Order : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) This is a bail application U/S.483 of BNSS, 2023 filed by the applicant for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 04/2024 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 420,467,468,471,120-B and 34 IPC. The present bail application has been preferred by the applicant being aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the Sessions Court, Raipur. FACTS OF THE CASE 2. The applicant has been arrested by the police of Anti Corruption Bureau/Economic Offences Wing for the alleged offences under Sections 7 & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 420, 467,468,471,120-B and 34 of the IPC. Prosecution case, in brief is that on receiving a letter by the Deputy Director bearing NO.ECIR/RPZO/11/2022/279 dated 11.07.2023 from the Enforcement Directorate, complaint has been registered by the respondent against various persons. It is alleged that Arunpati Tripathi, Arvind Singh, Anwar Dhebar, Trilok Singh Dhillon and several others have taken commission from the distillery owners of country liquor namely M/s. CG Distillery Limited, M/s. Bhatia Wines Merchant Pvt. Ltd. And Welcome Distillery Pvt. Ltd. for supply of liquor and the same is described as Part-A offence. The offence in part-B inter alia alleging that the above named persons have created parallel mechanism for selling liquor. The liquor has been manufactured and sold off the record from government shops. This act was done with the help of distillery owners, bottle supply agency and by manufacturing duplicate holograms. The offence is committed from the year 2019 to 2023. It is alleged that the Director of M/s. Prizm Holograms and Security Pvt. Ltd. Vidhu Gupta has supplied duplicate holograms through its office at Raipur in which the present applicant was working as Accountant at Noida office and issued invoices. It is alleged that the applicant is indulged in forgery and criminal conspiracy. 3. The applicant was employed by Prizm Hologram and he was working in the office at Noida, UP as a salaried employee. As per the FIR , a criminal syndicate comprising of high level State government officials, private persons and political executives of the State government was operating in the State of CG which was making illegal bribe collections by controlling the high level management of important State departments and State Public Sector undertakings. As per the FIR , a criminal syndicate comprising of high level State government officials, private persons and political executives of the State government was operating in the State of CG which was making illegal bribe collections by controlling the high level management of important State departments and State Public Sector undertakings. The sale of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh was one of the major sources of illegal earning of the syndicate and one Anil Tuteja along with Anwar Dhebar and Arunpati Tripathi, MD CSMCL and other associates of Anwar Dhebar namely Vikas Agarwal @ Subbu, the present applicant, Sanjay Diwan and country liquor distillers, excise officials etc. were the main actors of the syndicate. 4. These syndicate collector illegal money in three different ways from the sale of liquor in the State which has been classified into three parts: Part A- illegal commission charged from liquor supplier for official sale of liquor in the State of Chhattisgarh. Part B – Sale of unaccounted illicit countrymade liquor from State run shops done with the involvement of distillers, hologram manufacturers, bottle makers, transporters, man power management and District Excise Officials. Part C – Annual Commission from distillers for allowing them to operate a syndicate and divide the market share amongst themselves. 5. The EOW has analyzed the information and the data shared by the Income Tax Department and on the basis of the said documents, it has been revealed that a well planned systematic conspiracy was executed by the syndicate to earn illegal commission in the sale and licensing of liquor. Accordingly. FIR bearing Crime No. 04/2024 was registered and investigation was initiated. 6. As per the investigation, the liquor was divided into two categories namely Country Liquor and Indian Manufactured Foreign Liquor. The country liquor was produced in the State of CG through three distilleries ie. M/s. Chhattisgarh Distilleries Ltd.; M/s. Bhatia Wines and Merchants Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Welcome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Massive corruption had taken place in the Excise Department since 2019. The Excise Departments were set up in the year 2017 to regulate the supply of liquor, ensure quality liquor to users to prevent hooch tragedies and to earn revenue for the State. M/s. Chhattisgarh Distilleries Ltd.; M/s. Bhatia Wines and Merchants Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Welcome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Massive corruption had taken place in the Excise Department since 2019. The Excise Departments were set up in the year 2017 to regulate the supply of liquor, ensure quality liquor to users to prevent hooch tragedies and to earn revenue for the State. But the criminal syndicate led by co-accused Anwar Dhebar and Anil Tuteja had turned these upside down by systematically altering the liquor policy as per their whims and fancies and extorted maximum personal benefit for themselves. Though it was started with a noble objective, but it became the tool in the hands of the syndicate, which used it to enforce a parallel excise department. The syndicate comprised of senior bureaucrats of the State, politicians and officials of excise department. In the month of February 2019, Arunpati Tripathi (ITS Officer) was chosen by the syndicate to lead the CSMCL and in the month of May 2019 he was made the Managing Director on the behest of Anwar Dhebar. It has been further revealed that co- accused Arunpathi Tripathi was assigned with the task to maximize the bribe commission collected from the liquor procured by M/s. CSMCL and to make necessary arrangement for sale of non-duty paid liquor in the CSMCL run shops. Mr. Anwar Dhebar gave the task of cash collection to Mr. Vikas Agarwal @ Subbu and the logistics were set to be the responsibility of the present applicant. 