In a significant development, the Chhattisgarh High Court has denied bail to former IAS officer Anil Tuteja in connection with an alleged ₹50 crore District Mineral Foundation (DMF) scam.
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas rejected the bail plea, citing the gravity of the offence, the petitioner’s influential position, and the possibility of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.
Court Cites Gravity of Offence and Influence
While hearing the bail application, the court observed that the allegations involve serious economic offences and misuse of public funds.
The court noted that:
- The petitioner held a senior and influential position in the department
- There is a strong likelihood of influencing witnesses
- Release on bail could obstruct the ongoing investigation
The court further emphasised that economic offences are committed with “deliberate design and an eye on personal profit,” and therefore require a stricter approach.
Read also: Bihar Transfers 4 IAS Officers; Gopal Meena Named Governor’s Secretary, Chongthu Shifted
Case Linked to DMF Fund Irregularities
The case stems from alleged irregularities in the use of District Mineral Foundation funds in Korba district.
According to the prosecution:
- Between 2019 and 2022, Anil Tuteja, then Additional Secretary in the Industry Department, allegedly acted as a central coordinator and influencer
- He is accused of manipulating allocation and execution of works under the DMF scheme
- Select private entities were allegedly given undue advantage in return for financial gains
The DMF scheme typically funds developmental works such as smart classrooms, mini science labs, RO systems, and infrastructure projects.
FIR and Charges Under IPC and PC Act
A First Information Report (FIR) was registered based on inputs from the Enforcement Directorate and subsequent investigation by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau.
The charges include:
- IPC Sections 420 (cheating), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 467, 468, 471 (forgery-related offences)
- Sections 7 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Allegations of Large-Scale Financial Misuse
Investigations revealed that:
- Works were allegedly allotted to favoured individuals including Vinod Rathi, Kishan Tuteja, and Lalit Bhansali
- Firms such as Maa Ganga Enterprises and Yash Enterprises reportedly received contracts worth over ₹50 crore
- A co-accused, Satpal Singh Chhabra, allegedly received ₹16 crore as illegal commission, part of which was claimed to have been paid to the applicant
Court: Trial Delay Not a Ground for Bail
Rejecting the bail plea, the High Court made it clear that:
- Delay in trial does not automatically entitle an accused to bail
- The seriousness of economic offences requires a different judicial approach
The court also referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, highlighting the broader impact of economic crimes on society and the national economy.
Investigation Still Underway
The court noted that the investigation is still in progress and custody of the accused is necessary to uncover the full extent of the alleged conspiracy.
Given the scale of alleged corruption and misuse of public funds, the court held that granting bail at this stage would not be appropriate.
Read also: Who Is IRAS Officer Rohit Parmar? New ED Finance (Expenditure) at Railway Board
