government and, under his sacred duty to provide justice to the victims. The conduct of the applicant is not in accordance with the dignity of the august office of Advocate General while holding such a constitutional post. The act of the applicant appears to be the misuse of the powers by a public servant for personal benefit by a person holding the constitutional post having responsibility of public faith. The WhatsApp chats says all about his culpable state of affairs to advance undue advantage the accused persons in the case,” it added.

The Bench further perused the extracted copy and transcription of the conversation/chats and held that the applicant was in constant touch with the accused persons while he was the Advocate General and have made WhatsApp chats.

“The material in the case diary also shows that the applicant has deep-rooted connections in the government department, which can hamper the course of the investigation if he is granted anticipatory bail,” it further observed.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application was dismissed.

Case Title: Satish Chandra Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case No: MCRCA No. 1369 of 2024

Date of Order: February 13, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Mayur Khandelwal, Panel Lawyer

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 17