7. To extract cash bribes for foreign liquor makers in respect of IMFL and FL as there was strong demand for good quality foreign brands, in the month of April 2020, the syndicate introduced a fourth type of mechanism to extort bribe from FL makes also by introducing the concept of FL-10A licenses. These licenses were again given to three chosen associates of Mr. Anwar Dhebar who acted as intermediary and buy foreign liquor and sell to the Chhattisgarh government warehouses and generated commission of around 10% on foreign liquor. These licenses were given on the condition that 50-60% of the final profit amount of the FL-10A licenses shall be paid to the syndicate. Anwar Dhebar who acted as intermediary and buy foreign liquor and sell to the Chhattisgarh government warehouses and generated commission of around 10% on foreign liquor. These licenses were given on the condition that 50-60% of the final profit amount of the FL-10A licenses shall be paid to the syndicate. Thee licenses were paid to three persons who were ready to hike prices and ensure payment of cash bribe namely Sanjay Mishra (M/s. Nexgen Power Engitech Pvt. Ltd.; Atul Kumar Singh and Mukesh Manchanda (M/s. Om Sai Beverages Pvt. Ltd.) and Asheesh Sourabh Kedia (M/s. Dishita Ventures Pvt. Ltd.). A total amount of Rs.1660,41,00,056/- earning was made by the syndicate from the financial year 2019-20 to 2022-2023 causing a huge loss of the State Exchequer. The preliminary charge sheets have been filed against 4 persons namely Arunpati Tripathi, Trilok Singh Dhillon, Anwar Dhebar and present applicant. The liquor has been manufactured and sold off the record from the government shops. The act is done with the help of distillery owners, bottle supply agency and by manufacturing duplicate holograms. Vidhu Gupta, Director of M/s. Prizm Hologram and Security Pvt. Ltd. supplied the duplicate holograms through its office in Raipur where the present applicant was working as Accountant in Noida office and issued invoices and it is alleged that the applicant was indulged in forgery and criminal conspiracy. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT 8. Shri Shishir Prakash, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been arrested on 20.10.2024 by the ACB/EOW, Raipur for the alleged offence under Sections 7 &12 of the PC Act. 1988 and Sections 420,467,468,471,120-B and 34 IPC on the allegation that the applicant is Accountant working in the M/s. Prizm Holography Security Films Pvt. Ltd. and on instructions, he had issued duplicate invoices of the holograms from Noida office. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated despite the fact that he is a salaried employee of the company in question. The main accused in the case Vidhu Gupta (Director), Niranjan Das IAS (former Excise Commissioner, Chhattisgarh) and Yash Tuteja (named accused) are currently enjoying interim relief from the Apex Court. 9. It is contended that a charge sheet has been filed against the applicant along with other co-accused. The main accused in the case Vidhu Gupta (Director), Niranjan Das IAS (former Excise Commissioner, Chhattisgarh) and Yash Tuteja (named accused) are currently enjoying interim relief from the Apex Court. 9. It is contended that a charge sheet has been filed against the applicant along with other co-accused. The only role of the present applicant is that he prepared the invoices mentioning two different kinds of entries with regard to supply of printed and unprinted holograms. Though the charge sheet has been filed on 18.11.2024 no charges have been framed yet. He further contended that the applicant is not named in the FIR and he is not an accused in the ECIR prosecution complaint. He contended that the applicant was merely an employee of Ms. Prizm Holography Pvt. Ltd. and the company allotted the tender for hologram manufacturing. The Director of the Company has been granted interim protection from arrest by the Apex Court and if the principal accused is protected from arrest, continuous detention of the present applicant who is an employee is unwarranted and unjustified. 10. He contended that the only role attributed to the applicant is making invoices which falls within his professional duties as an Accountant. Even if the allegations are assumed to be true, no criminal offence can be said to have been committed by the applicant. It is his duty to prepare invoices for goods as a routine task. The applicant has no common intention or criminal conspiracy with the main accused and his role was limited to coordinating the work at Raipur office and communicating instructions between the office and the owner. There is no mens rea and the prosecution has failed to show any connivance and knowledge about the alleged scam. It is contended that the applicant being a employee is executed the task and as per instructions of his employer, he was working as accountant. There was no evidence of criminal intent or any motive on the part of the applicant. He submits that the applicant has not derived any benefit or had been a beneficiary of any wrongful money. He had not created any assets from the alleged fraudulent activities and that the holograms were being sent in furtherance of the Company’s obligation to supply and manufacture the holograms. 11. He submits that the applicant has not derived any benefit or had been a beneficiary of any wrongful money. He had not created any assets from the alleged fraudulent activities and that the holograms were being sent in furtherance of the Company’s obligation to supply and manufacture the holograms. 