ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Since all the above applications have arisen out of the same crime number, therefore they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The accused/applicants have moved these bail applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for releasing them on regular bail during trial in connection with Crime No. 9/2015 (Special Case No. 794/2015) pending in the Court of Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Raipur, registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur for the offence punishable under Sections 11, 13(1)(d), 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'); 109, 120B, 409 and 420 of the IPC. M.Cr.C. No. 3094/2015 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the applicant namely Sudhir Kumar Bhole while working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the Office of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation as on 4-5-2012 entered into criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons and accepted sub-standard rice from rice millers and in lieu thereof, obtained illegal gratification per quintal from rice millers and thereafter, sent Rs.4/- per quintal to other co-accused, Head Quarter at Raipur, and thereby committed the offences. M.Cr.C. No. 3098/2015 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that applicant Satish Kumar Kaiwarth while working as Junior Technical Assistant in the Office of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation as on 10-1-2014 entered into criminal conspiracy with other co-accused persons and accepted sub-standard rice from rice millers and obtained illegal gratification and thereby committed the offences. M.Cr.C. No. 3209/2015 5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that applicant Motilal Sahu while posted as District Manager in the Office of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation at Gariyaband accepted sub-standard rice from rice millers and obtained illegal gratification from rice millers and sent a part of it to the Head Quarter at Raipur to other co-accused persons, and thereby committed the offences. M.Cr.C. No. 3102/2015 6. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that applicant Dilip Kumar Sharma while working as Branch Manager in the State Ware Housing Corporation, Balod accepted sub-standard rice from rice millers during collection of rice in the Nagarik Aapurti Nigam, Balod, and sent a part of it to the Head Quarter at Raipur to other co-accused persons, and thereby committed the offences. M.Cr.C. No. 3185/2015 7. M.Cr.C. No. 3185/2015 7. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that applicant Kaushal Kishore Yadu while posted as District Manager in the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation, Bilaspur with effect from 22-9-2012 accepted sub-standard rice and obtained illegal gratification from rice millers and sent a part of it i.e. Rs.4/- per quintal to the Head Quarter at Raipur to other co-accused, and thereby committed the offences. 8. Mr. Maneesh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for applicants Sudhir Kumar Bhole & Satish Kumar Kaiwarth, would submit that the present applicants have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated. An amount of Rs. 7,25,000/- has been recovered from the Office of applicant Sudhir Kumar Bhole for which offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act has been separately registered against him in which he is answerable and possession of that amount has properly been explained by him before the competent authority by submitting explanation. Mr. Maneesh Sharma, learned counsel would further submit that applicant Sudhir Kumar Bhole has been implicated on the basis of statement of co-accused Arvind Dhruv which is not admissible as he is also a co-accused in this case. Interception of telephonic conversation has not been permitted by the competent authority and there is no complaint of rice millers against him. Applicant Sudhir Kumar Bhole is in custody since 20-3-2015; charge sheet has already been filed and no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and therefore, he be released on bail. 9. Mr. Maneesh Sharma, learned counsel, would also submit that applicant Satish Kumar Kaiwarth was posted as Junior Technical Assistant in the Office of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation at Jagdalpur and he has performed his duty in accordance with law. An amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been recovered from the possession of applicant Satish Kumar Kaiwarth for which offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act has also been registered against him separately. Twin statement made and available against the present accused is the statements of Girish Sharma and Arvind Dhruv which are not admissible in evidence and he is in custody since 20-3-2015, charge sheet has already been filed and no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and therefore, he be released on bail. 10. Mr. Twin statement made and available against the present accused is the statements of Girish Sharma and Arvind Dhruv which are not admissible in evidence and he is in custody since 20-3-2015, charge sheet has already been filed and no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and therefore, he be released on bail. 10. Mr. Y.C. Sharma, learned counsel for applicant Motilal Sahu, would submit that the present applicant was working as District Manager in the Office of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation, Gariyaband, no seizure has been made against the applicant and there are general and omnibus statements against him, he not only surrendered before the Court, but also he has fully cooperated with the investigation and charge-sheet has already been filed and he is in custody since 15-6-2015. No custodial interrogation of the applicant is required and no useful purpose would be served by detaining him in jail, therefore he be released on bail. 11. Mr. Raja Sharma, learned counsel for applicant Dilip Kumar Sharma, would submit that the present applicant is not the officer working in the Office of the Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies Corporation, but he is the officer of the Chhattisgarh State Ware Housing Corporation, he has performed his duty in accordance with the Act applicable to the applicant and an amount of Rs.22,96,150/- has been recovered from his possession, for which offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act has been registered against him separately. Mr. Raja Sharma, learned counsel, would further submit that since the applicant is detained in jail, he could not file reply and immediately after release he will explain the possession of alleged amount. He would also submit that Rs.80,720/- has been recovered from the house of the applicant and Rs.3,88,750/- has been seized from his locker which he would explain satisfactorily upon release. There is neither any allegation of demand nor any complaint of acceptance of illegal gratification by applicant, therefore, registration and arrest of the present applicant for the instant offences are illegal and unauthorized and the applicant deserves to be released