Nafr High Court
Case Details
MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.03.28 12:53:54 +0530 1 2025:CGHC:14935 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 317 of 2025 Rajesh Gupta S/o Sarwan Kumar Aged About 54 Years R/o 85, Guru Nanak Avenue, Phase 2, Majitha Road, Amritsar, Punjab, 143001. versus --- Applicant(s) State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station EOW/ACB, District - Raipur, chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MCRCA No. 321 of 2025 Abhishek Kaushal S/o Vipan Kumar Kaushal Aged About 40 Years R/o 178e, Block Bollywood Heights 2, Peer Muchalla, Sas Nagar, Punjab Versus ---Applicant(s) State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station- EOW/ACB, District - Raipur, chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MCRCA No. 328 of 2025 Neeraj Gupta S/o Rp Gupta Aged About 47 Years R/o House No. 1522, Sector 15, Panchkula, Haryana, 134113 Versus ---Applicant(s) State Of Chhattisgarh (Through Police Station - EOW/ACB), District - Raipur, chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) 2 MCRCA No. 401 of 2025 Avinesh Kumar S/o Maan Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Bhurab, Chaklu, Chamba, Himachal Pradesh 176310 Versus ---Applicant(s) State of chhattisgarh through police station - EOW/ACB, District - Raipur, chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Applicant(s) : Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Adv assisted by Mr. Pankaj Singh and Mr. Raja Paramdeep Saini, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Dr. Saurabh Pande, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 27.03.2025 1. These first anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 of the BNSS have been filed by the applicants, who are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.5/2025 registered at Police Station– Economic Offences Wing/ACB, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 409 IPC & 13(2), 13(1)(a), 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. Prosecution case in brief is that under the Public Health and Family Welfare Department, in the year 2021 instructions were issued for purchase of equipment and machinery which was necessary and had to be supplied to the Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation Limited (CGMSC) through Director Health 3 Services. It has been alleged that the entire process of calculating the number of machines/equipments that were required and as to whether the centers had requisite facilities to keep the machines/equipments was not done as per the procedure and the Purchase Order of 411 crores was issued by the CGMSC within a span of 26-27 days in a haste to benefit the reagent supplier. As
Facts
per the FIR, since the requisite facilities that were required to store the equipments/machines were not available, the same were not maintained. Further, since the actual requirement was not checked, more machines were ordered than were actually needed to benefit the supplier. Further, since the said machines had expiry of only 2-3 months, the CGMSC was even preparing purchase of further 600 machines for the same causing more monetary loss to the State Exchequer. It is also alleged that EDTA Tubes that are required for collecting blood samples were purchased by CGMSC from the co-accused Mokshit Corporation at the rate of Rs. 2352 per piece, whereas, it was found that other institutions were purchasing the same at the rate of Rs. 8.50 per piece. Thus, crores of money was spent on the same. Pertinently, the allegation against the Company "Recorders and Medicare Systems" is that it had participated in the Tender floated by the CGMSC alongwith Mokshit Corporation and few other Companies and had allegedly connived with the co-accused Mokshit Corporation so that the tender could be awarded to it and the said averment is simply based on the averment that products of all 4 three firms were identical. Thereafter, the Crime No. 5/2025 was registered with PS Economic Offences Wing/ACB, District Raipur under Sections 120-B, 409 IPC & 13(2), 13(1)(a), 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018), wherein, one of the accused was "Recorders and Medicare Systems". It is apt to mention that the Company is the accused in itself and the name of the present applicants does not find mention in the said Crime No. 5/2025. Subsequently, the applicants being the employee, promoter, Executive Director and Director of the said Recorders and Medicare Systems was served with a Notice/Summon dated 29.1.2025 & 7.2.2025 to join the investigation on 1.2.2025 & 12.2.2025 without mentioning the provision under which they were called and on account of the fact that they are employee, promoter, Executive Director and Director of "Recorders and Medicare Systems" Company which is based in Haryana. Hence, even the said Summon is against the settled provisions of criminal jurisprudence. Thereafter, apprehending their arrest, applicants preferred a plea/application bearing no. 380/2025 before the learned Court of Sessions Court, Raipur, District Raipur which was erroneously rejected vide Order dated 12.2.2025 on wholly untenable grounds. Hence, these anticipatory bail applications.
