Chhattisgarh High Court denies pre-arrest bail to ex-IAS Anil Tuteja in NAN ‘scam’ case: ‘Graft nation’s formidable enemy’

The case relates to alleged interference in proceedings linked to the Nagarik Apurti Nigam (NAN) scam and Enforcement Directorate investigations.

Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal rejected Anil Tuteja’s claim of parity with co-accused Satish Chandra Verma.

“If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty,” the Chhattisgarh High Court said on May 15 relying on a series of Supreme Court rulings dealing with corruption and economic offences.

Corruption ‘erodes democracy, governance’

• The Chhattisgarh High Court extensively referred to Supreme Court precedents highlighting the damaging impact of corruption on governance and democratic institutions.
• It noted that corruption “has the potentiality to destroy many a progressive aspect” and described it as “the formidable enemy of the nation.”
• The Chhattisgarh High Court further reproduced observations from earlier judgments stating that corruption threatens “the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law” and corrodes constitutional governance.
• Referring to the nature of the allegations, the Chhattisgarh High Court said economic offences involving corruption and abuse of public office constitute a “class apart” and must be treated seriously because they affect public confidence in institutions and the financial health of the country.

What is the NAN scam?

The alleged NAN scam had emerged in 2015 when the Opposition in Chhattisgarh raised allegations of corruption in the Public Distribution System (PDS), which until then had been hailed as a model for other states.

The then BJP government faced allegations that rice millers and agents paid kickbacks to officials to allow substandard rice to be distributed through the state’s PDS. NAN is the agency in charge of distribution and procurement of grains.

NAN scam-linked allegations

• The prosecution case traces its roots to a First Information Report (FIR) registered in 2015 by the ACB/EOW in connection with the NAN scam, the Chhattisgarh High Court noted.
• While Tuteja was not initially named in the original chargesheet filed in 2015, he was later added through a supplementary chargesheet filed on December 5, 2018.
• The Enforcement Directorate (ED) subsequently registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) against him in January 2019 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
• Tuteja had secured anticipatory bail in those proceedings from the Chhattisgarh High Court in 2019 and 2020.
• The present FIR emerged from alleged WhatsApp chats recovered during Income Tax searches conducted in February 2020.
• Based on material shared by the ED under Section 66 of the PMLA, the ACB/EOW registered an FIR in 2024 against Tuteja and others.
• The matter was later transferred to the CBI, which re-registered the case on April 16, 2025.

CBI alleges abuse of official position

• According to the CBI, Tuteja, along with co-accused Alok Shukla and former Advocate General Satish Chandra Verma, conspired to influence proceedings arising out of the NAN case and related ED investigations.
• The agency alleged that the accused used their positions to manipulate departmental records, alter official responses proposed before the high court and influence witnesses connected with the NAN case.
• The prosecution further claimed that digital evidence seized during income tax raids disclosed continuous interaction with constitutional authorities and senior bureaucrats for securing undue advantage in pending criminal proceedings.
• Opposing the bail plea, the CBI argued that the investigation was at a “crucial stage,” with several witnesses yet to be examined and digital as well as financial evidence still under scrutiny.

Defence alleges political vendetta

Appearing for Tuteja, senior counsel argued before the Chhattisgarh High Court that the former bureaucrat was being targeted through “successive and overlapping arrests” intended to prolong his incarceration despite him securing relief in earlier matters.

The defence maintained that the present FIR was founded on conjecture and politically motivated allegations without any legally admissible evidence directly connecting him to the offences alleged.

Tuteja’s counsel also attacked the integrity of the electronic evidence, arguing that the seizure and extraction of WhatsApp chats suffered from serious procedural irregularities.

It was contended before the Chhattisgarh High Court that mandatory safeguards concerning preservation of hash values and compliance with Section 65B (admissibility of electronic records) of the Evidence Act were not followed.

The defence further argued that WhatsApp chats alone could not form the basis for depriving a person of liberty because such communications are susceptible to manipulation and subjective interpretation.

Court says evidence issues must be tested at trial

• Rejecting the defence submissions, the Chhattisgarh High Court held that questions regarding admissibility, authenticity and evidentiary value of electronic material could only be examined during trial and not at the anticipatory bail stage.
• It observed that issues relating to alleged tampering of WhatsApp chats, preservation of hash values and compliance with procedural safeguards were disputed factual matters requiring detailed examination of evidence and expert analysis.
• Justice Agrawal also rejected Tuteja’s claim of parity with co-accused Satish Chandra Verma, who had earlier been granted anticipatory bail, observing that the allegations against the former IAS officer stood “on a different footing.”

‘Grant of bail may affect investigation’

• The Chhattisgarh High Court ultimately concluded that the allegations disclosed serious cognisable offences involving corruption, criminal conspiracy and abuse of public office.
• It accepted the prosecution’s apprehension that, considering Tuteja’s influential administrative background, there existed a possibility of interference with witnesses or obstruction of the investigation.
• Holding that no exceptional circumstances had been made out for grant of anticipatory bail, the court said the discretionary relief could not be granted as a matter of routine in serious corruption cases and dismissed the application.

Supreme Court granted bail in DMF scam

On May 18, the Supreme Court granted bail to Tuteja in a corruption case linked to the alleged District Mineral Foundation (DMF) scam, observing that he had remained in custody for a prolonged period and that the trial was unlikely to conclude anytime soon.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order while hearing Tuteja’s plea challenging the Chhattisgarh High Court’s refusal to grant him bail in the case registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau (EOW/ACB).

The case concerns alleged irregularities in the utilisation of DMF funds in Chhattisgarh, with the prosecution accusing Tuteja of misusing his official position to influence the allocation and execution of government works and facilitating undue benefits to select private entities.

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam, appearing for Tuteja, argued that several co-accused had already secured bail and pointed out that nearly 85 prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined, making an early conclusion of the trial unlikely. He also submitted that Tuteja had been in custody since April 2024 and was formally arrested in the DMF case in February 2026.

Opposing the plea, the state contended that the allegations involved serious economic offences and accused Tuteja of playing a central role in manipulating the distribution of DMF works. The prosecution further alleged that public funds were diverted through a network of favoured suppliers and contractors.

While acknowledging the gravity of the allegations, the top court noted that the merits of the accusations would be examined during trial and that continued incarceration pending trial was not justified in the circumstances of the case.