on bail, as he is in jail since 20-3-2015 and in view of filing of charge-sheet, no custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. No witness has uttered any adverse statement against the present applicant. Therefore, he be released on bail. 12. Mr. No witness has uttered any adverse statement against the present applicant. Therefore, he be released on bail. 12. Mr. B.D. Guru, learned counsel for applicant Kaushal Kishore Yadu, would submit that the present applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. Mr. Guru, learned counsel, would further submit that Rs. 23,35,000/- is alleged to have been recovered from the locker of the present applicant, but in fact, Rs. 12,35,000/- has been seized from the locker of his mother Smt. Shyama Yadu and Rs. 11,00,000/- has been recovered from the locker of his brother-in-law Satyajit Yadu, therefore, those recovery cannot be held to be the amount belonging to the applicant. He would further submit that separate case under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act, 1988 has already been registered against him. Mr. Guru, learned counsel, would also submit that statements of four rice millers namely Lalit Agrawal, Raj Kumar Agrawal, Manish Khediya and Sanjay Bindal have been recorded and they have not alleged that they have paid any amount to any of the officers including the present applicant for accepting the alleged sub-standard rice. Mr. Guru, learned counsel, would also submit that as per the Government of India's circular, 30% of broken rice is permissible to be accepted while delivering rice and considering the quality of rice it has been accepted by the applicant, as such it cannot be held that the applicant is guilty of the offence and, he would also submit that the transcription report is not admissible in evidence as well as the statements of co-accused namely Girish Sharma and Arvind Dhruv are also not admissible in evidence. The accused is in detention from 20-3-2015. Further custodial interrogation of the accused is not required and therefore, the applicant be released on bail. 13. Replying to the aforesaid bail applications filed by the applicants, Mr. The accused is in detention from 20-3-2015. Further custodial interrogation of the accused is not required and therefore, the applicant be released on bail. 13. Replying to the aforesaid bail applications filed by the applicants, Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, would submit that the applicants who are five in numbers along with 13 other co-accused persons entered into criminal conspiracy and the present applicants while working as Officers in the Nagarik Aapurti Nigam/State Ware Housing Corporation accepted sub-standard rice from rice millers which included more broken rice which is required to be taken by the order of Nagarik Aapurti Nigam and accepted per quintal gratification from rice millers, and part of the said gratification was retained by them and a part of that amount was sent to the Head Quarter of Nagarik Aapurti Nigam to other co-accused persons and as such, huge unexplained amount has been recovered from each of co-accused persons for which offences under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act of 1988 has been registered against them for possessing disproportionate property to their known source of income. Mr. A.S. Kachhawaha, learned Additional Advocate General, would further submit that telephonic conversation of co-accused persons were intercepted with the permission of competent authority duly granted on 22-1-2015 and 10-2-2015 and on other different dates. He would also submit that rice accepted by accused persons was tested by the duly recognized analysts of the Food Corporation of India and the technical experts of the Chhattisgarh Nagarik Aapurti Nigam in which rice accepted by the accused persons were found sub-standard. Statements of rice millers and transporters recorded clearly indicate that huge illegal gratification was accepted by the accused persons in lieu of accepting substandard rice and the said amount was distributed amongst the present applicants and other co-accused persons. He would submit following reply in particular against each of the accused persons:-- "1. Applicant Sudhir Kumar Bhole: Rs. 7,25,000/- has been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Transcription report Ex. D-426 indicates the conversation between the applicant and other accused Shiv Shankar which elaborates involvement of the present applicant. 2. Applicant Satish Kumar Kaiwarth: Rs. 1,50,000/- has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act has been registered against him separately. Report of the handwriting expert Ex. Transcription report Ex. D-426 indicates the conversation between the applicant and other accused Shiv Shankar which elaborates involvement of the present applicant. 2. Applicant Satish Kumar Kaiwarth: Rs. 1,50,000/- has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and offence under Section 13(1)(e) of the Act has been registered against him separately. Report of the handwriting expert Ex. D-91 has been received against the present applicant which demonstrates the acceptance of money and also indicates the list of rice millers from whom money has been recovered, which tallies the handwriting expert report. 3. Applicant Motilal Sahu: Report of the handwriting expert Ex. D-87 demonstrates the involvement of the present applicant. 4. Applicant Dilip Kumar Sharma: Rs. 22,96,150/- has been recovered from the possession of the applicant, Rs. 80,720/- has been recovered from house and Rs. 3,88,750/- has been recovered from his locker. Call details reports are available against the applicant which show involvement of the present applicant in the crime in question. 5. Applicant Kaushal Kishore Yadu: Rs. 1,63,500/- has been recovered from the house of the applicant and Rs. 23,35,000/- has been recovered from locker, and there is no proper explanation of the said amount. Quality test report of rice prepared by the FCI is available implicating him in the offence charged." 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the case diary and available papers with utmost circumspection. 15. A close and careful perusal of the material available in the case diary of Crime No. 9/2015 would show that offence under s 420, 409, 109, 120-B IPC and Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2), 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act have been registered against the present applicants/accused persons, along with other thirteen accused persons. It is the case of the prosecution that Chhattisgarh Civil Services Corporation constituted by State Government, collected paddy in the year 2014-15 and after getting it custom milled from the rice millers, the rice is deposited in the rice collection centre with the quality prescribed by competent authority. It is further case of prosecution that present applicants conspired with other co-accused persons and accepted sub-standard rice in violation of standard quality prescribed by competent authority and obtained huge illegal gratification from the rice millers to clear their sub-standard rice. It is further case of prosecution that present applicants conspired with other co-accused persons and accepted sub-standard rice in violation of standard quality prescribed by competent authority and obtained huge illegal gratification from the rice millers to clear their sub-standard rice. It is also the case of prosecution that the District Managers of the said Corporation of the State collected illegal gratification eight rupees per quintal and distributed the said illegal gratification amongst the accused persons and thereby cheated and caused huge loss to the State Government by their corrupt and illegal means, which is apparent from the fact that huge unexplained amount in total i.e. Rs. 3,43,96,965.00 was recovered from possession of accused persons in their office as well as in their residence on raid conducted on 12-2-2005 and thereby committed the offences. 