The Supreme Court has granted pre-arrest bail to Satish Chandra Verma, the former Advocate General of Chhattisgarh, in connection with the Nagrik Apurti Nigam (NAN) scam case. This decision was passed by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta while hearing Verma's Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Chhattisgarh High Court’s order dated February 13, which had denied him anticipatory bail.
The case involves serious allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The State contended that the Income Tax Department had recovered WhatsApp conversations between Verma and the prime accused in the NAN scam, Anil Tuteja and Alok Shukla. These chats were later shared with the Enforcement Directorate (ED), strengthening the case against Verma.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Defers Farmers' Protest Case Amid Ongoing Government-Farmer Talks
Authorities allege that Verma assisted the prime accused in securing bail. His anticipatory bail plea had earlier been rejected by the Sessions Court in November last year. Verma then approached the Supreme Court, seeking protection from arrest. His legal team, led by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, argued that he was being unfairly targeted due to the change in government in Chhattisgarh last year.
"The former Advocate General is being hounded due to political changes," argued Mukul Rohatgi before the Supreme Court.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Grants Bail in UAPA Case, Condemns Chhattisgarh Police for Misuse of Law
On February 21, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a notice on Verma’s plea and took note of the statement made by the Chhattisgarh government that no coercive action would be taken against him until further orders.
The Court has now granted pre-arrest bail, providing major relief to Verma in the ongoing legal battle. This decision raises crucial questions about the role of political changes in legal proceedings and the potential misuse of investigative agencies.
Case Title: SATISH CHANDRA VERMA v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH | SLP(Crl) No. 2600/2025
Appearance: Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha and Advocate-on-Record Sumeer Sodhi (for Verma); Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani (for Chhattisgarh)
![NDPS Act [S. 52A] Supreme Court: Samples Should Be Collected in Accused's Presence When Feasible, Not Mandatory at Seizure Location](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.courtbook.in%2F2025%2F01%2FSupreme-Court_-Substantive-Justice-Outweighs-Procedural-Errors-in-Section-52A-NDPS-Case.webp&w=3840&q=40)
