Prayagraj, Jul 16 The Allahabad High Court has granted bail to former Chhattisgarh excise commissioner Niranjan Das in a case linked to the alleged Rs 2,161 crore Chhattisgarh liquor scam, officials said.
Justice Vikram D Chauhan allowed the bail application of Das, they said.
An FIR was registered against Das under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act at the Kasna police station in Noida, Uttar Pradesh, for cheating and forgery.
As the excise commissioner, Das was involved in drafting Chhattisgarh’s excise policy and tender process.
On July 28, 2023, the Enforcement Directorate wrote to the Uttar Pradesh government alleging that Das was involved in drafting a liquor policy that benefited a hologram manufacturer – M/s Prizm Holography Security Films Pvt Ltd – located in Noida, after which the state government lodged an FIR against him.
According to the prosecution, the applicant and the other accused persons, including Arunpati Tripathi, who was the special secretary (excise), were involved in the manufacturing and production of holograms, which were used in the liquor scam in Chhattisgarh.
The applicant's plea said that Arunpati Tripathi was already out on bail in the matter, and that the present allegations in the FIR were part of an earlier FIR registered in Chhattisgarh, in which the applicant was granted bail by the Supreme Court.
The applicant has been languishing in jail since December 19, 2025, and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty and will cooperate in the trial, the plea said.
The state government counsel opposed the bail on the grounds that the applicant had criminal antecedents with various FIRs registered against him.
Allowing the bail plea, the court 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 based on criminal antecedents have been shown to deny bail to the accused.
“Hence, the court does not feel it proper to deny bail to the applicant just on the ground that he had a criminal antecedent.”
The state did not show any material suggesting that the applicant was likely to tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses or otherwise misuse the liberty of bail, it noted.