Legal Reasoning
prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.” 23. The presumption of innocence, by itself, cannot be the sole consideration for grant of anticipatory bail. The presumption of innocence is one of the considerations, which the court should keep in mind while considering the plea for anticipatory bail. The salutary rule is to balance the cause of the accused and the cause of public justice. Over solicitous homage to the accused’s liberty can, sometimes, defeat the cause of public justice. 24. If liberty is to be denied to an accused to ensure corruption free society, then the courts should not hesitate in denying such liberty. Where overwhelming considerations in the nature aforesaid require denial of anticipatory bail, it has to be denied. It is altogether a different thing to say that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed, the court may consider to grant regular bail to a public servant - accused of indulging in corruption. 25. Avarice is a common frailty of mankind and Robert Walpole's famous pronouncement that all men have their price, notwithstanding the unsavoury cynicism that it suggests, is not very far from truth. As far back as more than two centuries ago, it was Burke who cautioned: “Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last long”. In more recent years, Romain Rolland lamented that France fell because there was corruption without indignation. Corruption 13 has, in it, very dangerous potentialities. Corruption, a word of wide connotation has, in respect of almost all the spheres of our day to day life, all the world over, the limited meaning of allowing decisions and actions to be influenced not by the rights or wrongs of a case but by the prospects of monetary gains or other selfish considerations. 26. If even a fraction of what was the vox pupuli about the magnitude of corruption to be true, then it would not be far removed from the truth, that it is the rampant corruption indulged in with impunity by highly placed persons that has led to economic unrest in this country. If one is asked toname one sole factor that effectively arrested the progress of our society to prosperity, undeniably it is corruption. If the society in a developing country faces a menace greater than even the one from the hired assassins to its law and order, then that is from the corrupt elements at the higher echelons of the Government and of the political parties. 27. In Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1, this Court held that corruption erodes the fundamental tenets of the rule of law and quoted with approval its judgment in Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 642 & held as under:— “16……‘26. It can be stated without any fear of contradiction that corruption is not to be judged by degree, for corruption mothers disorder, destroys societal will to progress, accelerates undeserved ambitions, kills the conscience, jettisons the glory of the institutions, paralyses the economic health of a country, corrodes the sense of civility and mars the marrows of governance.” 14 28. In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64, this Court held as under:— “68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti- corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption….” 29. In K.C. Sareen v. C.B.I., Chandigarh, (2001) 6 SCC 584, this Court observed thus:— “12. Corruption by public servants has now reached a monstrous dimension in India. Its tentacles have started grappling even the institutions created for the protection of the republic. Unless those tentacles are intercepted and impeded from gripping the normal and orderly functioning of the public offices, through strong legislative, executive as well as judicial exercises the corrupt public servants could even paralyse the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity….” 30. While approving the judgment of Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, (2014) 8 SCC 682, 15 rendered by another Constitution Bench in Manoj Narula's case, a Constitution Bench of this Court, dealing with rampant corruption, observed as under:— “17 Recently, in Subramanian Swamy v. CBI (2014) 8 SCC 682, the ConstitutionBench, speaking through R.M. Lodha, C.J., while declaring Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which wasinserted by Act 45 of 2003, as unconstitutional, hasopined that : (SCC pp. 725-26, para 59) “59. It seems to us that classification which is made in Section 6-A on the basis of status in the government service is not permissible under Article 14 as it defeats the purpose of finding prima facie truth into the allegations of graft, which amount to an offence under the PC Act, 1988. Can there be sound differentiation between corrupt public servants based on their status? Surely not, because irrespective of their status or position, corrupt public servants are corrupters of public power. The corrupt public servants, whether high or low, are birds of the same feather and must be confronted with the process of investigation and inquiry equally. Based on the position or status in service, no distinction can be made between public servants against whom there are allegations amounting to an offence under the PC Act, 1988.” And thereafter, the larger Bench further said : (SCC p. 726, para 60) “60. Corruption is an enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the PC Act, 1988. 