Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Former Chhattisgarh Excise Commissioner In UP FIR Linked To Alleged ₹2,161 Crore Liquor Scam
The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to former Chhattisgarh Excise Commissioner Niranjan Das in an Uttar Pradesh FIR linked to the alleged ₹2,161 crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam.
Justice Vikram D. Chauhan observed:
"If the accused is otherwise found to be entitled to bail, he cannot be denied bail only on the ground of criminal history, no exceptional circumstances on the basis of criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to accused, hence, the Court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had criminal antecedent".
According to the prosecution, Das was the Excise Commissioner of Chhattisgarh and was involved in drafting the State's excise policy and tender process. It was alleged that he drafted a policy that allegedly benefited hologram manufacturer M/s Prizm Holography Security Films Pvt. Ltd., Noida.
The Court noted that an FIR was initially registered by the State Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau, Raipur (Chhattisgarh), under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC against more than 70 persons, including the applicant, in connection with the alleged ₹2,161 crore liquor scam.
The applicant submitted that the Supreme Court had granted him bail in May 2026 in the Chhattisgarh case. It was further submitted that the Directorate of Enforcement informed the Uttar Pradesh authorities regarding the alleged manufacture of holograms at Noida, leading to registration of the present UP FIR.
It was argued that the others who were allegedly involved in the scam were also enlarged on bail. It was submitted that 22 witnesses had been named in the chargesheet, which showed that the trial would not conclude in the near future.
The Court observed that the State had not placed any material to show that the applicant had ever attempted to evade the process of law. Holding that bail could not be denied merely because of criminal history, the Court observed:
"It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned AGA for the State".
The Court further noted that the State had not shown any material suggesting that the applicant was likely to tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail.
Taking note that the principal offence was alleged to have been committed in Chhattisgarh, that the applicant had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court in the main case, that investigation in the present UP case was complete, and that the chargesheet named 22 witnesses, the High Court granted him bail.
Appearances: Raghuvansh Misra, along with Harsh Srivastava and Saksham Srivastava, counsel for applicant, Kartikeya Saran, Additional Advocate General along with Sanjay Kumar Singh,
A.G.A. for the State
Case Title - Niranjan Das v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 414
Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 414