The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected anticipatory bail for ex-Advocate General Satish Chandra Verma in the NAN scam. WhatsApp chats revealed his alleged role in influencing cases for top officials.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
BILASPUR: The Chhattisgarh High Court, on February 13, refused to grant anticipatory bail to former Advocate General Satish Chandra Verma in connection with the ‘Nagarik Apurti Nigam’ (NAN) scam.
Verma has been accused of misusing his high constitutional position to influence legal proceedings in favor of senior government officials.
Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed that there was enough initial evidence against Verma and, therefore, denied his request for anticipatory bail.
“This court is satisfied that a strong prima facie case is made out against the applicant and the said conduct is part of the conspiracy which can only be revealed if the investigating agency is given the due opportunity to apprehend the applicant and investigate the case without there being any chance to hamper the witnesses and the evidence,”
-the Court stated.
The Court also pointed out that WhatsApp messages retrieved from the accused’s mobile phones showed Verma’s close association with them. The chats further indicated that he was actively monitoring their cases despite holding an official position.
“That the steps taken by the applicant were part of a conspiracy to manipulate the system and the investigation in this regard would be impacted if he is granted anticipatory bail. Necessary interrogation is warranted to reveal all the aspects and attributes related to the said offence committed against the institution,”
-the Court added.
The case came to light after the Enforcement Directorate (ED) provided crucial details to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and Economic Offences Wing (EOW) regarding the large-scale corruption scandal under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). This information was shared through a memo dated April 2, 2024.
The ED’s memo included critical documents and digital proof gathered by the Income Tax Department under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These materials were primarily related to IAS officers Anil Tuteja and Alok Shukla, who were already accused in the case.
Based on this evidence, the ED registered an ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) and found that the accused were not only obstructing the investigation but were also attempting to manipulate the legal proceedings with the help of Chhattisgarh bureaucrats and high-ranking government officials. Before proceeding further, the ACB and EOW secretly verified all the provided information.
During 2019-2020, when Verma was serving as the Advocate General, he allegedly accepted undue benefits from the accused. In return, he is said to have influenced ACB/EOW officials and manipulated legal responses to support the anticipatory bail petitions of the accused.
ALSO READ: ED Accuses Delhi Excise Scam Suspects of Delaying Trial
Following these findings, an FIR was registered, and a detailed investigation began. Fearing his possible arrest, Verma approached the court seeking anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
During the court proceedings, it was noted that while the bail applications of the accused were still pending, Verma made efforts to influence those involved in the defense of the accused to ensure favorable outcomes.
Later, when the accused were granted bail, the Enforcement Directorate challenged the decision in the Supreme Court. As part of their challenge, the ED presented WhatsApp chats retrieved by the Income Tax Department. These chats played a crucial role in leading to the present case against Verma.
The Court further highlighted that these messages suggested that the accused, who were holding high positions in the state government, played a key role in appointing Verma as the Advocate General. In return, Verma allegedly intervened in legal proceedings to benefit them. Even though Verma himself did not personally appear in the bail hearings, he reportedly controlled the operations of the Advocate General’s office and actively manipulated the legal process.
Additionally, the Court expressed concerns about Verma’s deep political and bureaucratic connections, stating that granting him bail could significantly hinder the investigation.
“In the instant case, a prima facie case is made out that the conduct of the applicant has been solely driven with the motive to dupe the officers of the State to avail the benefits of disadvantageous relief,”
-the Court observed.
As a result, the Court dismissed Verma’s anticipatory bail plea.
In the case, Senior Advocate Kishore Bhaduri, along with Advocate Sabyasachi Bhaduri, represented the petitioner.
On behalf of the State, Deputy Advocate General Saurabh Kumar Pande and Advocate Mayur Khandelwal appeared.
CASE TITLE:
Satish Chandra Verma v. State of Chattisgarh.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