16. In the matter of State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering a request of the prosecution for adducing evidence inter alia, observed as under:-- "5. ...The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest...." 17. In State of Maharashtra through CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Mumbai v. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar, (2012) 12 SCC 384 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that corruption is violation of human right and observed as under:-- "Corruption is not only a punishable offence but also undermines human rights, indirectly violating them, and systematic corruption, is a human rights' violation in itself, as it leads to systematic economic crimes." 18. Further, in the matter of Nimmagadda Prasad v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2013) 7 SCC 466 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that economic offence is a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and observed as under:-- "23. Unfortunately, in the last few years, the country has been seeing an alarming rise in white-collar crimes, which has affected the fibre of the country's economic structure. Incontrovertibly, economic offences have serious repercussions on the development of the country as a whole. 25. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offence having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds needs to be viewed seriously and considered as a grave offence affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country." 19. Very recently, in the matter of Subramanian Swamy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2014) 8 SCC 682 , the Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) while declaring Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 unconstitutional, observed as under:-- "Corruption is an enemy of nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the P.C. Act, 1988. It is difficult to justify the classification which has been made in Section 6-Abecause the goal of law in the P.C. Act, 1988 is to meet corruption cases with a very strong hand and all public servants are warned through such a legislative measure that corrupt public servants have to face very serious consequence." "Corruption is any enemy of nation and tracking down corrupt public servant, howsoever high he may be, and punishing such person is a necessary mandate under the P.C. Act, 1988. The status or position of public servant does not qualify such public servant from exemption from equal treatment. The decision making power does not segregate corruption officers into two classes as they are common crime doers and have to be tracked down by the same process of inquiry and investigation." 20. The status or position of public servant does not qualify such public servant from exemption from equal treatment. The decision making power does not segregate corruption officers into two classes as they are common crime doers and have to be tracked down by the same process of inquiry and investigation." 20. Thus taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, noticed hereinabove and taking into account, the nature and gravity of the offences, the role of the applicants herein, the manner in which the present applicants are alleged to have conspired with other co-accused persons and thereby the sub-standard rice were accepted by them contrary to the standard specification prescribed by competent authority, which is apparent from the quality test report conducted and submitted by the Food Corporation of India and the technical expert of the Corporation and the manner in which co-accused persons have conspired with each other and obtained huge illegal gratification from the rice millers which is limpid from the statement of the rice millers recorded by the prosecution and available in the case and further taking note of the fact in total Rs. 3,43,96,965.00 (Rupees Three Crore Forty Three Lacs Ninety Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Five) was recovered from the possession of accused persons from their office and their houses on raid conducted by Anti Corruption Bureau on 12-2-2015. Not only this huge unexplained money, valuable articles and the disproportionate wealth to their known source of income have been recovered from them, for which the proceeding under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is said to have been registered against the accused persons including the present applicants herein. Not only this huge unexplained money, valuable articles and the disproportionate wealth to their known source of income have been recovered from them, for which the proceeding under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is said to have been registered against the accused persons including the present applicants herein. Further taking into account the severity of the punishment prescribed for the aforesaid offences and keeping in mind, the binding observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in aforesaid cases (supra), that corruption is a enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and further taking in view that corruption is really a human rights violation specially right to life, liberty, equality and non-discrimination and it is an economic obstacles to the realization of all human rights and further taking into consideration that charge-sheet is yet to be filed against the two co-accused persons, further considering the nature of accusation and gravity of offence, the applicants are charged which are extremely serious and such offences are alleged to have been committed by supplying sub-standard rice, that too, in the State of Chhattisgarh, which is traditionally known as Rice Bowl of India, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, it is not proper to order release of present applicants on regular bail for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. Accordingly, I hereby decline the prayer for bail made by the applicants. 21. Consequently, the bail applications filed by the applicants under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. are rejected. 22. It is clarified, that the observations made in the instant order is only for the purpose of considering the application for grant of regular bail and shall not prejudice any of the parties during the course of trial or thereafter. 23. Certified copy as per rules on usual charges. Application Dismissed