16 It is difficult to justify the classification which has been made in Section 6-A because the goal of law in the PC Act 1988 is to meet corruption cases with a very strong hand and all public servants are warned through such a legislative measure that corrupt public servants have to face very serious consequences.” And again : (SCC pp. 730-31, paras 71-72) “71. Office of public power cannot be the workshop of personal gain. The probity in public life is of great importance. How can two public servants against whom there are allegations of corruption of graft or bribe-taking or criminal misconduct under the PC Act, 1988 can be made to be treated differently because one happens to be a junior officer and the other, a senior decision maker. 72. Corruption is an enemy of nation and tracking down corrupt public servant, howsoever high he may be, and punishing such person is a necessary mandate under the PC Act, 1988. The status or position of public servant does not qualify such public servant from exemption from equal treatment. The decision-making power does not segregate corrupt officers into two classes as they are common crime- doers and have to be tracked down by the same process of inquiry and investigation.” 18. From the aforesaid authorities, it is clear as noonday that corruption has the potentiality to destroy many a progressive aspect and it has acted as the formidable enemy of the nation.” 17 31. In Neera Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2017) 8 SCC 757, this Court observed thus: “59. Every country feels a constant longing for good governance, righteous use of power and transparency in administration. Corruption is no longer a moral issue as it is linked with the search of wholesome governance and the society's need for re-assurance that the system functions fairly, free from corruption and nepotism. Corruption has spread its tentacles almost on all the key areas of the State and it is an impediment to the growth of investment and development of the country. If the conduct of administrative authorities is righteous and duties are performed in good faith with the vigilance and awareness that they are public trustees of people's rights, the issue of lack of accountability would themselves fade into insignificance. 60. To state the ubiquity of corruption, we may refer to the oft-quoted words of Kautilya, which reads as under:— “Just as it is impossible not to taste the honey or the poison that finds itself at the tip of the tongue, so it is impossible for a government servant not to eat up, at least, a bit of the king's revenue. Just as fish moving under water cannot possibly be found out either as drinking or not drinking water, so government servants employed in the government work cannot be found out (while) taking money for themselves). It is possible to mark the movements of birds flying high up in the sky; but not so is it possible to ascertain 18 the movement of government servants of hidden purpose.” [Ref: Kautilya's Arthasastra by R. Shamasastry, Second Edition, Page 77] As pointed out by Paul H. Douglas in his book on “Ethics of Government”, “corruption was rife in British public life till a hundred years ago and in USA till the beginning of this century. Nor can it be claimed that it has been altogether eliminated anywhere.” (Ref : Santhanam Committee Report, 1962 : Para 2.3). 61. Tackling corruption is going to be a priority task for the Government. The Government has been making constant efforts to deal with the problem of corruption. However, the constant legislative reforms and strict judicial actions have still not been able to completely uproot the deeply rooted evil of corruption. This is the area where the Government needs to be seen taking unrelenting, stern and uncompromising steps. Leaders should think of introducing good and effective leadership at the helm of affairs; only then benefits of liberalization and various programmes, welfare schemes and programmes would reach the masses. Lack of awareness and supine attitude of the public has all along been found to be to the advantage of the corrupt. Due to the uncontrolled spread of consumerism and fall in moral values, corruption has taken deep roots in the society. What is needed is a reawakening and recommitment to the basic values of tradition rooted in ancient and external wisdom. Unless people rise against bribery and corruption, society can 19 never be rid of this disease. The people can collectively put off this evil by resisting corruption by any person, howsoever high he or she may be.” 12. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and a perusal of the case diary shows that the applicants being an employee, promoter, Executive Director and Director of Recorders & Medicare Company, are accused of playing an important role in filling the tender of the said company by maintaining the tender related documents in CGMSCL tender No. 182, submitting suspicious documents attached to the tender, thus entering into a criminal conspiracy with Records & Medicare Pvt. Ltd. directors Mokshit Corporation and CGMSCL officers. 13. From perusal of the FIR and the documents attached to the case diary, the nature of offence alleged against the applicants and the fact that matter is at the stage of investigation and various co- accsued persons / government officials have already been taken into custody, and also keeping in view all the available facts and circumstances, and further since the matter relates to misappropriation of a huge amount of fund of wherein purchase order of Rs. 411 Crores has been issued within a short span of 26 to 27 days to benefit the reagent supplier and further as per the FIR, even there was no facility available for storage and maintaining the reagents and much higher quantity of machines and equipments were ordered, and in light of the observations made by the Apex Court in Devinder Kumar Bansal (supra), 20 this Court is of the opinion that anticipatory bail applications should be accepted exceptionally in such cases in which prima facie involvement in the crime is not shown whereas in this case, the involvement of the applicants is prima facie visible. Also, no such exceptional circumstances are shown in these bail applications on the basis of which the benefit of anticipatory bail should be given to the accused/applicants. As such, this Court does not find it befitting to grant the facility of anticipatory bail to the applicants. Therefore, the said bail applications submitted by the applicants are rejected. 14. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail applications of the applicants – Rajesh Gupta, Abhishek Kaushal, Neeraj Gupta and Avinesh Kumar, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS in connection with Crime No.5/2025 registered at Police Station– Economic Offences Wing/ACB, District - Raipur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 409 IPC & 13(2), 13(1)(a), 7(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is rejected at this stage. (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- Manpreet
Arguments
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that at the outset, it is pointed out that the name of the applicants does not find mention in the entire FIR and no overt or covert act has been attributed to 5 the applicants specifically in the said FIR. A perusal of the FIR would make it luminous that the only allegations leveled against the Company Recorders and Medicare Systems is that the said Company was in collusion with Mokshit Corporation and thus, has connived in the entire fraud. However, a perusal of the entire FIR would make it luminous that the same nowhere shows that the Investigating Agency has been able to show that the said Company Recorders and Medicare Systems has been a beneficiary to the crores of allegedly rupees that have been given by CGMSC to Mokshit Corporation during the entire Tender process. Pertinently, the Investigating Agency while making a bald and baseless allegation has come to the said conclusion that the Company Recorders and Medicare Systems has connived with Mokshit Corporation, thus, rendering the entire FIR to be nothing but a nullity in the eyes of law. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that a glance at the FIR would also make it abundantly clear that it is not the case of the Investigating Agency that the said Company Recorders and Medicare Systems had in alleged any way done something to give the benefit of the said Tender to the said co-accused Mokshit Corporation. Pertinently, the only base of making the said Company as an accused has been that product specifications/tests of Recorders and Medicare Systems was similar to Mokshit Corporation. Pertinently, the Company RMS is 6 a manufacturer and has participated in a number of Tenders all over the country and the said allegation by the Investigating Agency does not prove their case against the applicants and their Company in any way. Thus, the applicants deserves the concession of pre-arrest bail on this ground alone. Clearly, the allegations against applicants and the Company are utterly baseless and stems from the fertile imagination of the prosecution. It is asserted that prosecution has sought to invent the alleged crime against the Company RMS and that too, in the most absurd and laughable manner. Further, the averments in the FIR and impugned order only relate to the alleged similar specifications and tests having been mentioned by the said Company viz. Recorders and medicare systems while pursuing the tender, whereas, the investigating agency has lost sight of the fact that the tender document that had been issued had asked for specifications of reagents for specific equipments. Pertinently, once the equipments were mentioned for which the Reagents were required, it was clear that the specifications of Reagents of all the parties applying for the Tender would be similar and thus, the said allegation leveled against the applicants is nothing but an abuse of the process of law as it proves nothing against the applicants. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants also argued that the averments regarding test methods provided by the applicants 7 being same is also groundless as once the Reagents have been sought for by the Government for specific equipments, it is abundantly clear that even the tests methods for using the said Reagents on the equipments would also be similar. Thus, the Investigating Agency is merely trying to implicate the applicants in the instant case while making vague and baseless averments which cannot be made the basis of criminal prosecution. Pertinently, the applicants are the employee, promoter, Executive Director and Director of the said Company viz. Recorders and Medicare Systems and has no role to play in the filing of the tender or in the day to day working of the said Company. It is a settled law that for involving any promoter or director on basis of vicarious liability for an act of a Company, there has to be specific allegations and averments qua the said Director/Promoter that he was involved in the Act and was responsible for the said act and conduct. Pertinently, since the Crime No. 5/2025 is completely silent on this aspect, the Notice/Summon issued to the applicants and the involvement of the applicants in the said case is not made out. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants lastly relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Haryana Versus Brij Lal Mittal 1998 (5) SCC 343" and in the matter of “SMS Pharmaceuticals Limited Versus Neeta Bhalla 2007 (4) SCC 70” and submits that the allegations, as contained 8 in the impugned FIR, fail the scrutiny of Section 409 IPC qua the applicants and their Company as they were neither entrusted with any property nor have they acted as an Agent in respect of any such property. Further, from the reading of the FIR itself, it is clear that there has been no ground to allege that applicants or Company RMS have acted in conspiracy with the main accused Mokshit Corporation. Hence, mere bald averments to the effect will not set criminal law in motion. As such, they prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants. 7. On the other hand, learned Deputy Advocate General opposes the bail application of the applicants and submits that Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation calls for tenders for purchasing machines from equipment manufacturing companies, but only the tenders submitted by Mokshit Corporation and its other two companies are passed by the tender committee of Chhattisgarh Medical Services Corporation, while the rest of the companies are disqualified citing some technical reason or the other. Thus, the Director Health Services and the officers of CGMSCL, while being posted as public servants, while discharging their official duties, have improperly and dishonestly performed the public duty and committed criminal misconduct, by entering into a criminal conspiracy with Mokshit Corporation, CB Corporation, Records and Medicare System, Shri Sharda Industries and others, by restricting the competition of the tender 9 process No. 182/EQP/CGMSCL/2022-23 dated 26/08/2022 and making such specification regarding the equipment so that a company can be authorized to participate in a particular tender, by increasing the rates for the purchase of equipment related to these tenders, with the intention of benefiting the firm Mokshit Corporation identified for the purchase. The crime has been registered and investigation taken up on the basis of causing wrongful loss of Rs 411 crore to the Government while causing wrongful gain to himself and the identified firm. 8. Learned Deputy Advocate General further argued that the suspect in the case, Avinesh Kumar, one of the applicant herein who is an officer/employee of Recorders and Medicare System Private Limited, filled the tender of the said company by maintaining the tender related documents in tender No. 182 of CGMSCL. The documents attached for the tender are suspicious, thus the suspect has played an important role in the criminal conspiracy by conspiring with the directors of Recorders and Medicare Private Limited, partners of Mokshit Corporation and officers of CGMSCL. In relation to the above, the suspect Avinesh Kumar was informed to appear through notice on 29/01/2025 and 07/02/2025. But the suspect has not cooperated and has not appeared till date. He further submits that during investigation, it was found that Shashank Chopra, partner of Mokshit Corporation, 10 earlier used to do liaisoning work for Recorders and Medicare Systems Private Limited, which is a company of another state, around the year 2016-17, due to which Shashank Chopra already knew the partner/director of the said company. There is uniformity in the documents submitted by Mokshit Corporation and M/s Shri Sharda Industries, other accused in the list of medical equipment in the tender No. 182 of Recorders and Medicare Systems Private Limited, which have been provided to CGMSCL with the help of Avinesh Kumar. Reagents of closed system equipment are unique but the names, package sizes and sequencing of almost all the reagents of the three companies/firms Mokshit Corporation, M/s Shri Sharda Industries and Recorders and Medicare Systems Private Limited are the same. The rates quoted by them are identical, which is impossible under normal circumstances. There is a definite pattern in the rates quoted by them. The tests which were not asked for in the tender specifications were also quoted by these three companies/firms. From which, it is clear that these three companies have together done pool tendering and helped Mokshit Corporation in getting the tender. 9. Learned Deputy Advocate General lastly submits that the case is in preliminary investigation and various co-accused / government officials have been taken into custody. There will be a possibility of influencing the evidence and witnesses if bail is granted at this 11 stage and there is also a full possibility of fleeing abroad due to being financially capable. The role of applicants in the crime is clearly reflected. Therefore, in the context of the above facts, it is requested to cancel the bail application submitted by the accused / applicants. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 11. The Apex Court, in Devinder Kumar Bansal v. State of Punjab {Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 3247/2025, decided on 03.03.2025} while dealing with a case relating to an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has observed as under: “22. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to a pronouncement in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy reported in (2013) 7 Scale 15, wherein this Court expressed thus: “28. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusation, 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. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" 12 instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the