Chhattisgarh Government Tells Supreme Court Former AG Misused Office, No Immediate Arrest
Supreme Court Seeks State’s Response on Anticipatory Bail Plea
The Supreme Court of India has sought a response from the Chhattisgarh government regarding the anticipatory bail plea of former Advocate General (AG) Satish Chandra Verma. Verma is accused of misusing his position in connection with the ‘Nagarik Apurti Nigam’ (NAN) scam.
A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued a notice to the Chhattisgarh government in response to Verma’s appeal against the High Court’s refusal to grant him anticipatory bail. However, the State assured the Court that Verma would not be arrested until the next hearing on February 28, 2025.
State Accuses Former AG of Misusing Power
During the hearing, the Chhattisgarh government alleged that Verma misused his office to shield the accused in the NAN scam. The former AG, however, claimed that he was being targeted due to a political shift in the state government in 2023.
Background: High Court’s Decision
The allegations against Verma stem from WhatsApp conversations between him and individuals involved in the NAN scam. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) provided key evidence to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and Economic Offences Wing (EOW) regarding the scam through an official memo dated April 2, 2024.
The ED’s findings revealed that top IAS officers Anil Tuteja and Alok Shukla obstructed investigations and attempted to manipulate judicial proceedings. It was alleged that Verma, as Advocate General, facilitated their legal defenses using his influence over the AG’s office.
Following this, the ACB/EOW conducted a thorough verification and proceeded with legal action. Verma then sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which the Chhattisgarh High Court denied, citing his strong political and bureaucratic connections that could hinder the investigation.
Supreme Court Hearing: Arguments from Both Sides
Representing Verma, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that his client was being unfairly implicated based solely on WhatsApp chats. He emphasized that no direct evidence linked Verma to any criminal activity, apart from the conversations in question.
In contrast, Chhattisgarh Deputy Advocate General Ravi Sharma and Standing Counsel Apoorv Shukla strongly opposed Verma’s plea. They contended that the WhatsApp exchanges clearly demonstrated Verma’s influence in obstructing the investigation and judicial process.
The State’s legal team further stated that they would present the WhatsApp chats as evidence in the next hearing.
Since the government assured the Court that Verma would not be arrested until further proceedings, the Supreme Court did not issue any interim relief but has asked the State to respond before the next hearing on February 28, 2025.