11. It is contended that the arrest of the applicant is illegal as no grounds of arrest as mandated by law and the arresting authorities failed to comply the guidelines laid down in the judgment of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 where the Apex Court has mandated that reasons for arrest must be recorded and communicated to the accused. It is further contended that the statements made under duress or coercion are inadmissible in evidence as held by the Apex Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (1992) supp (1) SCC 335. he contended that for a charge of conspiracy to hold, there must be evidence showing clear and definite agreement between the conspirators as held in Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979)3 SCC 4 . 12. He further contended that the Apex Court in P ramhansa Jadab Vs. State of Orissa (1991) 2 SCC 48 held that mere association or presence does not prove common intention or conspiracy. The prosecution must prove the existence of a prior agreement to commit an illegal act, which is lacking in this case. 13. He next contended that the applicant has no direct involvement in the crime and his name has been roped in only to connect the dots and reach the main accused who had already been released on bail. The applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is not a flight risk. It is contended that the applicant is not a government servant hence, the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act are not attracted in the present case. It is contended that the applicant is in jail since 25.10.2024 without trial. He was working at the company’s head office in Greater Noida and the ain accused and beneficiary of the alleged crime Trilok Singh Dhillon has been granted bail by the Apex Court on 27.11.2024 and the role of the applicant is lesser than that of the co-accused who had been released. 14. He was working at the company’s head office in Greater Noida and the ain accused and beneficiary of the alleged crime Trilok Singh Dhillon has been granted bail by the Apex Court on 27.11.2024 and the role of the applicant is lesser than that of the co-accused who had been released. 14. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no recovery of any incriminating material nor documents or cash has been recovered from the applicant. He submits it was his job or preparing invoices for the goods which does not constitute a criminal act. He contended that the applicant is not a resident of Chhattisgarh but is willing to make himself available for trial whenever required. He is not a flight risk and will not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. SUBMISSION OF COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT 15. It has been contended by Dr. Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent that in the instant case, after the initial investigation, preliminary charge sheet has been filed by the ACB/EOW and the following emerges against the applicant. 16. The present applicant works as an Accountant in the factory of the hologram providing company ie. Prizm Holography and Security Films Limited, Kasna, Greater Noida. The director of the Company is Vidhu Gupta. In the month of October 2019, Prizm Hologram Company received a tender to supply holograms to the Chhattisgarh Excise Department and the company opened its branch office in GST Bhawan, Naya Raipur and one Dilip Pandey was made in charge of the said office. These holograms were sent to its Raipur unit from the Noida office of Prizm Hologram as per the demand of the Excise Department. The series of numbers given by the Excise Department and the QR code were printed in the holograms sent from Noida in the Raipur unit and supplied to the distilleries and bottling units as well as licensed bars from the Raipur unit through the Excise Department. It is submitted that the tender for supplying the holograms was given by the then Mdof BRDS, Arunpati Tripathi, in an illegal manner by sending duplicate holograms along with original holograms. This process of supplying the holograms without number printed on them to Chhattisgarh Excise department started from the office at Noida to Raipur unit where the number was printed and supplied to the distilleries by the Excise Department as per demand. 17. This process of supplying the holograms without number printed on them to Chhattisgarh Excise department started from the office at Noida to Raipur unit where the number was printed and supplied to the distilleries by the Excise Department as per demand. 17. The vehicle in which the holograms were sent contained about 40,000 holograms in one roll. In the same vehicle, along with the roll of original hologram, two rolls of duplicate holograms were packed in a corporate box and kept in a plastic bag. There were about 80,000 holograms in the box as per two rolls in which the numbers of holograms previously used in Chhattisgarh Excise were reprinted and sent. 18. Some of the associates of the syndicate used to get the boxes of duplicate holograms filled in the vehicle unloaded at Anurag Dwivedi’s bottle godown at Dhaneli village from where the duplicate holograms were supplied to distilleries. It is submitted that at the time of transporting holograms the invoice bill was prepared by the present applicant who is an Accountant. The applicant used to write the complete details of the items in the invoice and thereafter the fake holograms and original holograms were sent through the vehicle. The applicant used to write in the invoice along with the number of the roll and the number of the hologram, its price in the column parallel to it and a box was written in the invoice for duplicate holograms and its number was written but the information about what was filled in the box was not written in the column and its information was hidden in the invoice. 19. It is contended by Dr. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent that from the memorandum statement of accused Dilip Pandey, it has been revealed that at the time of transporting holograms, their Invoice bill was prepared by signed by the present applicant. It is alleged that the complete details of the items were written in the invoice when original holograms were sent in the vehicle but when the duplicate holograms were sent along with the original holograms, at that time, the invoice along with the number of the rolls and the number of the hologram, its price etc. were also written in the column parallel to it. A box was written in the invoice for duplicate holograms and its number was written. were also written in the column parallel to it. A box was written in the invoice for duplicate holograms and its number was written. The information about what was filled in the box was not written in the column and its information was hidden in the invoice. Thus, the applicant used to prepare fake invoices by hiding the information without writing the details of the boxes filled with duplicate holograms in the invoice. Therefore, looking to the role played by the applicant in hiding the details in the invoice for sending the duplicate holograms is thus, involved with the syndicate. ANALYSIS 20. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length as well as perused and considered the averments and allegations made against the applicant and the material available on record. 21. In the instant case, there are nearly 70 accused persons while charge sheet has only been filed against 11 persons. There are 457 witnesses in the scheduled offence and the trial is not likely to conclude. However, the ED has submitted that at least 3 to 4 charge sheets are yet to be filed in the scheduled offence. From perusal of the records, it appears that the applicant was merely an Accountant,an employee in the Company and he was working under the instructions of his master ie. Director Vidhu Gupta, who is the owner of the Prizm Holograms and Security Films Ltd. Kasna, Greater Noida as well as its branch office in GST Bhawan, Naya Raipur. The allegation against the applicant is that he works as an Accountant in the company of accused Vidhu Gupta and had only prepared the invoices for goods which was his routine administrative task. There is no question of deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver any property to any person. 22. Looking to the averments and allegations against the applicant, it appears that the prosecution has failed to show any evidence to show that the applicant had conscious participation in the offence. Neither any recovery of unaccounted money has been made in this regard from him nor the applicant is the member of syndicate in the present case has been established. 23. Further it appears that the main accused and beneficiary of the alleged crime ie. Neither any recovery of unaccounted money has been made in this regard from him nor the applicant is the member of syndicate in the present case has been established. 23. Further it appears that the main accused and beneficiary of the alleged crime ie. Trilok Singh Dhillon has been granted bail by the Apex Court and looking to the role of the present applicant, which is significantly lesser than that of the co-accused persons who have been released, therefore on the ground of parity, the applicant is liable to be granted bail. Moreover considering the fact that he had no direct role in the commission of the offence and as a master-servant relation, he merely followed the orders and prepared the invoices for the goods on the instructions of his master ie. Vidhu Gupta. The Director of the Company who is also one of the accused and member of the syndicate has been granted interim protection from arrest by the Apex Court along with other accused persons namely Niranjan Das IAS (former Excise Commissioner, (CG) and Yash Tuteja (named accused), Yash Purohit, Nitesh Purohit and they received commission from the liquor suppliers. CONCLUSION 24. Thus, taking into consideration the fact that the applicant is neither a flight risk, nor can there be any propensity on his part to tamper with any evidence or influence any witness inasmuch as the entire domain of evidence is documentary in nature. The applicant is a permanent resident of UP and has no antecedents. There is no allegation that the applicant has any contact with the main accused ie. Anil Tuteja, Anwar Dhebar, Arunpati Tripathi and Arvind Singh. It is also apposite to mention here that there is no allegation of his receiving any commission from the liquor suppliers and the only allegation is that he has made two different types of invoices ie. one for the original holograms, wherein he used to write in the invoice along with the number of the roll and the number of the hologram, its price in the column parallel to it and for the duplicate holograms, a box was written in the invoice and its number was written but the information about what was filled in the box was not written (it was kept blank) in the column and its information was hidden in the invoice. 25. 25. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the role of the applicant herein and the charges against him, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be proper to order the release of present applicant on regular bail for the reasons mentioned hereinabove. 26. Accordingly, the prayer for bail made by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), is hereby allowed. He has been languishing in jail since 25.10.2024 and considering the facts and circumstances as discussed above, this Court is inclined to allow the instant bail application of the applicant seeking regular bail. 27. It is accordingly directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two local sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent/Trial Court subject to the conditions as follow:- (a) he shall under no circumstances leave India without prior permission of the Court concerned; (b) he shall surrender his passport, if any, before the Trial Court; (c) he shall appear before the trial Court concerned as and when required; (d) he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case; (e) he shall provide his mobile number(s) and keep it operational at all times; (f) he shall commit no offence whatsoever during the period he is on bail; and (g) in case of change of residential address and/or mobile number, the same shall be intimated to the Court concerned by way of an affidavit. 28. It is made clear that any observations affecting merits of the case are purely for the purpose of deciding the instant bail application and shall not be construed as an expression of final observation in the proceedings before Trial Court.