Chhattisgarh High Court denies bail to ex-Congress Treasurer’s aide in ₹540 crore coal levy case

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently denied bail to Devendra Dadsena, personal assistant to ex-State Congress Treasurer Ramgopal Agrawal, who is accused of receiving and handling illegal levy funds in the ₹540 crore coal levy case [Devendra Dadsena v State of Chhattisgarh]..Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas held that the material on record prima facie showed the accused’s involvement in the offence.“Considering the FIR and other material placed on record which prima facie shows involvement of the applicant in the crime in question, I am of the view that it is not a fit case where the applicant should be granted regular bail,” the Bench said.The Court also rejected the accused’s plea for parity with other co-accused. It was observed that the accused persons, who were granted bail, had remained in custody for about two years and were granted bail by the Supreme Court, whereas Dadsena was arrested only on July 18, 2025.The Bench also emphasised that economic offences are grave and must be treated with seriousness.“Considering the law that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. Economic offences involving deep-rooted conspiracies and huge loss of public funds must be viewed seriously as they affect the financial health of the country,” the Court added..The High Court was hearing Dadsena’s first bail plea in a case involving offences under Sections 384 (extortion), 420 (cheating), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 467, 468 and 471 (forgery-related offences) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as Sections 7, 7A and 12 (corruption offences) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.He was arrested on July 18, 2025, in a case registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and Economic Offences Wing, Raipur..According to the prosecution, the case related to an alleged illegal coal levy racket in Chhattisgarh between July 2020 and June 2022. It was alleged that ₹25 per tonne was collected from coal transporters. The total collection was estimated at around ₹540 crore.It was claimed that the system was enabled by policy changes, which included a shift from an online permit system to a manual system. The prosecution alleged that a syndicate of private persons, government officials and political functionaries were involved. The probe also pointed to the role of suspended bureaucrat Saumya Chaurasia.Devendra Dadsena earlier worked as an accountant with the Chhattisgarh Pradesh Congress Committee. He later became personal assistant to State Congress Treasurer. The prosecution alleged that he was not only handling accounts but was also engaged in political and illegal financial activities.It was claimed that the money collected from coal transporters was brought to him at Congress Bhawan. He was alleged to have accepted the money knowing its source. The prosecution claimed that he then distributed it for political and election-related purposes on the instructions of Ramgopal Agrawal..Before the High Court, the counsel for Dadsena argued that the trial is likely to take time and therefore bail should be granted.The State opposed the plea. It submitted that delay cannot be attributed to the prosecution alone. It was argued that the accused and other co-accused had also contributed to the delay by filing multiple applications.The Court accepted the State’s submission. It held that the accused had not placed any material to show that the delay in trial was solely due to the prosecution.The Court further noted that an examination of the FIR and material on record prima facie indicated the accused’s involvement in offences under Sections 420, 120B and 384 of the IPC read with Sections 7, 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.The Bench also outlined the factors to be considered while deciding bail."While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations,” the Court observed.In view of the material collected by the prosecution and the nature of the allegations, the Court held that dadsena was not entitled to bail. However, the Bench clarified that its observations are limited to the bail proceedings and will not affect the merits of the trial.Advocate Amrito Das appeared for Dadesna.Deputy Advocate General Sourabh Kumar Pandey appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]